TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Obama announces new "women and children first" immigration policy: freedom for undocumented women, jail for undocumented men.

AndrewLevin

July 24, 2015
1043 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/reyes-immigration-detention/index.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Obama announces new "women and children first" immigration policy: freedom for undocumented women, jail for undocumented men.
Author

AndrewLevin

Upvotes 1043
Comments 112
Date July 24, 2015 7:01 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3eh71t/obama_announces_new_women_and_children_first/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/obama-announces-new-women-and-children-first.974736
https://theredarchive.com/post/974736
Top posts by AndrewLevin

Female probation officer sexually assaults two detained boys (aka caged children). Word "rape" never used, of course.

4277 upvotes
September 30, 2017
/r/MensRights

"Delta passenger claims intoxicated woman groped him before flight" Show picture of victim but not perpetrator? Way to go ...

3157 upvotes
April 5, 2018
/r/MensRights

Viral video: Mom savagely beats 9yr old daughter for "crime" of talking to father. Father begged authorities to protect her from violent mom, but nobody cared (until he got video).

3104 upvotes
January 17, 2017
/r/MensRights

Hawaii proposes "A Feminist Economic Recovery Plan for COVID-19". Contains dozens of women only benefits, including a higher minimum wage (only for women) and better healthcare (only for women).

2902 upvotes
August 5, 2020
/r/MensRights

India executes only men since 1955. Woman hills 7 people (including children) and is sentenced to death. CNN blames patriarchy: "women who violate entrenched norms of gender behavior are more likely to receive the death penalty." If no woman has ever been executed, how do they conclude this?

2175 upvotes
April 26, 2021
/r/MensRights

Just a reminder that governments have always controlled men using their instinct to protect women

1944 upvotes
February 18, 2021
/r/MensRights

"Female physics teacher, 29, accused of sex romp with teen boy student" -- Can you imagine a male raping a child being called a "romp"?

1835 upvotes
April 28, 2018
/r/MensRights

New Covid19 stimulus bill has 15 women-only provisions, ZERO men-only provisions. For example, grants to help small businesses "shall prioritize awarding grants to eligible entities that are small business concerns owned controlled by women."

1738 upvotes
February 21, 2021
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Tedesche 91 points92 points93 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What's really depressing is that none of the articles talking about this give anything but lip service to the inherent sexism in the policy, and then go on to talk about immigration reform in general. Literally no mention of fathers at all.

We've got a long way to go before the public at large is going to wake up and realize that men are more persecuted than women systemically in this day and age.

[–]soalone34 57 points58 points59 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Men are simply less than women. It's insane how hard it is for the average person to empathize with a male issue.

[–]jvardrake 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not just that, though. It's the fact that women/feminists/"our seemingly innate biological drive to give women whatever they ask for" allows an already biased system to be even further biased against us, that is so frustrating.

Seriously. No matter how obvious it is that women are the ones that receive preferential treatment/status almost everywhere in the western world, not only to people refuse to believe that, they are also so easily manipulated into actually wanting YOU to feel some sort of deep sense of shame, for some imaginary "privilege" you don't even fucking have!

This way in which they are able to maintain their "true victim" status makes their position feel near unassailable. It's maddening. It makes it so easy to feel, "This is so hopeless. Why do we even bother?"

[–]soalone34 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For most of human history men were naturally expected to fight wars, hunt, take risks etc. While "weak" women had to stay in the house and weren't trusted with responsibility. There were downsides to this but there was also an innate respect for both genders, women were generally "above" men in safety priority, while men were the respected "provider". As civilization grows and getting food for the family is no longer dangerous women naturally want to break their bonds and have personal autonomy, and rightly so. But we see an issue now of the inherent "respect" women have to be priorities for safety and societal importance is still here despite the gains to female autonomy. Feminism is failing to address any irregularity in which women are advantaged, or at least do not address it to the same extant as irregularities where women are disadvantaged. Talk to a random person about men's rights, they'll laugh at you. Show them a woman punching a man, it's funny. This is the residue of our ancient state.

[–]expert02 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"All men are created equal, but women are created better" - Unabridged version of the US Constitution, apparently.

