Immigration

This is What Rule by Decrees Looks Like

The haphazard set of rules and exemptions governing illegal immigration is no substitute for legislative reforms

|

"try again"

In a blog post titled "This is What Deportation Looks Like," The Nation's Aura Bogado relays the story of Edi Arma, a father of three facing deportation after a traffic stop in 2009 put him on the radar:

Edi Arma, who's lived in Phoenix, Arizona for thirteen years, is a Guatemalan immigrant fighting deportation. He was originally placed in immigrant detention after a traffic stop in 2009. Arma explained to officials that he's afraid that his family will be killed if they return to Guatemala. Nevertheless, he was issued a deportation order, which he ignored because he wants to stay with his wife and three children—one of which suffers from severe asthma.

Arma's case appears to fit the description for relief under the prosecutorial discretion memo issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton. Issued in June 2011, the memo makes clear that agents can exercise broad flexibility when choosing to seek deportation. Arma's supporters point out that he has no criminal history, he's a breadwinner who cares for all his three children and he faces immediate danger if he's sent to Guatemala—where his own brother was killed just a few years ago.  

It looks like Arma's story is a good example, too, of the fundamental problem of a government that rules not just through law, but through policies, procedures, waivers and exemptions emanating from an ever-growing bureaucracy. President Obama excuses this by saying that Congress won't work with him or that he can't wait for Congress. John Kerry amazingly even deployed the excuse of Congressional gridlock as to why the president can go bomb wherever he pleases. But it's the president's job to work with Congress, not around it.

Of course, it's been decades since comprehensive immigration reform last happened, and there's blame enough for both sides. But President Obama appears to have had ignored legislative attempts at immigration reform in favor of ruling through the bureaucracy of the executive branch. Of note, too, is that Obama did his part to help sink the last attempt at comprehensive immigration reform, President Bush's in 2007, when Obama "pulled off a trifecta: appeasing Big Labor while telling Latinos he supported the bill and blaming Republicans for its failure," according to the Wall Street Journal. It should sound familiar.

Advertisement

NEXT: U.K. Sends Spy Plane to Mali

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.

  1. An illegal immigrant (who is breaking the law) breaks the law and is ordered to leave the country, at which point he breaks the law again and stays put.

    BUT OMG HIS DAUGHTER HAS ASTHMA

    1. A family man works every day to give his three American children a better future.

      BUT OMG HE DIDN’T GET THE STATE’S APPROVAL

      1. BUT OMG HE DIDN’T GET THE STATE’S APPROVAL

        Yes. He knowingly broke the law on multiple occasiosn. Now he is facing the consequences of those actions. He should be deported immediately to put the fear of God in the rest of the illegals.

        1. Ironic that conservatives love Big Daddy State granting people permission to live on one side of a line.

          Mmm, boy, that’s some tasty Nationalism! Yay Federal Government CONSERVATARD 4 LIFE

          1. Implying nationalism is bad.

            1. Nationalism is bad, retard.

              1. Nationalism enables the free market.

                1. LMAO. Mercantilism (which is economic nationalism) is so free markety isn’t it?

                2. Socialism Capitalism in one country!

    2. My, what a Freudian name choice.

  2. “Wide discretion” is not rule of law. It is rule of man.

  3. If I read it in The Nation, it must be accurate. No agenda there, at all. Nothing but love for law enforcement can be found in the pages of The Nation.

    1. I forget, which libertarian tenet is it where we’re supposed to *love* law enforcement again? Aren’t these the people who routinely drag nonviolent people away in chains for doing something with no victim?

      1. Hate the law, not the enforcer.

        /slurp

      2. ‘The Nation’ hates Law Enforcement. They think preventing a black thief from stealing your car is “racist.” We can never trust their portrayal of law enforcement for this reason.

        1. If you have specific evidence of obfuscation, I suggest you present it. Otherwise you’re just committing an ad hominem.

  4. “Arma explained to officials that he’s afraid that his family will be killed if they return to Guatemala.”
    Wonder why that is. Certainly nothing to do with Guatemala itself. Imperialism! Ya, let’s go with that.

    1. Someone remembered his stupid pills!
      Now if you go poopy on the poddy I’ll give you a shirt!

      http://store.northshoreshirts.com/ipotot.html

      Ain’t dat cute?

