Immigration

Hundreds Apprehended in More than a Half-Dozen U.S. Cities in Immigration Law Crackdown

|

Hundreds of people have been apprehended in at least a half dozen states by federal agents as part of a Trump administration crackdown on people in the country without proper paperwork.

Overpass Light Brigade/Foter.com

According to a Washington Post report this afternoon, immigrants without criminal records are also being "netted."

"Last month [Trump]….made a change to the Obama administration's policy of prioritizing deportation for convicted criminals, substantially broadening the scope of who the Department of Homeland Security can target, to include those with only minor offenses or those with no convictions at all," the Post reports.

This week, the L.A. area, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and North and South Carolina have all seen action from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, though the Post notes that a spokeswoman for them doesn't like the term "raids" and calls them "routine" and "targeted enforcement actions."

That spokeswoman insisted, said the Post, that a "majority" captured this week were "serious criminals, including some who had been convicted of murder and domestic violence." An ICE field director in L.A. said that 75 percent of the 160 people grabbed had felony convictions, and 37 of them had already been deported to Mexico.

From the Post:

A video that circulated on social media Friday appeared to show ICE agents detaining people in an Austin shopping center parking lot. Immigration advocates also reported roadway checkpoints, where ICE appeared to be targeting immigrants for random ID checks, in North Carolina and in Austin. ICE officials denied that authorities used checkpoints during the operations….

Some activists in Austin and Los Angeles suggested that the raids might be retaliation for those cities' so-called "sanctuary city" policies. A government aide familiar with the raids said it is possible the predominantly daytime operations — a departure from the Obama administration's night raids — meant to "send a message to the community that the Trump deportation force is in effect."

A DHS official acknowledged that "given the broader range defined by Trump's executive order they also were sweeping up non-criminals in the vicinity who were found to be lacking documentation."

What that means is that many people who have done nothing to harm anyone are having their lives, and the lives of their families, employers and employees, friends and communities disrupted or ruined at public expense for no good reason.

Huffington Post reports that:

Activists and elected officials in Austin [Texas] said ICE had stopped undocumented immigrants in traffic, attempted to arrest them in their homes and patrolled the area around an HEB grocery store in the northwestern part of the city….

Grassroots Leadership, an immigrant rights group, has meanwhile received calls from about 20 different people's families on its hotline.

Heavy quotes an ICE press release that in fiscal 2016, 240,255 people total were deported.

While ICE spokespeople in various stories insist, given that context of an organization that is always working to deport people, that there is nothing untoward or unusual about this week's operations, the Austin-American Statesman reports:

The Mexican Consulate in Austin has confirmed to the American-Statesman that 30 Mexican immigrants were detained by ICE on Friday and 14 were detained Thursday. By comparison, the Austin consulate had seen an average of four to five Mexican immigrants detained daily in recent years.

Other immigration activists or lawyers in other cities have also expressed to the press that what's happened this week is of a level of intensity above normal.

The Orange County Register on arrests, and protests, in Southern California.

Fusion notes that scattered rumors and tweets about literal checkpoints in the L.A. area have been completely denied by ICE.

Anthony Fisher from earlier today on Trump's immigration crackdown executive order, focused on its potential effect on veterans.

Advertisement

NEXT: Prof. Michael McConnell: 'A flawed restraining of a flawed order'

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. Please tell me again why I should oppose illegal immigration when, as usual, the law is an ass.

    1. Because the government is always right, so when they say something we must follow!

      Or something. I’m surprised progs don’t support immigration raids based on exactly that.

    2. Why am I supposed to care about one of the worst federal enforcement agencies patrolling city streets and detaining hundreds of people who broke the law? These folks are in our gardens, in our home improvement store parking lots, behind our food trucks, all of them breaking the law every second of the day. I thought libertarians believed in the rule of law.

      I applaud ICE, and DHS, and CBP. They’re keeping us from anarchy. The bad kind, not the polycentric order kind.

