No Asylum: Immigrants Locked Up in U.S. after Fleeing Violence
A look at America's expanding immigration detention system
"When people knock on your door, and they are fleeing abuse, the United States is obligated morally and legally to let them in," says Virginia Raymond, an immigration attorney fighting for the right of a single mother and her three daughters to seek asylum in the U.S. after fleeing gang violence in El Salvador.
"Today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it," proclaimed President Obama in a speech announcing an executive action to shield the 4-5 million undocumented immigrants who've lived in the U.S. for five years or more from deportation. In making his case, he shared the story of "Astrid," a college student afraid to attend her grandmother's funeral in Mexico for fear that she'd never make it back over the border.
What the president didn't address in that speech was the influx of immigrants coming from further south, from the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These are immigrants making the treacherous journey to the border not only for economic opportunity, but to flee violence that threatens their lives and those of their children.
Headlines screamed of a "border crisis" as unaccompanied minors began arriving in record numbers in the summer of 2014, sparking protests in border towns like Murrieta, CA from citizens who wanted the newly arrived immigrants sent back to where they came from. The administration's response was to request $879 million from Congress to detain and deport. Congress denied the funds, but Homeland Security forged ahead with the construction of several new "family detention centers" anyway. The number of beds grew from fewer than 100 to more than 1,000 in less than a year. And a newly constructed center in Dilley, TX will have a capacity of more than 2,000.
Watch the Reason TV video above for a glimpse at who exactly is being held in these detention centers at record rates. The video profiles Marquez and her three daughters, who came to the U.S. from El Salvador after facing violent threats and extortion from gang members. While Maria and her family were seeking asylum from a dangerous gang that operates unchecked by an incompetent and often corrupt government, they almost immediately found themselves locked up in a family detention center in the small Texas town of Karnes, where they've spent the past six months fighting to avoid deportation.
"These are people who want to work, who are peaceful, loving people. And they don't deserve to be sent back to be raped and killed… in a country that does not value them, with a government that cannot or will not protect them," says Raymond.
Approximately 8 minutes. Produced, shot, and edited by Zach Weissmueller. Music by Chris Zabriskie.
Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Their mistake was going through channels, which apparently disqualifies children for Obama's program to transport and house illegal alien children all over the country.
Nice incentives we've got going here. Is there a single one that isn't totally fucked up? Put your kids on a train through Mexico and into the hands of coyotes, and we'll give 'em free room, board, etc. Come with them fleeing persecution, and we'll lock your ass up, and theirs, too.
They are not locked up. They choose to be there. They could go back home anytime they like. There is violence all over the world. It is not our duty to take in every victim of violence in the world.
"Fuck you and your desire not to be raped/murdered!"
"While Maria and her family were seeking asylum from a dangerous gang that operates unchecked by an incompetent and often corrupt government"
The entirety of the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago is asking for asylum in your town in Canada.
Okay. Come on over.
Are you ready to supply them with food, shelter, medical, etc since that is required under international law to any country that takes them in.
No. That's irrelevant, and inserting that crap in is a typically dishonest nativist tactic.
So the truth is dishonest?
Children in first world countries tend not to be self sufficient for their needs. So asking who is going to pay for their food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and utilities is germane. Ignoring this is dishonest.
1. No its fucking not. Its required *while they are being detained* - just like for any other prisoner, but not if they are released.
2. Yeah, I'd provide it - as an act of charity while they got back on their feet. Same as for any other disaster victim in my local area.
You may say "Okay, come on over", your government, however, has a completely different attitude, as is their right.
Government's don't fucking have rights.
They have duties, responsibilities, and limits.
MORON!
We hate to tell her that the El Salvadorian gang, MS-13, operates fairly unchecked by an incompetent and often corrupt government here as well. Go to LA, Herndon, VA. It's not hard to find them the gang she is apparently fleeing.
I some areas of Arbutus, MD the fire department reportedly would not reapond to calls without a police escort due to MS13. When I lived near there, I had to take a different route to work one morning due to the police shutting down a road to investigate the beheading of Jesus Garcia.
Those gangs are facilitated by an inordinate fear that the free use of drugs will cause more damage to society than their prohibition.