    2. Daddy, there’s bleeding where you put your fingers.

      1. Oh shit. I liked whoever was doing Liberty’s Daughter and wanted to help carry that load.

        1. Thank you, mister. But Daddy said he’d kill me if I told.

      2. Forgot to sing into your troll account?

        1. Daddy, why do you always sing after touching me with your thing? My teacher said people always sing when they’re happy. Why are you happy when you hurt my private place? Daddy?

  5. I see the conservatards are out in full force, salivating over the notion of using force on someone for being on the wrong side of the line.

    Huddled Masses indeed…welcome to Yokeltaria, Pop: 50 Dental Status: Marginal

    1. If by “full force” you mean “many posts by ‘Liberty’…right?

      1. Daddy says he takes pictures of my special place for his friends on Taki’s Blog. I don’t like that, it makes me feel bad.

    2. using force on someone for being on the wrong side of the line.

      Yes. Our society would collapse with open borders, you idiot. I’m defending the society that enables the market.

      1. Assertion without evidence.

        You’re saying that we need to commit massive injustice in the name of arbitrary lines to save freedom?

        I doubt that.

        1. Get rid of the welfare state and most objections to open borders would vanish.

          Couldn’t accuse them of using anchor babies to get welfare because there wouldn’t be any welfare, and couldn’t accuse them of taking jobs because there would be no welfare to enable lazy Americans to turn down jobs they feel are beneath them.

          1. What about the “I don’t want to work for crap wages” argument? Do you know the average wage in Nigeria? How many of those people would jump ship to our country? What would that do to our wages?

            1. Do you support limiting births by force too?

              If not, why not?

              1. No. That would be an affront to liberty. I don’t believe there exists a right to live anywhere you want. If you want a libertarian paradise, build it in your own country.

                1. I don’t believe there exists a right to live anywhere you want.

                  Why? What’s aggressive about living somewhere? Whose rights are violated if Jose from Oaxaca moves in down the street?

                2. I remember when Daddy said we had to move to Idaho. He said we had to be with out own kind. The first day when we was there, a bunch of his friends came over and started kissing and touching me everywhere.

            2. And again Illiberty ignores the facts presented in Edgar the Exploiter.

              1. Fact are no match for feelings.

          2. I agree with all of that except I do want to inform you about something.

            “Anchor Babies” is a myth. It’s a complete and total lie. The fact that a baby is a United States Citizen has no bearing on whether the parent or parents can stay in the United States.

            1. The fact that a baby is a United States Citizen has no bearing on whether the parent or parents can stay in the United States.

              In theory or in practice? But that’s not the point. The point is that the child, being a citizen, allows the family with the help of a good case worker to get welfare.

            2. This is bullshit. You clearly have no knowlege of the American legal system. It is not made by laws. It is made by judges, lawyers, and “law enforcement officials” who wouldn’t dare “break up a family.” Look at executive amnesty, something cosmotarians with all their concern about executive power don’t seem to care about. We have a law saying it is illegal to be an illegal. But is it in practice?

              1. It is made by judges, lawyers, and “law enforcement officials” who wouldn’t dare “break up a family.”

                Which is why Edi Arma is under a deportation order.

              2. DADDY! It hurts! Stop! Don’t hit me! STOP! I’ll kiss your thing. Stop! Ok! DADDY WHY? DADDY!

              3. You clearly have no knowlege of the American legal system.

                Be sure to notify the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. They’ll pull my license for you.

                Anyway…

                You’re wrong. ICE deports families in toto or in pieces frequently.

                1. “You’re wrong. ICE deports families in toto or in pieces frequently.”
                  Yeah, like what, 100 a year?

                  1. ICE needs to get its act together and break up more immigrant families. Lest we fail to appease the jealous god LAW-EL.

                2. Be sure to notify the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. They’ll pull my license for you.

                  Haha, you’ve truly reached MNG levels of argument to authority.

                  They have no record of a “Randian” having ever passed the bar exam, anyway.

                  1. When the original part of the argument was that I lack experience in the subject matter, it’s necessary to appeal to one’s personal experience, Tulpa.

                    “Anchor Babies” is and always has been a myth.