[–]Pathfinder24 221 points222 points223 points 11 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

Obama has already touted the 77% wage myth. Its clear he has pedestalized women like so many other Americans.

[–]john2kxx 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well if you thought you were racist for disagreeing with Obama, wait until you disagree with Hillary, you sexist.

[–]The_Deaf_One 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We're all already bramded as sexist and racists.

[–]MR_Movement 44 points45 points46 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I have made Men's rights my number one priority with voting. Abortion rights, immigration, civil rights, etc. can all take a back seat to men in America getting shared custody at the very least.

It will be 26 years since we have had a president with a son. For 26 years we will have had presidents that have been worried about the future of their daughters and they have acted accordingly. We need to vote for presidents with sons.

[–]rottingchrist 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have made Men's rights my number one priority with voting. Abortion rights, immigration, civil rights, etc. can all take a back seat to men in America getting shared custody at the very least.

This is a good thing and it is how women vote. Economics, war and bad foreign policy take a back seat to women's issues. We should learn. Men should consider their own issues to be of paramount importance.

[–]GreasedLightning 83 points84 points85 points 11 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

Stop making me regret my vote please. It's painful enough. Look, I was young, dumb, and just wanted to use the poll.
The stupidity from this man is palpable. I'd like him to fuck off and stow that generic "The American people were right" bullshit too, now that his second term's end is around the corner.

[–]Sketchy_Uncle 49 points50 points51 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well and its not like the alternatives are the best shining examples of reasonable thought either. I'm a whopping 32 years old but man, the more I dissect the people running for offices, I'm baffled that this is what has simmered to the 'top'.

[–]jimbolauski 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obama didn't simmer to the top he was artificially elevated and any criticism was cast as racism.

[–]noprotein -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Green Party still felt like a great honest vote to me for a great candidate. We gotta get more groups and people acknowledged and allowed to run.

[–]trthorson 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're allowed to run. They do run. What needs to change is the voting system - FPTP will over time always result in 2 parties due primarily to the spoiler effect.

[–]Sketchy_Uncle 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree.

[–]ziekktx 25 points26 points27 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't blame me, I voted for President Business.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same. Everything would have been so awesome........

[–]JayBopara 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You want Hillary Clinton instead?

[–]GreasedLightning 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fuck no? Made my mind up about her after: "Women have always been the primary victims of war."

[–]JayBopara 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly.

[–]Thanos821 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

If you think Mccain or Romney would be better your crazy. But hes still been a let down.

[–]FreeBroccoli 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

McCain and Romney wouldn't have been able to get away with nearly as much as Obama did.

[–]marswithrings 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They would have screwed things up in very different ways.

For example, Obama was able to appoint at least one (maybe two? memory fails) SCOTUS justices. Chances are extremely high if Romney or McCain were president for that appointment, the SCOTUS would not have ruled in favor of gay marriage.

[–]Sterling__Archer_ 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Depends. If he would have appointed 2 conservatives then probably not, 2 moderates then it probably still would have passed.

(or whatever number)

[–]marswithrings 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

...You think Romney or McCain would have appointed moderates?

And at that, are you sure it would have passed? The vote was 5-4 as is, a single justice would have swung that the other way.

[–]wanderer779 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are both considered fairly moderate aren't they? I mean Romney passed a health care bill similar to obamacare. McCain was against a lot of the civil rights abuses that took place during the war on terror and has recently teamed up with Warren to bring back glass-steagall.

I don't know what these guys would have done but it's not like they're Ron Paul or something

[–]anonlymouse 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

McCain yes.

[–]Sterling__Archer_ 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We dont know therefore we cant say for certain..

unless you have a video of romney saying who he would appoint then theres no real room to talk here.

[–]Thanos821 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Like repealing dont ask dont tell, obomacare, the two supreme court noms, tons of money into clean energy ,the stimulus that helped stop the bleeding, opening up cuba, the iran deal, and not getting us into a ground war in syria. All things a republican admin wouldnt have done. Im not saying Obama was great the tpp not enough reform or much at all of the nsa to cozy with wall street. But in all those areas republicans would be as bad or worse.

[–]FreeBroccoli 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

All of the areas in which Obama was bad, he got away with as much as he did because he is able to present himself as sympathetic. If Romney or McCain has even started to think about doing what Obama did in Syria or Lybia, they would have faced intense opposition; same deal with anything involving the NSA.

And while I'm against stimulus spending, I doubt a Republican would have shied away from it. At the most, the money would have just gone to different places, and the media would have been more critical of it.

[–]Zoenboen -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All of the areas in which Obama was bad, he got away with as much as he did because he is able to present himself as sympathetic. If Romney or McCain has even started to think about doing what Obama did in Syria or Lybia, they would have faced intense opposition; same deal with anything involving the NSA.

McCain in particular would have already started a ground war in Iran. He's a certified warmongering profiteer.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, there's a good chunk of the country who views things differently. Many of those things you view as positives, many feel are taking us in a wrong direction.

  • Obamacare: Long term, we'll see but there's a lot of people who disagree with it for many valid reasons.
  • Iran Deal: Far from a historic achievement, at most (and hopefully) it will delay Iran's nuclear ambitions a little longer. This will allow a deepening of the ongoing regional arms race, and has set Iran's opposition movements back to square one. The only people who come out ahead in this is Iran's military and its regional ambitions.
  • Syria/Iraq is the elephant in the room. The country (Syria) is becoming the next Somalia, and will never recover from this. Obama's handling both diplomatically and militarily has been abysmal. How many red lines have we crossed now? We've effectively condoned use of chemical weapons and crimes against humanity. There's absolutely no leadership here and it's set a precedence that's already had severe consequences far from just regional. It doesn't require boots on the ground but it does require a leader. Don't set red lines, or make promises unless you're willing to stick to them.

  • Reality is, we don't know how a Republican president would handle things, and both Mccain's and Romney's track record showed they were far from some sort of extreme right wing. Mccain has a long history of reaching across the aisle to compromise. Obama's goal from the outset was to be focused on domestic policies. This came at a time when the world had some major upheavals that needed a statesmen with strong diplomatic skills. While I agree with Obama on some things, his strongest skillsets has been to create division and uncertainty both with domestic and foreign policy. History will be the best judge though, and I hope it judges forgivingly.

As an addendum, some things are outside of Obama's immediate control, however, because he's the POTUS and chooses who runs many aspects of the government, the blame is often still on his shoulders. This goes for any President, regardless of party, and is the cost of being a leader.

Some failures:

  • Government takeover of healthcare was horribly managed and overseen.

  • The inability to be consistent with policies and openness with press/American people. This goes along with the failure to have clear goals and ensuring subordinates do not overreach. (ex. Red line remarks, Kerry's comments about Syria's chemical weapons.)

  • The IRS targeting political opponents and the failure to realize the seriousness of the transgression, regardless of who it was.

  • Failure to maintain border security and actually making the problem worse.

  • Failure to ensure support for secular groups during the Arab Spring, while allowing extremists to be fully funded and backed.

  • Creating division by interjecting into local situations where the POTUS has no business. It has only led to further divides between people.

  • Failure to realize the seriousness of Russia's goals, movements and willingness to use power.

  • Allowing our enemies to fill the voids left by our pivot towards domestic policies.

  • Failure to guide meaningful economic recovery, further reduction of the middle class and increase in American's who are government dependents for financial assistance.

[–]Zoenboen 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Red lines, plural? The evidence Assad actually used chemical weapons is itself suspect.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It was confirmed by the U.N. investigation. Link to our intelligence assessment that's detailed.

By this point, in all honesty, it would appear both sides have used chemical weapons (Syria's government used Sarin, Chlorine on both sides.) The simple fact is, Syria had chemical weapons, the country entered a civil war, and they were used by both sides. This does not include the SA's use of barrel bombs etc. We had no plan if it actually happened, and we got lucky solely because Kerry also made an off the cuff remark about Russia. Long term it only lessened our credibility in the region, and boosted Russia's, which while immediately it may seem good, it does not bode well for the future.

The fact is, if you're going to say "If you do X, I'll do Y" and then don't, it sets a really bad precedent. Similarly, the Cuban missile crisis. We set a red line, and were willing to go to war if that line was crossed. Thankfully it wasn't, but when you say something like that, you have to stick to it or you lose all credibility, especially when said from a leadership position.

It only served to bolster our enemies and create distrust with our allies. When it comes to international politics, your words have to have meaning.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are gonna love Hillary

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Shame on you for being an idiot. At least you admit it.

[–]GoldenGonzo -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You're telling me McCain or Romney would have done better? That is fucking laughable.

[–]iSuggestViolence 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

there's always third party/independent candidates...

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]jimbolauski 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The difference between republicans and democrats is that the media holds republicans accountable. That alone would make even someone as awful as trump a better option.

[–]NewLifex -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What's laughable is the fact that you believe in American Politics and Voting. It's all a sham. Your vote doesn't count. It's been shown time and again that voting machines can be and are manipulated. And even if that wasn't "true" , have you actually looked at how many multi-billion dollar corporations "donate" to political campaigns? You're post is fucking laughable.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]anecdotal 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"Reddit" doesn't regret shit. The same shit is happening with Bernie Sanders. The Great Socialist Hope!

I see people saying, "Yeah, I got burned on Obama, but Bernie Sanders seems like the real deal!" It hurts.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]anecdotal 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I would leave, but I'm too addicted. It's not so bad if you keep your subs non-political, non-religious and relevant to your interests. Besides, I think reddit probably represents people who are smarter than average, which is extremely scary. People on reddit are bad, but outside of reddit, people think Donald Trump would be a good President. We should really leave this planet.

[–]Sterling__Archer_ 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think reddit probably represents people who are smarter than average,

HAHAHAHAHAH

[–]Canadian_Infidel 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't feel bad. It's not like you really had a choice.

[–]GreasedLightning 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.

[–]perverted_alt 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

He's buying votes.

b u y i n g....votes.

Women vote Democrat at a much higher rate than men. Much higher.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He cant run for president anymore.. It's his second term.

Who is he buying the votes for?

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Democrats this coming election.

[–]perverted_alt 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Other democrats that continue to funnel money and power to him and his friends...and maybe his wife.

Have you ever heard of the Clintons? lol

[–]tyrextyvek 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://i.imgur.com/iCiiFS8h.jpg

[–]BruceCampbell123 115 points116 points117 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Here's the biggest problem with this. Most immigration in America is from Mexico. In Mexican culture, traditionally, the women prefer to stay at home and take care of the kids. Meanwhile the men go out, make money and support the family. This policy will lead to more women and children immigrants, and less males. Who's going to support the women and children? This will only lead to more people being dependent on welfare to survive.

[–]perverted_alt 58 points59 points60 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

THAT'S THE PLAN STAN!

Minorities vote D.

Women vote D.

People on government subsidies vote D.

Lets get as many new female minorities on welfare as citizens as possible. I wonder what effect that will have on our politics? Hmmm?

[–]Sterling__Archer_ 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

People are too worried about their political party winning than the overall good of the country. It's absolutely stupid.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ziekktx 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, they won't. They'll be on every possible welfare, from food to utilities, rent, phone and straight up cash.

[–]perverted_alt 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And voting Democrat like good little subjects.

[–]fshifty 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Alot of people fail to recognize that Mexicans tend to be very conservative. They are very religious people and most of them are anti gay. It's interesting because the left goes crazy for lax immigration policy.

[–]dgillz 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But they still vote democrats into office.

[–]perverted_alt -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are also strongly pro-life.

Doesn't matter. They all vote Democrat.

I guess if someone is screaming "The other guy is raaacccisssst!" in your face enough you start to believe them :-/

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In the interest of pure accuracy, not all people crossing the southern border are Mexican. There are also other central and south Americans, as well as those who came overseas then came northward.

[–]mansplain 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

right, but over-simplifying the issue makes it easier to demonize people as racists for wanting a secure border.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's also the males who commit the crimes though.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]rottingchrist 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There were suffragettes on the Titanic and they happily took advantage of the women (and perhaps a few children) first policy and made it off alive.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]noprotein 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Any source would be awesome for that.

[–]xynomaster 43 points44 points45 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Does this violate "equal protection under the law"?

[–]DaneWhitman 27 points28 points29 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wonder about this myself. The Supreme Court has actually upheld sex-discriminatory laws around immigration in the past.

Nguyen v. United States

Flores-Villar v. United States

These cases specifically dealt with whether it was constitutional to place greater restrictions on the children of U.S. citizen fathers attempting to become naturalized, than on the children of U.S. citizen mothers. In the first case, from 2001, the discriminatory law was upheld on a 5-4 vote. In the second, from 2011, it was upheld on a 4-4 vote (when there is a tie vote on the court, it affirms the lower court ruling). It's worth noting that in the second case, if Justice Kagan hadn't had to recuse herself (she had been solicitor general during earlier litigation on the case), the law would likely have been overturned on a 5-4 vote.

I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that the government would have a harder time making the case that there is an important government interest in exempting female, but not male, illegal immigrants from detention. I guess they could make the case that there is an important interest in keeping parents with their children, but then it seems it would be difficult to pass the 'substantially related' part of the test, as fathers would still be detained while childless women would not be.

I really wish there was a lawyer who could give a better answer, as it seems like this would be an equal protection violation. I'm in over my head here.

[–]KRosen333 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, thank you for writing this up. :)

[–]Kestyr 39 points40 points41 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Literally encouraging anchor babies with shit like this.

[–]perverted_alt 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course. They are all democrat voters in waiting. The motivations behind this kind of stuff are obvious.

Women already vote democrat more than men. Minorities already vote Democrat by a wide margin. People on government assistance mostly vote Democrat.

So, if you were a Democrat, and you wanted to grow your dedicated voting base, what would be your TOP priority to get? More female immigrants on welfare. Boom. Done. Voters.

EDIT: First gold ever in any account. Thanks.

[–]LuvBeer 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lifehack: when arrested for crossing the border, say that you "identify" as a woman. Bonus points for suing for special accommodation.

[–]Swiggy 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't let this guy fool you. Anything sort of giving all these women amnesty is his goal. They want their court dates to drag on for years and then if they disappear when they get their removal orders, "We can't deport mothers of U.S. citizens! They have deep roots in the community!"

They even complain about the ankle bracelets.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/ice-is-fitting-immigrant-mothers-with-ankle-monitors-when-they-arrive-in-new-york-6662610

[–]lackofagoodname 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Lol I love the whole jail for being illegal thing.

"What?! You're here illegally? Well go to our jails, where you're given food and shelter by the taxpayers. I hope you learn your lesson not to come to America illegally."

[–]FreeBroccoli 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"You committed a victimless crime? Better send you to jail so you can learn to commit actual crimes."

[–]Kestyr 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Illegal immigration is by all means not a victimless crime. Demographic changes in quick succession majorly fuck an area beyond repair. This doesn't apply strictly to Mexicans, but of all races.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or perhaps even become the victim of a crime yourself while in our custody! That'll show ya.

[–]substance_dualism 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Remember that the main reason the US has so much illegal immigration is that large companies and industries want cheap labor.

Investors and "big capital" have an interest in depressing wages and creating "job insecurity" (Wall Street lobbyists have literally gone before congress and told them that the economy would be better if people didn't feel secure in their employment because they would work harder for less money), and steady immigration is the easiest way for them to do that.

When you look at sweatshops, especially those in Asia, a popular strategy is to employ only women because they are considered easier to manage and exploit than men, so it is unsurprising that a policy like this would get through--men are marginalized by the powers that be because of the expectation that they will be less compliant with exploitation.

In a way, this mirrors the way the education system has marginalized young boys, who are considered more "difficult" to manage.

[–]Moimoi328 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Oh please, stop with your anti-capitalist tripe. Study supply and demand for labor.

The main reason illegal immigration exists is because there is supply and demand for unskilled labor at prices below minimum wage. The government makes it illegal for willing laborers and employers to enter in to employment agreements at sub-minimum wage. So all those laborers have to (willingly) work under the table.

You can't legislate away the fact that despite high levels of mechanization, farming margins aren't good enough to employ strawberry pickers at minimum wage. Government can interfere all they want, it will never change that fact. The value of an unskilled strawberry picker simply isn't worth minimum wage - value is governed by the supply and demand for strawberry pickers, not government policy.

When you look at sweatshops, especially those in Asia, a popular strategy is to employ only women because they are considered easier to manage and exploit than men, so it is unsurprising that a policy like this would get through

Citation needed. Companies find millions of WILLING employees, both men and women, to work in what you would call a sweatshop. Again, wages set by supply and demand. The alternative for many of these people might be subsistence farming. The factory job is the first step towards a more prosperous society. The US went through the exact same process in the late 19th / early 20th century.

Also, if you paid attention to labor markets in China, for example - wages are rising very rapidly as the demand for labor outstrips supply. Just as it occurred in the US in the early 20th century.

[–]Swiggy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So all those laborers have to (willingly) work under the table.

Because they come from some of the poorest countries in the hemisphere. Our workers shouldn't have to compete in a labor market flooded with 3rd world workers.

[–]Moimoi328 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Our workers shouldn't have to compete in a labor market flooded with 3rd world workers.

Why?

[–]Swiggy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because our workers are our citizens and legal residents and as such our laws should help provide them with a work environment with 1st world standards.

[–]substance_dualism 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

anti-capitalist tripe

sub-minimum wage

WILLING employees

what you would call a sweatshop

I don't think it will be productive for us to argue our economic philosophies here, so to bring this back on topic, what what is the libertarian MRA read on this, then?

[–]Moimoi328 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We need to stop treating people as if they are part of some group or class. There are no groups. There is no class. All of our rights are individual rights. All people should be treated equally, as individuals, with no distinction or privileges associated with any particular group.

It shouldn't matter if you are religious or not. Male or female. Black or white. Disabled or not. Parents or not. Old or young. Immigrant or not. Everybody gets treated exactly the same way.

When we stop treating people as part of a group, and as individuals, MR advocacy becomes irrelevant. True equality is what everyone should aspire to. That can't happen until groups and groupthink is abandoned completely.

Think about it.

[–]substance_dualism 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Although I'm for individual rights, you just expressed them as platitudes and generalities. Saying you are for individual rights is close to meaningless outside of a real world context to apply those rights to, such as the article this thread is about.

[–]Swiggy 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These methods have proved effective as well. In 2013, one pilot program testing such alternatives reported a 99% appearance rate at immigration court hearings among participants, and 79% compliance rate for removal orders.

79% compliance is a success story?

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]CivilEntgineer 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, I used to love being chivalrous and a gentleman.

But what's the point anymore? Women don't respect men so why should men respect women?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

this sound like a "breeding grounds" type of policy. "take their women and leave their men in the wild!" thanks obama for borrowing policies from the middle ages.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Darth_Sin 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obama is a white knighting mangina.

[–]Deefry 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Snapshot.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Illegal* not undocumented. They came to our country ILLEGALLY. They are by government language ILLEGAL

[–]Macismyname 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yay, openly sexist laws, I love it.

[–]pnw_diver 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a ridiculous double standard. Jail and incarceration should be gender-blind period.

[–]ItFinallyHappened_ 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All illegals should be sent back once in custody, anchor babies should no longer get automatic citizenship in order to stop birth tourism, and the ones already here should be denied access to any and all government services, and employers of illegals should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice

[–]ItFinallyHappened_ 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Amnesty has been the number #1 job killer for working class males in this country for the better part of two decades.

[–]3rdLevelRogue 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it ok that I reposted this /r/news?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchy hurts men too. Or something.

[–]WhoIsHarlequin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They should all be sent back

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks Obama.

[–]questionnmark 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

An alternative view: 'We need the women as breeders, and we want their children as future workers, but we don't need the men'.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Rawpick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is the American way! Fuck the American way is the most cuntish way possible

[+]Cannon0006 -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So can we start by jailing him?

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter