Rand Paul

Rand Paul's Anti-Sanctuary City Bill Values Arbitrary Government Rules Over Liberty

Wanting tougher immigration law to prevent possible crimes is like wanting tougher gun laws to prevent possible crimes.

|

After Kate Steinle was murdered by illegal immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez this month in San Francisco, illegal immigration and specifically the practices of "sanctuary cities" (including San Francisco) came under intense fire.

Many politicians and pundits blamed the tragedy on that practice of many cities to not actively investigate and enforce federal immigration law on everyone, or to detain people on behalf of or turn over people to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Had Lopez-Sanchez been turned over for (yet another) deportation to the feds after a recent appearance in a San Francisco court over an ancient drug charge, Steinle would still be alive.

The overarching reason for such policies is that policing immigrant heavy communities is far more difficult if many of your citizens are afraid to speak to or deal with police for fear of deportation. Given the incredibly backlogged system for hearing asylum cases or considering the legitimate reasons a non-citizen might be able to stay here, deporting people nabbed for often petty crimes (an Obama administration specialty!) can seem inhumane, to the humane.

Among those jumping on the anti-sanctuary-city bandwagon was presidential candidate and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

Paul proudly introduced the PACT Act ("Protecting American Citizens Together," ugh), because, as he states in his office's emailed press release, "Our nation now has whole cities and states who stand up and willingly defy federal immigration laws in order to protect illegal immigrants who have broken our nation's laws. This must end and it must end now. My bill makes it clear, the American people will not stand for cities harboring violent criminals."

The bill would cut off a range of federal law enforcement grants to localities from any city daring to go its own way on enforcing federal immigration law. This, from a politician who generally sells himself as a strong federalist welcoming local experimentation, especially when, as with marijuana law, respect for local decisions might halt government interference with people's lives for no good reason. Medical marijuana states are themselves "defying" federal laws, yet that doesn't bother Paul on principle.

Paul seems to think immigration is different. The above comment from Paul's mouth, and other language in the press release, strongly implies—hell, outright states—that being in this country without jumping through the government's complicated hoops (that are more or less impossible to jump through anyway) makes one a "violent criminal."

But as Nick Gillespie pointed out last week, despite immigration restrictionist fantasies that illegal immigrants = crime wave, a sanctuary city such as San Francisco, despite being the site for Steinle's horrible murder, has a lower murder rate than many comparable non-sanctuary cities. Much-touted increased deportations of "criminal immigrants" are much more often about violators of traffic laws, not laws against person or property. Higher rates of immigration do not equal higher rates of actual crime.

It's curious for Rand Paul, or any Republican, to get outraged in this case that laws exist that, if more toughly enforced, could potentially have saved a life—even though in the staggeringly vast majority of cases enforcing deportation laws would save no lives but but merely bedevil or harm someone trying to peacefully live and sell his labor or services to others.

Curious, because when similar logic is used about gun laws—the constant cry to toughen existing laws about who can obtain guns and how whenever a rare outlier uses a gun to kill—Paul and other Second Amendment defenders recognize that a far-off chance of preventing some unpredictable crime is not a sufficient excuse to waste government resources and restrict peaceful people's lives. Anyone who respects liberty more than they respect "the law" should recognize that the logic is as foolish in the case of immigration law as it is in the case of gun law. 

So far actual sanctuary cities don't seem inclined to use Steinle's murder as an excuse to change their policies, minus the sort of federal threat Paul is advocating. As USA Today reports, the practice of holding people in jail on ICE's behalf might not be entirely legal anyway:

Johnson County (Kansas) Sheriff Frank Denning points to a U.S. District Court decision out of Oregon last year that ruled in favor of a woman who was incarcerated for 15 days solely on a request from ICE. There was no judicial order or warrant. That, according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart, violated the woman's Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.

Denning said that ruling cemented in his mind that holding onto suspects solely on an ICE order was a violation of federal law.

Based partly on that ruling, ICE is currently transitioning to a system where they simply ask to be notified when certain immigrants are set to be released from local jails.

Thus, it was (another) disappointment to those of us who crave a Rand Paul who argues and legislates from his libertarian side that he joined the anti-immigrant bandwagon, insisting that a limited and indebted government needs to make kicking people out for not following immigration rules a top priority, federalism be damned.

That Paul's tool to punish sanctuary cities is cutting off certain federal funds is a libertarian plus, yes. But unless and until he advocates ending all the federal law enforcement grants his PACT Act would take away from sanctuary cities, PACT is objectively anti-free-movement-of-people, not pro-fiscal-responsibility.

Even Ron Paul, often held up as a gold standard of small government purism against which the son is at best pyrite, griped to me back in 2007 that he doesn't consider pure open borders (especially in a welfare-state world) a necessary libertarian position; that makes one "anarchists, and I'm not. I believe in national borders and national security."

Even granting that, it's troubling that a politician like Paul whose selling point is supposed to be recognizing the out of control expense and reach of government advocates and prioritizes tossing out people merely for a failure to obey arbitrary rules that have nothing necessarily to do with protecting anyone's live or property, and in fact prevents Americans from hiring, receiving services from, or otherwise interacting with people who they might chose to. It's not an encouraging sign of either his dedication to liberty writ large or his willingness to be a maverick in a GOP pack behaving as if illegal immigration (trending down for years) is one of the most vital public policy issues facing this troubled nation.

Ron Paul in 1983 entered an interesting comment about immigration into the Congressional Record from libertarian economics teacher Hans Sennholz. It read:

In the cause of individual freedom, we must defend the rights of all people, including illegal aliens. But if the political rights of American citizenship entail the denial of the human right to work diligently for one's economic existence, and if we are forced to choose between the two, we must opt for the latter. The right to sustain one's life through personal effort and industry is a basic human right that precedes and exceeds all political rights. 

Merely being dragged into the police's maw for any of the myriad, often petty and pointless, reasons that one might end up in it is no adequate reason to deport them, to deny that right Sennholz talks about to someone who crossed a border in a manner the federal government prohibits. (Actual violent crime is a different story, but despite using that phrase Paul's bill makes no distinctions about the reasons an illegal immigrant ends up in the justice system.) That is the proper attitude toward immigration for someone, even someone running for president, who values liberty and free markets.

Advertisement

NEXT: Sandra Bland's Arrest and the Expectation of Meek Subservience

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. The ghost of LoneWacko lives on.

  2. So are we done with Rand Paul?

    1. I dunno, but I suppose he does things like this because he is trying to capture the GOP nomination. I think that’s a pipe dream anyway. The GOP is run by unprincipled scum anyway. He would be marginalized even if he sounded like the second coming of John McCain. And like it or not, Liberals respect John McCain way more than they would ever give props to Paul.
      On the other hand, for those of you who remember his dad’s 2008 run, you’ll remember even senior Paul wasn’t exactly an open borders guy and in fact seemed to select a tough border stance as a salient part of his campaign.
      I’ll give Paul credit where it’s due and criticize him when I disagree, but I’m not holding my breath for any libertarian moment anytime soon. I like oxygen too much.

      1. I liked the idea of Rand Paul as candidate and many of the things he said before he started running. A bit of pandering to the so-called base here or there is whatever, but at this rate he’s turned into a major disappointment.

        1. “… he’s turned into a major disappointment.”

          I think you should prepare for more of that. I think Rand is trying to cater to the GOP so they will not actively try to crush his chances as they did his father’s. He also needs to appeal to the SoCons and old schoolhouse type Republicans.

          I expected a great amount of pandering and I suppose that’s why I’m not the same type of disappointed as you seem to be. I’m disappointed that he “has” to pander to the likes of who he is pandering to.

          1. I expected pandering to an extent. But he’s done so much of it that he’s failing to distinguish himself in any unique capacity from the rest of the troglodyte SoCon pack.

            1. Cogently written, m.

          2. It’s a never ending spiral down into the neo con norm. He compromises, assuming he actually believes like his father did, to get elected and what happens after he’s elected? He continues to compromise or indulges in greater compromise in order to be re elected, so eventually we have another politician who will do he thinks he has to get elected. He, like Walker, is jumping on the Trump immigration band wagon because they see that it resonates. If he compromises his values to get elected, then what proof do we have that he ever had them in the first place?

            1. Yes, clearly you should scuttle Rand Paul because there are so many other viable alternative libertarian(ish) candidates. PURITY FIRST!!

        2. Perfect, meet good.

      2. Rand Paul doesn’t go nearly far enough.

        The overarching reason for such policies is that policing immigrant heavy communities is far more difficult if many of your citizens are afraid to speak to or deal with police for fear of deportation.

        The solution to THAT problem is simple: Get rid of all the people who “fear deportation”.

        Just put sniper teams on the border. Video a dozen kills – with all the gore – body parts flying through the air, bloody mist where a head used to be.

