Immigrant Allegedly Killed Woman's Son While Driving Drunk, Somehow Illegal Immigration Is the Issue

Maureen Maloney, the mother of 23-year-old Matthew Denice, is understandably traumatized by her son's violent, preventable death last August. But instead of focusing on ways to prevent drunk driving, or get punishment handed down on Nicolas Dutan Guaman —the man who allegedly ran a stop sign, then hit Denice with his pickup truck, dragging the motorcyclist for a quarter of a mile, thereby killing him — Maloney wants to do something about illegal immigration; because Guaman is an illegal immigrant from Ecuador. 

According the Boston Herald, before a bipartisan committee of Massachusetts legislators, Maloney spoke in support of:

Two bills (S 2061 / H 3913) that would stiffen penalties for driving without a license, punish landlords who rent to undocumented residents, require drivers to present a Social Security number or tax ID number to register a vehicle, and would require the [Massachusetts Gov. Deval] Patrick administration to report on its efforts to join a federal program intended to identify and deport illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes.

There's lots to untangle there — for example, deporting illegal immigrants who commit "serious" crimes (let's hope that just means violent, but it really never does) isn't the most objectionable idea. Driving without a license is potentially dangerous (anecdotal refutation: my unnamed friend drives really well because if the cops ever pulled him over they might notice he hasn't had a license in ten years! Incentives, etc.) so there's that fairly reasonable suggestion to punish (if not necessarily deport) people who drive without licenses. But what do either of those issues have to do with landlords who dare to rent to undocumented immigrants? And why should they be obligated to think about immigration status at all?

And what does the tragic death of Matthew Denice have to do with anything except Guaman running a stop-sign while driving drunk and the myriad other crimes with which he is charged? 

But Maloney, as quoted by the Boston Herald, really does think her son's death has something to do with her state's lax enforcement of immigration laws:

"My son paid the ultimate price with his life because Massachusetts is a safe haven for illegal immigrants,” Maloney told members of the Judiciary Committee. “The real question I ask is, Why would illegal immigrants not come to Massachusetts when we are so willing to provide them with jobs and free services they could not get in their native countries?”

Her loss is terrible, but it should have no relevance to whether Massachusetts passes this immigration law. The backers of the bill are stressing the increased penalties for unlicensed driving, but they also admit that the death of Denice is part of the motivation.

But equating Guaman's killer recklessness with proof that illegal immigrants are inherently dangerous is as foolish as Arizona passing their controversial "papers, please" bill in response to an illegal immigrant murdering someone. Which (to some extent) they did, noted Cato's Daniel Griswold in May 2010. He also wrote the the problem with illegal immigration crack-downs is that:

Absent real reforms, ramped up enforcement will only drive illegal workers deeper underground, raise smuggling fees, and divert law enforcement resources away from apprehending real criminals who truly do threaten public safely.

Authorities dropped the ball and if they had deported Guaman for his past criminal record, yes, Matthew Denice might still be alive. But cracking down on non-violent illegal immigrants isn't the way to fix this, nor is demanding more oversight and accountability from a clearly broken immigration system. 

In Reason's June 2011 issue, contributor Michael Tracey noted that "Dead Kids Make Bad Laws" and former Reasonoid Radley Balko has often reported on the same, most notably in July, post-Casey Anthony-trial hysteria with his very sensible "Why Caylee's Law is a Bad Idea" response. Also check out Reason on illegal immigration, including Steve Chapman on how illegal immigrants aren't anything scary.

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

  • Lib-Chat!||

    Now this is news! Distraught, irrational mother supports dumb legislation. Was she also a soccer mom? That would be the icing on the cake.

  • But on the other hand...||

    The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration
    Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Traffic Accidents
    www.usillegalaliens.com/impact.....dents.html

  • kbolino||

    And as we all, citizens are such bang-up drivers.

  • kbolino||

    Know, goddammit. As we all know.
    I even use the preview button. No excuse.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Driving without a license is potentially dangerous...

    Government paper makes everything safer.

    If they want to do something useful, make it illegal to craft a law born out of tragedy. Tears and legislation don't mix.

  • Joe M||

    I'm surprised the bills haven't already been renamed "Matthew's Law".

  • Paul||

    Government paper makes everything safer.

    Gay people are about to find this out!

  • SIV||

    my unnamed friend drives really well because if the cops ever pulled him over they might notice he hasn't had a licence in ten years!

    One of them "sovereign citizens" Homeland Security keeps waring us about?

  • Sovereign City-zun = oxymoron||

    People in City-Statism (civilization) are never sovereign; only Non-State societies are composed of autonomous and sovereign people.

    "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders. Nor are they routinely exploited by outsiders."

    ~Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.

    NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
    http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper.....ieties.pdf

  • Joe R.||

    Licence?

  • Paul||

    To ill.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Well, it does make you [sic].

  • rho||

    If you're killed by somebody who's not supposed to be here, you can either be angry at 1) illegal immigration, or; 2) time travel.

  • But on the other hand...||

    Hispanics in crashes lead DWI stats
    By Ken Little
    Staff Writer

    Hispanic drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes are more likely to be intoxicated than members of other ethnic and racial groups, according to statistics compiled by state researchers...

    www.starnewsonline.com/apps/pb.....20415/1004

  • Hidden Bek||

    Not just that (the link you posted) but there IS actually a cultural issue with those cats and drinking and driving, as well as just generally poor driving. It's become a running joke across the country that if you get into an accident and the other person doesn't have insurance to just say, "not from around here?"

    We have illegal Chinese, Russians and maybe Indians? too but you don't see them constantly wrecking other people's cars and lives like that woman who killed those kids in Minnesota on the bus.

    These people can't drive or refuse to learn how to and even when they do, get toasted behind the wheel.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    So Hispanic equals illegal immigrant?

  • Hidden Bek||

    Not generally, no, but often times in these murder/DWI/uninsured driver stories it does. I don't make reality, I just observe it. One thing I don't like about a lot of us is that we are selective with our un-PCness.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Well if we're going full throttle in our un-PCness, In my experience, I'd get in a drunk Hispanic's car before I'd get into a sober Chinese's car.

    So I still don't agree. :)

    Jus' sayin'

  • Legendary Teabagger Vance||

    Reminds me of the joke...

    How do you know when asians are moving into your neighborhood?

    All the mexicans get car insurance.

  • Hidden Bek||

    That's a pretty good one.

  • SIV||

    There's lots to untangle there — for example, deporting illegal immigrants who commit "serious" crimes (let's hope that just means violent, but drug crimes tend to be placed under that banner) isn't the most objectionable idea.

    You find something objectionable about deporting thieves, Lucy?

  • rho||

    I never get the libertarian opposition to enforcing immigration laws. Freedom of association is a fundamental libertarian right, and a nation is, basically, freedom of association based on national borders.

  • Gojira||

    ...and a nation is, basically, freedom of association based on national borders.

    Because the collective you're born into doesn't get to override your right to freedom of association.

  • Hidden Bek||

    You're right. If three billion Chinese and Indians want to move to France, they should be able to. Fuck the French and their right to exist, right?

  • HeroicMulatto||

    So France's "right to exist" equals no brown/yellow people?

  • Hidden Bek||

    If they wish it so? Why are brown/yellow nations allowed to preserve their nations/identities but white or whatever other color people not?

    And you didn't answer the question. Is there an unlimited right of immigration into a country. Would you really think it a good idea for Japan to let in, oh, say 40 million Russians or Arabs?

    Culture matters, that's what built the West, it's what built the very institutions and practices that we celebrate here on Reason. Without that, you don't GET those things you try to defend.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Sorry Charlie, nation-states are arbitrary.

  • Brandon||

    That's some fantastic question-begging there, Bek.