      1. DHS agents love interviewees that pop a viagra and arrive fully erect. Truth.

      2. Why am I supposed to care about one of the worst federal enforcement agencies patrolling city streets and detaining hundreds of people who broke the law?

        Three felonies a day.

        I look forward to judging you at your future trial, comrade.

        1. Trumpty Dumpty, He’s quite off-the-wall,
          Trumpty Dumpty won’t stay in His toilet stall
          He just goes ahead and takes His shits,
          Totally regardless of whereever He sits
          Whenever He simply, no way, can sleep,
          He Twits us His thoughts, they’re all SOOO deep!
          He simply must, He MUST, Twit us His bird,
          No matter the words, however absurd!
          He sits and snorts His coke with a spoon,
          Then He brazenly shoots us His moon!
          They say He’ll be impeached by June,
          Man, oh man, June cannot come too soon!
          So He sits and jiggles His balls,
          Then He Twitters upon the walls
          “Some come here to sit and think,
          Some come here to shit and stink
          But I come here to scratch my balls,
          And read the writings on the walls
          He who writes these lines of wit,
          Wraps His Trump in little balls,
          He who reads these lines of wit,
          Eats those loser’s balls of shit!”

        2. Yeah Hamster, that’s the same as people who come here from foreign countries illegally. Nice false equivalency there.

      3. I thought libertarians believed in the rule of law.

        I know you’re being sarcastic, but I don’t know why some people say this seriously.

    3. Because illegal immigrants are almost always low skill people who are tax sinks, and you do not have the votes to kill off the welfare state, so you’re going to pay for their deadbeat asses

      1. Bingo.

    4. Please tell me again why I should oppose illegal immigration when, as usual, the law is an ass.

      Do you think laws against murder are reasonable? Do you think laws against theft are reasonable? Well, laws against illegal immigration are also reasonable.

  2. Takaing all bets, who wants to bet that they’re criminal aliens.

    You know one of the great thing about Hammurabi’s code is that the law was enforced as it was written. Trump seems to be all about enforcing the law as wriitten, If congress has a problem with the way Trump is enforcing the law, maybe they shouldn’t give the executive such all embracing powers.

    1. But he is only allowed to enforce the laws I like.

      1. and why the fuck do i care about an illegal? They made their fucking choice by being here illegally and they can deal with it.

        We have the most lax immigration laws in the world and i dont fucking care. Go read up on Japan and their immigrant laws. If you don;t like ours you will shit a brick about theirs and guess what? They can do it all they fucking want. To become a Japanese citizen you actually have to learn over 4,000 Kanji….oh and your not really even a citizen. Really a permanent resident or something like that. I am a little shaky on the laws because its been awhile since i talked to one of my friends in Japan about it. Here we don’t even need to know English.

        Fuck her!

        1. No, fuck you, buddy. If you ever get into trouble for some law or regulation meant to stifle your freedom, you will be an illegal, my friend. And then why should we care about you?

          1. that isn’t even relevant. She broke the law to come here because she couldn’t bother to do it legally. Her current problem is her own doing and i have 0 sympathy for those people.

            Just like if i went to Japan on a visitor visa and they caught me over staying after 20 years and threw me in prison and a year later shipped me back to the states. I wouldn’t and nor should you shed 1 damn tear over my own stupid decision to stay past my visa. That was my own choice to break immigration law and to stay in a country i had legal right to be in.

            1. The people in Japan can put any requirement they like on new comers.

              Just like i shed not one fucking tear for my brothers college acquaintance that decided to steal a propaganda banner in North Korea and got thrown in prison.

              His choices lead to that. Is 15 years hard labor absurd? Sure it is but its that dumbass kid’s fault for stealing something in NK. I have no sympathy for that idiot. Just like i have no sympathy for illegals. Their choice got them here and they knew the risk.