                    1. Your occupational status wasn’t Liberty’s argument.

              4. You clearly have no knowlege of the American legal system.

                He may just be playing dumb about it to advance his argument. That’s a useful skill for lawyers, too.

            3. Hence Reason boo-hooing about what monsters the feds are for starting to deport illegal immigrants with American born children a few years ago.

              1. They are monsters. They’re pointing guns and placing chains on peaceful people.

                What is your definition of monsterhood? Because if it’s not that, then I don’t think you’re a very moral person.

                1. If they were peaceful people they wouldn’t have micro-invaded our country.

                  1. I hope that’s a facetious comment Tulpa

                    1. Why, because it totally destroys your argument?

                    2. Because it’s a total and utter lie to call walking across the border an “invasion”. If words have any meaning to you at all, then you are being extremely dishonest.

                    3. That’s why I didn’t call it an invasion.

                    4. Don’t argue with the troll, please. It just helps him to micro-aggress against us.

          3. most objections to open borders would vanish.

            Except for crime and low wages.

            1. If these furriners are such lowlifes, why are you afraid to compete with them for wages?

              1. why are you afraid to compete with them for wages?

                I fear not for myself, but my fellow Americans.

                You’re a mercantilist

                No.

                and you’re willing to use the guns of the State to keep a privileged few artificially wealthy.

                If by “privileged few” you mean “average American,” then yes, I do intend to use the guns of the State to keep them with a first-world standard of living.

                1. Right, so yes, you are a mercantilist. You want to use guns to artificially keep wages high. That’s the very definition.

            2. Most of the crime is drug related, so that’s a separate issue.

              So-called “low wages” are more accurately described as market wages that are not propped up by government policy.
              Some jobs simply do not create a lot of value, and a business cannot stay in business if it pays people more than they produce.

              1. “Most of the crime is drug related, so that’s a separate issue.”
                Because if we didn’t have the drug war (I DONT support it) all the children of the underclass would start businesses and “build that.” They aren’t responsible for their own actions.

            3. Talking about low wages shows that you aren’t actually interested in laissez-faire economics.

              You’re a mercantilist and you’re willing to use the guns of the State to keep a privileged few artificially wealthy.

              If immigrants come here to make goods and services cheaper for the average consumer, I have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing. Or do you support the State-led revival of the Oil Lamp and Buggy Whip Industries as well?

              1. “You’re a mercantilist and you’re willing to use the guns of the State to keep a privileged MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WHO WORK AND CONSUME artificially wealthy.”

                Fixed.

                1. Who cares, if you’re willing to use force, you’re a thug.

            4. Hispanic immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than native born whites do (native born Hispanics commit crime at a higher rate. In fact, immigrants of every racial/ethnic group commit crime at a lower rate than native born members of that same group). Overall, outside of the northeast, there is almost no difference in crime rates between Hispanic and white men of the same age. Not to mention, most crime (especially violent crime) is intraracial.

              1. Hispanic immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than native born whites do (native born Hispanics commit crime at a higher rate. In fact, immigrants of every racial/ethnic group commit crime at a lower rate than native born members of that same group).

                1. [citation needed]

                2. So what you’re saying is that we let them move here and then they have kids who will commit crimes. GREAT IDEA LOLBERTARIANS

          4. No they wouldn’t. Nativist neurotics love being nativist neurotics.

          5. Get rid of the welfare state and most objections to open borders would vanish.

            probably true but very unlikely, far more unlikely than some sort of border control.

        2. You’re saying that we need to commit massive injustice in the name of arbitrary lines to save freedom?

          What justice is there in opening our borders to others? None. The “justice” of which you speak does not exist. Justice is punishing thieves and murderers. Justice is not OPEN BORDERS FREE FOR ALL.

          1. The injustice is in drawing lines in the sand and arresting people for crossing them.

            They’re just lines.

            1. The injustice is in drawing lines in the sand and arresting people for crossing them.

              Why so communist, comrade? This line in the sand, it is not your property–it is the people’s property. We are all the people, yes? Your property is my property and my property is yours. You cannot own things. That is capitalist thinking, comrade. You are not wanting to think silly thoughts like that. This is just a line in the sand, nothing more. It is everyone’s proeprty.

              1. So if I own a ranch on the border and I put up a gate that says “Welcome to America”, who the fuck are you to stop me?