  • Gojira||

    Would you really think it a good idea for Japan to let in, oh, say 40 million Russians or Arabs?

    Actually that probably is an idea they might want to consider.

  • ||

    I agree with Hidden Bek. This is a blind spot of purist libertarians. They see nothing wrong in theory with (to pick a trollish example) a billion Muslims moving to the US. And hey, if they become citizens, and vote to have a Constitutional convention to install a Sharia government, well, that's just the breaks.

    In reality, the importation of tens of millions of Third World peasants into our "multicultural" welfare state is going to empower the left, make us go bankrupt quicker, and set back the cause of libertarianism. But the purists will talk about "freedom of association."

  • MWG||

    A bankrupt US may not be all that bad for libertarians given the fact the government would not longer have money for 'un-libertarian' type programs.

  • SIV||

    Hutus killed Tutsis with hatchets in a government program that cost little more than the electricity to run the radio broadcasts. Plus a little more for paper and ink for the broadsides and handbills.

  • Maxxx||

    A bankrupt US may not be all that bad for libertarians given the fact the government would not longer have money for 'un-libertarian' type programs.

    Why is this ultimate bullshit so popular with libertarians? Bankrupt nations don't get all an-cap. They get violent dictatorships that kill large parts of their population. See Russian Civil War, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia etc.

  • ||

    Why is it, if a bunch of brown/yellow folks want to move into someone else's country without permission that's 'freedom of association', but if a bunch of white folks want to move into someone else's country without their permission it's an 'invasion' or 'imperialism'?

  • ||

    Because the collective you're born into doesn't get to override your right to freedom of association.

    How does being given free membership override anything? Does the US prevent emigration? It gives free membership to an association which one can leave at any time.

  • Gojira||

    A lot of people on here have never tried to go through the process of getting residency/citizenship in another country. It's not as easy as many of you think.

    That's just a refined version of the "if you don't like it, leave!" argument, which is bullshit because it's based on implicit consent ("since you haven't left, that means you're tacitly agreeing to the gov't getting to do whatever it wants to you").

  • HeroicMulatto||

    That's just a refined version of the "if you don't like it, leave!" argument, which is bullshit because it's based on implicit consent ("since you haven't left, that means you're tacitly agreeing to the gov't getting to do whatever it wants to you").

    As an aside, that's the same exact logic in-reverse that Socrates used in justifying why he didn't flee Athens when sentence to drink the hemlock.

  • ||

    A lot of people on here have never tried to go through the process of getting residency/citizenship in another country. It's not as easy as many of you think.

    I have not personally but I have family members who have. What does this have to do with freedom of association?

    That's just a refined version of the "if you don't like it, leave!" argument, ...("since you haven't left, that means you're tacitly agreeing to the gov't getting to do whatever it wants to you").

    No, like any free association, I can weigh the positives with the negatives and decide to remain where I am or, yes, science forbid, leave.

    I also use the same argument with regard to employment, marriage, and most other free choices. If you do not like the arrangement, end it.

  • ||

    I am not saying that change from within is wrong, either. The Libertarian Party being a good example. When they nominated Bob Barr for President, some decided it was too much. Others decided they would hold their noses. Why is citizenship any different than any other free association?

  • Gojira||

    Why is citizenship any different than any other free association?

    For a few reasons.

    B/c it's conferred involuntarily at birth and is extremely difficult to get rid of. Think of that story on here a few days ago where some guy was being interrogated by the cops for like 5 hours, and repeatedly said he didn't want to talk to them, but since he was technically free to go back to his cell, it didn't count as an "interrogation" (never mind the two armed men in the room questioning him). If the conditions for leaving are particularly onerous, it isn't a "free" association.

    Second, is that everyplace else is worse. That doesn't excuse things from being bad here. I can simultaneously hate some policy in America, while still preferring it to say, France. That's where "change from within" comes in. Which is what I'm doing when I try to convince people to embrace open borders.

  • Maxxx||

    Second, is that everyplace else is worse.

    Which is why we need to import the people and attitudes that make everyplace else worse.

    Oh wait.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    A lot of people on here have never tried to go through the process of getting residency/citizenship in another country. It's not as easy as many of you think.

    I can get residency in Ecuador by buying a condo or house.

  • ||

    Quite the opposite, actually.

    Restricting free migration is, basically, the abrogation of the freedom of association of both migrants and those residents who want to associate with them.

  • rho||

    I'll make a deal with you. I'll accept free migration of all citizens from all nations that participate in a 1:1 reciprocity in immigrant affairs with the U.S.

  • ||

    Do you have the same rule for free trade?

  • MWG||

    What's that phrase you always use? Scratch a...

  • ||

    Scratch an anti-illegal immigrant zealot, find a mercantilist.

    rho doesn't seem so zealous. But grouping people by nation sure appears to fit strongly in rho's logic.

  • Gojira||

    So we base our actions on the standards that other nations hold themselves to?

    That's the same logic employed when opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque declared that they can build it when Saudi Arabia allows churches (not sure if they were referring to houses of worship or the fried chicken chain).

  • Hidden Bek||

    When you're talking about things like cultural identity, economics, scarce resources, etc---I think you do have to take into account what other nations do. If the world was a free movement zone, you'd still tend to see people grouping up, asserting identities outside of the 'majority' but at least you'd have a better distribution.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Who could blame them for not wanting Church's FC?

  • rho||

    So we base our actions on the standards that other nations hold themselves to?

    No, we don't give more to nations that do not reciprocate likewise.

    You do this everyday in your own life. It's not a daft proposition for a nation either.

  • Gojira||

    How is not restricting the right to free association "giving" another nation something?

    And one can't "give" a nation anything. It's a group of individuals. "France" doesn't take some action, the rulers of France do. "Germany" didn't invade Poland, millions of German soldiers and airmen did. It's hard to break out of the mold of thinking of people as homogeneous collectives, since that's how history is taught, but it's essential to having a real understanding of rights and liberty.

  • rho||

    How is not restricting the right to free association "giving" another nation something?

    For one, they're using our services, not their own nations'.

    I can keep going, but I suspect you're already dumb as hell.

  • Gojira||

    Nice resort to calling someone names after making a stupid argument. Their "nation" isn't using our resources, the individuals in question are. Once again, please stop acting like we're all collectives.

  • ||

    What you are suggesting is that we look at it on an individual level. So, we should say that individual Mexicans would not enjoy a stream of Americans coming over the border without permission and using their resources to take jobs from native mexicans, to transform their culture to something more closely approximating the culture they left...

    As I said above, when we do that it's 'imperialism' or 'invasion'.

  • ||

    It may not be daft, but it is an abrogation of the rights of all individuals on both sides of the border who are prevented from doing something they otherwise could.

    Why do you think governments should trump individual rights? Where does this thinking stop?

  • Gojira||

    Where does this thinking stop?

    It doesn't. Hence the problems we have today.

  • Anon||

    "I'll accept free migration freedom of speech and religion for all citizens from all nations that participate in a 1:1 reciprocity of these freedoms in immigrant affairs with the U.S."

    Rights don't come from the constitution, they are natural, and the freedom of movement and association are among those. It doesn't matter if everybody else on the planet suppresses that right.

  • Hidden Bek||

    But rights are not everywhere protected or even REGARDED as rights. You cannot pretend that people all come to a given country with the idea of upholding the ideals/virtues of their destination. Unless you think the Native Americans still hold sway here.

  • rho||

    Rights are only as solid as the culture that supports them. You may have the intrinsic right to free speech, but I haven't noticed you getting killed on TV in Cairo for poor-mouthing Islam.

    You're talking philosophy and I'm talking practicality. The way it works is you take from the former and add to the latter. It does not flow the other way. If you disagree, I have some Mohammed costumes you can borrow on your next trip to Mecca.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    I'll make a deal with you. I'll accept free migration of all citizens from all nations that participate in a 1:1 reciprocity in immigrant affairs with the U.S.

    Considering its extremely easy for most Americans to enter most countries in the world, and somewhat easy to turn their tourist-visa-on-arrival into a business visa and then permanent residency...you might want to rethink that deal, my little nativist.

  • rho||

    Considering its extremely easy for most Americans to enter most countries in the world, and somewhat easy to turn their tourist-visa-on-arrival into a business visa and then permanent residency...you might want to rethink that deal, my little nativist.

    What's their policy on Americans who run down native civilians? I bet they agonize for days over the Americans' rights of free association.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    I dunno. What's America's policy on Americans who run down native civilians?

  • ||

    An (perhaps the) essential attribute of sovereignity is control of your borders. Some kind of immigration control is not in principle anathema to minarchists, who, after all, aren't opposed in principle to sovereign nations.

    Get rid of the welfare state and other limitations on free association, and I wouldn't object to immigration laws that barred those with contagious disease or criminal histories (violent and property crimes only, of course).

  • city-Statist||

    Get rid of the welfare state and other limitations on free association

    But that is what agricultural city-Statism is all about, for the last, oh, 10,000 years or so.

    Think you can make the leopard change its spots?

  • rho||

    I agree with this. One can be in favor of free migration, and still not want immigrant criminals or undesirables.

  • ||

    It's also possible to have too many wonderful immigrants, because it's always possible to have too much of a good thing. Adding some carrots to the stew is fine, but if you add too many, you just end up with wet carrots.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Yes, but are we there yet? I say no. The U.S. is about the same size as China but with 30 times less people. Considering the fact that even with its inefficient Communist government, many people live a comfortable life in China, I think we have plenty of land and resources before we, in America, get filled to capacity.

  • ||

    It's not just about physical capacity, it's culture. Too many from one culture inhibits assimilation and distorts things in other undesirable ways, what with our "diversity" mania. It doesn't help the country or the culture to turn it bilingual, nor to have too many immigrants who are poorly educated in their home countries. We have enough of an underclass, so we shouldn't be importing more.

    And here in San Francisco, illegals often get subsidized housing that's better than where I live.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    It doesn't help the country or the culture to turn it bilingual,

    I strongly disagree, but I'm a linguist...so take that as you will.

    nor to have too many immigrants who are poorly educated in their home countries.

    Again, I disagree. My wife didn't have a good education before she came here. She and many, many immigrants are taking advantage of the educational opportunities here. It's an industry that gives people jobs.

    And here in San Francisco, illegals often get subsidized housing that's better than where I live.

    Well, that sucks. But that's the fault of the government not the folks who take advantage of it.

  • Gojira||

    The subsidized housing is bullshit and should be ended for everyone, immigrant and citizen alike. But as HM points out, that's a problem with the gov't, not with the person. It's akin to saying we shouldn't allow free association for poor people because they use food stamps.

  • Zeb||

    I never get the libertarian opposition to enforcing immigration laws.

    Perhaps I can help. The way I see it, if I want to employ or rent to or let sleep on my couch some guy from Mexico, the government shouldn't get to decide whether or not I can do that. It is my right to dispose of my property as I see fit and to associate with anyone I choose to.
    I can see that there is a place for some sort of border control. But I think it should be limited to making sure carriers of infectious disease or dangerous criminals. Anyone with a job offer or someone willing to sponsor them should certainly be let in. Anything beyond that is violating your and my rights to free association and freedom of contract.

  • ||

    The way I see it, if I want to employ or rent to or let sleep on my couch some guy from Mexico, the government shouldn't get to decide whether or not I can do that.

    Of course not. However, that does not mean the govt has to assist in bringing that person to you so they may fulfill the contract.

  • ||

    I mean, you wouldn't say the govt is interfering in freedom of contract if they don't allow a felon on probation to move to your state.