              Jesus do people on this forum really not care about personal responsibility?

              http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../81846432/

              1. I have to agree. That guy is a dumbfuck and is getting what he deserves. Don’t go to other countries and break the fucking law. How incredibly stupid does this guy have to be to do something that even whiffs of illegality if NK? I just hope he hasn’t had the chance to breed yet, thus improving the gene pool.

          2. I obey laws and regulations, even those meant to stifle my freedom, and I expect the same from everybody else.

            1. I won’t go that far…

              I make it a point to know “laws and regulations”- then I choose whether or not to break them at my convenience (knowing that I am subject to the penalties involved if caught, and I won’t cry that it’s “unfair” when I am punished for breaking them).

              1. I mean, they still haven’t found that asshole’s body I dumped in Hoover reservoir…

          3. Not the fucking same Chipper. As an actual CITIZEN I have various rights and the government has responsibilities to me. The folks that came across the border are not CITIZENS, and do not have those same rights and the government owes them nothing.

        2. While I might have some sympathy for some of what you say, I just can’t let this go. Essentially no-one knows 4,000 kanji- the average Japanese person certainly doesn’t.

          1. well this is what several of my Japanese/Foreign friends in Japan have said is required. 1 was studying for the test and the other was already a permanent resident and didn’t want to bother with it because how long it took and he was happy just being a permanent resident vs a citizen.

            all my Japanese friends are offline at the moment so i can;’t double check.

            If i remember i’ll repost it but i bet you can find out from googling.

            1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J?y?_kanji

              its at least 2,000 kanji but i do recall my friends explicitly saying 4,000

              I am sure there is a % requirement so maybe passing in like 2,000 but 4,000 is in the pool.

      2. I’m way late, so I think this comments thread is dead, but I think you missed the part where she committed fraud…

    2. You know one of the great thing about Hammurabi’s code is that the law was enforced as it was written.

      How do you know that?

      1. It is known.

  3. When humans are outlawed,
    Only outlaws will be human!

  4. a spokeswoman for [ICE] doesn’t like the term “raids” and calls them … “targeted enforcement actions.”

    Sheesh, why not just call them “group hugs” and be done with it?

    1. “When the suspect displayed aggressive tendencies, with dangerous canine on lead, LEO was forced to eliminate threat with extreme hug.”

  5. You Can’t Have a Party Without ICE

    1. That could mean so many things!

      1. Put Your Problems on ICE.

        (See Also: PARTY PLANNERS)

        1. Stack the chafing dishes outside by the mailbox. I’m on the job.

    2. Wine and cheese party with only red wines?

    3. D.A.R.E. told me that is super addictive and you’re hooked after one trip.

  6. They will be escorted to safe spaces away from the oppressive white patriarchy, not apprehended and deported. I expect a correction.

      1. Truth. Why would anyone want to sneak into a white, Christian, evil, oppressive patriarchy land that has a mostly capitalistic system ? They will be better off not being here.

        1. I have it on good lack of authority that they were just trying to get to Berkeley.

  7. “Hundreds of people”, “crackdown on people in the country without proper paperwork.”, “immigrants without criminal records”, “a majority captured”, “75 percent of the 160 people grabbed”, “sweeping up non-criminals in the vicinity who were found to be lacking documentation.”

    “What that means is that many people who have done nothing to harm anyone are having their lives, and the lives of their families, employers and employees, friends and communities disrupted or ruined at public expense for no good reason.”

    “in fiscal 2016, 240,255 people total were deported.”, “always working to deport people”

    Bias?

    1. Of course there’s a bias. Illegal immigration is a victimless act. It is. And libertarians are almost always going to point out how bureaucracy will attempt to limit the free movement of individuals. Reporting on public policy in the abstract might be a better way to go to make an argument – I don’t know – but telling the story of how policy impacts individuals is more interesting and usually more affecting.