                1. So if I own a ranch on the border and I put up a gate that says “Welcome to America”, who the fuck are you to stop me?

                  I don’t think any of us would stop you from putting up that sign, if that’s what you’re asking. Kind of a cruel thing to do given how many immigration arrests are likely to happen in front of said gate.

              2. What the fuck is your argument here? Please be more clear.

                1. His argument is that he’s a socialist, not a communist. The state owns the entirety of the nation.

              3. Wow, Rick, I had no idea you were this stupid.

                Private property is the essence of liberty. Government-drawn lines and government-“owned” property is its antithesis.

                Please go read something.

            2. They’re just lines.

              No, they’re not. They are borders and the world is full of them. They are designed to delineate property ownership. This bunch believes in private property, right? Those borders create a legal framework that makes things like private property ownership possible.

              1. Political borders are just lines drawn by men with guns that are, logically speaking, totally meaningless.

                Private property is essential to life.

                Do you realize how patently absurd it is to look at someone and say this:

                “Where are you from?”
                “Oh, Mexico? Well, you can’t cross this line. You were born over there”

                He’s a human being with freedom of movement rights. I am a human being with freedom of association rights. If we’re not hurting you, then you can MYO fucking B.

                1. Private property is essential to life.

                  Land as private property is a concept that simply didn’t exist for most of human history, so I’m calling bullshit on that. It’s a useful thing to have (like national borders!), but hardly essential…

                  1. I didn’t say “land as private property”, did I?

                    1. Oh god here we go with the sophistry.

                      What private property involving imaginary lines were you talking about, Randian?

                2. Political borders are just lines drawn by men with guns that are, logically speaking, totally meaningless.

                  and while you are entitled to that opinion, your holding it does not make it fact. Citizenship is any country involves services that are paid by, well, by citizens.

                  CA spends some $10 billion annually on services to illegals who sent the bulk of their paychecks home. That’s not a sharp business model for any govt to follow.

                  If you want to come here and be part of the American experience, we have a procedure for that. And one that is less onerous than most other places and perhaps tougher than others. Regardless, it’s a country, not a theme park.

                  1. Regardless, it’s a country, not a theme park.

                    WRONG!

                  2. Political borders are just lines drawn by men with guns that are, logically speaking, totally meaningless.

                    Apparently Randian has no idea how the original owners of all property in the US (and everywhere else) acquired it.

                    1. I suppose that a past injustice justifies a present day injustice?

                      We call that argumentum ad antiquitatem.

                    2. According to your formulation, you forcibly removing a trespasser from your property is a present day injustice, as it involves punishing the crossing of imaginary lines settled by force in the past.

                    3. Settled by force? Most property has been freely and voluntarily transferred. I have no interest in reaching back 400 years and declaring all property null and void. That’s in the past.

                    4. OK, then don’t bring up the “men with guns” that settled the national borders centuries ago either.

                      Have or eat. Pick one.

                    5. The State is not the owner of the border, Tulpa. You have no right to tell me with whom I may peacefully associate.

                    6. The US has authority over the border. If you don’t like it, pass a constitutional amendment changing that fact.

                      And you have no right to tell the US that it must bend over backwards to make your association with someone else more convenient.

                      No one is telling you you can’t go visit our Mexican pal in Tijuana.

                    7. Someone is telling my Mexican pal he can’t come here.

                      The US has authority over the border. If you don’t like it, pass a constitutional amendment changing that fact.

                      Oh well the US has authority over the Armed Forces and interstate commerce so I expect you not to whinge about the grand injustice of overseas adventurism or the Wars on Drugs, either.

                      I mean, you basically just said “fuck you that’s why” That’s great, Tulpa. Good argument.

                    8. Someone is telling my Mexican pal he can’t come here.

                      Actually they’re telling him he can’t cross the border that they have authority over. Where his destination is is irrelevant.

                      Oh well the US has authority over the Armed Forces and interstate commerce so I expect you not to whinge about the grand injustice of overseas adventurism or the Wars on Drugs, either.

                      The US has the authority to adventure overseas and regulate interstate commerce (which, under current jurisprudence, includes drugs). I disagree with how that authority is exercised but I don’t deny the authority.

                      If you wish to disagree with how the US exercises its border authority (as I do), you’re welcome to do so. But don’t question whether the authority exists.