Eliminate the primary source of their funding and it will hurt them greatly. They will of course turn to human trafficking, child prostitution (both primarily caused by a prohibition of prostitution) and kidnappings.
But, with the elimination of prohibition comes the freeing of the police to pursue those that commit real crimes as defined by the notion of depriving one of one's deserved rights to not be preyed upon.
The government has no business interfering in my business unless I make it my business to interfere in the business of another by depriving them of their life, liberty or property.
Barry Williams? Is that really you, Greg Brady?
Because we're Christians.
Silly.
Fuck you and your pathetic idea that this country take in the billions of poor and abused from other countries.
The US and Canada will be turned into the third world by such a policy. You will be made poor by such a naive idea.
You need to grow up!
SHEESH!
Fuck you and your pathetic idea that this country take in the billions of poor and abused from other countries.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
"When people knock on your door, and they are fleeing abuse, the United States is obligated morally and legally to let them in,"
It's a bit more complicated. If you have enough evidence of persecution and you're not a terrorist, sure you usually have a right to asylum. But if your evidence only shows you *might* be persecuted in future, the govt has more discretion about allowing you to stay in the country.
One factor they can consider is whether the putative refugee missed the chance to take asylum in some other country - eg, an El Salvadoran who went to Mexico but didn't apply for asylum there, preferring to go to the U.S.
Correct, You don't get to shop for countries to take you in. You are suppose to turn yourself in at the first country you come to, not the one that has the best welfare benifits
And countries taking in Refugees are required to give them all the benifits that other legal residents get. So the taxpayer is the one getting stuck with the bill, even when so-called charitees are involved since they are just government contractors and getting paid for each refugee they deal with.
And countries taking in Refugees are required to give them all the benifits that other legal residents get.
No they're not. "International Law" is a joke.
International law that the US has signed a treaty to enforce is US law and that law says that the US must treat anyone taken in as a refugee the same as anyother legal immigrant including benifits
Because, when they're taking in as refugees, they *are* legal immigrants.
Sure, but, what if all the other countries on your journey north are only slightly less shitty (Mexico, for example).
*Technically* they'd have been free of danger from the people they were fleeing in Mexico, only to face a whole slew of new gangs and, being the Mexicans of Mexico, faring even worse than if they'd stayed home.
This argument here is not going to win me over.
While El Salvador is a crime-ridden hell-hole, it's murder rate is lower than several other countries in Latin America, including Mexico.
To equate this family with Tusis feeling genocide in Rwanda, for example, is distasteful, to say the least.
"I would remind you that hyperbole in the defense of a Reason pet cause is no vice!"
I was referring more to the family's lawyer. And I understand it's her job as a lawyer to be completely and utterly without shame.
Oh, aye. I think you get that in your second semester of second year.
Be Completely and Utterly Without Shame - Law 205 Spring Semester.
The Law is Reason unaffected by Desire.
-- Socrates
The law is a ass.
I understand "the Patriarchy" in El Salvador makes the one in the US look like an unconvincing trans-man with a Masters in Women's studies.
We had to lock those people up because they might be terrorists! Or they might take r jerbs! Invaders! [insert insipid borderite buzzword here]
They will take our tax money, Refugees are suppose to get all the benifits that other legal residents get.
Locking them up costs more than the benefits which are largely fictional anyway.
They are not fictional benifits, billions are spent just to settle the refugees and then the State and Local taxpayers get stuck with the bill for them.
Locking them up discourages millions more from following them to the US.
You know who else locked millions up to keep them from going to the US....
You know who else replied to 5 month old comments? 😉
Why have you not alerted us to the presence of lazy fucking interns?
Christ man. I'm over here having a stroke because you weren't on the ball. Way to carry the watch.
This women is a hero. She has done what she had to do to protect her own regardless of state permission or not. That is heroic.
And getting US taxpayer money while doing it.
If she wants to protect her own then she should buy a gun.
And getting US taxpayer money while doing it.
She never wanted any.
If she wants to protect her own then she should buy a gun.
What great advice. Did not know you were such an expert at surviving El Salvador's violence. You should start an advice blog.
Should they register the gun with the Canadian government?
Are we opening the borders to Pakistani Muslims persecuted by drone strikes, too?
I'm no expert, but isn't asylum really for people fleeing persecution by their government?
If we give asylum to everyone who is fleeing a crime-ridden hellhole, then the borders really are open. As noted, Mexico has a worse crime problem than El Salvador, so the argument being presented seems to be that every Mexican can claim asylum? What's the limiting principle, here?
The principle rhymes with "salami and rye."
Pastrami and pie?
Its all based on what a judge will sign off on. Mexican homosexuals have been given refugee status even though Mexico City was one of the first places in the Americas to allow homosexual marrage
What I suspect is that the term "asylum" is translated from the government-ese term "temporary protected status (Form I-821), which is different that "asylum" (Form I-589). It's all about the form, you see.
+1 form 27B/6
+1 Volgons
Tuttle.
Apparently, according to leftists and open borders fanatics, we are obligated to keep taking them in until we're a bigger third-world hellhole than the one they came from. Only when we're all miserable can we morally stop. Maybe.
+1 equality. Sorry, =1.
The message has become: "just say you're fleeing violence and U.S. taxpayers will fund your new life here!" Sorry, no. We have taken enough refugees. We're broke. We have more than enough uneducated poor people. We can't and shouldn't continue to feed the maw of the multiculti welfare state, which is not "compassionate" but merely imports more statists.
"We have taken enough refugees....We have more than enough uneducated poor people. "
There's no 'we' here and there's no evidence these people's new lives are funded by US taxpayers. America is not a club; neither you nor the USG get to determine what 'enough' refugees or 'uneducated foreigners is. That's how freedom works.
That may be how freedom works, but that's not how national borders and sovereignty works.
I don't see how anyone but an anarchist can say that a government has no authority whatsoever over who enters its jurisdiction.
Do you lose your freedom of movement if you are sick? If not, how can we screen illnesses at the border.
Do you lose your freedom of movement if you committed a crime and have done your time? If not, etc.
there's no evidence these people's new lives are funded by US taxpayers
Refugee Resettlement was expected to cost the US taxpayer in FY 2013?$1,064,700,000
Welfare use is staggering among refugees. Welfare usage is never counted by officials as part of the cost of the program. Yet, when it is included, the total cost of the refugee program soars to at least 10-20 billion a year.
Wow! For that amount we could run our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for 0.06 seconds!
I guess the WOD is a bargain. For that amount we could run the WOD for 20 seconds.
Two and a half hours of ISIS conflict.
Iraq-Afghanistan, $17,000,000 per second
WOD, $500 per second
ISIS, $116 per second
"A billion here, a billion there: pretty soon you're talking about real money."
Fallacious.
This is like the lottery winner who buys a $500K car and then justifies buying a $200 bottle of wine every night because it would take 13 years to match how much the car cost.
How about we stop wasting money on the big stupid things and the little stupid things too?
Sure, but how about focusing our finite outrage on money that's not spent on feeding and housing children from awful countries?
"America is not a club"
No, it's a sovereign nation, the government of which has first obligation to its citizens, not random foreigners.
just before I looked at the bank draft ov $6382 , I have faith ...that...my neighbours mother had been realy earning money in their spare time from their computer. . there mums best friend had bean doing this 4 less than sixteen months and just now paid the dept on there house and bought themselves a Lancia . see this website..........
http://www.Jobsyelp.com
Shove off! Our hearts belong to JOBSFISH.COM!
$89 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260......0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Here is what i did
?????? http://www.paygazette.com
$89 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260......0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Here is what i did
?????? http://www.jobs700.com
check your math dipshit
Math doesn't matter when you're getting a "chek" for 1260.
Is is incumbent upon the government to protect the country from foreign invasion. It's one of their only real jobs.
It's a sad fact that in this world there are peoples that flee their homelands in order to escape persecution and violence.
Even still, people enetering a country illegally, for whatever reason, need to be processed to ensure that they are not criminals. This vetting process can be lengthy and difficult. In the mean time they need to be detained. Unfortunate but necessary.
Although in the case of a mother with children, you'd think that the potential for criminallity would be quite low and their internment might be better situated within the wider community, required to be within a certain jurisdiction but allowed to move about freely.
"When people knock on your door, and they are fleeing abuse, the United States is obligated morally and legally to let them in"
I'm sorry. Is there no safe place in El Salvador? If not, then Ms Raymond is saying the US is obligated to take in the entire population of El Salvador if they "knock on our door?" Really? Any while we're at it, why is the US obligated?
El Salvador shares a border with Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Costa Rica, Panama, and Mexico are all closer and share a language. Why should the US be "obligated" to take in ANYBODY?
To be clear, I'm not saying that the US shouldn't offer asylum to people, but the notion that the only means for an El Salvadorian to flee gang violence is in the US and that we are somehow "Obligated" is pure nonsense. Plus, if we're being honest, how does the US offer an escape from El Salvadorian gang violence. MS-13 operates across the US. Have her come to the Washington DC suburb of Herndon, VA and hope her kids don't get trafficed by the gang she claims she is trying to escape. smh
One time when I was a Virginia noob, I made the mistake of trying to turn around in the 7-11 parking lot off Elden St. Bad, bad, bad idea.
The problem is twofold: 1) no one knows what a valid or useful benchmark for what 'violence' is and 2) there's no way to vet if the person's claims are vaguely accurate or true.
More telling than locking up those fleeing violence is a government/people so bent on appearing "politically correct" they will allow literally millions of (former) tax-paying natural born citizens of this sewer to go hungry, homeless, jobless while they chant "we must allow these foreigners asylum!", "we must give these foreigners medical aid!" "we must issue these foreigners I.D. - food stamps - etc. Apparently one (of many) thing(s) escaping your "logic" is the shredding of our constitution since the false-flag attack of 9/11 to allow our Prostiticians the enhanced ability to "protect us". Now, one of you mental midgets explain to me how granting immunity, throwing open our borders accomplishes that? If there was EVER a society as befuddled, ignorant, barbaric as this, I'm certain it has to have already fallen into the dust-bin of history. It's almost as though the vast majority of you look FORWARD to the next shell-game your Prostiticians execute upon you. This is right up there with awarding lucrative contracts to foreign nations, (Israel) to keep THEIR people working while your own rot in tent cities/storm drains.....
Welcome to Rome.
Apparently one (of many) thing(s) escaping your "logic" is the shredding of our constitution since ... 9/11 to allow our Prostiticians the enhanced ability to "protect us". Now, one of you mental midgets explain to me how granting immunity, throwing open our borders accomplishes that?
This is a very good point. But it goes into the prevailing system of anarcho-tyranny. The government refuses to enforce the immigration laws while putting the boot on citizens. Meantime, Reason magazine cheerleads the system.
Just another made up story about "fleeing violence". This bullshit comes in waves until they find a new lie and scam to rally around. The whole idea that we should take in any refugees is ridiculous anyway. They people are usually worthless to us and never contribute anything to our society but another mouth for the taxpayer to feed. In addition, the "host" country providing these valuable assets never seems to have a shortage of them. Since when did the US taxpayer sign on to taking care of all the wretched poor of the world?
Since the US taxpayer voted for a president who's putting lunatics in charge of asylum.
What is missing here is that asylum is supposed to be for individual cases of particular persecution or danger. These so called border kids, for example, most likely, most of them are fleeing poverty and also want to hook up with family. I also predicted what is now confirmed - about only 96 percent of them never return for their next hearing date.
Don't confuse Reason with facts. This is a moral issue. You see a bunch of hipsters who will never in any way be negatively effected by open boarders think it is those who will be harmed moral duty to support open boarders. Anyone who is unwilling to sacrifice so Reason writers can feel good about themselves is just ignorant and selfish and to be lampooned.
I'm pretty sure they will be affected when Texas and Arizona go blue due to all the illegals voting. The Democrat presidential primary will for all intents and purposes be the election at that point.
Of course, Reason writers seem lately to consider their calling in life to be impotently complaining about the status quo, so an invincible leftist status quo may paradoxically be good for their business model.
$89 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260......0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Here is what i did
?????? http://www.paygazette.com
Illegal aliens have no rights in the US and should be deported immediately. See ARI Watch essay on the open borders fraud.