      And there’s the fine line that has to be walked. Making an emotional appeal to change public policy can lead to emotional writing which can slide into exaggerations and narratives that strain credulity, ultimately not only putting off the unconvinced but cementing their opposition.

      I am not an open borders person but am also not one to favor uprooting otherwise innocent individuals solely for some centrally planned public policy. How can those two stances be reckoned? I don’t know, but I recognize that either one has consequences. Doherty is relaying the consequence of one here.

      1. If people are knowingly and wittingly coming in illegally then they have to accept the possible consequences of those actions. I’m sorry, if caught, why are people supposed to feel bad? Yes, they may have laid down tracks to a better life and it would be cruel to take it from them but the same government that permits this law to be broken in the first place also ruins the lives of people for merely carrying some weed.

        Go back to the basics. Sure, if you get by breaking the law you have to understand you may get caught.

        I find it preposterous and irresponsible the United States of America is this limp in enforcing its own written laws. If they fail to do so, they’re on their way to a banana republic. Right now, the influx of illegal aliens is akin to flipping the bird to you laws.

      2. If people are knowingly and wittingly coming in illegally then they have to accept the possible consequences of those actions. I’m sorry, if caught, why are people supposed to feel bad? Yes, they may have laid down tracks to a better life and it would be cruel to take it from them but the same government that permits this law to be broken in the first place also ruins the lives of people for merely carrying some weed.

        Go back to the basics. Sure, if you get by breaking the law you have to understand you may get caught.

        I find it preposterous and irresponsible the United States of America is this limp in enforcing its own written laws. If they fail to do so, they’re on their way to a banana republic. Right now, the influx of illegal aliens is akin to flipping the bird to you laws.

      3. Yes but…

        If people are knowingly and wittingly coming in illegally then they have to accept the possible consequences of those actions. I’m sorry, if caught, why are people supposed to feel bad? Yes, they may have laid down tracks to a better life and it would be cruel to take it from them but the same government that permits this law to be broken in the first place also ruins the lives of people for merely carrying some weed.

        Go back to the basics. Sure, if you get by breaking the law you have to understand you may get caught.

        I find it preposterous and irresponsible the United States of America is this limp in enforcing its own written laws. If they fail to do so, they’re on their way to a banana republic. Right now, the influx of illegal aliens is akin to flipping the bird to you laws.

        1. I HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME.

          I don’t like using the law as a baseline. At one point it in America miscegenation was illegal, as it is still for consensual business transactions for sex and recreational drugs or the use thereof. That’s not to say I disagree with immigration laws, but simply that that cannot be basis of my feels. I would lament the stoner caught up in the criminal justice system whether or not he knew what he was doing was “wrong”. In fact, I would have at least some empathy for almost any person churning through the gears of the country’s justice-industrial complex for a crime without a victim.

          We can have different debates, the righteousness and efficacy of America’s immigration laws, or whether the enforcement of the existing laws is deserved or unnecessarily harsh. Mixing the two debates together doesn’t work on me.

          1. Well said.

          2. And the proper and legal response it to have the laws changed, as was done with miscegenation, homosexual activity, and is being done with drug use.
            Even those who favor civil disobedience are aware the consequence may be arrest and conviction.
            We do not consider the number of relatives when sentencing thieves, why do so when sentencing those who violate the immigration laws?
            There are two immigration problems; legal immigration is too low, and illegal immigration is too high.
            But the point is that there are TWO issues; there is no single immigration issue.

            1. Theft has a wronged party. That’s where the difference lies with me. But we agree that the law as written fosters too much illegal immigration and too little legal immigration.

              1. Do bribery, obstruction of justice, perjury on behalf of a defendant have wronged parties?

              2. Theft has a wronged party. That’s where the difference lies with me.

                The latest estimate for the school district in my city is that 15% are children of illegal immigrants…

                I don’t want to hear about the 85% who are children of American citizens that are also stealing from me, but a 15% break on my property taxes would be nice…

      4. Doherty writes this as a news article and not an opinion piece. Sorry, but i want my news as facts and not emotional blubbering. Not once was the word “illegal” used. The article is horribly written.