                  3. If you want to come here and be part of the American experience, we have a procedure for that.

                    Who is this “we”, Collectivist Cal?

                    1. Who is this “we”, Collectivist Cal?

                      we the people according to a bunch of dead guys behind some really old pieces of paper. Every country has immigration laws and procedures. That you don’t like does not change that.

                    2. Every country has immigration laws and procedures. That you don’t like does not change that.

                      Oh well shit every country used to have laws letting husbands rape their wives and keeping blacks in servitude, so fuck me, right?

                      This is a silly argument. “Because we said so” is a bullshit justification. Even four-year-olds know that.

                      Someone walking across a border or settling down in a home down the street from you just isn’t your business, Statist Sally. Mind Your Business.

                    3. Someone walking across a border or settling down in a home down the street from you just isn’t your business

                      no, but someone doing so and taking advantage of services my money is taken to provide while he contributes nothing is damn sure my business. If he wants the benefits that come with being here, he is also welcome to participate in the rest of it.

                    4. Your problem is with the forcible extraction of your money for services.

                      The simple fact that a State exists is not an excuse for you to take an overbearing interest in the activities of 330 million people.

                      You don’t have a justification to be a nosy parker on that scale. Mind your own business.

                    5. The simple fact that a State exists is not an excuse for you to take an overbearing interest in the activities of 330 million people.

                      except I never said that. Any other words you care to put in my mouth?

                      What consenting adults do between and among themselves is not my business unless it involves my money. Someone being here and taking from the system without putting in is very much my business.

                      If that person wants to join the club, there is a process for that that millions upon millions have managed to work through. They’ve done it in other countries, too, so it’s not a uniquely American thing.

                    6. The United States isn’t a club, dude, and it certainly isn’t a private one.

                      What consenting adults do between and among themselves is not my business unless it involves my money. Someone being here and taking from the system without putting in is very much my business.

                      Unless and until you can prove that’s going to happen, then you have no vested interest.

                      Are you in favor of forced abortions for pregnant mothers without a certain level of income? Why or why not?

                    7. Unless and until you can prove that’s going to happen, then you have no vested interest.

                      the welfare state has already proven that this happens.

                    8. “no, but someone doing so and taking advantage of services my money is taken to provide while he contributes nothing is damn sure my business. If he wants the benefits that come with being here, he is also welcome to participate in the rest of it.”

                      1) There are a lot of things aside from immigration restriction that you could justify using this logic

                      2) Fix the laws and they won’t have to come here illegally

                      3) Illegal immigrants (and indeed immigrants in general) use welfare at lower rates than native born people. And while illegals don’t pay payroll or income taxes (again, as a consequence of restrictionist laws), they do pay sales, excise, and other such taxes

                    9. 2) Fix the laws and they won’t have to come here illegally

                      and I have no argument with that. The process is a big cluster. But I’m not going with the notion of because it’s a cluster, borders are irrelevant. Or that they are irrelevant just because someone thinks so.

                      Someone’s earlier point of fixing the welfare state would go a long way toward resolving one perceived benefit of sneaking in.

                    10. “Who is this “we”, Collectivist Cal?”

                      It’s remarkable how many supposedly libertarian people suddenly embrace “IT’S TEH LAW!” as a valid argument when the subject turns to immigration. I mean, with Tulpa it’s not surprising, because he does that with everything, but there are others that would never use that logic on the drug war, civil liberties violations, etc

                    11. I hear the ITS TEH LAW argument used constantly when it can be useful for opposing unauthorized imperial adventures.

                    12. The discussion on this page has been one about morality, not legality. I don’t think anyone who argues that a particular war or adventure is immoral because it is illegal. There are many legal wars and military actions that I (and most here) take issue with. The main point IMO, about pointing out the illegality of the government’s actions, is to show how hypocritical these people are in that they don’t even follow their own rules, and then expect everyone else to follow them “just because”

    3. I see the conservatards are out in full force, salivating over the notion of using force on someone for being on the wrong side of the line.

      Have you disavowed the use of force on someone for being on the wrong side of all imaginary lines, or just the imaginary lines you ideologically oppose?

      1. Are you going to be tiresome and equate political borders with private property too?

        The Federal Government doesn’t own the entire country, Tulpa.