        Transmit the video to Mexico 24/7/365 with the message, “This is what invaders can expect.”

        Then to get rid of the criminal aliens already here, give them six months to get out. Any caught after that forfeit all property and spend two years in a desert tent prison in Arizona run by sheriff Arpaio. Then they’re deported with the warning that if they EVER return, they will be executed. If they do return, execute them. They were warned.

        The final piece of the puzzle: Fine employers and landlords who employ or rent property to criminal aliens $1000 per day.

        With no jobs, no place to live, the possibility of being shot coming across the border, two years in prison after losing all their property if they stay and death if they return, the flood of criminal aliens will stop – immediately. This is not THEIR Country, and they need to be forcibly and emphatically reminded of that.

        HELP SAVE AMERICAN LIVES
        http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

    2. I think he’s willing to let his “libertarian” base of small contributors drift away bit by bit as he tacks to the center, seeking the big money donors. The problem is that he’s actually running to win, while many of his supporters want him only as a highly visible advertisement like his father was. Wrong on abortion, but sincere. Wrong on ISIL. Wrong on Iran treaty. Now, wrong on immigration and federalism. The LP has taken the big-name bait over and over again on a smaller scale only to muddy the brand each time without measurable electoral success. Let’s send Rand back to the Senate where he can do some good and look for a new way to undermine the party that gave us George W. Bush and threatened us with John McCain.

      1. The problem is that he’s actually running to win, while many of his supporters want him only as a highly visible advertisement like his father was.

        Agreed.

        Wrong on abortion, but sincere.

        Didn’t realize that abortion was a libertarian purity test. I guess, despite my thinking otherwise, I’m not a libertarian.

        The LP has taken the big-name bait over and over again on a smaller scale only to muddy the brand each time without measurable electoral success. Let’s send Rand back to the Senate where he can do some good and look for a new way to undermine the party that gave us George W. Bush and threatened us with John McCain.

        Aren’t you directly contradicting yourself? You recognize above that the supporters are more interested in visibility than electability, and then you say that it’s bad that there has been no electoral success and we should toss Rand back into the Senate. Either his supporters care about electability (at the sacrifice of the libertarian purity test), or they merely care about visibility (and the concomitant libertarian purity). You can’t have both.

        It seems to me that Rand Paul is as close to an electable libertarian as we’ve gotten in a long, long time. Granted, he’s only roughly electable and only roughly libertarian, but it’s either that or back to voting Gary Johnson and defending ourselves against the “threw away your vote” brigade while Boooosh 3.0 or Hildebeast 2.0 march us further down the path to hard tyranny.

        1. No contradiction. A presidential candidate has symbolic value but no power, while a senator has power. Better than muddle the message publicly, stay pure and build power in the Senate, perhaps try again in 4-8-12 years. Even worse than a campaign tacking ever farther from liberty would be a Presidency as feckless to stated ideals as Obama’s. Valuing electability over purity is akin to putting security over liberty. A thrown away vote is one for the lesser evil over a candidate who reasonably represents your values, or any at all when none do.

    3. Because sanctuary cities are a GOOD thing? They’re not. Why do so many of you go retard mode on immigration? It’s this kind of shit that keeps libertarian candidates on the fringe.

  3. The bill would cut off a range of federal law enforcement grants to localities from any city daring to go its own way on enforcing federal immigration law. This, from a politician who generally sells himself as a strong federalist welcoming local experimentation…

    I’m confused as to how advocating “if you want to do shit your own way, pay for it with your own money” makes one weak on federalism.

    1. I will agree that the two Pauls’ ‘anti-immigration’ stems completely from the we-don’t-like-cradle-to-grave welfare, but unless they couple their immigration stance without saying ‘nor is it anyone’s birthright to get free shit, either’, they will end up losing the debate every time. And unfortunately a lot of Americans think it is their birthright to get free shit.

      1. but unless they couple their immigration stance without saying ‘nor is it anyone’s birthright to get free shit, either’, they will end up losing the debate every time

        Think you meant couple with, but…lose the debate with whom?

        1. Yeah. Thanks. I’m saying they will lose to the person that argues that they are immigrant-haters, because they’ll attract the legions of people who are nativists and thus be guilty by association. It doesn’t have to be logical or even make sense, but that’s the automatic response and no one will even question it. Think Maddow or someone like that.
          So it’s a bad strategy.

          1. Being tough on illegals polls very well. As it should.

      2. And what you wrote has nothing to do with whether localities should receive grants to enforce laws that they won’t enforce.

        1. I don’t have to. I’m saying that as long as Paul connects the dots between the immigrant murderer and this bill, which he is, he is ostensibly using this incident politically to appeal to the nativists that inhabit the GOP. You may see the Federal vs local issue (yes, I see your point), but it seems an ill advised problem to go after and his rhetoric certainly hasn’t highlighted your point.

          1. I don’t have to. I’m saying that as long as Paul connects the dots between the immigrant murderer and this bill, which he is, he is ostensibly using this incident politically to appeal to the nativists that inhabit the GOP.

            So, you’re of the opinion that, whether that’s the intent or not, appealing to more voters in the GOP would be a bad thing because you and Rachel Maddow would characterize any attempt to enforce immigration laws as anti-immigrant?
            I would have thought appealing to GOP voters was sort of what you did running in the GOP. Good thing I’m not a politician.

            1. In that case, everything Elizabeth Warren says is ok because she is just appealing to Democrats.

              1. We weren’t discussing merits, we were discussing strategy.

              2. Well, I tried to, but then somehow what Rachel Maddow and a swath of GOP nativists thought about it became relevant

                1. Not wanting tens of millions of poor illegals in the country does not make one a “nativist.”

                  1. “Nativist” is just a random insult to hurl at people when actually addressing their argument would be a lot of work. As such, it doesn’t really have to mean what it actually means.

                    1. How about, they commit crimes, depress wages, take jobs from Americans, cost the taxpayer BILLIONS in services such as Medical, Welfare, costs to the judicial system, the prison systems, and I mean I could go on…. My guess is PapayaSF knew these things and figures a person in the know would understand… I guess not…

            2. Correct. But appealing to the GOP and appealing to GOP voters are two different matters. Had you been tuned into Ron Paul’s 2008 run you’d see what I’m saying. The GOP hates Paul. The voters, not at all.
              In fact, the GOP is so douchey, they would use Maddow to destroy Paul. That’s how it works. You and me. We did not invent the system, but welcome…to the machine.

              1. The GOP hates [Ron] Paul. The voters, not at all.

                Citation Needed, and not a straw poll or a single state caucus result.

    2. I’m confused as to how advocating “if you want to do shit your own way, pay for it with your own money” makes one weak on federalism.

      Except the feds still take a large chunk of the local’s money. It should be: “if you want to do shit your own way, pay for it with your own money and no need to worry about earmarks because we won’t take most of your taxes”

    3. I’m also confused.

      While it may be a disreputable practice to some, it seems legitimate for the Feds to say no ticky no laundry, as long as the money being withheld is directly related to the activity in question.

  4. Even if I disagreed with Paul, which I don’t, it would be pretty difficult to get upset over him saying one wrong thing when everything else he says is on target. Contrast that with the fuckwit we have in the whitehouse now, a guy who gets it wrong every single fucking time.

    Every. Time.

    1. Il meglio ? nemico del bene

    2. “a guy who gets it wrong every single fucking time.”

      He commuted the sentences of 46 recently. So not every time. I hate him, but let’s be fair.

      1. Only 46? I’m sure people would say that’s (mostly) wrong, so his perfect record remains!

  5. “The overarching reason for such policies is that policing immigrant heavy communities is far more difficult if many of your citizens are afraid to speak to or deal with police for fear of deportation.”

    And the Orwellian abuse of language continues apace. An alien, especially an illegal one, is not a citizen.

    1. We are all citizens of the world, comrade.

      1. Citizenship has its privileges: like getting your ass taxed wherever in the world you live in the wide world. Citizenship is a bit overrated I’d say.

        1. “Citizenship is a bit overrated I’d say.”

          Depends on whether you’re a tax payer or a beneficiary of a welfare state.

        2. US Citizenship is not overrated. The taxation abroad issue is about the only downside, and in most cases all you have to do is file the paperwork, not actually pay any taxes. The upside is that you can still vote in the US while living abroad. To contrast, as a Danish expat, I’m not allowed to vote in Danish elections, and if I own property in Denmark I’ll get taxed in both countries.

          Everyone complains about how horrible the US is because it’s not perfect, but it’s a damn sight more perfect than pretty much anywhere else. And Americans still have a chance to make their country more perfect, something people in most other countries really don’t.

          Becoming a US citizen is my highest aspiration for those reasons.

          1. “Becoming a US citizen is my highest aspiration for those reasons.”

            Awesome and good luck.

            1. Thanks! Hopefully I won’t need any luck at all in the matter 🙂

        3. That’s why I don’t think illegals really care about citizenship, but every pro-amnesty plan has to include “a path to citizenship”. Permanent residency has advantages over citizenship. For one thing, you don’t have to get a visa whenever you want to visit your home country. You can do business more easily in your home country that otherwise. There is nothing to prevent Congress from creating some kind of permanent residency status that has NO path to citizenship plus no enabling of chain immigration.

          1. “that has NO path to citizenship plus no enabling of chain immigration.”

            How is the Democratic party going to get additional votes from that policy?

            1. How is the Democratic party going to get additional votes from that policy?

              Lack of voter ID and lax poll enforcement?

      2. Sorry, I am a citizen of the US and it was earned in blood… Feel free to take that silly concept to Russia, China, or pick just about most of the countries of the world where coruption is the norm….

    2. An alien is not a citizen, but let’s suppose you had a business, say in the tourist industry. Wouldn’t you want the government to treat your customers like human beings? Being an alien is not a crime and when it is, as in illegal alien, it’s a pretty freaking minor one.
      If you have a problem with someone getting free shit at your expense or committing crimes, isn’t the getting free shit and the committing crimes what you have a problem with? Regardless of the persons citizenship?

      1. Yes, and when the free shit and catch-and-release treatment of violent illegals both go away we can take a fresh look at immigration.

        1. Right now, rogue cops are kinda the problem. Hows about cops clamping down on violent crime no matter what the perp’s nationality?

          1. that would be fine but they are only clamping down on citizen where as the illegals are allowed to go free. In California a citizen with 3 felonies is put in jail for life but if you illegal with seven they let you walk the street due to bull shit. they have to have an alterior motive to allow this to happen.

      2. Illegal aliens are not tourists, they are here to live and take your job, and all the benefits, and free stuff our fascist mafia government can throw at them.

        1. What free stuff?
          Are you also a birther?

    3. Really. Reason criticizing Trump for being dishonest about immigration is pretty rich. People who live in glass houses…

    4. Mickey Rat beat me to the comment about illegals not being citizens. Also, Doherty’s comment “being in this country without jumping through the government’s complicated hoops (that are more or less impossible to jump through anyway). . . .” is undermined by his own link to the immigration flow chart. It shows that it’s not “impossible” to jump through the hoops. Yes, it’s difficult and takes time and you may be disqualified but it’s not impossible.

      1. Yes, it’s difficult and takes time and you may be disqualified but it’s not impossible.

        It comes down to philosophy. If you believe that national borders are an abomination and that everyone deserves all the rights, privileges, and entitlements established by the government where a person happens to migrate, then ANY path to citizenship that doesn’t provide an instant granting of those things as soon as you cross the border will be seen as inherently unfair, overly burdensome, and completely unnecessary. If you regard the border as essentially a wall, then if people want to actually live here, they need to line up in a queue at designated crossings and fit within certain arbitrary demographic parameters in order to cross the border and settle (and if you commit a felony before obtaining citizenship, it’s deportation up the rope). If you spent your savings and risked death or rape to get to the border, too fucking bad–get in line and prove you belong here, or go back to the shithole you came from.

        There should be a decent middle ground between these two extremes, but the atomization of our society coupled with dramatic social and cultural changes in the last 20-30 years is making people less willing to compromise on those issues. So when Jose steals a gun from an FBI agent and kills a pretty white girl, or when blacks see their old neighborhoods ethnically cleansed by Hispanic gangs, there’s going to be more sympathy towards restricting immigration.

        1. Restricting immigration is the only practical outcome at this point. It’s completely irrational to believe otherwise.

        2. “ANY path to citizenship that doesn’t provide an instant granting of those things as soon as you cross the border will be seen as inherently unfair, overly burdensome”

          Kind of like how burdensome it is to get a voter ID.

  6. Sounds like someone wants to get past the GOP primary.

  7. So what laws are we officially allowed to break without actually getting arrested?

    1. Depends on the whims of whoever’s in power.

      1. Or whether or not you were issued a badge.

    2. Whatever you can get away with. If you want extra special priveleges, join Team Government. They’re always hiring somewhere. I think you can even fill out your application on line now. They have great benefits.

  8. Not every illegal is a violent criminal and the vast majority of immigrants legal and illegal don’t want violent criminals living near them.

    Ending sanctuary cities doesn’t mean the police go around checking people’s citizenship it just means when they arrest someone or run a criminal background check and it turns out some has been convicted of a crime, they then check their citizenship status. So the vast majority of illegals are in no danger of being deported by local police

    Doherty is an idiot and frankly a Donald Trump level racist since he seems to think all immigrants are violent criminals

    1. WTF? I missed the part where Doherty came out as a DT-level racist. Idiot? Really?

      1. Sure,

        He’s saying that all illegal aliens self identify as violent felons when he implies that a law that deports felony convicted aliens would prevent otherwise law abiding felons from cooperating with the police.

        1. I thought he was simply stating that illegal aliens are reluctant to deal with authority for fear of deportation. My bad. I forgot how efficient government is. So you’re right, Doherty is a fucking racist and an idiot to boot.
          Sign me up for idiot and racist while you’re at it.

    2. Doherty is an idiot and frankly a Donald Trump level racist since he seems to think all immigrants are violent criminals

      Citation needed.

      1. I can’t read the article for you.

        1. In his defense, the article conveniently leaves out exactly what the law is that Paul thinks should be enforced. It’s just taken for granted it’s bad, because any law that has anything to do with immigration is bad, mkay?

    3. So why reserve this only for immigrants then? What difference does it make whether someone is an immigrant or not if they’re a true criminal?

      I say citizens should be deported too. Into the ocean.

      1. If you don’t believe in borders sure. Since I do, aliens don’t have the same right to be here as citizens. If you don’t, good for you.

        1. Borders aren’t the problem. Borders designate jurisdiction. I won’t argue with that. The argument is what sort of deed restrictions exist. I’m willing to accept that people don’t agree with me and though I might think (idiots! and maybe they are), most of the time they aren’t and they are either opportunists or some intellectual fellow traveler with a different world view.
          But as to borders, I tend to think of the US being mostly private and public land with all sorts of deed restrictions in place that are generally enforced on all sorts of levels.
          I don’t think illegal immigrants try to trump those rules any more than native citizens.

      2. SF used to have sanctuary style laws that if you were caught doing a crime and claimed to be 17 years old or young illegal, then you would not be charged with a crime, and instead deported back to your home country.

        Guess how many seriously dangerous illegal gangbangers suddenly became 17 year olds?

        I also don’t get why no one cares about the rule of law.

        Laws are not being enforced selectively. People are being harmed.

        Would everyone here be fine with Alabama becoming a “sanctuary from gay marriage state?”

    4. How is Trump a racist for not wanting millions of indigent refugees pouring into the U.S. without any controls or consideration of the consequence? Also, you do know Mexico is a country and not a race, right?

    5. “Not every illegal is a violent criminal…”

      True, but every one of them IS a criminal. Violent or not.

      1. Then you agree that Rand is full of shit for saying they’re all violent.

  9. This is an excellent post, and a serious disappointment from Rand Paul (another one). Paul can sound gutsy at times, and then utterly clueless. He gained visibility by being “different”, but now he seems to feel that he needs to be just like everybody else. What’s the point of being “Jeb Bush II”–Jeb Bush with 1/10th the name recognition and 1/1,000th the money? I wonder if Paul will even run for a second Senate seat. “This politics stuff is hard!”

    1. Good to know you are a racist too who thinks every illegal alien is a convicted felon. Maybe you should try to hang out with someone besides other while people.

      1. Fucking stop, John. You know he isn’t a racist and you know Doherty isn’t a racist. I didn’t understand where you were coming from until Zaytsev explained it to me above.
        John, you are wasting your talent. You should be a lawyer.

      2. Good to know you are a racist too who thinks every illegal alien is a convicted felon

        Then Rand Paul is also a racist, by equating all illegals with violent criminals.

  10. “If US immigration and Customs Enforcement issues a detainer for such alien”

    Does immigration enforcement is a detainee for all aliens?

    1. *issue a detainer

      The bill says that is what they must comply with. I really don’t know if that’s what they do, but it doesn’t seem like it.

  11. The bill would cut off a range of federal law enforcement grants to localities from any city daring to go its own way on enforcing federal immigration law.

    So don’t enforce federal law, don’t get federal money. I fail to see the problem. He’s not saying they can’t keep doing what they’re doing.

    1. Again why is it that whenever a reason writer falls into derp it is always leftist derp? The never go the other way.

      1. What even qualifies as rightist derp these days?

        It used to be stuff like seeking to curtail free speech, fighting the drug war, supporting out-of-control cops no matter what, and liking war were all right-wing characteristics. But it seems the left has wholeheartedly embraced those things as well.

        1. What even qualifies as rightist derp these days?

          Maybe flag burning, support your local SWAT team even if they kill a baby, drugs are bad, and bomb something.

        2. But you’re right. Not a whole hell of difference between Teams these days.

          1. Exactly my point. Team Blue is fine with flag burning but don’t you dare criticize any protected class. Cops are cool so long as they admit black lives matter. (The burned baby, old men shot in their beds, and all those dead family dogs are fair game.) Drugs ARE bad with the one possible exception of pot. And bombing is totally fine, including a teenage boy having breakfast with his friends, as long as it’s not a Republican giving the order.

            I keep hearing these Reason writers only lean left and never lean right. But other than coming out and supporting Trump’s immigration stance, I don’t see where they can advocate for a right-wing cause.

            1. Team Blue is for suppressing the political speech of unapproved groups of citizens. They may be cool with flag burning, but they not cool with books and documentaries.

            2. Right wing causes to advocate for:

              – Criminal justice reform (yes only Paul from the right, and Reason’s run a few articles on this)
              – Reforming the Tax code (see Paul yesterday, shit he used a woodchipper dammit!)
              – Rule of Law (this is a big one, Libertarians value contracts and agreements between individuals and also between governments and individuals. The current administrations selective enforcement and punishment of only political enemies is a vile precedent.)
              – Repeal of Obamacare (this ones easy, entitlement, expensive, gorvernment mandate, its totally anti-liberty)
              – And Dare I say maybe one writer could freaking point out that the Iran deal is bad and will be broken (just as a counterpoint to the fawning articles seen here. I mean hell the North Korea agreement worked for what 6, 8 years, we gave them a bunch of money and they made a bomb anyway. Iran is following the same path. If they’re going to have the bomb anyway, why the hell are we ending sanctions and giving them money?)
              – States Rights.
              – Free Markets. (while Reason hit Bernie on his insane “too much deodorant” crap, they could keep hitting him as he tries to explain how this time for sure a planned economy is going to work. If you want to talk about millennials, you could run a story explaining to the that this communism shit they’re so enamored with has been tried before and is always a complete abject muderous failure in the end.)

              1. Yes, I noticed that Rand Paul has now embraced Woodchippers. I wonder if prosecutor Voldemort has now convened a Grand Jury investigation of him now.

      2. John, progs leftists have nothing but the purest and noblest intentions with immigration. Sure, they’re evil morons on every other issue, but this one will be different. Amnesty and sanctuary for very narrow demographics that just happen to vote Democrat will surely lead to open borders for all.

        1. *-leftists

      3. So you’d rather they stroke your war-boner?

        1. No Big sexy save all my bones for you.

          1. Save it for your toxic Canadian boyfriend.

    2. Well said.

    3. So don’t enforce federal law, don’t get federal money. I fail to see the problem.

      Then why are the feds still taking your money?

      1. Because FYTW? I agree it would be cool if local governments could opt out of Federal laws. The payments and the enforcement. Hell, there might still be a CSA

  12. So I get the anarcho-capitalists have no use for any government. But the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. So how does having certain requirements for entry and stay in the US violate the Constitution?

    Are there ANY countries that don’t have rules regarding entry, visa issuance and citizenship?

    1. Imagine there’s no countries

    2. Somalia!111!!1

      1. So that’s why they call it a Libertarian paradise. I finally understand.

    3. Yes, this is actually something government is supposed to be doing.

    4. “So how does having certain requirements for entry and stay in the US violate the Constitution?”

      It doesn’t. Open border idiots are just that – idiots. It also has nothing to do with being a Libertarian. Some of the stances Reason takes are just ignorant bullshit. They are not the mouthpiece of Libertarians and only share some of the values.

      1. Yeah, the bastards follow the libertarian value of being socially liberal.

  13. “Wanting tougher immigration law to prevent possible crimes is like wanting tougher gun laws to prevent possible crimes.”

    This is a terrible analogy. It also appears he has unintentionally revealed his ignorance of the arguments against gun control.

  14. “Rand Paul’s Anti-Sanctuary City Bill Values Arbitrary Government Rules Over Liberty”

    Headline of an article arguing for arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the law.

  15. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  16. I am so sick of this shit.

    You know Reason take a look out there. You don’t see the damned mainstream media even ACKNOWLEDGING that Hillary has committed numerous felonies while in and out of office. They don’t question a god damned thing she says. Just unwavering support.

    There is ONE, ONE candidate that has even any Libertarian ideas running for President. Looking at his tax policy video from yesterday it’s also clear he understands the current libertarian memes and movements going on right now. But the leading libertarian magazine is attacking him nearly every other day. With friends like these.

    One angle to what Rand is saying is that Sanctuary cities are choosing which laws to follow and which laws to ignore. This is horrendous in view of how the Obama administration uses the law. Rule of law has been replaced by Rule of man where the Top Men in charge determine who did what wrong and punish, not lawbreakers, but their selected enemy. I see nothing wrong with Paul saying that Sanctuary cities should follow the law and not pick and choose what to enforce. But in the bizzaroland we now live in Arizona is sued because they’re enforcing the law and San Francisco is not when they’re not enforcing it.

    Immigration law needs to be changed. As a libertarian, I believe we should allow everyone who honestly wants to come here and live and work in, but damn, this totally uncontrolled just let anyone walk across an undefended border shit is insanity.

    1. I know you’re really cosmotarians and only pot legalization and gay marriage (I was going to say free love, but damn, the Progs have come up with the most bedroom invasive policy conceivable with yes means yes, so thats out) matter. So shit Reason, tear down Paul, talk up Bernie (and use the kid glvoes on Hillary) and when the old coots smile as they send you off to camp to be reeducated at least feel solace that you’ll be able to smoke pot , marry someone of the same sex, and even have sex as long as you have the right forms signed.

      1. I know you’re really cosmotarians and only pot legalization and gay marriage

        You forgot about Mexicans.

        1. That was the point of the whole of the article, so I think it was considered implicit. 😉

          1. Oh right, true?

    2. As a libertarian, I believe we should allow everyone who honestly wants to come here and live and work in, but damn, this totally uncontrolled just let anyone walk across an undefended border shit is insanity.

      I’m fine with open borders, but I don’t believe it compatible with an open welfare state.

      I’d also argue that communities ought to be able to implement their own immigration policies. It’s something best left to markets to sort out.

    3. JWW,
      My advice. You chose a difficult road by really caring and learning from keen insight from the past. Graft is easy and on the evolution clock of humanity we (the libertarian moment) represent a miniscule part of time. Live your life understanding that and making decisions understanding that,
      There’s no rapture in libertarianism. It’s gradual. Deal with that. Do your part when you can.
      Some people think they will save the world by recycling. You. You won’t save the world. But you’ll make it a more enticing place to live by spreading the libertarian word. And you don’t even have to sell WatchTowers.

      1. You actually pay for Watchtower?

        1. Where do I mail your trophy?

    4. Be sick about. We all went through that phase. You won’t change the world in politics and honestly no one should have that power.

    5. There is ONE, ONE candidate that has even any Libertarian ideas running for President.

      Dude, they’re getting the Sanders support articles ready, give them time.

      1. Dude, they’re getting the Sanders support articles ready, give them time.

        They’ll ingratiate themselves into the popular kids crowd over at Salon and HuffPo any day now. The dream is real.

        1. “Any day now”? Where have you been?

          1. Does Salon and HuffPo accept Reason as one of their own now? Wasn’t aware this place had fallen quite that far.

            1. Well no. They haven’t written any pro-Sanders articles. Yet. But Steve Chapman hasn’t spoken up on the issue, either.

            2. They don’t want another subpoena, so they are puckering up and kissing leftist ass.

    6. “But the leading libertarian magazine is attacking him nearly every other day. With friends like these”

      So more puff pieces?

      Having the occasional reality check is a good thing. It’s not like the commentariat doesn’t give them shit.

      1. “Having the occasional reality check is a good thing”

        Sure. But what’s the ratio on Hillary to Paul articles. I think Reason writes more articles bashing each of the the top 5 to 10 Republican candidates than they do bashing all of the Democratic candidates combined.

        There are reasons for that, but the overall result is to imply that the Democratic candidates aren’t as bad as the Republican candidates.

        1. Everyone better start backing some. If the right people or that cunt will be our next dictator.

  17. what other country allows illegals to be born there citizenship? and seize the assets of any business caught hiring illegals, that would send a message.

    1. Seizing assets? Come on. Think about what you just said. I thought we were all sort of skeptical of government here.

  18. As much as libertarians like the idea of open borders, myself included, I don’t think it is a viable reality with the welfare state that is in place and the America haters abroad wishing to get in and cause us harm (mostly caused by blow back from foreign policy). What is a nation-state without borders? Is a nation-state possible without borders?

    1. As much as libertarians like the idea of open borders, myself included, I don’t think it is a viable reality with the welfare state that is in place and the America haters abroad wishing to get in and cause us harm (mostly caused by blow back from foreign policy). What is a nation-state without borders? Is a nation-state possible without borders?

      I prefer the idea of nations as cultural entities born of free association. Whereas nation-states and their arbitrary boundaries are political entities, and we know what that entails.

      I agree that open borders and open welfare are incompatible. But threats from terrorism are too anomalously insignificant to warrant a walled police state, and could be dealt with largely as a domestic policing issue if/when it happens.

      1. I agree. The threats of terrorism are exaggerated in order to steel our liberty and police the fuck out of us. I should have been more clear, I think open borders are not compatible with a welfare state and/or our current foreign policy (really our foreign policy since the original “Progressives” of the early 20th century).

      2. Yes free association. But when my club votes not to allow new members, but then people keep showing up anyway, demanding free food and not even chipping in pay for chips and salsa, then my original club’s right to free association is being violated.

        1. A granular immigration policy of local communities opting to keep immigrants in or out would be preferable to the obtusely broad Federal approach we have now.

          1. We don’t have freedom of association because of public accommodation laws.

            Open borders is a natural ideological consequence of rejecting freedom of association. Evil America must be compassionate and let everyone in. It’s a moral obligation we owe others once you “realize” freedom of association is just bigotry.

            What do open borders proponents label their opponents? racists, nativists. These people are the equivalent of the Civil Rights ideology applied to an international context.

            This is not a libertarian position. It’s a leftist position about assumed responsibility, justified with some extremely weak rationalization about freedom to move shitting on freedom of association (and property rights).

            This is Reason showing that its more leftist than its readership, and wants to actively influence them towards left leaning. Baby steps, but that is the clear departure they have from libertarians. Not outside the libertarian consciousness, but always on the left side of the grey areas.

            1. Libertarianism is about treating people as individuals. This is something the neither the left nor the right can comprehend.

              If a fundamentalist Christian baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then why can’t an American farmer hire a Mexican citizen to pick fruit — and vice versa? In all cases, individuals should be free to decide whom they associate with and conduct business with.

      3. And letting anyone wanders in who feels like it is a bad idea for other reasons too. TB, scarlet fever, etc. making a comeback thanks to this bullshit. As most of the shithole countries these people come from have not eliminated those diseases like we have.

    2. As much as libertarians like the idea of open borders

      I don’t know that this is true. It’s always felt tacked on. Perhaps a gramscian intrusion into Libertarianism.

      Libertarianism is a movement devoted to private property rights, this ‘open borders fanaticism’ leads inexorably to the ‘private property is theft’ ideal of the moron left. I suspect that somewhere along the way, libertarians support for freedom of contract–the right to contract with whoever one wishes, no matter where they’re from, was co-opted to serve the open borders idea by pointing out that the people you want to contract with have to be able to get to you.

      No one bothered to notice that contracting with someone is vastly different from having a large pool of unemployeds non-citizens just waiting around in case you want to contract with them.

      I suspect an actual libertarian take on borders would be borders that are treated more like real property lines– easy to cross for contracted workers, tourists, and legal immigrants–and unsafe to cross for trespassers.

      1. I suspect an actual libertarian take on borders would be borders that are treated more like real property lines– easy to cross for contracted workers, tourists, and legal immigrants–and unsafe to cross for trespassers.

        Exactly the sort of argument I wish Reason would give nuance to in its immigration articles.

        1. Open borders is the Civil Rights Act applied to national borders. It’s a leftist platform.

        2. I agree. This is the right way to solve the problem.

  19. Rand’s campaign is dead in the water, so he’s trying to outTrump Trump.
    No change, He’s been a liberty hustler all along, like his dad, for states rights except when they want to impose their socon values by force.

    His Senate website says, since it opened, that states should decide abortion, but also BRAGS that he sponsored a FEDERAL bill to ban all abortions at conception … and that he’d do everything he can to ban abortion as a FEDERAL Senator.

    Reason has yet to report his crazy scheme to ban Title X “family planning” funding to Planned Parenthood, thereby INCREASING abortions. Yeah, at one of his tent revivals. .

    1. Trying to start an abortion thread, are you?

      Why do you hate the helpless childrenz?!

      1. Trying to start an abortion thread, are you?

        Umm, no. That was an example to support the hypocrisy regarding states rights (as opposed to federalism). But since you ask …

        Why do you hate the helpless childrenz?!

        Umm, why do you support Rand Paul’s attempt to INCREASE abortions?

        It’s called equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. The mother’s right to liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s unalienable right to life. Self-evident if you know the definition of unalienable.

        Nobody can violate one’s life OR liberty, per the due process clauses in the constitution and Fourth Amendment. States are denied power over this liberty in both the 9th and 14th Amendments?

    2. Reason has yet to report his crazy scheme to ban Title X “family planning” funding to Planned Parenthood, thereby INCREASING abortions. Yeah, at one of his tent revivals.

      As a libertarian, I have no problem with decreasing handouts to non-profits.

      His Senate website says, since it opened, that states should decide abortion, but also BRAGS that he sponsored a FEDERAL bill to ban all abortions at conception

      I don’t see a contradiction. And, in any case, realistically, neither as senator nor as president could he reverse US policy on abortion or SSM or all the other social liberalization. This is political theater. Stop being such a chump.

      No change, He’s been a liberty hustler all along

      Well, neither of the Pauls is a libertarian, but they are libertarian leaning. I mostly care that he might do something more sensible with the economy.

      1. His Senate website says, since it opened, that states should decide abortion, but also BRAGS that he sponsored a FEDERAL bill to ban all abortions at conception

        I don’t see a contradiction.

        Tribal loyalty.

      2. As a libertarian, I have no problem with decreasing handouts to non-profits.

        Slogans and soundbites are not the paths to freedom.

        Umm, why so you support government picking winners and losers? What you’ve endorsed, as a so-called libertarian, is defunding Planned Parenthood’s Title X funding … but nobody else’s

        How are these examples any different.

        1) Defund Planned Parenthood, but continue all other Title X funding
        2) Defund latinos, but continue all other Title X funding.
        3) Defund Planned Parenthood (mostly black women), but continue all other Title X funding (mostly white women)

        All of them cut spending and shrink government, right?
        Answer: Only one of them kisses ass of the Christian Taliban.
        See how tribal slogans and soundbites can lead to REALLY DUMB outcomes?

      3. Yes, it is political theater, and that’s why I find it disappointing.

        Disclaimer: I’ve contributed to Rand Paul’s campaign, and I will certainly vote for him in the primary. I just wish he would return to his libertarian roots, instead of trying to pander to the socons.

  20. Another lame article about illegal immigration. Yes Illegal immigration. Left libertarians!!

    Illegal Alien Crime Wave in Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders

    http://pjmedia.com/jchristiana…..3-murders/

    1. So aliens work as a group. Libertarians are always quick to identify what group someone belongs to because that is the end all of libertarianism. Illegal aliens are just one of those groups.
      Dude, WTF?

    2. PJMEDIA? That’s a conspiracy site. Big numbers are scary. How does that compare with other states?

      Murder = 20th rank
      Violent crime = 17th

      And despite all those rapists … 24th.
      Total crime 7th

      Not adjusted for population, where Texas is 2nd. In other words, PJMediia is fueling hysteria, not facts.

      Bullshitters use total crime rate, but never tell you most of it is immigration. Yes, it’s a crime, but PJ was hyping hysteria on murders and violent.crime. Plus they used “unique crimes” which means if one is arrested on four counts, that’s four unique crimes.

      Don’t be so quick to accept things totally because they confirm your tribal loyalty. Politics is overflowing with bullshit!

      http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

  21. Mass immigration does one thing. Grow government. Reason supports limited government??

    1. Couple illegals aliens swim across the Rio Grande and woman drops a baby. Bingo the baby is an American citizen and qualifies for all sorts of goodies from the taxpayers. Medicaid for the new illegal alien baby who is now an American citizen. Do Doherty and Gillespie realize Medicaid is bankrupting states??

      As California goes so goes the nation. California for the most part is a 3rd world nation.

    2. Mass immigration does one thing. Grow government

      How?
      If you swallow the Medicaid lie, how many others?

      Illegals pay the same taxes as everyone else, but get no benefits Do the math,

  22. “Thus, it was (another) disappointment to those of us who crave a Rand Paul who argues and legislates from his libertarian side”

    I’d like Reason to write from their “libertarian” side by openly rejecting ALL coercive monopolies including the state rather than hide behind that “last secret” so as not to disturb or upset limited-statists !

    I crave a more libertarian Reason.com !

    1. great. you crave your crave. others crave theirs. i thought that was the essence of libertarianism.

    2. I crave a more libertarian Reason.com !

      Yeah! FUCK getting elected and governing. Spend another 40 years in an Ivory Tower, high-fiving each other … until that free society springs from the ground spontaneously!! *headslap*

  23. Letting the looters vote on who’s for lunch

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/v…..whos-lunch

    1. omg racism

    2. Letting the looters vote on who’s for lunch

      Actually, he’s debating libertarianism by which things we “want” — talk over results, what’s been killing us for 40 years. The more we “want” the better we are.

      “I would cut federal spending 50% in 10 years”
      “I would cut federal spending 60% in 5 years”
      “I have a proposal, supported by a majority in both houses of Congress, to cut spending 2% in 3 years”

      Which of those will the goobers stand and cheer?
      Which will libertarians stand and cheer?
      And that’s why the libertarian brand is rejected by even 91% of libertarians (Cato/Zogby survey)
      All show, no go.

  24. I am sorry, but enforcing the rule of law is in fact a libertarian value. If someone is charged with a duty, like reporting people who illegally crossed the border, then they should perform that duty. They have no choice, the country has spoken. If people can decide which laws they can obey and which ones they break, then where is equality under the law? We are talking about people whose first act in this country was illegal. Then when they commit crimes, we keep them here? That is completely illogical. When it comes to the federal government, it is their job to protect the border: one of the only jobs they have. If federal law on border issues does not trump local laws, then we are nothing more than a collection of city-states. Choosing who comes into our country is a responsibility that we should not take lightly. In times of prosperity, and when we need unskilled workers to take jobs, we can always lighten restrictions. When we have 93 million+ not even looking for a job, nearly 50% taking some kind of federal assistance, then, it is time that we bring in skilled people and investors. Cultures should govern themselves. People with common culture and values can make laws that will make themselves happy. Using an open border to change the culture and voting demographics to support your party’s power is wrong (Democrat Party).

    1. Scott Walker was recently confronted by an illegal and her children (of course accompanied by an activist…) The illegal whined about why amnesty had not been done yet, and did Walker want to split up her family by deporting her.

      OK, now, we can all feel for the family, but let’s imagine a citizen didn’t pay their taxes for 20 years. Could they whine about being split from their family when they went to jail?

      I am personally for immigration reform including some form of amnesty, but rule of law is more important. Teddy Roosevelt enforced very unpopular beer laws in NYC. He said if you don’t like a law, change it.

      Immigration reform would not be hard to do if some basic consideration were done for those who oppose illegal immigration: build the wall. act seriously about it.

      then you could easily get amnesty of some kind.

      But, if you think about this, the Democrats don’t want a final solution to this problem. It drives Latino voters to their side. So, they prefer a piecemeal approach that will keep the issue bubbling.

      Ideally, they would want an amnesty every 10-20 years to keep their political clients beholden.

      That would probably last, until like Labor, they finally get a new electorate more to their liking fully in place.

      1. But, if you think about this, the Democrats don’t want a final solution to this problem. It drives Latino voters to their side.

        So a permanent or long-term fix is in the best interests of Republicans. Or stop shitting on Latinos. Both

    2. “I am sorry, but enforcing the rule of law is in fact a libertarian value.”

      So you would have shut down the Underground RR, speakeasies, and all pot shops. Hmmmmmm.

      I am not for open borders, but greatly expanding and simplifying legal immigration would be great.

  25. Time for some hard to swallow [HTS] facts, instead of the usual dreams/fantasies:

    HTS Fact [1] : governments _never_ solve problems, they only create them.

    HTS Fact [2]: It does not matter one iota what Rand Paul, Donald Trump, or any of the rest of these jackasses propose to “fix” immigration [or anything else, for that matter], and it would not even matter if any of their proposals actually became law, either. None of them would/could work, in the real world. Its all just fantasies, put out there by fantasists [or blatant liars], to buy the votes of other fantasists/ignoramuses.

    HTS Fact [3]: Illegal immigration will continue unabated, just as it has done for decades. Why?

    As the late great Harry Browne has said :

    “Immigrants will continue to stream into this country, legally or illegally, so long as there’s a Welcome Wagon waiting at the border ? offering free education, free health care, free welfare and a free lunch…….no law, no policy, no border patrol will stop the flood of illegals.”
    http://www.wnd.com/2001/09/10726/

    HTS Fact [4]: The government created the immigration problem [via welfare etc. etc.], however, it will never “fix” that “problem” [ because, tah-dah!, welfare, and “free” heath care and education etc. etc. buy votes].

    Regards, onebornfree
    The Freedom Network: http://www.freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com

  26. California is debating whether to allow illegal aliens to purchase subsidized healthcare insurance in addition to receiving MediCal.

    Taxes will have to go up to pay for this.

    The libertarian quandary of open borders vs. welfare state is fast becoming a reality that we will have both. So, we can be unhappy with Rand Paul, but California is going to provide the worst of both worlds.

    1. The libertarian quandary of open borders vs. welfare state is fast becoming a reality that we will have both.

      Where’s the “quandary”? A California bankruptcy might well be the impetus for political change.

      1. I think the illegal’s will be using Federal healthcare subsidies to purchase the insurance. Certainly CA doesn’t have enough money to cover that kind of purchase.

        1. That being said, if California is covering the cost out of state funds, I don’t have a problem with it.

  27. I tend to agree with Paul on this one, even though I’m damn near an open borders guy and think marijuana legalization is great. For the comparison to his position on marijuana, there is no explicit authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution to outlaw plants. To regulate interstate commerce of it, sure, but not to simply ban it and override states’ choices on it. To me, the federal pot ban is a clear 10th Amendment issue.

    Immigration, on the other hand, is a realm specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution. Cities and states are no more entitled to simply ignore the federal government’s authority on this issue than they are to ignore free speech, or gun rights, or due process. Do I think immigration is a positive and do I think throwing people who come here to work out of the country is cruel and wrong? Yes. Do I disagree with the federal government’s position on immigration? Absolutely. But I don’t think that arbitrarily ignoring constitutional federal law is an acceptable approach.

    Paul is taking a “rule of law” position on this. It may not be a libertarian position, but we’re a nation that’s governed by the Constitution, and I find his position to be one that’s constitutionally compliant…which is a hell of a lot more than any of the other candidates are putting out. It’s also a hell of a lot less brutal on human rights than most of his Republican (and Democrat, for that matter) opponents are saying.

  28. I thought we libertarians believed in rule of law. The “immigration” debate isn’t about immigration, it’s about enforcement of the laws on the books governing immigration and border control. I’m the son of an immigrant on my father’s side – a legal immigrant, a refugee from eastern Europe, who came here in the early 50’s. I not against immigration. I’m all for reviewing and rationally revising the law. But I am utterly against the philosophy and practice of ignoring the law and allowing a civilian invasion of the country to take place. Especially when the entire object of said practice is to fill out the rolls of the party that believes in the further collectivization of our society.

    Local government is not empowered under the Constitution (Article I Section 8 “The Congress [not the president, unilaterally] shall have power to … To establish a uniform rule of naturalization…” to usurp federal law in this matter. “Sanctuary cities” are by definition acting in defiance of proper, constitutional law, and should be disposed of as such.

    Review and revise immigration law, yes. But every person who entered the country contrary to the law, and their descendants, must be expelled. The rule of law demands it.

    1. Evidently outlaw aliens are an exception …

  29. I agree with Paul, the border is the feds problem. I too thought that libertarians believed in the rule of law. open borders and a welfare state can only exist as long as one person is willing to work to sustain others. I live in a sanctuary city, and our biggest problem is illegals getting DUIs and not having vehicle insurance in car wrecks. they also use up welfare resources for US citizens. what do think happens when they get in trouble? they run back across the border and we are left with the bill…

  30. I am wondering if I should cheat on my taxes, drive the speed limit, or start running red lights… I mean if the laws we have put in place do not mean anything to you people then I guess I will not follow them either..

    I have been hit while driving by two illegal Aliens…. they had no insurance and I suffered the costs associated with an accident…

    I am just one on MILLIONS of Americans who are effected b y illegal Immigration…

    They commit crime, they take jobs, and they depress wages…. and some how this is all well and good…

    Let’s also just ignore how unfair it is to those other people in the world who cannot just slip across our border in ther middle of the night… To bad for those East Asians, Africans, and anyone else that might want to come here legally. Ya, let’s screw them over because they are not real people anyway….

  31. From a libertarian point of view this is irrelevant, since the concept of “immigration” doesn’t make sense. From a US constitutional point of view, control of the borders and immigration is indeed one of the federal powers, and so I don’t see what’s wrong in principle with the federal government enforcing it.

  32. That’s pretty convoluted “reason”ing.

    Enforcing immigration laws and securing the border under existing laws is now seeking tougher laws? “Liberty” is not anarchy.

    Isocrates said centuries ago: “Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.”

  33. Blah blah blah, Reason is for Open Borders, blah blah blah.

    Marijuana is *actually* different, because the Federal government *actually* has no constitutional mandate to get into drug prohibition or regulation, while it has the *clear* constitutional mandate to control immigration.

    But, blah blah blah, because OPEN BORDERS!

    1. “Paul seems to think immigration is different. ”

      And he’s right.

  34. Did you read the bill? It’s short. It applies only to persons who are already in custody. All it says is that in such a case, the feds are to be informed if it’s know to be an immigr’n issue. It doesn’t say to deport foreigners. It doesn’t say to take in everybody who commits a traffic violation.

    As to the federalism issue, it would seem that crossing an international border is a national matter, not just a local one. So if jurisdictional level is what your complaint is, it seems easy to differentiate this one from guns or drugs.

    Weren’t you one of the columnists complaining about how gov’t agencies failed to communicate w each other in advance concerning the 9/11/01 terrorists?

    1. Of course he didn’t read the bill. This column is unworthy of Reason, IMHO

      1. I’m tired of the Reason open borders crusade, check your principles Reason, you are contradicting yourselves…

  35. John: “Breitbart.com anecdotes trump data.”

  36. Remember, Government is just one of the things we do together.
    Or, do you wish to fall into the stereotype that a very many people hold of libertarians that at heart you’re just a bunch of closet anarchists? For, without commonly held rules, there is just anarchy where the strong rule the weak by whatever standard they hold at any one moment.

  37. Citizens can’t be deported, as this articles asserts. If you are a citizen, you have no rational fear of being deported. Its an absurd argument. Its like saying we don’t want to arrest drug dealers because if we did, they might not tell us of the really big drug dealers.

    This article also asserts the bizarre sense of entitlement that people think they have to being in this country. No other country puts up with millions of illegal immigrants running around their country. Its also weird that people like this are completely okay with most illegals being practically slaves making nothing or next to nothing doing crap jobs. If I was a citizen of Mexico, i would be humiliated that I had to smuggle myself like cattle into another country to work some slave job for some slave wages because my country is so incompetent to provide the basics and a job for me.

  38. The San Francisco ordnance prohibiting cooperation with immigration enforcement is available here: http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=1069

    While there are come exceptions, San Francisco is hardly “enforcing immigration law in their own way”. They are flouting it.

  39. Wow. Seriously talk about a joke of an article. Guess Reason.com has finally grabbed it’s ankles for the new Libertarian Party of Nicholas Sarwak.

    Rand Paul is a libertarian, just the minarchist flavor. Like it or not this is a federal issue. It’s about the country’s saftey, its about following the law, not men, States Rights (yea some cities are defiant to the state) and the taxpayer (and just not the border states taxpayer) that has to deal with the Welfare State.

    Most libertarians, including Rand Paul actually would like to have open borders where free markets, including people, but see this as an opportunity to try and crush the Welfare State.

    The Heritage Foundation using the Democrat influenced Congressional Budget Office data last year (or was it two?) pointed out that it costs the average tax payer around $9000.00 per 3 person illegal immigrant household.

    It’s really cool to sit there and spout where a libertarian should stand, but having an order of operations, a process, a long-term plan is how you actually get elected. Maybe if more libertarians thought like that they’d actually get elected.

  40. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  41. I think Brian misunderstands the rationale for the difference between immigration (a federal issue) and vice enforcement (NOT a federal issue). Additionally the threat of cutting off federal grants to local police departments is well within the boundaries of federalism. These grants should not be taken for granted (no pun) as they are optional even if every state and city takes them.

    Being a Libertarian and believing in federalism does not mean arguing for distribution of federal funds to local government with no strings. It means recognizing the rights of the states to choose their own path, even if that path deviates from the federal preference on non-federal issues. And in this case Paul is perfectly reasonable in the differentiation.

    The general attitude of Reason to pick on the one major candidate closest to the political stance – even if not identical – is doing nothing but promoting Libertarianism as a pure ideology with no chance of becoming a third party. We make gains when we support those who are like us, then educate non-Libertarians on why it makes sense to move closer to our ideological stance. Poking holes in the only Libertarian leaning politician at every chance does nothing but discredit him to everyone and ensures he will be marginalized.

    I definitely disagree with Dr Paul on a number of issues, as I did with his dad, but our disagreements don’t outweigh the good that he does being in the Senate nor the good he would do as the President.

  42. American citizens have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to purchase weapons, under certain regulations. They endure the slight risk of criminals bypassing gun laws to obtain guns illegally. They revere their self defense rights, and there aren’t any “gun sanctuary cities” that actively undermine federal authority on stopping the flow of illegal guns.

    Illegal aliens do not have inherent constitutional right to be a citizen. They have due process rights, but that ‘s precisely why sanctuary cities are a bad idea. Once someone has been previously deported and caught again, there’s no reason why local government should make efforts to keep the federal government in the dark.

    The SF sheriff denied ICE’s request for notification citing the need for a “court order”. but that apparently doesn’t exist. They made things up. What happened in SF would be roundly derided as “failure of government” here if it had to with something OTHER than immigration.

    Please note that the SF bay area (not the city of SF) has more people than select American cities and is also home to many tech giants. Many of their wealthy gentrified communities might not have a serious crime problem. And Asians immigrants tend not to commit violent crimes.

  43. The immigration issue for libertarians makes abortion look like we are all in uniform agreement. Can we just admit that none of us knows what to do, nor do anyone in any segment of the right? The left, of course, doesn’t know either, but they do not wish to know, as more division and hostility not to mention future voters suit them and their agenda just fine.

    The open borders line as advanced by Gillespie is a non-starter, and frankly stupid. But just as dumb is the right’s answer to Jon Stewart’s audience, a chorus of clapping seals who have been thoroughly convinced that immigration is the leading issue of our time. Coulter, Ingraham, Breitbart (the site not the man God rest him), Trump… you are all the worst. The left is actually right about something: Trump is the right’s own creation. How does a single-payer, tax-the-rich crony capitalist experience such a rise with the conservative base? Because he is on TV talking about Obama’s birth origin and is savvy enough to give the talk radio set (of which I am generally quite “pro”) exactly what they want in terms of pure, utter defiance and notgiveafuckitude. I applaud most instances of political defiance, but I can also discern the difference between a Paul/Cruz campaign of methodical defiance and that which is displayed by an opportunistic, ideologically leftist, clown.

    1. The best I can do on immigration is throw my hands up. Because there is surely merit to the right’s anxiety… remember when it was unearthed that DOJ sent buses to Central America six months before the big summer surge of child migrants? Whether that was debunked or not does not interest me, because it is beyond clear that almost everything the Obama administration does on immigration is to lower the emphasis on upholding standard immigration law. But then, I look at the difference between Texas and California Hispanics, and conclude that culture and systems are much more consequential than the number of migrants. Texas Hispanics went 50% for both Cornyn and Abbott last November. I know it was a lower turnout and all that, but to me it screams that Texas’ culture of not putting new migrants directly into the public sector maw might have more to do with cultivating desirable social conditions than any lack of a super wall does.

    2. the left knows what to do, flood the country with new democrats

  44. Yet another reason article that really misses the point. SF at present will only turn over a criminal alien to ICE if they have two violent felonies in the past seven years. That is pure leftist insanity. Comparing that to our 2nd Ammendment right to have firearms is disingenuous at best. If cities have laws that expressly tell their police forces not to question legal status in this country than I can agree with that and can see how it would be ultimately good for crime prevention and reporting. Shielding known criminals is fucking stupid as shit.

  45. Open borders a bad idea in this situation. NOT in a welfare state. And separate illegal immigrants from legal immigrants the crime rate among illegals is way up. Any illegal immigrants who commit these atrocious crimes need to be immediately deported. I’ll cap it off with this quote: You can have open borders. You can have a welfare state. But you can’t have both. – Milton Friedman

  46. Let me play devil’s advocate here for a moment.

    One of the biggest problems I see in America right now is the militarization of police. Most of this is coming through funding by the feds and then down to the localities. The biggest problem areas are these same sanctuary cities. Forget the reasoning for a moment and think of the outcome; since these cities are highly unlikely to change their ways, the net effect would be to de-fund police in the most police state like cities. Is this really a bad thing? I don’t think so at all.

    Is this Rand Paul playing chess? It’s hard for me to give any politician that type of credit and to do it by playing on racist fears doesn’t sit well with me, but anything that de-funds anything in gov is better than the opposite approach.

    The real issue isn’t immigration, borders in a free nation should be open and anyone should be able to come here and work without having to show their papers. Cheap labor is great. The problem, as we all know here, is the welfare state that attracts non-productive people.

    All that said, I still won’t be voting for Rand or anyone else. Waste of time.

  47. You had me going there for a minute, Mr. Doherty.

    But then I woke up in a sanctuary city during the regime of he whose name shall not be mentioned and I suddenly remembered….a brain damaged, heroine addicted, convicted paint-huffer, with a warrant that was old because he’d just gotten out of federal jail in Texas, stole a firearm from a BLM agent and shot an innocent woman in the back in broad daylight.

    I’m not against conditional, federal spending per se. I’m not sure Paul’s legislation is a constitutional instance of conditional spending.

    I’m absolutely sure that it was no skin off SF Sheriff’s nose to tell the ICE the guy was out.

    ICE has jurisdiction everywhere in the country, including sanctuary cities.

  48. Yeah, trespassers deserve the same rights as the property owner and more. The constitution says you don’t have to quarter an army and nothing about having to house infiltrators.

    “Higher rates of immigration do not equal higher rates of actual crime.” Don’t conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration you dishonest phucker. Another pro squatter and unreasoned article.

    Brian says, “…a maverick in a GOP pack behaving as if illegal immigration (trending down for years) is one of the most vital public policy issues facing this troubled nation.” It is because these violators will tear our rights down through demoncratic voting and more. They are parasites. Okay, parasites that pay sales tax until reimbursed. No matter how much a tick pays me I will rip the bastard away unless of course he does home improvement work cheap.

    Line the border with woodchippers.

  49. “The immigrants of today are very different in many ways from those who arrived here a hundred years ago. Moreover, the society in which they arrive is different. The Wall Street Journal column ends by quoting another economist who said, “Better to build a wall around the welfare state than the country.”

    But the welfare state is already here? and, far from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions by leaps and bounds. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do as regards immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.

    Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods.

    Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries or any other countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country that has produced such benefits for the American people for so long.

    http://www.creators.com/conser…..rants.html

    Mass immigration grows the welfare state!!

    1. What welfare do illegals receive?
      Are they not taxpayers denied benefits?

  50. Brian says, “..that being in this country without jumping through the government’s complicated hoops (that are more or less impossible to jump through anyway) makes one a “violent criminal.” Stop the bullshit. Yeah, so complicated that only a million plus people, most of which are 3rd worlders speaking a different language manage this more or less impossible feat. Too bad if it is so tough. A thorough process is what was sold to the American people, you know, to keep the riff raff out.

    Brian should have said, “…Paul and other Second Amendment defenders recognize that a far-off chance of preventing some unpredictable crime was not a sufficient excuse to violate the natural rights of Americans. FTFY Brian

    1. Brian says, “..that being in this country without jumping through the government’s complicated hoops (that are more or less impossible to jump through anyway) makes one a “violent criminal.”
      Stop the bullshit.

      You missed it entirely, eh?

  51. Nick Gillespie’s argument is junk – comparing a city’s overall crime rate to another “comparable city” (they don’t exist – no city is comparable to San Francisco) that isn’t a sanctuary city makes zero sense. More sense is to look at the crime statistics over a recent period for Texas. It is
    mind boggling – 2993 murders by illegals and over 600,000 felonies – assaults,rapes, robberies, etc. Nuttiest argment of al is that changing the status will stop illegals from providing police with info on criminal ilegals.

  52. Mr. Doherty states, “difficult if many of your citizens are afraid to speak to or deal with police for fear of deportation.” as the reason that sanctuary cities exist and are justified. First off, why in the world should a citizen be in fear of deportation as a consequence of speaking to or dealing with the police? What is the process for deporting a citizen? It is extremely difficult to accomplish for a naturalized citizen and impossible for a citizen who was born such. This lack of understanding of the basic law should disqualify Doherty from writing on the subject for any reputable website. His confusion between the relative standings of immigration law and the Second Amendment is probably to be expected given the previously mentioned misconstruction. Sanctuary cities are an act of nullification of the law which should not be a substitute for changing the law. If the law cannot be changed because our democratic principles decide otherwise then the law should be obeyed. Nullification is a crutch where none is needed.

    1. So you oppose federalism.

  53. The problem we face , which is immense, is from many years of de facto “libertarian” policies,
    in which this country did not control its borders. Reagan thought it was “a great sign of how wonderful the US was that so many hispanics crossed our borders. He forgothow crappy Mexico was, apparently. We now face border crossing by Islamic extremists. That empty headed libertarian belief that freedom to move is wonderful is now allowing felons even worse than what
    is crossing now,which is saying something – illegals responsible in Texas alone for 600,000 crimes and 2993 murders over the past several years. Libertarians are denying reality once again.

    1. Well, I consider myself libertarian and I do not support open borders.

      You’re right about one thing: people from all over the planet are entering through our border with Mexico. I met a 55 year old Czech woman who so entered in the last 18 months because the world understands Obama declared the law a dead letter.

      The Obama administration has no clue who is coming or why.

      Does Reason appreciate that the best way not to be prosecuted for a crime in your home country is to flee across a border into a foreign jurisdiction?

      1. Was that 55-year-old Czech woman an Islamic terrorist? I’m guessing she wasn’t.

    2. illegals responsible in Texas alone for 600,000 crimes and 2993 murders over the past several years

      Are you citing the bullshit from PJ Media?
      When Texas has a MUCH lower crime rate than average for violent crimes and murder. And with all those rapists, quite low on rape also.

  54. Why shouldn’t we be applying or following the law?
    Would you open your house as a sanctuary and allow others to come in for meals and a place to stay. You personally provide them an open credit card to buy healthcare, alternate housing, utilities, entertainment, food, schooling and even a little something to send back for their extended family’s.
    It’s foolish that we shouldn’t be concerned with national boarders despite most other Country’s prosecuting violators.
    Charity is a wonderful thing and should be made available short term to those experiencing a down turn or long term for the significantly disabled.
    No one has the moral authority to use my money to support someone and their family who has no business being here in the first place.
    You may not be aware but Obama’s policy’s have benefited his crony’s but not so much the American people. For a variety of Government reasons we are still in a recession and despite the rosy propaganda, the middle class are being hit hard by federal taxes, State fee’s and a lack of jobs.
    Our wealth and resources are already being squandered by elected officials and who have more a weather eye to re-election than the good of the Country.
    It’s time for the Silent Majority to retake our Country and end offering a silver spoon to the world’s less well off.
    I’m for making it a felony to hire illegals and after a few high profile CEO prosecutions, many will self deport.
    Let’s end this foolishness and act like Sovereignty means something.

  55. Has anyone addressed this article’s subhead, which doesn’t even rise to the level of wrong:

    “Wanting tougher immigration law to prevent possible crimes is like wanting tougher gun laws to prevent possible crimes”

    1. The funk of brain-dead contrariness wafting off Reason lately is remarkable.

      Factually incorrect, poorly researched, and stunningly illogical.

      I guess it’s good click bait because judging from the commentariat, it’s hated. Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Dalmia, now this?

    2. Has anyone addressed this article’s subhead

      Which part confuses you

  56. Doherty, you are not the brightest light on the Christmas tree when it comes to cause and effect. If there are no criminals committing crime there is no victim!

    1. There need not be a crime for there to be a victim, of course, and not all victims are victims of criminals, but what “victims” are you denying here? And how does it come to cause and effect?

  57. Immigration should not be a test of ideological purity. We are being overrun by poor, mostly unskilled Spanish-speaking people who do not share our culture. They bring with them diseases and crime levels typical of third world nations. They compete with our own poor for low-wage jobs. The more we take in the more our country becomes like theirs.

    The old saw about them doing jobs “that Americans won’t do” always omits the three words that really matter: “…FOR MEXICAN WAGES.”

    I consider myself to be a libertarian but for me ideology is not a death compact. We need to use our heads instead of falling back on the Libertarian Commandments.

    Don’t fall into the trap of — to paraphrase Oscar Wilde — knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.

  58. There is nothing Libertarian about open borders, and anyone who thinks open borders are a good idea is a moron.

  59. How can conservatarians take an absolute position on freedom of association when it comes to public accommodation laws and yet not see that this also applies to immigration?

    Conversely, how can liberaltarians believe that illegal immigrants should be free from government persecution, yet Christian business owners should not?

    It’s the same issue, people. Individuals should be free to associate with whomever they choose.

  60. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  61. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  62. Actually, the simple fact that they are here is a crime in and of itself. So therefore the decision to not finance cities that choose not to enforce federal law is a perfectly reasonable response. If you do not enforce federal law then you do not get federal money. The alternative is to federalize the law enforcement in those cities in order to assure the enforcement of federal law, and martial law is not an alternative I want to ever see. Of course they could just arrest those city mayors, council members, prosecutors, and police officials that ail to uphold federal law as aiding and abetting if that is a better option in your mind?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.