        As for ‘ Illegal immigration is a victimless act.’ That’s complete horseshit. Everyone who crosses the border is a victim. They are victimized every step of the way on their trip here. They are victimized while they are here as well. That fact alone should be reason enough to secure the border. But again, it’s not about the people who are really affected, it is just about the feelz that their opportunity to provide better for their family by coming here will be stopped. Your compassion is starting at the wrong time. Care enough about the well being of these families by not enabling their victimization. Don’t wait until they have already been victimized to shed your tears.

        1. correction: Everyone who crosses the border illegally is a victim.

          1. I am trying to figure out your logic here. Immigration restrictions victimize the people trying to come here to work. Ok, so far so good. But in order to stop that victimization, we need to make the restrictions stronger? I think you have that backwards.

            1. I am not arguing legal immigration or volume of work visas. I am stating that the fact that it is possible to cross our border illegally to come here to look for work facilitates victimization. The victimization starts once that process of coming here illegally starts and as long as they are here illegally, continues. Securing the border stops that victimization.

              1. If your illegal choices have negative consequences, you’re not a “victim”.

        2. If they weren’t being victimized by gangs and governments where they come from, why would they take all the expense and risk to come here?

          1. If there was zero chance to come here illegally, maybe they would have taken the risk and expense in improving their lives in their own country.

      5. they come here illegally and receive billions and billions in state and federal assistance over and above what they can ever possibly contribute and the balance is taken from me and you at the point of a gun. how are there no victims here? we’d slave a little less a year if not for everyone of these illegals.

      6. Illegal immigration is a victimless act. It is.

        No, it’s not. Illegal migrants use government resources and infrastructure that citizens are forced to pay for.

        I am not an open borders person but am also not one to favor uprooting otherwise innocent individuals solely for some centrally planned public policy. How can those two stances be reckoned?

        This shit has been going on since at least the 1980’s; amnesty plus promises of better controls in the future hasn’t worked. The only way to address this is to actually strictly enforce immigration law via deportations and (for repeat offenders) imprisonment followed by deportation.

        Keep in mind that the last amnesty pretty much handed California to the Democrats.

        1. Your fellow Americans also take resources from you at the point the government’s gun. And you from them. You’re the victim of collectivism and the welfare state. Me claiming to be a victim of illegal immigration is like me claiming to be a victim of drugs because some addict stole my car stereo to pay for his habit.

          You people seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of my comment. Reason’s reporting on this subject is valid, if a bit breathless at times. There are costs associated with immigration policy and the enforcement thereof. And while I’m hardly the most libertarian person (I’m a bit of a nationalist, to be honest), even I can recognize the issue isn’t as black and white as how the law currently reads. And I believe the federal government has a duty to determine and, yes, enforce immigration policy, but the policy itself and how it is enforced is debatable.

          So, let’s not forget, enforcement is also paid for by tax dollars and comes with a nifty little side benefit: armed government bureaucrats checking papers. The welfare state at least doesn’t include border agents hassling Americans well away from our borders.

          1. Your fellow Americans also take resources from you at the point the government’s gun.

            4 people are thowing rocks at me. I can’t out-vote 3 of them by myself, but the law says the 4th shouldn’t even be here.

            Are you are saying I shouldn’t complain when the 4th guy throws his rock because I was unable to stop the first 3 from doing it?

      7. They knew full well this could happen when they snuck in here in the first place. They assumed that risk.

  8. A government aide familiar with the raids said it is possible the predominantly daytime operations ? a departure from the Obama administration’s night raids ? meant to “send a message to the community that the Trump deportation force is in effect.”

    Daytime operations? Trump is a monster!