The buckyballs (magic magnetic ball) is indeed an cool magnetic building intellectual toy. Compared to the other types of Intelligence toys, Bucky balls magnetic building toys can simulate your brain, both left and right side, so you can benefit more from it.
From illegal aliens to illegal toys.
I was surprised to find that my aunt's friend makes up to $32/hour selling Bucky Balls from her home! Just a few hours a month on her computer.
Check it out at http://www.cytoCanuckcanhavealltheElS.....ca/fuckoff
Can I handle your balls?
Always love to see Cytofascist ready to give away my money and decide what my country must do.
Esp coming from that Open Borders mecca, Canuckistan.
Now - I'm empathetic to people actually fleeing a government that is after them. Gangs? Can we relocate residents of large US cities to Toronto cause GANGSZOMFG?
You want 'em, you take 'em, Cytot. I don't mind most of this, but I am tired of bankrolling every fuck in the universe who doesn't make as much as I do.
The researchers say the policy change significantly affected younger adults, whites, blacks, Hispanics and those living in large metropolitan areas.
I am not as smart as the author who wrote the piece so I need help understanding the numbers given in the article.
3.48 million / 100,000 = 35;
Using the 56 visits per 100,000 for all 6 years: 56*35*6= 11,760
The first line stated 121,869 visits for all six years
The numbers are way off and it is not just that they added an extra zero.
cont:
I am assuming this is 68% per year. From the articles numbers of 121,869 total visits and 1,800 additional visits per year after the policy change, the increase in visits per year is 9.3%:
With policy: 19,411.5 visits per year
Without policy 21,211.5 visits per year
1,800 / 19,411.5 = 9.3%
What accounts for the remaining 60% increase?
I did a little more research
Besides repeating everything in the yahoo article, there were some additional details:
2.85 - 1.6 = 1.25 1.25 / 1.6 = 78%
Which is it 68% or 78%?
Never mind on the 78%, I forgot about inflation.
It's likely they fat fingered the 2 and the real figure is 11,869.
Otherwise, there were more ER visits than there are Medicaid recipients.
FTA: 3.48 million Californians on Medicaid
Overall, 113,309 adults on California's Medicaid program made 121,869 ER visits for dental problems in those six years.
It's funny how statists on the Right ape statists on the Left. When a leftist wants to curtail a freedom, they will quickly frame the argument like this: sure, the freedom to do X might be good in the abstract, but effect Y that COULD follow X is bad and so we have to prevent Y by restricting X. So, we must restrict smoking because it costs us all to take care of sick smokers. Likewise witness out usual large, faithful contingent from the Right here criticizing Reason because while freedom of movement might be good in the abstract, we have to restrict it because immigrants MIGHT vote for the DhimmiCrats OMG!?!? As if the GOP were lots better or as if ethnic voting patterns are stuck for all time.
No what is funny is when authoritarians like you call people statists.
Jesus, are there any libertarians here tonight?? If anyone needs me, I'll be over at Cafehayek, re-reading Don Boudreaux's entries on immigration, unemployment, and welfare. Spoiler alert: he's a libertarian and a fantastic economist -- and he's in favor of unlimited immigration.
"are there any libertarians here tonight?? "
No, just a bunch of regulars instead
Unlimited immigration, or open borders?
That sums up libertarians perfectly - they're the guys who aced economics - and failed history miserably.
Yep, because unrestricted immigration ruined this country when the English, Scots, Scots-Irish, Germans, Dutch, French, Spanish and Puritans came over.
Then it was ruined again when the Germans, British, and Irish came over.
Then it was ruined *again* when the Chinese, Japanese, and other Asian countries came over.
Yep, the United States of America is a 2nd rate third World country and not even a blip on the world economic and political screen due to a century of unrestricted immigration.
Dude, come on..... economics is like, bullshit and stuff
Ah, Reason got taken in by the refugee scam.
Wonder if I can sell them the Brooklyn Bridge...
My support for less-restrictive and bureaucratically-clusterfucked immigration policy in the US is primarily based on economic data that tends to show that they are a net positive to our economy in the short term, and a far more significant positive over the longer term*
(*with caveats to elements of both; and i'm not interested in hearing the VDare opposing arguments again, i've heard them a million times.)
I also support a less-restrictive immigration/emigration policy because i believe freer-markets in labor as well as goods/services/currencies ultimately improves efficiency and benefits everyone.
On both points, however - i'm not sure why (to use an expression i loathe), "As a Libertarian" I MUST believe these things.
Meaning, i believe in these things for economically self-interested reasons - that it is ultimately to the benefit of the united states to "improve" these policies in ways that make both immigration and emigration more fluid, less bureaucratic, and less costly.
I DO NOT believe in less-restrictive immigration policy because "Libertarianism SAYS SO".
And I wouldn't necessarily expect any intelligent person to either offer that (non) argument, or be convinced by it.
And of course, we should always base our policies on the opinions of the economists, especially given the smashing success of last political system designed by an economist.
Seriously, can anyone name a single thing of practical value ever produced by the field of economics?
OMG UR RIGHT
...wait, no, i just realized... credit markets, insurance.... wow, our entire global system of capital is based on ideas produced by the field of economics.
What were you saying again? Hurrr durrrr communisms?
And presumably you can list the names of the economists who created those things?
"Seriously, can anyone name a single thing of practical value ever produced by the field of economics?"
Sarc or stupidity?
Ever hear of price/demand curve?
pfft, like anyone even knows what that is
Does the USA have the *resources* to support that many refugees? That may sound selfish and mean, but wishing the issue away won't make it vanish.
If it's my property I determine who visits or crosses it. You do not have the privilege to decide that. In return if it's your property you determine who visits or crosses it. I do not have the privilege to decide that.
So back off my property rights, jerkwads.
Also I think people conflate "letting them in" with "accepting them as people". In a really (as opposed to nominally) free country you would be within your rights to refuse to, hire them, let them live on your property, engage in any sort of commerce with them, socialize with them (including excluding them from all manner of organizations, clubs and societies and so forth).
You could marginalize them as much as you like and encourage others to do the same. There is nothing unlibertarian about that.
You could make things so uncomfortable for them that they leave the area and tell their relatives not to come there.
^This
:0)
I just read a *fascinating,* and raunchy, account of some people use sexual imagery to promote their religious viewpoints. The link is...
Oh, wait I forgot. Wow, that was a close one.
Just as well, it was really dirty and offensive, not the kind of stuff you'd like.
account of *how* some people use etc.
Are Catholics allowed to know about sex?
Judge for yourself:
http://www.go-bless.com/wordpr.....iPray1.jpg
Whoomp, there it is!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffCEr327W44
Its complicated. It involves alcohol, and ghosts.
I get where ghosts would be involved but how does the alcohol fit in?
1) its a sacrament, and 2) it helps loosen people up
Wait...Catholics use alcohol as a lube? Hardcore!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....e/?hpid=z3
The comments oh my God the comments. So much stupid
"noaxe397
2:52 PM EST
Given that the IRS was not able to answer its own phones to help taxpayers, or that our public lands are being desecrated because of too few BLM employees, or that corporations settle legitimate lawsuits against them for pennies on the dollar, or that rarely do corrupt CEOs ever go to jail, I'd say Murray's side has already won this battle.
Ask yourself this: Has radical Nevada rancher Colin Bundy EVER been made to pay his rent for the use of taxpayer land to graze his cattle?
Has there been ANY repercussions for the Bundy followers who desecrated Native American sites with their ATV's in violation of federal law in Utah?
What conservatives in this country don't get is that they've already won in rolling back regulations, but just to to the point where it benefits them. Of the 5300 pages in the tax code, 5,000 benefit the rich. "
....
"[...]Of the 5300 pages in the tax code, 5,000 benefit the rich.[...]"
And if you asked for a cite, you'd get a link to Huffpo or somesuch,and when you checked the link there, you'd find it cited an earlier claim in the same rag/site.
That guy sure refuted all the conservatives and libertarians who want a complex, incomprehensible tax code!
Ah, here's a topic which has nothing to do with religion:
"The most important finding in Barna's report is that women are joining the atheist community by the millions. In 1993, just 16% of nonbelievers were women, but in 2013, that number was 43% - representing a nearly threefold leap. And this shift isn't because men are leaving the community...
"The atheist community is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse as well....
"It's only in the past few years that major atheist and humanist organizations have started to make a collective effort to reach out to women and people of color, to include them, to listen to them and to take their concerns seriously. And despite the inevitable backlash, tantrums and harassment from atheism's regressive faction, this effort is bearing fruit.
"Conferences like CFI's Women in Secularism and this year's Secular Women Work spotlight the too-often-overlooked contributions and achievements of freethinking activist women. Other large skeptic conventions have sought out and invited feminist groups like the Ada Initiative for ally training in topics like harassment, unconscious bias and microaggressions. We're increasingly emphasizing the convergence of interests between feminism and humanism, such as when the Humanist Community of Harvard named Anita Sarkeesian its 2015 Humanist of the Year."
http://www.theguardian.com/com.....-white-men
As a percentage I've met more atheists that are horrid people than I have religiosios.
Strange, I'd say the opposite.
I mean horrid in it's worst sense. I've met a lot of unpleasant religious people but few I would describe as "horrid". Whereas I've met a lot of just terrible people who claim to be atheists. I think part of it is that the majority of the atheists I've met have been leftists. So it might be more that angle than the atheism angle.
This is all IRL, though. I've not kept track of online contacts.
Sevo, if you think I'm insufferable now, you should have seen me when I was an atheist.
So there was some head trauma?
Don't knock head trauma, it gives you a chance to be attended by cute nurses.
Notorious G.K.C.|5.10.15 @ 9:57PM|#
"Don't knock head trauma,"
A joke, right?
lol!
It's all about religion.
No, it's about atheism.
Or maybe you're one of the people who agree with Mrs. Montgomery:
http://reason.com/archives/201.....a-religion
The "Atheism IS a religion" question has been settled in the affirmative. The feeble protestations of "but I don't collect stamps either!" don't stand in the harsh light of logic
SIV|5.10.15 @ 9:59PM|#
"The "Atheism IS a religion" question has been settled in the affirmative"
Only among those who bleeve.
Oh, man, I'm an awesome troll - I mean, *this* awesome:
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-.....7v3jpg.jpg
Eddie, I don't even bleeve in that. You need to find a gamer.
I bleeve in a .002" cut on radius with a spring cut on the final pass.
So why bring it up other than to prove what a pious fucking cunt you are, Father Eddie?
A key reason I bring it up is to make fun of this one idiot poster....
"the Humanist Community of Harvard named Anita Sarkeesian its 2015 Humanist of the Year."
This makes me feel dirty.
*shivers*
If it could help shut up this troublesome mammal, I would do it. A dose of green Act Right will cure all that ales.
This is because you are a TEAM RED KULTUR WAR mouthbreather
^ "Looky at the faggot college boy!"^
What American "economic opportunity" awaits a bunch of poverty stricken South Americans who crossed the borders to flee violence? And if they're sent to broken down government housing projects in a ghetto, are they really safe?
Even if refugees are legally allowed to work in the US (not sure if they can), they'll most likely find menial jobs at poor areas of ethnic enclaves where their language is spoken. The government cannot monitor the existing illegal aliens, which is why some crooked Vietnamese salons will abuse their own. And the NY Times get to pretend to be shocked.
I don't know much about South America, it's certainly possible some regions are crime ridden to the point of resembling war zones. But if that's true, many skilled workers and international students could just cross the border and claim to be "fleeing violence". Libs don't like colleges and tech companies making room for "foreigners".
There are tons of immigrants here right now who needs opportunities. Amnesty is the furthest in their minds. It's mind bogging, really.
I know Seymoure Hersh is a bit of a nut but I think he likely nailed this. It all fits too well not to be true. Of course the Pakistanis knew Bin Laden was there. Of course the U.S. Found him because someone ratted him out not because of waterboarding and of course Obama is a feckless moron who still managed to fuck it up.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/s.....-bin-laden
I'm skeptical of one-source stories but I also presume everything the president says is a lie.
You knew the story was bullshit. This is the best most likely account I have read.
I'm always hesitant to believe Hersh though. Someone on twitter said his credibility over the last decade is only slightly better than Sabrina Erdely. I don't think that's quite fair, but it's also not entirely wrong since Hersh does have a propensity for writing articles filled with unnamed sources in which nothing can be fact checked.
"Someone on twitter said his credibility over the last decade is only slightly better than Sabrina Erdely."
Well, I was gonna cite some older stuff where he was caught lying for the left and then I start a search and find there's nothing other than "Hersh claims Obo Lies!" for the first ten pages.
I'd still be cautious, but...
"Gates wasn't the only official who was distressed by Obama's decision to speak without clearing his remarks in advance, the retired official said, 'but he was the only one protesting. Obama didn't just double-cross Gates, he double-crossed everyone. This was not the fog of war. The fact that there was an agreement with the Pakistanis and no contingency analysis of what was to be disclosed if something went wrong ? that wasn't even discussed. And once it went wrong, they had to make up a new cover story on the fly.' "
Well, that part at least sounds genuine
As does the "tarting the thing up"
"'Why create the treasure trove story?' the retired official said. 'The White House had to give the impression that bin Laden was still operationally important. Otherwise, why kill him? A cover story was created ? that there was a network of couriers coming and going with memory sticks and instructions. All to show that bin Laden remained important"
It is worth noting that Hillary put accounts of the Bin Laden raid in her book, and spoken frequently to the press about her own involvement, adding details to the initial story
"She also said that wives and children who were vulnerable during the attack were moved "to a safe location so they wouldn't be hurt,"
No no no - they need to stay and fix their own country, not flee here for safety and opportunity. Those opportunities are God-given to natural-born Americans only.
I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
http://www.work-cash.com
My roomate's sister makes $65 hourly on the laptop . She has been laid off for six months but last month her payment was $16050 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
check out the post right here ???????????? http://www.jobsfish.com
tt4
al3ab banat
friv 4
friv3
al3ab flash
friv 2
friv 1000
friv 3
Asylum is supposed to be for individual, specific, threats, not just because it has gotten crappy where you used to live.
By that standard, virtually every poor person from a poor country could claim asylum.
Fuck you fascist.
Why the fuck should someone stay? Are you going to start stumping for internal passports next?
Sorry comrade, I know your state is going to shit and there's opportunity and safety elsewhere, but your home of residence is Detroit and you must get permission to move to another city.
I say give her a gun and send her back. If she's not willing to fight for her freedom, why they hell should she expect us to coddle her?
Amen!
Another point to consider is: how many of these "refugees" who are fleeing violence are responsible for that violence? i.e., gangbangers, death squad members, cartel hitmen, etc?
I'm not paying for her to get a free gun. Well, maybe a Hi Point.
Yes. She is a refugee, to use the correct term.
If she is a refugee, she should have to live like one.
Who knows, maybe she was kidnapped, tied up, taken away and held for ransom
"If she is a refugee, she should have to live like one."
Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some
"If she is a refugee, she should have to live like one."
No she should not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC2u_24kdCg
Good fuckin' grief, you are an idiot.
Except that immigrants from those countries engage in far less violence than the people who stay behind in those countries, which implies that either a) the way those countries are run is what causes violence and when people leave those countries they're less violent or b) the people immigrating are not the ones engaging in that violence. Either way, immigrants have not shown themselves to be a notably violent population, which can be proven through crime statistics, so your point is idiotic.
Also, go fuck yourself American, you racist.
Doncha love this:?
"Libertarians can't answer that question, which explains why they are starting to rediscover morality."
Next, eddie is gonna tell me how to find salvation in some burnt toasty.
I am not sure what that sentence even means, and I am pretty sure the drive-by chickenshit in white sheets doesn't either.
I am not an open borders guy, and I dare you to find a whiter, more redneckier, cracker motherfucker than me, but goddamn, that is just embarrassing. We don't need open borders, but he got there for all the wrong reasons.
Bless your heart, Mr. Klansman speaks for himself, not me.
Example: this video was playing on my desktop when I read dingleberry's comment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs2j8f7H2WY
I figured it was a Tom Petty reference.