    Or, if you contract with Domino's to deliver pizza in 15 minutes or less, and they give the driver a speeding ticket, you can't claim they violated your freedom of contract by delaying the driver.

  • k2000k||

    You assume that most libertarians are against enforcing immigration laws. I am not, though I do think that getting into this country and getting citizenship is far too byzantine than it should be.

  • ||

    i just drove from work to the bar, from where i drove home drunk...not really, but a cop would have disagreed if i had done something to grab their attention, like swerving or running a stop or dragging somebody to their death...if it had been that last one i'd expect to get the book thrown at me, & if i were not a citizen of this country, why wouldn't that included my ass being deported?

  • Zeb||

    I don't think that many people would disagree with you there. Immigrants who commit serious crimes should be deported. I can't quite decide if they should have to serve a prison sentence first.

  • ||

    So maybe we should allow illegal immigrants to drive and prohibit alcohol?

  • HeroicMulatto||

    So maybe we should allow illegal immigrants to drive and prohibit alcohol?

    Well, that would at least have the effect of preventing drunk driving...which is Lucy's point.

    What crusade would Maloney have gone on if the drunk driver was Black? Reinstating segregation?

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, no one would ever drive drunk if alcohol were illegal.

  • WanT||

    The illegal immigrant in question was not supposed to be here - that is the reason for his crusade.

    While I disagree with the current immigration laws, flouting them and immigrating illegally does not reflect well on the person in question.

  • Hadouken||

    Related note: if you get into a crash that is provably the other guy's fault, but you don't have a license, you get the ticket, not the other guy. The rationale is that you shouldn't have been on the road anyway.

  • Samitch||

    Hey Lucy,

    Do you leave your front door open so that any passing thug can enter your home at will?

    Did you think it was a good idea to let all the violent criminals immigrate here when Castro threw open his prisons?

    Is it unreasonable have someone prove that they are not a thug or a deadbeat before they cross the border.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Does your thigh hurt from all those knee-jerk reactions?

    Take a deep breath, then re-read the article.

  • NL_||

    This is an excellent argument to establishing a border wall patrolled by SUVs and unmanned drones between every state and every city. Plenty of violent people cross state lines and city lines every day.

  • Zeb||

    The country is not your house.

  • WanT||

    The problem is that taxes are taken to provide services and allow the country to exist. Therefore, the country is comprised of my property and is akin to a 'house' I share with others.

  • MWG||

    FAIL. The country is not your private home. It might be a condo complex where you pay an HOA fee, but that doesn't mean you get to decide who I invite over to my condo.

  • ||

    But you're not inviting them. That's the problem. Businesses aren't heading down to Mexico City, holding job fairs, and bringing everyone they hired into the country.

    To use your 'condo' metaphor, it's as if some guy broke in, took a bunch of your neighbors stuff, and they wanted to prosecute him and get him out of the building--but you want him to stay because, during his crime spree, he tossed your trash in the incinerator. You don't care that he robbed everyone else because he did something nice for you.

  • NL_||

    He'd also still be alive if we had DUI checkpoints every ten yards, or if every car had an installed breathalyzer. Or if we just made cars illegal.

  • Brandon||

    No he wouldn't. One of the cops would've shot him by now.

  • ||

    Cops are evil!

  • Puppets||

    Libertarians give us puppets a bad name.

  • Bill||

    You're right that they're not connected, except for one thing. had he not been here and had he been tossed the first time the kid would be alive today and the perp would be cooling his heels somewhere else in the world.

    That said, I'm surprised at Reason's not wanting to solve a problem where the first thing that someone does when they choose to enter our country is break the law. Allowing people to break the law is not the answer, changing the laws is. I'm all for having the debate to change our immigration laws, but until that happens picking and choosing which laws we don't like and don't enforce is just wrong.

  • WanT||

    ^^^exactly. Rule of law is important.

  • WanT||

    I'm all for darkies sitting at the front of the bus, but until Jim Crow is abolished, the law is the law!