    1. Odd that Doherty is basically advocating that we just disappear people in the night. Wtf.

      1. The Washington Post is the source of that quote.

    2. I rater prefer daytime operations.
      1) probably less overtime
      2) less likely “bad cop” actions
      3) it’s more public
      4) civil society functions better in the light of day
      5) commies and nazis do things like that at night

      So , all in all, I would consider it an improvement.

      1. I agree with all of that.

  9. Fake news from Politifact – No, the 9th Circuit isn’t the ‘most overturned court in the country,’ as Hannity says.

    Except they actually provide a link to Scotusblog where they get their proof that Hannity’s lying – and guess what? The Ninth does indeed have by far the most SCOTUS overturns. See, Politifact judges “most” by percentages, when “most” generally means numerically. You don’t give the homerun title to the guy with the highest percentage of homeruns-per-at bats, it’s the guy who hit the most homeruns.

    There are far more cases coming out of the Ninth than any other district – and why do you suppose that is? SCOTUS doesn’t hear random cases, they pick cases that have some importance, some particular contentious point that needs to be cleared up. And somehow the Ninth’s decisions tend to provoke a lot of contention.

    1. So we can assume Politifact earns money buy the cherry-basket?
      Imagine my surprise! Wait ’till turd repeats how Obo was the most fave EVAH, since he took office at the bottom of the market and managed to hold it down pretty doggone well until it was obvious he and the chosen successor were going to get even more golf time.

    2. I think you didn’t look at the facts closely.

  10. Enforcement, though the Post notes that a spokeswoman for them doesn’t like the term “raids” and calls them “routine” and “targeted kinetic enforcement actions.”

  11. Huffington Post reports that

    Well, at least we are using sources not known to exaggerate issues. No I did not read the HufPo article. I only go there to read the comments.

    1. Like this one.

      Deborah Cohen ? Moseley, Virginia
      Looking forward to seeing you picking fruits & vegetables in the fields..

      Good to see the progs see them brown people as nothing but fruit and vegetable pickers. Thumbs up!!!

      1. Indeed. What is picking *nuts*, chopped liver?

    2. I like this one to. It makes me sound smart.

      Deanajean Mcghee ? Owner at My Own Business Institute
      Almost 90% of us came from other countries at one point in time or another. Unless you are 100% narive American oveously. But we didn’t get free money food or housing. And came legally. Nothing wrong with that. I understand people are tired of this come here illegally want things handed to them what there laws in forced. Beheld to different standards if law is broken. Think about go to another country and do the same and see what there reaction would be. No one said people cant make a better life for themselves here but the is rules and laws to follow. As you love your freedom so does evey American. But this came with a price of blood from our military service who died or got hurt protecting that very same loved freedom. So pick what ever fruit or vegetables you like.

      1. oveously

        in an egg like manner?

        1. I assumed it was being native American oveously as in being so native American you got standing ovations like Elizabeth Warren. She may have possessed ovaries at one point as well, but that is no longer an issue.

  12. Only hundreds? What about the millions of others?

  13. If the raids are in sanctuary cities, where are the sheriffs? Do they not have the power to enforce the laws in their cities and shouldn’t any federal agency have the blessing of the sheriffs to come into their cities?

    1. I would bet In re Neagle has some bearing on the issue.

    2. Do they not have the power to enforce the laws in their cities and shouldn’t any federal agency have the blessing of the sheriffs to come into their cities?

      I’m not sure what you are getting at there, but the feds can go anywhere. And a local government has no authority as far as granting legal status to an emigre as far as I know.

  14. Meh. Checkpoints more than 50′ from the border are unconstitutional, and should be found to be so by the courts, and piss me off. Illegals being deported? Not so much.

    1. this! DHS check points arre serious issues that are being ignored because we some how have to care about illegals…christ people are dumb.

    2. Cite your source on the fifty foot limit!
      From your friends at the ACLU:
      “Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad?though not limitless?powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. “external boundary.”
      In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.”

      1. re read that he said. You missed his point…

  15. Shia LaBeef, tell me, with a straight face, you didn’t see this coming.

    1. Easy.
      The SOB is a member of the privileged pretending class who think that their feelz are proof against any critique, and they are convinced they know the TRUTH and wise people will think like them!

  16. Hypothetical:
    Canadian travels to America on holiday and decides to stay, then over-stays, sets up a circle of friends, maybe works a bit under the table, then one day has to go back home for a funeral and is surprised to learn that, hey, over-staying means you’re not welcome back to America for a while.
    Would anyone act surprised?
    No.
    So how is it different for Mexicans? Because they’re willing to work for low wages in the fields?

    1. Pffft. Such an illegitimate scenario. Everybody knows a Canadian is inept when it comes to working in a field. What do they grow there? Rape seed and wheat. That is it. All tractor work. And ya, they call it rape! They don’t even have the decency to call it Canola. Monsters they are.

    2. The establishment elephants want cheap labor. The establishment donkeys think that cheap labor’s children will vote donkey.
      Nobody cares about working class Americans, the rule of law, or the actual illegal immigrants, who are exploited and used.
      But yeah, open borders for the win!!!

    1. damn that fucking sucks! That man needs a pardon and a fucking metal.

      1. Snowden needs a fucking statue, a ticker tape parade, and his face on both the one dollar bill and Mount Rushmore.

  17. I’ve got some Mexican food that’s residing in my person-sized country. It’ll be deported tomorrow.

    1. That’s better than the Mexican in my fridge I’m eating tomorrow

    2. I had a convenience store burrito purchased this morning that was deported with VELOCITY at about three this afternoon.

  18. Here’s a toy – XM556 mini minigun. 1000-round backpack, 6000 rpm, 100 lbs – no idea what the price tag looks like but renting one for a half-hour sure would be sweet.

    1. Fuck that 5.56 mm LMG shit. I want twin .50s mounted in the bed of my Raptor.

    2. god damn unconstitutional gun laws…..I want one of these things!

    3. Sweet. Me want.

  19. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge:

    “US officials reportedly confirm elements of Russia dossier that targeted Trump”
    http://www.sfgate.com/technolo…..857924.php

    I ask anyone who is willing to read the assembled pile of shit and give us any idea of WIH it means other than a BI headline loaded with innuendo.
    Fake news brought to you by one more slimy lefty source.

    1. CNN heard some stuff from some anonymous sources who totally ahve it on record from random Russians who might have been doing something with Hillary and it’s not connected to Trump except it totally confirms things in the dossier that aren’t about Trump. I think?

      Basically it goes back to CNN trying very hard to claim they were right all along, so my skepticism meter is set to Very High.

  20. What that means is that many people who have done nothing to harm anyone are having their lives, and the lives of their families, employers and employees, friends and communities disrupted or ruined at public expense for no good reason.

    Fuck you Doherty and fuck illegals! They made a choice to come here illegal and they can go suck the government cock.

    Fuck I really hate people like you. They made their fucking choice and i have 0 fucking sympathy just like i expect Japanese to not give a fuck and give me the fucking boot if i stayed illegally in Japan….which i wouldnt because i am not a fucking turd like these people.

    Again fuck you Doherty and that bullshit!

    1. fuck illegals!

      Damn straight! It not like illegals are individuals who have rights or anything. Those damn wetbacks!

      1. nice red herring…just in case i gave you a link so you can understand.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

        1. Oh, my apologies. I evidently misinterpreted your statement of “fuck illegals” as a statement of callous disregard for illegals, when evidently it was a statement of respect and concern for the rights of all humanity, including those of illegals. So sorry.

          1. still using a red herring to distract from the issue here. Keep digging.

      2. http://immigration.procon.org/…..eID=000845

        no clue how good that site is but not all of them are wetbacks (using your term).

      3. It not like illegals are individuals who have rights or anything.

        Well, they don’t have the right to be present in the US, let alone work here. And that’s why they are being deported.

        1. exactly! They do have certain rights (stated in natural law) but not the right to stay in a country they never followed the rules in.

          I whole heartedly disagree with the whole open borders BS. Because it ignored country sovereignty and property rights. That’s probably the only libertarian principle i think is stupid.

          Granted, I hae a lot of reading still to do but thats the only one i have come across thats stupid/ unrealistic.

      4. They are individuals that do not have the constitutional rights of a US citizen. That is correct. Did you actually think otherwise?

  21. I think there are two very different ideas that are conflated in ab awful lot of people’s heads: 1) The idea that our immigration policy should be as expansive as possible ans 2) The idea that we shouldn’t have an immigration policy.

    Just because I want people to be free to come here legally and look for work doesn’t mean I don’t want the government to enforce laws against illegal immigration. And any system that lets people come across the border to look for work so long as they aren’t convicted felons, etc. is necessarily predicated on being able to keep people out for being convicted felons, etc.

  22. “Activists and elected officials in Austin [Texas] said ICE had stopped undocumented immigrants in traffic”

    What the hell were they doing in traffic?

  23. I’m going to be reading via my phone all day (offline….) – so just thought I’d drop this here first.

    Jonah Goldberg’s G-File this week was a….wait for it…mazing!

    Never go full 9th Circuit Court.

  24. Seems like for immigrants, life under Trump is pretty similar to life under Obama.

    1. It’s been two weeks.

    2. I think they are about one percent worse off, if my math is right. These orders should be called “trolling actions” because they pick on a tiny nuanced subset of people Trump will get overwhelming poll support for, but get cast as the big nationalist crackdown the left fears (or should I say they openly lust for). So they make a huge scene of themselves hysterically protesting something the majority supports. The question is, can they make their narrative (i.e. the one quasi-innocent white-collar-criminal illegal mom, not the 100+ felons) stick?

  25. If you don’t like it you can geeeeet out.

  26. This actually makes some sense. If the cities won’t cooperate by turning over jailed illegals, then the Feds will have to enforce on the streets. When they do that, there will be some “collateral enforcement”.

    Turn over the mugger while he is in jail, and the Feds won’t bump into his sister at their apartment.

    1. This.

  27. 240,255 total people deported in 2016, averages out to 658 per day. So your “hundreds” rounded up can’t be that unusual.

  28. Some activists in Austin and Los Angeles suggested that the raids might be retaliation for those cities’ so-called “sanctuary city” policies. A government aide familiar with the raids said it is possible the predominantly daytime operations ? a departure from the Obama administration’s night raids ? meant to “send a message to the community that the Trump deportation force is in effect.”

    Good. That’s what Trump was elected to do.

    1. Yeah, massive surprise that Trump is doing exactly what he said would do if elected. Shocking!

  29. Look, in theory I’m a right-anarchist who doesn’t believe in borders.

    In practice I make a comfortable living in a country that manages to keep the rest of the world out (which, I must admit, seems like a good thing to me- the rest of the world is a shit-show and I’m not inclined to invite that shit-show here.)

    Any questions?

    1. Fuckin’ A Bubba. Fuckin’ A.

  30. Illegal immigration seems like a cut-and-dry libertarian issue to me. Illegal immigrants get welfare, of course: http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Imm…..Households

    If our government sets itself up as a feeding trough, it grows along with its expenditures . I want a smaller government, and I want the freedom to devote my resources to my offspring first, the offspring of citizen strangers second, and the offspring of non-citizens not at all.

    This guy breaks it down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM

    I don’t understand how you can call yourself a libertarian and be anti-deportation unless you’re anti-borders, which is to say anti-nation. If you’re anti-borders, your political philosophy is academic and impractical, given the world we actually live in.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.