“Perfectly Legal”: The Perilous Rhetoric Of Immigration Politics

factsheet-menu
ICE Enforcement

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on continued claims about undocumented immigrants and their legal status.  There is a growing misrepresentation of the status issues that are deeply concerning.  While undocumented status can be treated as a civil matter, it is also a criminal matter when a person enters the country illegally.  Some politicians and commentators have been stating simply that all undocumented persons are non-criminals while others have suggested that persons are “perfectly legal” if they claim asylum even if they entered illegally.  The point is that not all such persons should be treated criminally, but rather these statements can be dangerously misleading for families considering an illegal crossing.  The Trump Administration has shifted enforcement toward greater criminal than civil enforcement.  As for asylum claims, they are not the majority of illegal entries but the numbers are clearly rising.  We are required under international law to consider such applications, but that does not mean that the entry was lawful or that such cases cannot raise risks of criminal enforcement.  With so many lives at risk, we need to be more accurate in how we describe the legal realities of illegal entry.

 

Here is the column:

It sounds like a pitch that only the most craven coyote smuggler would make: If you make it into the United States, you are lawful. Yet, that seems to be the claim by various activists and politicians as our immigration debate continues to divide to the furthest extremes.

The latest iteration came from CNN political analyst and USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers, who insisted on air that people brought by coyotes over the border are doing something perfectly legal under federal law, since most seek asylum. The greatest danger from such statements is not the risk of misleading viewers but misleading immigrants who take such statements as an accurate description of the law.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has repeatedly declared, “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” When asked if she meant everyone here illegally, both those who entered illegally and those who have remained illegally, she replied, “Two obvious points. It is a civil violation, it’s not a crime. Period, full stop. And the second point is that there is a whole community that is being vilified because of this misinformed, misdirected term ’illegal alien’ … It’s actually ignorant and we can’t afford to run our country that way. So they are not criminals.”

Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan similarly stated, “Simply being in this country without documentation is not a crime,” adding that the “Supreme Court has said that.” That representation was declared “mostly true” by Politifact. This growing mantra is often sustained by the careful parsing of terms. For example, Politifact quoted Nancy Morawetz, professor of clinical law at New York University School of Law, as saying, “Being present in the U.S., that status, is not a crime.” However, people do not simply materialize within the United States. There remains the question of entry. Illegal entry into the United States has been prosecuted as a criminal matter for decades, though the percentage of cases handled criminally versus civilly has fluctuated with different administrations.

Indeed, if it were true that illegal entry was not a crime, the entire Trump administration enforcement program, and thousands of such cases under President Obama, would have been struck down months ago. In fact, the government can charge illegal entry, even for first offenders, as a crime under 18 U.S.C. 3559 with up to six months imprisonment. Subsequent offenses or reentries, which are common, can be charged as a felony with up to two years imprisonment under 8 U.S.C. 1325. Nonviolent offenders who were removed before their prison sentences were served can be imprisoned for up to 10 years after a subsequent illegal entry.

It also is not true, as suggested by both Sheehan and Politifact, that the Supreme Court has declared all undocumented status to be a purely civil matter. They are referring to United States v. Arizona, in which the court stated that, “as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.” The court, however, was speaking of a state law allowing police to arrest anyone on suspicion that they are “removable from the United States.” That would include people who entered legally but overstayed their visas or their once lawful status.

The court was not saying that someone who enters illegally cannot, by definition, be charged criminally or that illegal entry is not a crime. The court said that it did not have to “address whether reasonable suspicion of illegal entry or another immigration crime would be a legitimate basis” for such arrests by state officers, distinguishing the crime of illegal entry from the removable violations addressed in the decision.

In her exchange with Jake Tapper on CNN, Powers insisted that those who cross illegally with coyotes are, by law, here legally so long as they claim asylum: “It’s not illegal to come to the country to seek asylum, which is what most of these people are doing. A lot of Republicans have [said] it is illegal unless you’re at a port of entry [but] that’s absolutely not true.” She added that the Immigration and Naturalization Act states “quite clearly that you can come anywhere. It specifically says you do not have to come to a port of entry and these people don’t even know where a port of entry is anyway. They’re being brought by coyotes mostly and brought to the border so they’re not doing anything illegal to start with.”

In fairness to Powers, Section 208 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act allows asylum claims to be made at any time, including as a criminal defendant for illegal entry. That does not mean that anyone claiming asylum automatically has legal status. That deals with your filing of a claim, not the legality of your entry or ultimate status. It is not illegal to seek asylum. It is illegal to do so without entering through a port of entry without documentation. Notably, even when treated through a civil removal proceeding, it remains an unlawful entry.

Coyotes are generally smugglers hired to bring people across the border. While a few people “don’t even know where a point of entry is,” there are more than 300 of them found on all of the main roads leading into the country. In addition, while rising, filings for asylum are not “what most of these people are doing.” There were 408,870 illegal entries in 2016 and 303,910 in 2017. Asylum applications reached 116,000 in 2016. Moreover, the number of accepted asylees tends to run about 20,000 per year. Among those applying, a huge percentage never complete their paperwork and only around 20 percent of applications are granted.

Many people are deported without hearings under a 1996 statute used by the Obama administration and now the Trump administration. These people are captured within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of entry. If they claim asylum, they can appeal to an immigration judge who must rule within seven days. In 2013, 44 percent of all 438,000 removals from the United States were done through the expedited process. That was before President Trump. Even if a person asserts asylum and completes the application, the government can still pursue criminal charges. If the asylum application is rejected as meritless or unsupported, the person can be prosecuted or deported.

There are good faith positions on both sides of the immigration debate. Whether it is the president or the press, however, it does a disservice to citizens and noncitizens alike to exaggerate or misrepresent the law on illegal entry into this country. The undocumented individuals making this perilous journey should not be misled into believing that just entering the country makes them “perfectly legal,” even if they claim asylum. That does not mean President Trump’s policies are correct or fair. But spinning the law, so popular with some, is downright perilous for others.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

274 thoughts on ““Perfectly Legal”: The Perilous Rhetoric Of Immigration Politics”

  1. The solution: arrest them at the border, send them to a detention center which has one dedicated purpose: holding people who have entered illegally. Take their biometrics, haul them in front of a federal JP for a short trial, and jail them for ten weeks. Then deport them. Also, debar them from entry under any dispensation for three years. If they try again, jail them for 13 weeks for a second offense. If they try it a 3d time, it’s 16 weeks in detention.

    1. If you have actually stopped them at the border – just send them back, right then.

      Anyone who can legitimately enter the US can do so properly at a border control point.

  2. We are required under international law to consider such applications, but that does not mean that the entry was lawful or that such cases cannot raise risks of criminal enforcement.

    Judge Wapner disposed of a case in 7.5 minutes. With very few exceptions, that’s about how long they should get to present theirs.

    Mass refugee flows can be dealt with through constructing and maintaining camps proximate to the trouble with a view to the eventual repatriation of the inhabitants. Anyone in those camps who would like to apply to settle in the U.S. may do so, but they need to meet screening criteria first and wait their turn in the queue. There are no mass refugee flows in the Western Hemisphere. There are none in the Far East bar the Rohynga. There are none in South Asia, either, bar at the interface between South Asia and Central Asia. There are such flows in Europe, but only because Angela Merkel invited them and most Eurotrash governments are to incompetent and craven to defend their own borders.

    So, these people are claiming asylum retail. The first question you need to ask such a person is what they are doing in the United States given the number of countries intervening between their point of origin and El Paso. If they tell you they’re from northern Mexico, the next question you need to ask them is why they haven’t gone to southern Mexico (which has a much lower crime rate). Other questions would be the name of the newspaper they edit, the political office they ran for, or the boss of the protection racket they defied.

    While we’re at it. ‘Public interest lawyers’ who suborn perjury should be disbarred.

  3. Anyone out there remember 9-11 ? Who were those guys? How did they get in the country? Kill em when they come in illegally and don’t ask questions later cause they can’t answer when they are dead.

    1. The 911 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, which is not one of the countries under the travel ban. That’s because Trump wants to do business with them.

        1. Apparently, neither Suze or Natacha understands what all the countries on the list have in common. That lack of knowledge leads them to make unsubstantiated and untrue comments.

        2. So the current left wing nut argument is that the Travel Ban is for the purpose of making Trump money ?
          Please explain?

          BTW Trump is worth about $5B.
          If he spent $15 every second for the rest of his life – and absolutely none of that money was invested, he would still not run out before he died.
          At his current rate of investment he can spend about $5/sec forever.

          More than 200 years ago Adam Smith grasped that after a certain relatively low level of wealth.
          The rich are fundimentally working for the rest of us – without pay.

          The argument Trump is doing it for the money presumes that more money would benefit Trump.

          Trump ran for President for the same Reason Gates has a gigantic Charity, and Bezos Allen and Musk are building rockets.
          Because they have more money than they can possibly spend and they are looking for things to do with it.

          To the extent they seek some personal benefit – that benefit is NOT more money. They have way more than they can ever spend of that.

      1. Terrorist
        a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

        The only acts of terrorism on 9/11 were controlled assets. No planes were hijacked and no planes crashed on 9/11.

        The Official version has been long- proven to be a complete lie.
        Anyone who has researched the government claims knows that 9/11 was an inside job/covert operation.

      2. Many of the 9/11 terrorists traveled on Saudi passports.
        A fair number of them were not Saudi’s.
        Regardless, Trump’s travel ban targets those countries that can not or do not vet people traveling to the US to post 9/11 DHS standards.

        The Saudi’s do. The nations subject to the EO don’t.
        Any of them will be removed from the list when they demonstrate to DHS that they do.

  4. Allan there is a great essay written by George Friedman( founder of Stratford). It’s titled “The Unintended Empire”. The United States is an empire, but it never set out to be one. It became an empire in the 20th century by default. The United States didn’t start 2 world wars, it didn’t want the Cold War. But in the last quarter of the 20th century it emerged as the sole super power. The basic character of the people of this country is to stay out of other people’s affairs and mind their own business.

    1. Bob: if the U.S. doesn’t want to serve as Sheriff To The World, another power will fill those shoes, or regional powers will fill those shoes. I’d rather have America stay on the beat. But Trump, of course, can’t perform that role.

    2. Thanks, I had to get it off of Maudlin. For some reason, I couldn’t locate it at Stratfor. I don’t like the use of the word empire but recognize how some like to use it but I consider that a mistake because the unsophisticated don’t understand the multiple meanings and use the term poorly.

      They think of us not as a country that became an unintended “empire” due to its military and economic strengths rather as an empire such as Britain or Rome and for the least unsophisticated the empire from Star Wars.

    3. The IS engaged in actual empire building in the 19th century.
      That era is past. we have no colonies. We excerise sovereignity over a few tiny islands beyond our nation.

      Our status as the worlds sole superpower does not make us an empire.
      It makes us a powerful force – sometimes for good, and sometimes not.
      And as your author notes our character – mostly minding our own business, leaves us inept at excercising that power.
      And that is good.

      When Trump and his supporters talk about Make America Great Again, they are not talking about conquering other nations, building an empire.
      They are not talking about defeating some foreign enemies.
      They are talking about making america more productive and affluent than it is.
      They are not even for the most part seeking to “beat” the rest of the world. They are seeking to beat ourselves. To do better tomorow than yesterday.
      To follow the drump beat of freedom to greater prosperity.
      And if the rest of the world joins the parade – all the better.

    4. I Bob, I finally had time to completely read the article “The Unintended Empire” by George Friedman. Basically, it seems to agree with what I say all the time to those from foreign nations happy about an American economic slide in the wrong direction. I tell them that when the US gets a slight cold many in the rest of the world develop pneumonia.

      The article also tells us why the word “empire” misused and unexplained confuses those that do not understand the subject matter. Typically, I limit the use of the word “empire” to those nations that have political control over nations because decisions are made in the “empire’s” parliament, not in the country where those laws exist.

      Thanks again for the article.

  5. Tom Nash, I’m still waiting for the exodus of those who said they would leave if Bush got elected. I’m a very patient man.

    1. Independent Bob – I am waiting for RBG to move to New Zealand. A promise is a promise. 🙂

      1. My neighbor is from New Zealand. He moved HERE, but possibly after he heard that Ginsberg might be coming to N.Z.

  6. Some time in the future, increasing numbers of Americans will flee America, seeking a better and safer life elsewhere. And they will not be treated well because the world won’t remember the America of the Statue of Liberty but they will remember the the America of Mr. Trump.

      1. goodbevis,…
        I’m still waiting on those who pledged to leave America if Trump won to even start packing their bags.
        Saying that they, or others, “wiil” leave America seems like a real stretch when those who already promised to leave in the past are still here.

        1. And I’m talking about refugees leaving a declining and dangerous America in search of a better life, not people who were upset at the results of an election. And it will happen. We’re not different from any other empire in decline.

          1. Your predictive powers are almost on a par with those who’ve predicted the end of the world over time.
            A hyper-partisan, ignorant hack like you is not the most reliable source of forecasting the political landscape and events.
            I doubt if you could “predict” yesterday’s news.

            1. LOL. You can’t judge my predictive powers three minutes after I made a statement. Get back to me in 40 years.

              1. Suze,…
                History goes back more than 3 minutes.
                But that’s about what it took to demonstrate your ignorance of history, and an extreme partisan bias that clouds what little judgement you had in the first place.

          2. WE are not really an empire unless one wishes to stretch the word and define what they mean. The British or Roman Empires were empires.

            1. Sure, we are. We’re a financial empire and a military empire. It doesn’t have to do with actual land mass as in the past.

              1. What you are really saying Suze is that we are not really an empire in classical terms but if we stretch the meaning one can call the US an empire in other ways. It seems that both our financial empire and military empire has, for the most part, changed the world for the good. We are not a classic empire and in fact post WW2 we were the predominant nation that attempted to prevent empire building.

                Previously you told me you weren’t a leftist though everything you say points you in that direction. I guess you stretch that idea as well.

                Nothing wrong with not being precise as long as you make sure others understand what you are saying.

                1. Stretching to meaning to construct an empire in other ways is not an empire – it is something else.
                  Calling it an empire then produces a false impression of what it is.

                  Words have meaning. Whatever the US has it is not an empire.

                  1. dhlii – we keep giving Puerto Rico an opportunity to become a state and they keep turning it down. That way they don’t get taxed.

              2. As Alan said – “unless you stretch the definition of the word”.
                Nearly all definitions of empire are territorial. Those that are not – such as the New York Times publishing “empire” are still bounded and internal.
                The NYT Publishing empire does NOT include the Washington Post.

                Your use of empire incorporates regions over which we do not have sovereignity – so those definitions are precluded, as well as market participants that are not under our control.
                In otherwords your use of Empire is suitable only in fiction.

                Defining and using words narrowly, clearly and properly is very important.

                We all communicate with words and most of us think with words.
                Muddying the meaning of words muddies our thought.

                The use of “empire” for something that is not and empire, creates the false impression that it is. It is a misrepresentation, a miscommunication.
                Further it implies that we can use the tools that we use regarding actual empires to deal with this thing that is not an empire.

                If you want a much clearer example – the “war on poverty”, the “war on illiteracy” the “war on Drugs” – are all stupid and dangerous efforts to persuade us that we can take the same millitant approach to poverty, literacy and drugs, that we do to invaders.

          3. There is much wrong with this country. Yet, even now we remain for the world “the land of opportunity”.
            That has not changed and is unlikely to change soon.
            At best there is evidence that SOME other countries in the world today are as attractive to people seeking a better life.

            There is ZERO evidence that the US is in the slightest danger of significant exodus for any reason.

            If you wish to leave – you are free to do so. But very few are.

              1. Most of the posters on this cite are not millennials and won’t be around in 40 years. The fact that you expect to be tells us a lot about your immaturity and poorly formed world view that are consistent with the low information voters of your generation.

                1. Allyn,…
                  Well, maybe in 40 years, at about age 50, Suze’s knowledge of history and political issues will improve.

              2. “Talk to me in 40 years.”

                Prophecy is not argument.

                That said, I am unlikely to be alive 40 years from now, but I am prepared to bet you that on the whole the US will be NET better at any point more than a decade in the future.
                In fact I am prepared to bet that for any 10 distinct criteria of your choosing that in a decade 6-10 of them will have improved by the best objective measures we have.

      2. I’m not sure it’s too late. But we will need a brilliant, informed, experienced, ethical leader to follow Trump – regardless of party – who believes in our democracy, which the authoritarian Trump does not, and who will be able to undo the profound damage he does every day. AND, that leader will not suck Putin’s t*tties, either.

        1. If Trump runs in 2020, I suppose we’ll see the same claims from people saying they’ll leave the country if he wins.
          This turns out be posturing, or grandstanding by drama queens, in virtually every case.
          Based on the history of these unfulfilled “threats” to leave the U.S., I take any of these pkedges to leave, or predictions about an exodus of Anericans, with a grain of salt.

            1. You LED OFF with a prediction of an exodus from the U.S. if Trump remains in office.
              So now you want to talk only about “different things”.

              1. No, you were talking about people who threatened to leave if Trump won and I was talking about people leaving as the US declines.

                1. The two are related….more importantly, you reversed the sequence of our comments.
                  I will say that I do see a relationship between those who threatened to leave if Trump won, and a Cassandra from the lunatic fringe like you.

        2. Suze, Beavis & Allan,…..-If Trump runs in 2020, I suppose we’ll see the same claims from people saying they’ll leave the country if he wins.
          This turns out be posturing, or grandstanding by drama queens, in virtually every case.
          Based on the history of these unfulfilled “threats” to leave the U.S., I take any of these pkedges to leave, or predictions about an exodus of Anericans, with a grain of salt.

          1. I know who I don’t want: all the ones who are clearly starting their campaigns now.

            I’m intrigued by Mitch Landrieu who gave the definitive speech so far about southern confederate monuments and he was a good mayor in NO from what I’ve read.

            I’d probably prefer Mike Bloomberg, although I’m concerned about his age. He is a billionaire who made his money legitimately and ran a huge city quite successfully. He would also know how to put together a skilled, experienced team. He knows that Trump is a total con artist and he’d wipe the floor with him in a debate.

            And Landrieu would do the same with the hapless idiot Pence in a Veep debate.

            So, today my choice would be Bloomberg/Landrieu.

            1. Suze, I know reading is hard, but the question was: “Who would you like Suze, another Obama or another GWB?”

        3. Suze,…
          Maybe you can make a deal with Trump; he promises not to suck Putin’s ti***** if you’ll stop sucking on Hillary’s,

          1. When you have no argument, you go back to Hillary. It’s the right’s default position when they got nothing. And it suggests that you know, as hard as it might be to admit, that sucking up is exactly what Trump is doing. And when he meets Putin, he’ll get his dog biscuits for doing Putin’s work brilliantly. Putin found his poodle..

            1. Sucking up? The only President I have seen do that is Obama. He bowed to foreign leaders. He said to tell Vlad that he would have more flexibility after the election. How has Trump sucked up to anyone?

            2. Maybe you voted for Stein, or supported Bernie instead of Hillary.
              The deal is the same, whoever you’re sucking up to, or on to.

            3. That’s why Trump sent offensive weapons to the Ukraine?
              Ir expelled 60 Russian diplomats?
              I didn’t know Putin wanted that, but if you say Trump us doing Putin’s bidding, the weapons to Ukraine and the expulsion of the diplomats must have been what Putin wanted.

            4. Many of us “go back to Hillary” for a long list of reasons.

              Self-evidently the Democrats ran a candidate that was far worse than Trump and lost.

              There is almost no left rant about Trump that is not MORE true about Hillary and/or Bill.

              The rule of law not man, requires that the law is applied equally to all blind of party.

              There is no interpretation of the law – no matter how improperly broad you make it, that ensnares Trump without also ensnaring The Clinton’s, Obama, and much of the democratic party.

              When you are prepared to apply the law the same way to all, we can have a rational discussion.
              Absent that the discussion is just about your hypocracy.

    1. So many leftists felt that Trump’s election was enough for them to leave yet they didn’t Suze. In fact, many of those leftists are doing better than ever and apparently don’t want to leave. You leftists don’t seem to act in accordance with what you say.

            1. It’s unclear to me what you said, but then I noted some statements about Trump talking to Putin. It is ignorant to stop two major leaders from talking because of political reasons. We have both common interests with Russia and diverse interests. We have been talking all along with the Russians because we are meeting on the battle-field in Syria trying to keep ourselves apart.

              Suze, perhaps you don’t know what you are and are confused by all the soundbites and slogans. Based on what you are saying it seems that your knowledge is insufficient to defend your positions.

            2. ☺😃😀😂 you’re statements are falling apart like a cheap suit….no wonder you can’t explain.

              1. “you’re [sic] statements” – said by the oh-so-critical Nash

                y-o-u-r

                It isn’t that hard, Nash. Maybe you’d better stick with emoticons as you attempt to communicate.

                1. Thanks for the advice….any more profound wisdom you’d like to impart, or have you exhausted your limited supply.

      1. Allan,….
        Do you remember the username that “Linda” reposted under, and when she used the name “Allan” to post her “thoughts”?
        It may have been “Donna?” that “Linda” came back as.
        She’s like a bad penny.

        1. Oh, for Pete’s sake. You two need to grow up, find some friends and get out more. And get over this ridiculous obsession with sockpuppets.

            1. Not sure how you manage to waste so much space with so few words and no content, anonymous.
              Go back to posting links and other people’s thoughts…you can maybe handle that,

            2. You’d fit in well with Moe and Curley Joe, Anonymous.
              You might even be able to keep up with them in a conversation…..you’re not showing that ability here, but your bitchy little complaints😞😪will have to do.

          1. There have been sockpuppets here, anonymous.
            Even IF you read and understood these
            comments, you’re not sharp enough to figure that out.
            The one I referred to was pretty hard to miss, unless you’re a real dumbass.

              1. Anonymous,
                First of all, I don’t think most people are obsessed with sockpuppets, as you claim.
                I’ve mentioned the subject of sockpuppets maybe half a dozen times in 3+ years here.
                That’s hardly “obsessed”, but your claim that it is “obsession” shows your obsession, or your projects, to look for petty things to bitch about is continuing.
                As tiresome as it was, you were better off just plastering links and making snotty littke remarks that the comments here weren’t substantive.
                Coming from you, that’s really rich😃😁😊😀😃

        2. Putin and his team interfered with out election directly with the intention of helping Trump. And the public doesn’t yet know whether Trump, members of his family and his team, aided them because the investigation is ongoing. There’s enough for us to be extremely suspicious of Trump’s one to one discussion with Putin. At a minimum, if the two countries are to meet, the US should bring an enormous team of people who know what they are doing [essential because Trump is idiotically uninformed and unprepared] and they should be present at any meeting with Putin.

          1. Putin’s attempt was more to destabilize the American election process. His acts may have favored Trump but we really don’t know. What we know is that Trump did nothing wrong with the Russians or at least to date nothing has shown he did anything wrong and the reports from the FBI and DOJ indicate the same.

            Hillary may have been hurt, but was that due to the Russian intervention or Hillary’s and the DNC’s stupidity? Maybe we will soon find that out. Did Hillary hurt her chances by taking money from the Russians directly and at the same time indirectly to her Foundation? Probably. Did Hillary hurt her chances by her actions in Libya? Probably. Was Hillary’s statement calling her nonsupporters deplorables a statement that helped or hurt? Probably hurt.

            Was there talk about Russian interference in our elections long before people went to the polls? Yes. What did Obama do about it? He said there was no problem but then again we have to remember that he said ISIS was a junior varsity team or something like that.

            Hillary lost and Trump won. Maybe the Democratic Party should reevaluate the positions it takes on many issues. Maybe the Democratic Party should start to promote policy instead of just obstructing it. We don’t hear many policy suggestions from those on the left or those that don’t like Trump. Why? Maybe those people aren’t really thinking about the problems we face as a nation. One has to ask themselves why these same people can protest so hard about any ideas coming from the right when the worst dictators and killers can go anywhere in the US and there will be no leftist protests.

            1. Allan – maybe we should quit giving the Democratic Party good advice and let them run Hillary in 2020. Sounds good to me. 😉

              1. Paul, or we just stop pretending — Don the Con is a tool of the Zionists and the Deep State. Why else are Sessions and Rosenstein still there? Why hasn’t he released the documents to the public? All those tweets – bark and no bite! Gearing up to war against Iran right now.

                1. Paul, Autumn doesn’t miss a chance of sounding like an anti-Semite.

                  Hopefully, there won’t be war with Iran and that the lack of funds will prevent them from being the biggest state provider of terrorism. Some people like terrorist states and that makes others wonder why.

          2. “Putin and his team interfered with out election directly with the intention of helping Trump.”
            Nope.
            Putin did no more than russia has done for decades – according to Mueller the Russian efforts were tiny – less than 1/1000 of Clinton’s campaign spending.
            Putin did no more than the US does all the time. Or are you thoroughly ignorant of US meddling in world affairs ? Are you oblivious to Hillary’s meddling in the Ukraine ?
            The evidence is that Putin’s efforts did not favor either party – Mueller’s mandate is to investigate the Trump Campaign not the Clinton Campaign.
            But what he and others have found demonstrates no clear favoritism.
            Putin’s intentions were well understood – disruption and deligitimzation. He did not care who won.

            “And the public doesn’t yet know whether Trump, members of his family and his team, aided them because the investigation is ongoing. ”
            Actually we have compelling circumstantial evidence they did not.
            Mueller has indicted people for the tiniest of mistatements. The consequence of such extremely broad interpretations of the law and indictments for such very technical mistatements, means that we know that Mueller can not prove that any other statements under oath or to the FBI are wrong in even the smallest detail.
            If they were – Mueller would have indicted.

            “There’s enough for us to be extremely suspicious of Trump’s one to one discussion with Putin.”
            No there is not,

            What there is, is a growing body of evidence of incompetence, bias and corruption within the Obama administration and the democratic party.

            The left and democrats fixate on hacking the DNC emails. If the DNC was hacked that is a crime. So was recording Romney in private during the 2012 campaign.
            If those emails had been taken by Seth Rich and provided to NYT the story would still be the same.

            Democrats conspired to throw the primary to Clinton.

            In fact we have substantial indisputable evidence of politically corrupt meddling and conspiracy by the left in the 2016 election. What we do not have is the full extent of that conspiracy.

            “At a minimum, if the two countries are to meet, the US should bring an enormous team of people who know what they are doing [essential because Trump is idiotically uninformed and unprepared] and they should be present at any meeting with Putin.”

            Uninformed or not, Trump has done very well in negotiations thus far.
            While he is highly disruptive the end results are always better for the US, and better than Obama managed.

        3. Tom, many of these people come back under different names and don’t admit to them because when their name starts to stink they change it. That is what happens when principles are not adhered to.

    2. Sometime in the past, an unprecedented number of Americans said they’d leave the country if Trump won.
      Where are they now?

        1. LOL. I imagine that Trump could still make a lot of money licensing the Trump name to buildings in the dictatorships of the world. So, if we’re lucky maybe he and his creepy family will end up in one of them that doesn’t have an extradition treaty to the US. That would be justice indeed.

        2. Hypothetically, Peter, that may not happen.
          And Trump could complete this term, and another.
          So will it be an exodus, maybe with famine, pestilence, and a plague of locusts.
          Or just more nonstop bitching and whining about who got elected?

  7. I don’t see much thinking going on here. Why are these people here? Because there’s a WORLD WAR that threatens many families’ lives, and destroys economies and make people poor and hopeless worldwide. Wouldn’t you rather they stay where they came from? Me too. The law is a very poor tool for this or most other social engineering, yet it is the first place people turn.

    End the war on drugs, watch the cartels collapse. Then these folks can live in peace & safety at home. Their behavior doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The US govt. should never have started all these smaller unreported conflicts in the first place, so the US must bear responsibility for causing this influx.

  8. Excellent column by Turley explaining (based on his legal expertise) how various fact checkers mislead the public especially those on the left. I believe Turley leans somewhat left but the left winger doesn’t like to hear the truth. Turley exemplifies a man with convictions.

    1. Yeah, Allan. And we found out from the other columnist here that in doing so, JT was infringing on the First Amendment rights of those dishing out inaccurate information on immigration law, so the NEW AGENDA set by the other columnist here is belaboring a phony freedom of speech issue.
      What a joke.

      1. Her comments are near worthless unless one likes puzzles where frequently the correct word in the puzzle has to be misspelled.

    2. ‘various fact checkers mislead the public especially those on the left.’

      You can’t be serious. If you placed all the leftwing liars, lies, exaggerations, blaming, etc on one side, you would only need Trump, all by himself, to outweigh the left. You could throw in the right as well. There has never been a President who has created himself almost completely through lies and exaggeration. Now that’s a fact.

      1. “You can’t be serious.”

        Actually, Issac, I am serious. If you were serious you would be considering the relative number of lies placed on both sides of the aisle. All I am saying is that the fact checkers we hear most often from are all too frequently leftist lies and distortions. I didn’t even bring Trump’s name into the picture but you did because you have nothing of importance to say.

        Turley described some of those distortions or lies in this column. Do you wish to say Turley is lying?

        1. Actually, Allan, your being serious about the lack of credibility of so called, ‘leftist fact checkers’ pales in the face of the prolific and pathological liar, Donald Trump. Trump used false statistics, exaggerated numbers, crisis inducing verbiage, and every other cheap trick in the tyrant’s handbook to convince enough Americans that ‘only he’ could fix, what in reality wasn’t there. The only real crises that Trump may or may not address are those that he has fabricated. Not only has Trump lied and misrepresented facts, figures, and statements over three thousand times since he got in, but Trump has openly expressed that this is his game plan. Trump openly states that he ‘makes stuff up’. Trump reverses himself from absurd statements within moments of making them, sometimes with even more ludicrous statements.

          Trump’s biggest con, however, includes just about all of his arguments of the ‘swamp’ in Washington and his promises to drain it. Trump targeted the oligarchs and special interests in his campaigning yet when elected he turned out to be their greatest supporter and leader. Just about every if not every positive move by American industry, that would see more jobs and/or higher wages for whatever reasons, were initiated years before he was even a serious thought.

          Trump’s position is built on lies and deceit. What’s most alarming is how good it makes some Americans feel to hear all these lies, how mindless these Americans are in dismissing them as left wing falsifications, and pathetic are their arguments.

          1. Issac, I note how you don’t mention the worst lies of Trump and you don’t mention the policies you don’t like along with the solutions while keeping in mind the unintended consequences.

            All you are doing is repeating generalities over and over again.

            I’m not fond of any politician. They all stretch the truth to some degree. Obama did the same and lied quite a bit, but what I care most about are the actions that are taken and how that affects us in the present and in the future.

          2. So your argument again devolves to – “Damn Stupid Trump voters!”

            Keep it up. Insulting the electorate is such a great way to win elections.

          3. If you like your doctor you can keep them
            If you like your insurance you can keep it.

            Benghazi was not a planned terrorist attack.

            I did not have sex with that woman.

            Can you tell me when Trump lied under oath ?
            Can you tell me a single lie of the same consequence as those that Trump has told ?

          4. well keep on feeling alarmed it amounts to you whining and wringing your hands while POTUS DJT is on the job kicking arse and taking names. PFFFT

          5. No one expects Trump to “drain the swamp”.

            That task is not possible.

            But he has already fired many swamp creatures and we look forward to the termination of many more.

          6. “Just about every if not every positive move by American industry, that would see more jobs and/or higher wages for whatever reasons, were initiated years before he was even a serious thought.”

            Really ? Prior to the election the economy was slowing, not growing. The experts predicted a recession – no matter who was elected, but a worse one with Trump.

            All the things you say were the inevtiable results of decisions years ago – no one saw coming.
            Obama and the left instead of fixing the economy spent 8 years defining success downward.
            After 8 years of telling us that sub 2% growth was the new normal, you want to take credit for higher growth that you did not predict and did not beleive was possible ?

            HAVE YOU NO SHAME ?
            The entire 1921 recession/deprssion and recovery was only slightly longer than Trump’s presidency. It only takes years to recover – when you do everything wrong – in both 1929 and 2009 – a progressive republican caused a serious recession and was followed by a progressive democrat, who protacted it for many years.

            Are you capable of learning ?

          7. Those foolish Trump voters.

            They beleived him when he said he could restore jobs.
            The beleived him when he said he could bring about a stronger economy.
            They beleived him when he said his campaign was wiretapped.
            They beleived him when he said his campaign was spied on.
            The beleived him when he said Hillary was a crook.
            The beleived him when he told them exactly who he was going to appoint to the courts.
            …….
            How could they be so naive ?

            Get a clue IBK – your problem with trump is not that he lies. It is that de does what he says he is going to do.

      2. I sent some of Isaac’s posts to whitehouse.gov and the Freedom Caucus.
        Trump is now about to propose building two walls, one for our northern border as well.☺😀😃

        1. not that there’s anything wrong with that. i just think he has no authority just an opinion and a self declared title like Grand Poohbah Fact Check extraordinaire!

    3. Allan, you’re clueless if you think Professor Turley ‘leans somewhat left’. He could, however, be described as a ‘moderate Republican’; a category that used to account for almost half the party’s membership. That was ‘before’ right-wing media radicalized the party.

        1. YEt another example of the right wing who can’t take responsibility for their behavior so they blame the other side.

          Remember when they pretended to be the party of personal responsibility. It was BS then and it’s even more BS now.

            1. Tom, what is the ‘left wing media’? Everyone has a different idea.

              There are certain magazines and newspapers with a pronounced liberal slant. But have they radicalized the Republicans..?? I don’t see how. But we know that since Fox News and Talk Radio began, in the early 1990’s, the Republican party has moved steadily rightward.

              1. Peter,…
                It’s a groupthink, a clear bias resulting in how the news is managed and delivered.
                It includes most of the mainstream, establshed media.
                It’s not so much “fake news”; demonstrable factual errors are not that common for the established media outlets.
                It’s where and howvyou lead off on the evening news.
                You bury a story like the Awan scandal by ignoring it, or skimpy coverage in the back pages.
                You don’t devote much coverage to the alleged offenses of a senior Democratic Senator, or his trial.
                When a Gold Star parent launches into an attack at the Democratic Convention; an attack ad masquerading as a tribute to his son, you cover a response to that attack ad as insulting a Gold Star father.
                When that same father falsely claims that he was barred from traveling to Canada, you play that up.
                When it becomes known that was a lie, you downplay it.
                You invite him back for more interviews, this “private” man who “avoids controversy”.
                You have at least 85% of the working press who are Democrats and/or liberals, that can and does impact coverage.
                As to your question about how this radicalizes the right, or the GOP #1. I don’t think that the GOP is any more radicalized than the Democrats, or the left. When the head of the DNC declares that the extreme left-wing Cortez? in New York is “the future face of the Democratic Party” after she defeats an established incumbent in a primary, that’s one indication of the split within the Democratic Party, and the growing influence of far left within the party.
                “2. The origin, and the success of Fox News is largely the result of those fed up with left-wing dominance in reporting.
                You get real journalists and serious commentators with that…e.g. Chris Wallace, Sheppard Smith, Juan Williams, Stuart Varney, Neil Cavuto, Brit Hume, etc…… but you also get a Hannity or The Five mixed in with that, too.
                And MSN is a mirror image of Fox in their “red meat” for the left.
                On balance, the overall media’s reporting “tilt” was favorable to gay marraige, which was out of step with most of the country.
                But that bias particularly energized and polarized “the right”, and elements within the GOP.
                That SCOTUS intervened to redefine marriage did not change the fact that there was previous bias in media coverage.
                So the reaction against the kinds of things that I’ve mentioned has, in fact, moved many in the GOP to the right, and/ or cemented the positions of those who were leaning there anyway.

                1. Tom: The average age of a primetime Fox New viewer is over 60 (according to Nielson ratings). In other words: “They are not the future”.

                  1. Peter Hill,….
                    I haven’t paid much attention to tve demographics of viewreship by network.
                    Based on that, what is the future? _( beside the cartoons and kiddie shows….you cheat if you name them)

                  2. Peter Hill,…
                    I did a bit of quick checking,….it looks like the average age, or the median age….use either one….is WAY uo there for all of the news channels.
                    Fox may have the highest age group, but not by much. CNN MSN aren’t far behind.
                    I don’t know if Bloomberg News or BBC America were surveyed, or if they even register in viewership numbers.
                    As with newspapers…..physical delivery and readership of a paper newspaper….delivery of video news has change, too.
                    People increasingly go to the web and pick out stories to read, and the younger the viewer, the more likely that is.
                    So it may be that cable news itself “isn’t the future” given changes in the way news is accessed.
                    It won’t in the short term, but a decade or two out I think all of the cable news channels will be struggling to maintain viewers.

                    1. “I did a bit of quick checking,….it looks like the average age, or the median age….use either one….is WAY uo there for all of the news channels.”

                      Tom, that is the problem with Peter Shill. He regurgitates information from only one side of the spectrum and much of that information isn’t true or is spun. You and others like you actually look at more than one side.

      1. More likely Peter Shill is that Turley has no firm affinity for either political party or he was a Democrat and the party moved further towards the left. The center of the right / left gravity of the American population is somewhat to the right of what we all consider The Center. The media has moved the perceived center of gravity somewhat leftward.

        You, on the other hand, have no understanding of what constitutes various ideological opinions. You spout slogans and talking points based on predigested material. If you look at the basis of the founding of this nation you will see that you are vastly out of step with the underlying ideas of the founders.

        1. ALLAN, NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE POLITICAL CENTER IS

          There is no barometer of any kind to measure the political center. What’s more, the political center is different in every region of the country. The political center in NewYork is different than the political center in Dallas. The political center in Chicago is different than the political center in San Francisco.

          Furthermore, if any barometer could measure the political center, said point would be shifting every day; not unlike the stock market. The center is not be a fixed point like those yellow lines down the middle of highways.

          1. Peter Shill, an approximation of the political center can be made by polling and utilizing the same questions over a period of years while looking at the effects of the media and other things.

            This has actually been done. I can, however, understand arguments picking away at the validity of anyone’s numbers.

            However, if one compares the present Democratic Party to prior years one notes a drastic shift even in the Democratic actors of today. Look at the opinions on immigration, gay marriage, freedom of speech and a whole host of other items. Some of today’s actors have made drastic changes in recent years so my assumption is the left is moving further left and the Rino right is partially filling the vacuum.

      2. well, the weak republicans better grow a backbone because the party of bob dole is now in the old folks home and the red meat eaters are in the vanguard. HOORAHH

    4. Absolutely Agree.

      On many points I think the law is wrong, and it appears that Turley shares that view on some.

      But the solution is not to pretend the law away.

      It is to change it.

      I am personally a strong proponent of immigration. But I am not under the delusion that we can just allow everyone who wants to come here, without any negative impact despite a social safetynet and entitlement system that is not designed to endure mass immigration.

      I share the “feelings” of the left on immigration. But “feelings” are not enough. However we structure immigration it must work, the unintended consequences must be small.

      The left has proven in the past several years absolutely unwilling to try to figure out how to make broader immigration work.

      At this very moment there are numerous immigration related objectives of the left – that republicans are willing to agree to.
      But not as standalone changes. Democrats are not even talking.
      I do not agree with everything Republicans want in return. But that debate is not occuring.
      Further most, possibly all of what republicans ant in return is NOT so heinous as to preclude accepting it as the cost to get some of what I want.
      But Democrats are not even talking.

  9. People like Kamala Harris and Luis Gutierrez are unintentionally aiding and abetting criminal cartels and gangs in extorting the life savings of millions of poor Central American families. The greater good will be served by choking off the money supply to these thugs.

    Also, the US is contributing heavily to the Central American Joint Anti-Gang Task Force, a police-intelligence cooperative that is challenging the gangs with their gun running, drug slinging and human trafficking. The talking points on the left are uninformed and hollow.

    1. “People like Kamala Harris and Luis Gutierrez are unintentionally aiding and abetting criminal cartels and gangs”

      Those criminal cartels and gangs are thugs and killers which makes people like Kamala Harris and Luis Gutierrez criminal enablers. Their reward for such actions is the office they get to occupy.

  10. Regardless of all the legal mumbling, it remains a policy issue. Illegal entry is, among other things that can be allowed to pass, illegal if it so serves the administration; and illegal if that condition better applies to the law breaker. Obama was selectively using the criminal status of illegal entry and other associated crimes such as not reporting, etc to deport undesirables. Obama succeeded in bouncing 2.6 million +/- undesirables during his administration. This was more than any previous administration. This was done by approaching each case. Those that were deemed to be not a threat, with no criminal background, contributing to society, or having been brought here while a child, etc were deferred to be assessed finally at a later date, given a ten year plus path to legal status, or simply left alone for the moment. During the Obama administration the number of border patrol agents increased substantially.

    During the Obama administration the number of illegal immigrants entering the US decreased, the number of undesirable illegal immigrants that were deported increased, and the border became more secure than under the previous administration. The problem was diminishing.

    Trump’s lies and exaggerations serve to create a crisis situation where there is a problem condition that is being reduced. This helps rally supporters who respond to this mindless sort of ‘rally round the flag’ routine. Trump did the same with tariffs, and just about every other aspect of ongoing conditions that will always need to be addressed.

    There will always be problems but there never were these crisis conditions going unabated.

    Trump’s latest point and blame routine is to exonerate Putin before tomorrow’s meeting by blaming Russian hacking on Obama. The verification of Russian hacking has been just recently determined and illustrated in the Mueller operation. Trump has been trying to get that operation shut down from its inception. Depending on Trump’s mindset, it never happened or if it did it was Obama’s fault. The problem isn’t so much with Trump but with the Americans that actually support this lying sack of……

    In the mean time, Turley rubs off his morning legal wood.

    1. “Illegal entry is, among other things that can be allowed to pass”

      Issac apparently doesn’t believe in the law when it suits his interests. Either get rid of the law that makes illegals, illegal or prosecute.

      If Issac ran a house of prostitution and the police liked the perks they were getting and let him get away with it he would be happy to call his operations just a policy matter and not illegal. I would vote to legalize Issac’s prosecution ring but if that vote went the wrong way then I would support prosecution. That is what equality under the law demands.

      1. Allan

        Try and pull your head out from where the sun don’t shine. I made an observation not a proposal. Your knee-jerk reflex illustrates more than anything, the problems in this nations stemming from extreme polarization. You see what you want to see as per your baggage.

        Illegal entry is sometimes ‘allowed to pass’ or taken as a criminal offense, regardless of what the law says/dictates/whatever. This is so with many ‘laws’. Filling in a form improperly is sometimes prosecuted as a crime, sometimes let pass. The decision of the prosecutor/court(s) is typically the result of the climate of the administration. IE. in the Obama administration illegal immigration situations were dealt with per their specific conditions. If the individual was deemed to be of no threat or productive or without fault, then the criminal aspect of their condition would be allowed to ‘pass’. If the individual was seen to be undesirable, then the criminal aspect would be used to incarcerate and/or deport. This is so with every administration. With the Trump administration the enhanced crisis orchestrated by Trump demanded that the situation be treated harshly. That necessitated applying the criminal aspects of the law with a broad brush and no differentiation as to whether the individual was a threat or not. This diluted resources and damaged worthy potential contributors to society. But, hey, it makes guys like you feel tough and in control; so there’s that.

        1. “Try and pull your head out from where the sun don’t shine. I made an observation not a proposal.”

          OK, I removed the umbrella and now clearly see your head up your a$$. You made a statement: “Illegal entry is, among other things that can be allowed to pass”

          That statement locks you into a position approving of illegality. All you are doing now is jockeying your head but not removing it from its position that lacks the light necessary to see.

    2. Your post fairly accurately demonstrates the differences between left and right.

      Obama selectively enforced the law as he saw fit. We can argue over whether he did so in some altruistic fashion or whether his discretion was lawless.
      Ultimately it doesn’t matter, because discretion in law and government leads to corruption, and in fact is corrupt even when exercised well.

      Under Obama there was no means to no the law, or to know how it would be applied.
      The awesome power of govenrment was excercised based on the preferences of a person.

      The entire leftist conception of govenrment can not work unless only the most moral and ethical people with the best judgement are elected.
      Leftism demands a government of unicorns.

      Trump is attempting to restore “the rule of law”. That is disruptive – because even the pretence of the rule of law has been absent for 8 years.

      I am not personally happy with many aspects of how applying the law with little discretion works. But that can be changed, through the difficult process of changing the law.

      I am very happy that to a much greater extent the law that we have is being enforced with little discretion.

      Discretion belongs in our private lives – not in government.

      Refuse to serve someone with a MAGA hat, or those whose politics you abhor, or those whose sexual preferences offend your religion.
      Those are private acts of discretion, and to the extent they have repercussions, those fall on you, and are imposed without force by others excercising the same discretion.

      The choices of government are the use of force. We do not get to pick who the good murders are, who the good rapists are.
      Government the law and discretion in enforcing it must be very limited. That is what the rule of law means.

      Further we see this same failure on the left outside of immigration.

      The Obama administration used the IRS to target political enemies, bent the DOJ to protect Obama’s heir from the consequences of her own reckless crimes used DOJ/FBI/CIA/NSA to target political enemies – including during an election, in the hopes of altering the outcome.
      Democrats and their affiliates get hundreds of millions from Russians as well as other despots arround the world, and run a pay for play scheme out of the state department.
      Hillary Clinton’s cheif of staff has more invested in russia than Mueller claims Russia spent to on social media. Not to mention Clinton’s ties to the Ukraine.

      All this is acceptable to the left. They can excercise discretion and ignore it.

      Yet the left has spent nearly 3 years chasing Trump collusion with Russia, and has nothing to show.

      At the same time they are cheering the prosecution of Trump surogates for offenses that are inconsequential in comparison to those of the left.

      Why Manafort and not Tony Podesta ?
      Why is Flynn facing Jail for purported lies that no one can figure out what the lie was, while McCabe lied repeatedly and under oath and the left does not care.
      Papadoulis is facing jail because he failed to tell Mueller that he talked to Mifsud about emails, when Mifsud told the FBI they did not talk about emails.

      The left is convinced that Trump and his cronies are the most corrupt ever, yet so far we are prosecuting conduct that was tame compared to that of the Obama administration.

      And the left is OK with this.

      Discretion ultimately means those you like need not fear the awesome power of government – no matter what they do, and those you hate, must fear the awesome power of government whether they do anything or not.

      I speak for the return of the rule of law, for the elimination of discretion by government.

      The rigid enforcement of bad law, is preferable to selective enforcement favoring friends and punishing enemies.

      That you and the left do not grasp that is disturbing.

      1. chili

        Absolute interpretation of every law is an impossibility. In a society that would do so we would see half the population in jail. The essence of law is how it is structured to reflect the state of the society of which it governs. Every illegal immigrant incarcerated and their children placed in foster homes and other institutions is what you propose. That does not reflect this society, only the simple minded. Every jay walker fined and/or imprisoned, every busted tail light a car impounded, etc. Laws range from ‘thou shall not kill’ to thou shall not lie. By your interpretation, Trump should be in prison doing his thousand years, along with Bernie Madoff. Just about every politician, business person, etc should be in prison for any number of laws broken.

        ‘I speak for the return of the rule of law, for the elimination of discretion by government.’–There is no such thing in the human equation as a society without discretion. The laws will always be levied as per the ideology of the powers that be. The distribution of those powers among the various elements of most government: house, senate, judiciary, elected President, Prime Minister, Chancellor, etc saves the more advanced societies from the fascism and dictatorship that you propose.

        Along with the positive attributes of discretion come the travesties of Obama’s misuse of government agencies as well as the tragedy and shame that is Trump. Regardless of how it goes down it is a double edged sword.

        In more evolved societies discretion in administering laws have born positive results in many areas to which specific laws pertain. The laws regarding drugs in the US have produced a far more negative result than in societies where discretion was engaged. The general attitude towards incarceration in the US has resulted in the opposite effects of a nation with one of the highest percentages of incarcerated and ruined lives in the developed world, higher than Russia, China, etc. There are many areas where judgement at the moment a law was contravened has had a more beneficial result for all concerned when an officer of the law, let it slide with a warning or the transgression was deemed not appropriate to the punishment prescribed.

        Laws are not made by some omnipotent being but by those who live within their protection and guidance. Those that create laws are a work in progress. The creation of laws demands the experience of living under or within those laws. This is not something, unfortunately, that can be adjusted in an immediate manner. The permanence and rigidity of laws demands the discretion of the society enforcing those laws.

        Laws reflect the society. The society that is the US clearly suggests an interpretation akin to Obama’s interpretation of how to treat illegal immigrants rather than that of Trump. Trump does not reflect the majority of Americans’ opinions on most of what he is doing. Trump is an oligarch, the head oligarch, leader first of the top few percent and special interests, those who run America. Your position on how laws should be administered reflects a very small and mean spirited part of America. If ever there was a champion of the mean spirited; it is Trump.

        1. you haven’t seen mean spirited until you see what’s coming 10 years from now
          stick around it should be fun

        2. “Absolute interpretation of every law is an impossibility.”
          Absolute anything does not exist. Even absolute certainty in physics does not exist.

          That does not preclude physicists from relying on mathematics, and trusting the results.

          The rule of law requires that the process of applying the law and constitution must produce the same results no matter who applies it.
          That means that statutory interpretation and constitutional interpretation MUST have rules. The more narrow and precise the better.
          Like physics perfection is not acheivable. But physicists have zero debate over the know areas of science and the behavior of things inside the scope that humans typically encounter. There is no reason that Law can not approach the same degree of certainty – except that government, law enforcement and lawyers benefit because it does not. The rest of us lose.

          Nor is structured constitutional and statutory interpretation an impediment to any ideology.
          If things do not work as you would like them – change the law or the constitution.
          If you write the new law or the new amendment you can be certain that the courts will follow it as written, not as they wish you had written it.

          Nor is it necescary that the rules of statutory and constitutional interpretation be those that conservatives offer.
          What is absolutely critical is that they produce results that are certain the overwhelming majority of the time,
          and that they are universally agreed to.

          Borkean originalism is severaly flawed as it defers to democratic processes rather than natural rights when the text being understood is unclear.
          That is a disasterous flaw.

          “In a society that would do so we would see half the population in jail.”

          All that means is we have far far too many laws. You do not seem to grasp that vast numbers of laws combined with discretion is still lawlessness.
          Lawlessness does not mean the absence of laws. It means the absence of certainty in the law.

          “The essence of law is how it is structured to reflect the state of the society of which it governs.”
          Nope! The purpose of law is the protection of individual rights. That is also the purpose of government.

          “Every illegal immigrant incarcerated and their children placed in foster homes and other institutions is what you propose.”
          I have proposed no such thing.

          That is approximately what our current law requires – whether you or I like that.
          If you do not like that – CHANGE THE LAW.

          I would not incarcerate anyone caught at or very near the border. I would just immediately send them back where they came from.

          We do not shoot or incarcerate everyone who tresspasses. The police normally direct you to leave the property you are not allowed to be on.
          Tresspassing becomes a crime when you refuse to do so.

          “That does not reflect this society, only the simple minded.”
          I do not care what they law as it is reflects – FOLLOW IT.
          If it offends you CHANGE IT.

          We do not get to ignore laws we do not like.
          We are obligated to change them.

          “Every jay walker fined and/or imprisoned”
          Then we would likely abandon or change our “jay walking” laws.

          If a law does not work when applied without discretion – it is a bad law.

          “every busted tail light a car impounded,”
          Again change the law.

          “Laws range from ‘thou shall not kill’ to thou shall not lie.”

          The ten commandments are moral law, not civil, tort or criminal law.
          We are criminally prohibited from murder. We are not crimminally prohbited from lying – most of the time.

          Everything that is morally wrong should not be a crime.

          “By your interpretation, Trump should be in prison doing his thousand years, along with Bernie Madoff. Just about every politician, business person, etc should be in prison for any number of laws broken.”

          IF we imposed the laws we have today without discretion 100% of us would be in prison.

          That demonstrates that we have too many laws and most are quite badly written.

          If functioning in the world requires committing crimes – the problem is with the law.

        3. “There is no such thing in the human equation as a society without discretion. ”
          Society and Government are not the same thing.

          You are allowed all the discretion you please in your conception of morality.

          You are not free to excercise significant discretion over the use of force.

          “The laws will always be levied as per the ideology of the powers that be.”
          Bzzt, wrong. Government, law is the use of force.
          While ALL morality is not the scope of law. The law itself (and government) MUST be moral.
          Meaning it can not violate foundational moral first principles.

          The most fundimental of these is that humans have free will. That does not mean they may morally or legally do as they lease.
          But it does mean that all restrictions of liberty must be justified.
          Justification has several components.
          One – the utilitarian – is that the restriction of liberty MUST produce a net positive outcome. That requirment is immutable.
          It is not sufficient to hope for a good outcome. The net positive result must be demonstrable.
          That relatively easy to understand requirement will get rid of nearly all improper uses of force – aka government.
          But utility is a necescity for justification, it is not sufficient.

          “The distribution of those powers among the various elements of most government: house, senate, judiciary, elected President, Prime Minister, Chancellor, etc saves the more advanced societies from the fascism and dictatorship that you propose.”

          I am not proposing fascim or dictatorship.

          I am not the one who has imposed so many laws that discretion MUST be the rule rather than the exception.

          Though it is likely you and I radically disagree on the facts, should it ever actually be proven that Trump violated the law then that law must be enforced.
          That is what I am arguing

          But you are not. You are arguing that we shoudl choose to enforce the law against Trump – even where the law has not been violated, while ignoring actual lawbreaking elsewhere.

          Ultimately your arrangement provides no foundation for holding anyone accountable for lawbreaking.

          You are desparately hoping that Mueller will find actual lawlessness on the part of Trump.

          Why ? In your world Mueller or Rosentein, or Sessions or even Trump himself after all he is president could excercise discretion and say – NO Prosecution.

        4. “Laws are not made by some omnipotent being but by those who live within their protection and guidance.”
          Never said they were.

          “Those that create laws are a work in progress.”
          Never said otherwise

          “The creation of laws demands the experience of living under or within those laws.”
          Yup, and when the law does not work, we change it.

          “This is not something, unfortunately, that can be adjusted in an immediate manner.”
          Until we can change it we enforce the law.
          That is a lesson to inspire us to think very carfully before passing new laws.
          Because we will have to “live under” the laws we pass.

          “The permanence and rigidity of laws demands the discretion of the society enforcing those laws.”
          Nope. Non-Sequitur.

          In fact the opposite is actually true. Without discretion only those laws that reflect universal principles, only those laws that work 100% of the time survive.
          This is part of why we should be very reluctant to change ancient laws. And very reluctant to impose new ones.

          Things that have worked for centuries should be left untouched
          Changes that have not been tested should be reconsidered.

        5. “Laws reflect the society”

          You keep conflating society and government. They are quite different.
          Membership in society is purely voluntary.

          Government is imposed by force.
          Law and government is to secure our rights. That is its sole purpose.

          “The society that is the US clearly suggests an interpretation akin to Obama’s interpretation of how to treat illegal immigrants rather than that of Trump. Trump does not reflect the majority of Americans’ opinions on most of what he is doing. Trump is an oligarch, the head oligarch, leader first of the top few percent and special interests, those who run America. Your position on how laws should be administered reflects a very small and mean spirited part of America. If ever there was a champion of the mean spirited; it is Trump.”

          More post modernist junk philosophy.

          If the majority of americans do not like the law as it is, then it will be simple to change.

          Obama was an Oligarch. If he had had sufficient support to make the laws he wanted – he would not have had to “make things up” or rule by pen and phone.

          BTW the requirement to make law is not majority support. There are many requirements for just law.
          One of which is that is must be normative – i.e. have super majority support.

          Whenever a law no longer has super majority support it should be repealed.

  11. Congresswomen who do not know nuthin bout the laws and nuthin bout birthin babies need to be removed from Congress. They are like illegal immigrants.
    If someone climbs a fence at the border to get in they need to be shot when they hit the top and start to climb or jump down. Throw the dead bodies back over the fence. The Mexicans can pay for the cleanup.

  12. PC is so pervasive JT falls prey even though he gets the law right[of course]. JT uses “undocumented immigrants” the PC term, instead of illegal aliens or illegal immigrants. Leftists pervert language to assist in their perverting laws.

  13. That the University of Idaho in Moscow has a law school is news to me but in checking Wikipedia I note that constitutional law is not a specialty. I know the university most for the Lionel Hampton School of Music.

    1. It’s “news to you” that U. of Idaho in Moscow has a law school?!!??!
      And you’re 10-15 miles away in Pullman!
      You need to get out more, broaden your horizons.

      1. Tom Nash, it is but 10 miles from my house to the administration building of the University of Idaho in Moscow, which has a beautiful and acoustically good auditorium; a fine place for concerts although parking is a problem…

        1. Been a long time since I’ve been on that campus….I can’t remember if their law school is “set aside” from the rest of the campus, or blends in with all of the other buildings.
          As I recall, they had a relatively small enrollment in their law school.
          I think it’s rated OK, but they never seemed to expand in size like some others have done,

          1. Tom Nash, it invisibly blends in. The expansion appears to be in the Boise campus. The Moscow campus has no expansion space with city on three sides now and the state border directly to the west.

    2. Also from Schmikipedia:

      “Moscow is the home of the University of Idaho, the state’s land grant institution and primary research university, as well as the home of New Saint Andrews College, a Christian liberal arts college.

      Limited commercial air service is four miles west (6 km) at the Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport.”

      Thanks for the tip, Dr. Benson.

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      Coats warned that the possibility of a “crippling cyber attack on our critical infrastructure” by a foreign actor is growing.

      He likened daily cyber attacks to the “alarming activities” that U.S. intelligence agencies detected before al Qaeda staged the most devastating extremist attack on the U.S. homeland on Sept. 11, 2001.

      “The system was blinking red. Here we are nearly two decades later and I’m here to say the warning lights are blinking red again,” he said.

      1. NSA should have been focused on doing its job surveilling foreigners instead of mass collecting on Americans. they undermined their own prestige.

    2. OK maybe so but you dont fight them by indicting them. that’s playing patty cake. let acts of belligence be met in kind. dont waste civilian resources on military problems

  14. “We are required under international law to consider such applications” Now you know that’s not true. It’s not stated in “Our” constitution, has not been ratified, international law “cannot” take precedence over our laws. No matter what a bunch of yo-yo’s on the supreme court say. You would think Turley would know this, and stand up for our constitution.

    1. Ron, if it is in a treaty it is the highest law of the land. Even surpasses the constitution according to the constitution.

        1. Darren,
          I sometimes think DB Benson’s copy of the Constitution must read differently from an accurate copy.
          If he bought that bum copy, he should demand a refund.
          And it leads him to make inaccurate, sweeping statements about “what the Constitution says”.
          So I’ll blame his defective copy, not his judgement or interpretation.☺😁

          1. Tom, David’s constitution reads as follows:

            THE ORGANIZATION OF SOVIET SOCIETY

            ARTICLE 1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and peasants.

            ARTICLE 2. The Soviets of Working People’s Deputies, which grew and attained strength as a result of the overthrow of the landlords and capitalists and the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat, constitute the political foundation of the U.S.S.R.

            ARTICLE 3. In the U.S.S.R. all power belongs to the working people of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Working People’s Deputies.

            https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons01.html

          1. You never will accept that you are wrong, which you are in this case. Read the text of the decision. It is more than clear.

            There is also Reid v. Colbert.

            1. It may not be a bum copy of the Constitution that’s misleading DB Benson.
              He could be going to the nearby law school in Moscow.
              As part of a Miscow -directed disinformation/ prankster operation, those Moscow law school professors may be just screwing with him, and giving him wild interpretations of what the constitution says.

            2. From the Justia link below:

              Controversy over Holmes’ language apparently led Justice Black in Reid v. Covert to deny that the difference in language of the Supremacy Clause with regard to statutes and with regard to treaties was relevant to the status of treaties as inferior to the Constitution.

              For emphasis . . . Reid v. Covert . . .

          2. Article VI

            2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

            For emphasis . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . .

            1. From the layout of the blog, I can’t tell who is answering who.

              Diane, Treaties are stronger than executive orders. The Constitution is stronger than treaties.

              “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land” unless they violate the Constitution.

              Do you think a treaty that does away with our first amendment rights would be the ultimate law in the US? To do so one would require an amendment to the Constitution.

      1. That statement is not correct.
        See Justia:
        “Constitutional limits on the power of treaties.”

        1. Justice Black in Reid v. Covert: “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in ‘pursuance’ of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.”

          1. “Justice Black in Reid v. Covert: “There is nothing in this language which… ”

            Diane, what is your point?

      2. Please cite where in the constitution it states that the terms of a Treaty supercede the constitution.

        The constitution is changed by amendment. Not Treaty.

        Further our founders never imagined treaties as a vehicle to alter US law.

        The scope of Treaties is foreign relations – NARROWLY CONSTRUED.

        This leftist garbage that we can take some phrase – like “general welfare” and convert it into a license of unlimited power is nonsense.

        Absolutely everything related to government and law MUST be construed as narrowly as possible.

        The rule of law – not man, requires that our understanding of law, the constitution, our treaties, …. all be as near univeral and non-conflicting as possible.
        That can not be accomplished if interpretation is flexable and broad.

        We have a public debate today about constitutional interpretation – specifically textualism and originalism vs. “living constitutionanlism”.
        The most important attribute of the “conservative” approach to constitutional interpretation is that when applied by different judges regardless of their personal views, it is highly likely to produce the same outcome, and when we do not like that outcome we are free to change the constitution or the law.

        I am fully prepared to consider any alternative theory of constitutional interpretation by the left that has the same attributes.
        In otherwords however we agree to understand the law, the constitution, we must do so in a fashion that has the highest odds of producing the same results for those on the left as the right – so long as they follow the rules, not their ideology.

        The means for any ideological group to acheive their objective is to change the law and the constitution.
        Not to bend its understanding.

  15. “While a few people “don’t even know where a point of entry is,” there are more than 300 of them found on all of the main roads leading into the country. In addition, while rising, filings for asylum are not “what most of these people are doing.” There were 408,870 illegal entries in 2016 and 303,910 in 2017. Asylum applications reached 116,000 in 2016. Moreover, the number of accepted asylees tends to run about 20,000 per year. Among those applying, a huge percentage never complete their paperwork and only around 20 percent of applications are granted.”

    I’d love to see how many asylum requests are being processed at the ports compared to how many people are turned away day after day and given no hope of ever filing a claim there? Reporting suggests the government is making it almost impossible to enter “legally” making almost all criminal.
    It is important to consider not only the conditions these people are fleeing from including threats of being murdered. But the United States role in creating those conditions.? It’s not as if our hands are clean.

    1. “It’s not as if our hands are clean.”

      The United States Government has the sole right to determine asylum claims. Additionally, most of those presently seeking asylum under international law should be doing so in the country adjacent to their own.

      Over the years the United States has been the most tolerant nation for those seeking political asylum.

      The ones that don’t have their hands clean are those that are subverting American law and that type of subversion almost always is from the left.

      1. Your first statement is correct in that the US has the sole right to determine to whom it will give asylum. You’re ignoring the fact that not processing more than a minimum amount of requests and turning the rest away is not quite the same thing.
        Your revisionist American history as to what caused the conditions in those countries is exactly the point. Start with Iran Contra and continue on.

        1. “You’re ignoring the fact that not processing more than a minimum amount of requests and turning the rest away is not quite the same thing.”

          The US has the right to determine how processing should occur. You are making your own rules up to suit your need of victimhood.

            1. The government is not making it impossible. There are many people from around the world that have waited for years for permission to live in the US. We have permitted those south of us to come in more easily than the rest of the world that seems mostly to accept our laws.

              1. You are conflating two different things, processing asylum requests vs immigration requests. The former is not impossible, almost impossible would be correct however. They have nothing to do with the people waiting for years to come to the US via immigration.

                1. Enigma, you are wrong. We have a separate agreement with Mexico. The asylum cases you talk about come from other nations. Those refugees have already crossed over their borders and can seek asylum in the nation they are now in.

                2. EIB – actually they are related.

                  There are laws regarding both, limits on both, limits overall, and changes in one can effect the other.

                  Regardless, there is no right to immigrate, and there is no right to asylum.

            2. “I’m saying you can’t make the case people aren’t coming in the right way when the government is making that impossible at the same time.”

              Government is not making it impossible to come to border crossing.

              You can come, you can claim asylum. It is highly unlikely you will get it, because not being happy with the country you came from is not a basis for asylum.
              Or you can cross where crossing is not permitted and hope you do not get caught.

              But the US government is not responsible for the choices that potential immigrants make.

              Your responses are written as if there is some presumption these people are going to be allowed to enter.
              Nearly all are not. We are just debating the process by which they are inevitably turned down.

              IF you do not like that – change the law.

              1. You apparently misunderstand what is happening at the ports of entry. You can come, wait in line for days and be denied the opportunity to file for asylum. Under the new Trump rules, under which many types of persecution are no longer considered, most of the few people that actually get to apply are turned down but at least they were processed. I’m speaking of those who never got the chance to apply.

                1. “You apparently misunderstand what is happening at the ports of entry. You can come, wait in line for days and be denied the opportunity to file for asylum. ”
                  So ? If you can not make a claim that meets the requirements for asylum, there is no reason to let you in.

                  Make up your mind – either you are for open borders, or you are not.
                  If you are for it – great, then we can have the discussion about how we are going to make the rest of our system work.

                  If not – then you have already accepted that showing up on our doorstep does not entitle you to be allowed in.
                  Nor are we going to give 750M people asylum hearings.

                  Yes, Trump has narrowed the basis for an asylum claim.

                  If you seek asylum the burden at each step is on you – not the government.
                  If you want an asylum request to be considered – then you better show up at Border Control with a claim that meets the requirements and sufficient evidence to belive your claim is credible.

                  1. “So ? If you can not make a claim that meets the requirements for asylum, there is no reason to let you in.”

                    You still aren’t getting it. They aren’t showing up with claims that the US finds unworthy. They are turned away without ever having the chance to make the claim. They weren’t rejected but instead ignored. Evidence makes no difference without the opportunity to present it.

                    1. “You still aren’t getting it. They aren’t showing up with claims that the US finds unworthy. They are turned away without ever having the chance to make the claim. They weren’t rejected but instead ignored. Evidence makes no difference without the opportunity to present it.”

                      No you are not getting it.

                      Are people with VISA’s and passport’s getting accross ?

                      If so then clearly they are NOT “ignoring” everyone.

                      You are presuming that having had the opportunity to make a claim – when they are asked for a VISA or Passport,
                      That they are entitled to more.

                      They either made no claim when their oportunity arrose, or they made it and were rejected.

                      Further you are presuming a right where one does nto exist.

                      Further you are ignoring the fact that people are getting VISA’s all the time.
                      Even some people asking for asylum are being admitted.

                      We are not dealing with a binary situation. The US has not quit issuing visas or quit granting any requests for asylum.

                      It is merely granting less than you would like, or rejecting claims you would not reject.
                      Those are reasons to change the law.

        2. You appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of moral hazard.

          When you incentivize bad behavior – particularly behavior whose costs will be born by others – you get more.

          Asylum requests spiked when Obama broadened the basis for asylum claims.

          Most coming to the US asking for asylum do not know what asylum is and do not qualify.
          They just heard that if you ask for asylum you might get let in.

          Regardless, this is all quite simple.

          750m people worldwide would like to come here.

          Tell me how many of those you are prepared to accept per year ?
          Then of the 750m who want to come what is your criteria for deciding who can come here and who can’t ?
          Of those who you will not accept – some are going to find another way in.
          What are you going to do about those ?

    2. God, Help us!

      Are we not already policemen of the world ?

      People – including those in other countries are responsible for their own choices.

      I as an example Oppose US drug laws. And often note their broad negative impacts in the US and the world.

      But our stupid drug laws do not make us morally or otherwise responsible for the choices of people elsewhere in the world to engage in violence, and lawlessness.

      Mexicans are responsible for Mexico. Columbians for Columbia.

      This leftist victimisation claptrap that somehow the desire of some americans for Marijuana, Cocaine, or opiates, makes the US responsible for the mess that is many other countries is garbage.

      I would guess that you want to blame the US for the failure of socialism in Venezuela and Cuba too ?

      I am not aware of the US government roaming the forests of south american planting Cocaine.

      You have managed to internationalize the post-modern culture of victimhood.
      Not only are those of use who are not female, gay, and black responsible for whatever ills befall those who are, by virtue of not being female, gay and black,
      but apparently we are now also responsible for every hellhole in the world – by virtue of not being a hellhole.

      I am sympathetic of anyone’s desire to come to the US, and inclined to accept most everyone who wishes to come here.

      But addmission to the US is a choice that US citizens get to make, through our government.
      It is not a right.
      Not is it earned by oppression or anything else.

      I think it is a good thing to allow those who face violence elsewhere to enter.
      I think it is a good thing for those who seek opportunity here to enter.
      I think it is a good thing for those who flea poverty elsewhere to enter.
      I think it is a good thing for those who bring skills to enter.
      I think it is a good thing for those who seek religious freedom to enter.
      I think it is a good thing for those who seek political freedom to enter.
      I think …..

      Accross the world there are about 750M people who would come to the US if they could.

      Wipe the slate clean, start from scratch, how many are you allowing to enter, who are you allowing to enter, and who are you saying no to ?
      And why ?

      I am tired of this leftist weepy garbage where you will fight for whatever group emotionally appeals to you at the moment, without any thought for how that will work out.

      Put simply – you are neither capable of saying “no” to anyone, nor capable of making the difficult choices necescary to construct a sustainable society and govenrment where you do not have to say no to anyone.

      1. Attacking me does not change the fact that the US created the Cartels and picked winners and losers among them, they have armed and continue to arm the cartels and gangs through our gun laws and the gun show loophole. WE created the conditions and you now want to turn a blind eye.

        1. The US government did NOT create the cartels.

          I will happily support the elimination of all drug laws. The DEA, the FDA, ..
          If you want to inject heroin – that is your business.

          But passing bad laws does not make the US morally responsible for the fact that people choose to violate them, nor that violent groups choose to help them.

          You have a very bizarre concept of morality and responsibility.

          As you are opposed to Trump does that make you morally culpable for those who shot several congressment ? Or assaulted people wearing MAGA hats ?

          1. “The US government did NOT create the cartels.”

            Like the Frankenstein monster, they may well have been unable to control their creations but the support of certain Cartels (and elimination of others) by out government begat what exists now.

            1. i do agree that the US foreign policy and war on drugs policy and covert law enforcement shenanigans like working with informants tends to pick winners and losers among gangs including the narcos

              I also suspect that gangs like zetas who were trained and armed by american anti narco dollar funded programs may in fact have had a carefully crafted opportunity to become a rival gang. i can’t prove that but i suspect it

              i don’t think there is any sense is blaming it on us gun laws that is ridiculous. yes people export guns to mexico but maybe if mexicans werent so defenseless under their repressive gun laws then the narcos would not have got so strong in the first place.

              an example of what i am talking about is Michoacan “autodefensas”

            2. “Like the Frankenstein monster, they may well have been unable to control their creations but the support of certain Cartels (and elimination of others) by out government begat what exists now.”

              Bad logic and word play.

              Semi conductor manufacturers did not create sand.

              But they have done things with sand that result in transistors and chips.

              Regardless, I am not looking to exonerate the government war on drugs.
              Just not blame it for ONE thing it did not do.

              If you want to argue that drug laws and the war on drugs transformed a market into something criminal and violent – I am fine with that.
              But demand creates the market.

                1. Nope.

                  You are responsible for your own choices, your wants and needs.

                  The “devil did not make you do it”, nor did the cartel.

                  Persuasion is not force – not in the purchase of houses, not in the purchase of drugs. Not in FB adds by Russians.

                  This is more left wing victimization garbage.

                  Own your life and your choices.

                  Whatever choices you make – no one else MADE YOU.

                  The fact that you do not like the options available to you does not mean you were forced or that someone else is responsible.

                  1. Dhlii – So many marketing companies (and the US government) will be disappointed to learn demand cannot be created. especially for drugs which are literally addicting. You aren’t denying the government’s role, you’re saying it didn’t matter and you’re wrong.

                    1. “So many marketing companies (and the US government) will be disappointed to learn demand cannot be created. especially for drugs which are literally addicting. ”

                      They already know this. Advertisers can not create demand where none exists. They can find demand no one was aware of. They can shift demand from long term to short term. They can shift demand from a competitiors product to their own.

                      But persuasion has limits. Look here – how hard is it for anyone here to change someone else’s mind ? It happends but it is very rare, and the person must b receptive.
                      That is shifting demand. not creating demand.

                      “You aren’t denying the government’s role, you’re saying it didn’t matter and you’re wrong.”

                      Can we cut this – you aren’t denying crap ?
                      IF someone does nto say something, it tells you NOTHING. A failure to deny something tells you nothing about what I beleive.

                      Governments actual legitimate role in the economy is to protect our rights – to provide the rule of law.
                      Anything beyond that is likely destructive and certainly inefficicient

                      Government can create demand – by force. PPACA created demand – badly. It required people to buy something they did not want to.

                      Government can also alter demand – shifting it. Buy subsidies. But that is a bad idea. It reduces the rise in standard of living.
                      If you like keeping people poor – let government subsidize things.

        2. The US government does pick winners and losers – all the time.
          Whatever power you give government, will be used to pick winners and losers.

          Join me in limiting government and we will have less of that.

        3. Not turning a blind eye to anything.

          Possibly the wisest thing that countries with Drug Cartells could do would be to fully legalize the production and sale of drugs.
          That would diminish the violence. Convert Drug War lLords into businessmen, and push all drug law enforcement problems back on the US.

  16. Should practice catch ‘n release. Not imprison them. And secure the damn borders already! Either we have a nation state or we don’t. Many many people benefit off open borders – construction industry, agri industry, restaurant/hospitality, etc. who hire these hard working desperate people for next to nothing and offer them 0 benefits. This is not a good situation for them or for us. Also the private prison industry is making bank as well.

  17. “As for asylum claims, they are not the majority of illegal entries but the numbers are clearly rising. [And your source for these numbers is? Surely one who writes journal articles can provide a source.] We are required under international law to consider such applications [Yes, and how are we doing this? Or, are we doing this?], but that does not mean that the entry was lawful [Nor does it mean detention without a timely hearing, separation of kids from parents in deplorable conditions is lawful either. Care to speak to that?] or that such cases cannot raise risks of criminal enforcement.” Right and it doesn’t mean it [the entry] was unlawful either.
    Now, to the main issue, WTF about reuniting the klids with their parents now–per court order? You still respect court orders, don’t you Professor?

    1. HW, about half of the little kids weren’t returned to their ‘parents’ because they weren’t their parents.

      And caring parents would never attempt to cross the border in such a haphazard way. They should have their kids taken away from them for the endangerment.

      1. Wow, judgmental, eh?
        And your source for the half who aren’t parents? Who? Hannity? Jones? Trump?
        As for endangerment, yes, being removed from their parents is endangering.

        1. Yeah, trying to drag your ‘family’ across uninhabitable land at the mercy of rapists and drug smugglers is considered by rational people, endangerment.

          1. Mike, Hollywood doesn’t give a damn about the children or American citizens. He is too involved with feeling good about himself rather than everyone around him.

      1. I detest when people quote scripture only when it is convenient. Bet you’re not pro-life or support marriage as being between a man and a woman.

          1. Sadly, all they’ve got is stuff like this, “So God created man in his own image,
            in the image of God he created him; rmale and female he created them.”
            And they say you can prove anything with the Bible.

            1. hollywood, thanks but no, one cannot “prove” everything with the Bible. The injunctions for Jews and Christians are clear.

    1. Turley wrote, “The greatest danger from such statements is not the risk of misleading viewers but misleading immigrants who take such statements as an accurate description of the law.”

      Really? Danger from statements? You don’t say? Surely Turley will propose a legal remedy for such “dangerous statements.” The fighting words doctrine, perhaps. No prior restraint there[?]. How can we allow The First Amendment to protect politicians who mislead immigrants with inaccurate descriptions of the law??? It’s so unfair. The whole purpose of Trump’s zero-tolerance, family-separation policy was, according to AG Sessions, to deter illegal border crossings. And now the President’s political opponents are undermining the deterrent effect of Trump’s policy with “dangerous statements” that “mislead immigrants” into crossing the border illegally by giving them “an [in]accurate description of the law” against misdemeanor illegal entry. Well, Turley, what are you going to do about these dangerous statements? Censor them? Arrest the speakers? How’s about staging a counter-protest against dangerous speech by your political opponents? You could demonstrate Mr. Smith’s principles of Honorable Civil Disobedience in the bargain. How ’bout it?

      1. I’m probably going about this the wrong way, but I read the JT columns and conclude what “Turley surely” wrote and meant.
        I could save myself the trouble by simply going to L4D’s reviews and analysis of the JT columns.
        But they tend to be as long as the colunms themselves, and “translate” what Turley actually said, or meant, or should have said or meant, into Spinsspeak.
        So I guess I’m just stuck with reading the words JT actually wrote.

        1. Besides, I counted about a dozen question marks in L4D’s latest review of JT’s column.
          That probably indicates uncertainty on L4D’s part about exactly what it is she’s trying to say.😉😃😀😂

          1. As I’m sure you know, Ptom, one of the perennial problems with free speech is the recurring utterance of “dangerous statements” either by one’s political opponents or by cracked pots in general. Surely you’ve encountered examples of both right here on Turley’s blawg. Theoretically, harsh negative criticism is the only Constitutionally permissible response to such “dangerous statements.” And that puts Turley in the position of the mythical Sisyphus condemned to roll the boulder of Criticism up a hill until it overwhelms him and rolls back down and the cycle renews in perpetuity. Poor Turley.

            1. OohKay, L4D,
              I’m not sure what column you read, or what you think was in this JT column.
              The main theme is that sloppy, careless, incorrect statements re immigration laws and status are unhealthy.
              It misleads those potentially entering our country, and causes confusion and uncertainty for those here in “limbo”.
              You can try to clumsily turn this into a “free speech issue”; that’s like saying if a lawyer gives you bad advice and better lawyer tells you that, that the better lawyer is somehow crimping “free speech” by pointing that out.
              On an more immediate “micro level”, you are obviously free to make all of the off-topic, incorrect irrelevant, and wildly inaccurate statements you like.
              So citing this blawg as in some way emblematic of “perennial free soeech problems” is ridiculous.

              1. What’s truly ridiculous, Gnash, is Turley finding fault with Trump’s political opponents for exercising their First Amendment rights in opposition to Trump’s zero-tolerance, family-separation policy. When is Turley going to find fault with Trump for prosecuting every last single misdemeanor illegal entry? Trump and Sessions and Nielsen create havoc and chaos with their policy. They haven’t a clue in this world how to fix the problem. Nor are they even interested in fixing the problem that they’ve created. And all Turley can think of to say on the subject is that the responsible, mature adults in the opposition party need to be more accurate in their descriptions of our immigration laws and stop uttering “dangerous statements.” Now that’s truly ridiculous.

                1. P. S. Reread the title of Turley’s original post for this thread:

                  “Perfectly Legal”: The Perilous Rhetoric of Immigration Politics

                2. L4D,…
                  I don’t mean to interrupt your daily columns that you post on your website here, which you allow JT to share.
                  There was a movie years back….didn’t see it, but it was heavily advertized with previews/trailers.
                  In “communicating” with you, one scene comes back to me.
                  The guy, evidently frustrated, sticks his face in the other guy’s face and shouts, somewhat slowly “DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT I AM SAYING TO YOU!”
                  I’m not going to spend hours trying to keep an exchange with you on track…..you are all over the place with topics that YOU set, and change, without regard to either the JT columns or an orderly, rational flow to exchanges.
                  If I responded in detail to your current comment here, then you’d probably move the goalposts again.
                  So it’s just a damn waste of time trying to have an on-topic, orderly, real exchange with you.
                  You’re about gamesmanship, and turning this website into L4D’s site for L4D’s columns, lectures, agendas, reviews,etc.
                  Have at it, but don’t expect everyone to play along with your games.

                3. “What’s truly ridiculous, Gnash, is Turley finding fault with Trump’s political opponents for exercising their First Amendment rights ”

                  Turley didn’t find fault with those people. He found fault with their knowledge of the law and how they twisted the law to suit their twisted purposes.

          1. I think L4D used to be slicker in her duplicity and obfuscation.
            In fairness, these Byzantine webs of deflecting, inventing, pyramids of speculation stacked on guesses and conjecture, restating and distorting the content of the columns and comments, etc.—— al if this has to be time-consuming and require practice and effort.
            So if her special talents in the above areas are eroding, it may just be fatigue.

      2. “Well, Turley, what are you going to do about these dangerous statements? Censor them?”

        That dangerous statements are made that cause harm to women and children doesn’t mean that those statements cannot be made.

Leave a Reply