        1. Yawn.

          The argument you’re making (which isn’t really an argument so much as bluster) could just as easily be made against trespassing laws, so unless you are prepared to accept the argument in that context you can’t make it here.

          1. BS. Political lines and private property are not equivalent concepts.

            Private property is or was (generally speaking) justly acquired through peaceful trade. Political lines are enforced at gunpoint and violate freedom of movement and freedom of association.

            You can have no rights without private property.

            1. Private property is or was (generally speaking) justly acquired through peaceful trade.

              Bullshit. Most real estate property in the US is stolen goods, it’s just that the theft occurred long enough ago that we can pretend it’s not. Likewise in most of the world.

              1. Most real estate property in the US is stolen goods, it’s just that the theft occurred long enough ago that we can pretend it’s not.

                We have a concept called “statutes of limitations”. The injustice ran out long ago.

                What is your point here? That private property is not valid because there once was force involved centuries ago, and ergo it’s OK for the State to tell people they cannot cross the border?

                That’s asinine.

                1. We have a concept called “statutes of limitations”. The injustice ran out long ago.

                  Then apply that same concept to national borders.

                  What is your point here? That private property is not valid because there once was force involved centuries ago, and ergo it’s OK for the State to tell people they cannot cross the border?

                  Pretty sure you’re feigning misunderstanding here so you can misstate my position, but in the slim chance you’re sincere, I’ll explain.

                  Property lines and national borders are both:

                  1. settled by force long ago
                  2. enforced today by men with guns

                  So if you want to complain about either of these attributes, you have to complain equally about both national borders and property lines.

                  1. The injustice of national borders is ongoing. As I said, they limit the freedom of movement and the freedom of association by parties who are not harming anyone.

                    They’re an everyday violation of the nonaggression principle.

                    On the other hand, you cannot even have the nonaggression principle without private property.

                    1. Your ongoing enforcement of your property lines also limits the freedom of movement of peaceable people.

                    2. Anyone who believes national borders are equivalent to private property lines is nothing less than a statist

                    3. And imaginary.

                    4. No, it doesn’t. Without private property, there are no other rights.

                      A man walks one mile.

                      Another man walks one mile.

                      Assuming that neither of these men have transgressed against your property, can you tell me why the first man can do what he likes but the second one should have a gun pointed at his face and told he can’t walk here?

                    5. Because the entity with the authority to stop the first man chose not to exercise that authority.

                      That’s not the fault of the entity with the authority to stop the second man.

                    6. I am not talking about authortiy. I am talking about justice.

                      You basically just said “because nyah nyah”

                      JUSTIFY the response. Using reason and logic, tell me why someone peacefully walking should have a gun pointed in his face for the crime of walking, WITHOUT invoking private property.

                    7. Because national borders with controlled access are a useful thing.

                      I don’t pretend to have my positions based purely on logic and reason because that’s a joke. Other than nihilists and hedonists, no one’s positions are purely logical and rational. You have to assume something to prove something.

                      AND, if you claim imaginary lines cannot justify force against those who cross them, you must disavow private property. This is not necessary for my position, but it’s sufficient to exclude yours.

                    8. “Because national borders with controlled access are a useful thing.”

                      Fuck you, that’s why

                    9. Without private property, there are no other rights.

                      And you’re again begging the question.

        2. just stop. Open borders existed prior to the Europeans landing here and staking claims to land. Didn’t work too well for the people already here.

          You can’t claim national borders are imaginary but the line separating my property from yours is real. Absent some political framework, our options for resolution are not encouraging.

          1. “just stop. Open borders existed prior to the Europeans landing here and staking claims to land. Didn’t work too well for the people already here.”

            Terrible analogy is terrible.

            1. Well, some tribes didn’t exactly accept open borders, but the point is valid for much of the US.

              1. No it isn’t. Native American views on European immigration didn’t matter one iota. They were getting conquered regardless. That’s not a good analogy

          2. Look, I hate to break it to you that you’re a Statist, but you’re a Statist.

            Open borders existed prior to the Europeans landing here and staking claims to land. Didn’t work too well for the people already here.

            There isn’t any evidence that present-day immigrants are here to forcibly take anyone’s property. This comparison is inapt and facile.

            You can’t claim national borders are imaginary but the line separating my property from yours is real.

            Yes, I can. Peaceably acquired property (as most property is) is a just acquisition. State Agents with guns telling Jose that he was born in the wrong town and threatening to shoot him if he crosses “this line” is ridiculous and arbitrary. You don’t own the border, so you have no right to tell people what they can and cannot do on that border. The United States is not the owner of the country, so it should not be able to tell me with whom I may associate.

            1. peaceably acquired how? Because you said it’s yours? And who you did you buy it from and how did it come to be his?

              If I decide to set up camp on what you consider your land, you might well be the guy with the gun suggesting I move along.

              This is one of those areas where libertarians get looked at like kooks, even from within. The state exists because we set it up to exist, much like folks in other states set up theirs.

              1. Peaceably acquired because I bought it.

                I bought it from someone who also bought it from someone.

                Past that, the injustice clock ran out ages ago.

                1. so because your imaginary clock ran out, screw everyone else. You are welcome to work toward changing our immigration laws toward something that suits you better, but saying the borders no longer apply because what’s done is done is not a winning argument.

                2. Past that, the injustice clock ran out ages ago.

                  Just like the injustice clock on the US border?

                  1. Just like the injustice clock on the US border?

                    Did we stop enforcing the border and I wasn’t looking?

                    IT’S STILL ONGOING

                    PLEASE READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING STUPID

                    1. Did you stop enforcing your property lines?

                    2. The property was acquired peaceably and voluntarily. How many times do I need to repeat myself?

                    3. Sure, after the original owners took that property by force.

            2. The United States is not the owner of the country, so it should not be able to tell me with whom I may associate.

              I agree. But the US doesn’t have to bend over backwards to make your association convenient, either.

              The state setting a speed limit of 20 mph between your house and the pizza shop 4 miles away doesn’t violate your freedom to make a contract with the pizza shop to have your pizza delivered in 10 minutes or less.

              You’re totally free to contract with anyone in the world. If the contract involves them coming to your house in the US, though, it may be hard for them to hold up their end of the deal.

              1. If the State sets up razor wire and guns around the pizza shop to actively prevent the guy from leaving, then yes, that is a violation.

                If the contract involves them coming to your house in the US, though, it may be hard for them to hold up their end of the deal.

                And that just gets you off, doesn’t it? Making peaceful association harder and downright impossible in some circumstances based on place of birth is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

                1. I was unaware that we had set up razor wire around Mexico.

                  1. Maybe you should google the images of the border fence sometime.

                    1. Does it extend around the entire country of Mexico?

                      The border fence doesn’t keep people from leaving Mexico, it keeps people from entering the US.

                    2. I mean, if the city wants to put razor wire across Main Street so that the pizza delivery people can’t get to my house that way, that’s stupid and dangerous but it’s not against their authority.

      2. Tulpa, what are your thoughts on the newest LAOLs of Reason? What great company you keep!

        1. Any leader is bound to have overzealous followers. We’re working on smoothing the rough edges.

  6. “””Of course, it’s been decades since comprehensive immigration reform last happened, and there’s blame enough for both sides. “”‘

    On one side millions were giving amnesty, even more then the numbers originally proposed.

    On the other side all promises of stepped up enforcement were broken and ten million plus more illegals entered the country.

      1. One side keeps its agreements, the other side does not. And there is no reason to make further agreements since the other side will keep on breaking them.

        1. It isn’t about “sides”. It’s about right and wrong.

      2. fried chicken?

  7. Here’s what you guys want:
    No taxes.
    “Wages as low as the market is willing to set.”
    NAMs.
    Easy sex.
    No gun control.
    No police.

    There are numerous countries in Africa that already have all that.

    1. Oh goody another SOMALIA and ROADZ post.

      Are you sure you’re a libertarian? Because you don’t sound like one.

      1. I believe in Libeetarianism in America. International libertarianism could never work and you all know it. You guys don’t have the copy-write on libertarianism. There are other schools than this cosmo crap.

        1. Daddy invites his friends from Taki’s Blog to come over and touch me all the time. I don’t like it. They often have bigger things than Daddy does and it hurts a lot! And Daddy only smiles when I cry.

    2. Reductio ad Somalium!

      1. Nice – best trademark that!

        1. Come on, man! You can’t trademark another person’s thoughts.

    3. I wouldn’t mind some easy sex with some NAMs, I’m thinking a Sofia Vergara-type. No taxes, gun control, or police would be the icing on the cake. Where is this African wonderland?

      1. National Association of Manufacturers?

      2. All of Africa except the Western Cape. Guess where all the immigrants are going?

        1. Are you seriously suggesting that the vast majority of African countries levy no taxes?

          1. They don’t collect much that’s for sure. All their income usually comes from me or natural resource exploitation.

            1. You’re an ignorant fool.

            2. That’s not what you wrote. You said no taxes. Relatively, tax rates in Africa are high, actually, especially corporate taxes. The countries that have little taxation are the Middle Eastern ones with a glut of oil income.

              Not that facts matter much to you.

              1. That’s deceptive. Little of that is actually collected.

            3. You paying black guys to fuck your wife isn’t the same as you giving money to Africa.

              1. Daddy says because Mommy is dead, it’s my job to hug and kiss his pee-pee. I don’t like it. I think Mommy is mad.

              2. I don’t pay any taxes?

    4. Concern troll is concerned.

    5. Is there any reason you don’t “want NAMs”?

      Well, any reason other than being a racist fuckface, I mean?

      1. Look at NAM countries. Look at white and Asian countries. That’s the reason.

        1. Daddy took me on a trip to a country called Japan once. He said he was making a lot of money by me letting them touch my special place with their things. Daddy was very angry when I started crying and he started beating me until blood came out.

        2. Well, the Japanese are pretty fucking weird.

          1. Anyone who succeeds in life is looked upon as “weird” by the failures.

            1. Japan is a disaster.

              1. Yeah, ’cause it isn’t DIVERSE!

                1. Daddy says it’s important that no mud-people touch me. He says it’s my responsibility to continue the White race. That’s why he fills me with his seed. He says it’s superior. I don’t like it because it hurts when he puts his thing in me.

        3. North Korea, China, and Burma are just paradise on Earth. As is Russia.

      2. racist fuckface

        Cool progressivism, bro.

        1. Cool statism, bro.

        2. You know what you call it when you look at a person and decide that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole more (or less) desirable?

          That’s the textbook definition.

          Cool ignorance, bro.

          1. Wonder who wrote the textbook?

            1. Just because stupid progressives shout “Racist!” every time someone opposes Obama doesn’t mean that actual racists (like yourself) don’t exist

            2. Liberty, this is just one of those times where you have to admit that even the most commonsense housewife is going to call you a fucking racist.

              Will it play in Peoria? Not bloody likely.

              1. The majority of people favor do not support NAM immigration.

                1. Source? Opposing open borders isn’t the same thing as opposing all NAM immigration. And I don’t think you’re a racist for being against open borders or immigration. You can oppose immigration without being racist. I think you’re a racist because you base those views on your belief in the inferiority of certain races and your dislike of those groups. That’s the literal definition of racism.

                  1. Maybe he means “irrigation”?

    6. What the hell is a NAM? North African Migrant?

      Oh, and fuck off, slaver.

        1. Wow, that’s a thing?

          Yay for 21st century racism.

        2. wow. never heard of it. still stupid, but never heard of it and kinda wish I still hadn’t.

    7. This is one of the dumbest posts I’ve ever seen on Reason. And given the posts that Tony, shrike, etc spew on a daily basis, that’s saying something

      1. Can you imagine the posting frenzy if you got Liberty, Lyle, and Libertarians4Freedom all together? It would certainly make people think twice about being libertarians with these idiots about.

        1. In Lyle’s defense, he isn’t blatantly racist (as far as I know). He has a whole host of issues regarding his foreign policy, but I’ve never seen him make the kind of bigoted comments that the other two have.

      2. Personally, I’m willing to lay odds that spaced Tony and Liberty are the same troll.

        1. I’m 99% sure Liberty is same person as the old “American.” Whether or not that person is Tony, I don’t know. I think not, but it wouldn’t shock me if someone went to that level of trolling

        2. Well, both Tony and Liberty are racist as fuck. They are also both gay as fuck. I think you’re on to something.

        3. Liberty, (A)Mer(i)kin, Patriot. I sense a trend.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.