  • k2000k||

    Yes because state sanctioned discrimination against citizens is the same thing as people breaking the law to get into this country *eye roll*

  • Meh.||

    Fantastic way to miss the point? Do WanT and Bill have an argument, or is it merely 'teh law is teh law'?

  • Bill from the 1920s||

    I'm all for getting rid of alcohol prohibition, but until then the law is the law!

  • Sidd Finch||

    But equating Guaman's killer recklessness with proof that illegal immigrants are inherently dangerous is as foolish

    Illegal immigrants are certainly inherently dangerous, at least behind the wheel. They're mostly Amerinds now. Perhaps you've heard of this.

  • ||

    What you have not mentioned in this article are his previous run ins with the law, and the fact that he was not deported years earlier. Why is this ignored. You just need to look back when the incident originally was reported to see this alien's lengthy rap sheet. Also, the Arizona law is the same as the law at the federal level. So that makes the whole nation 'papers please'.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    From the article:

    And what does the tragic death of Matthew Denice have to do with anything except Guaman running a stop-sign while driving drunk and the myriad other crimes with which he is charged?


    Authorities dropped the ball and if they had deported Guaman for his past criminal record, yes, Matthew Denice might still be alive.

    You either possess the reading comprehension of a 5-year-old, or you're a mendacious asshole.

  • rather||

    One time I was dragged to death by an illegal immigrant then it turned out I pooped instead.

  • ||

    I wish I looked Mexican, so I could pretend to be here illegally. No income taxes, don't have to worry about getting my driver's license, free health care, can vote as often as I want, etc

    As much as Reason wants one, you can't have a welfare state with open borders. Fix the first thing before you push for the last...

  • HeroicMulatto||

    What the fuck does that have to do with drunk driving?

  • Zeb||

    If more immigrants were allowed to come work legally, they would be on the books and paying taxes. The problem with illegal immigration is that too few people are allowed in. If people who were really here to work were all allowed to come legally, it would be a lot easier to get rid of the real undesirables.

  • k2000k||

    ^^
    This. Many of these illegals would gladly come into this country legally if our laws weren't so obtuse. Another problem that is mentioned enough is that illegal immigration, as it stands now and ignoring the drug war, provides avenues for criminal organizations to expand by sneaking this individuals into the country but keeping them under their yoke for the favor that was done for them. Making it easier to get into this country would kill multiple birds with one stone.

  • MWG||

    Yea, those Mejicans are really living the dream.

  • Maxxx||

    They're not?

    Then why don't they go home.

  • rather||

    Is it a concern that smuggling fees will rise due to immigration enforcement?

    Doesn't your free market apply?

  • Some Guy||

    I'm trying to decide if I hate this person more or less than if she would have tried to get breathalyzers put in all cars, or some other such heavy-handed, yet at least driving-related thing.

  • ||

    What's funny of course is that:

    1. most of the proposed law does in fact deal with driving, not illegal immigration in general, and

    2. two posts up, yet another blog post by Sullum using a tragedy during a drug raid as an argument against the drug war (and rightly so). Apparently dragging one's pet issues into a tragedy is only OK when it's cosmotarians who want to do it.

  • rather||

    Tulpa, I have an attic for you to hide in

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Lucy, I've come to expect better of your alt-text...

    And you delivered.

  • ||

    Illegal immigrants are not supposed to be in the country, much less behind the wheels. You can blame drinking and driving for the tragedy, but the guy should not have given the chance get drunk here in the first place.

    If this illegal Ecuadoran was a decent human being who had a momentary lapse in judgment, maybe the author has a point. But the guy apparently had a kid in his truck and he dragged the body for almost a mile. 99% of immigrants have to go through the proper channels and background checks so the 1% of the human trash can be filtered out.

    If this guy had a history of DUI in Ecuador or wherever he's from, do you want the DMV to issue him a license?

  • ||

    Thats jsut downright messed up when you think about tit dude.

    www.Went-Anon.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement