Immigration

An Immigration Crackdown That Could Make Crime Problems Worse

When people aren't safe asking for protection from violence, bad consequences are sure to follow.

|

Domestic violence
Godfer / Dreamstime.com

Immigration officials descending on a woman who went to court seeking protection from an allegedly abusive boyfriend is exactly the kind of enforcement problem sanctuary cities are worried about—with good reason. This is not behavior that's going to make America safer (or even safe "again," since some are concerned that the recent increase in crime is the start of a new trend).

A woman in El Paso County, Texas, went to court to try to get a protective order against a boyfriend she claimed was abusing her. At the courthouse, according to a county attorney, a pack of immigration officials staked the woman out and then detained her.

This was not some random occurrence as a result of President Donald Trump's call for tougher enforcement. Immigration officials tracked down the woman because of a tip. The attorney, who represents domestic violence victims seeking help from the court, worried that it was the abusive boyfriend who snitched on her.

In the inevitable "This person is no angel" category of reporting, she had apparently been deported before repeatedly and had also been charged with crimes in the past. We don't want to ignore those details. The attorney assisting her with the protective order said she was unaware of her criminal background at the time.

But just as we should not allow the "He's no angel" excuse to let possible incidences of police abuse of citizens to slide, we shouldn't use it to ignore the potential consequences of this mechanism of immigration enforcement. The image of a bunch of immigration officers descending on a woman who turned to the court for protection from a violent man is exactly the kind of thing that's going to spread around and discourage immigrants from cooperating with the police or turning to the police for help. The consequence will be a festering of criminal behavior, not a cure.

Step away from immigration and consider the context of our drug wars and our war on sex work and prostitution. We know that because of enforcement of the law, people who voluntarily participate in these black markets cannot easily turn to police for help if they're victimized or harmed because they have to worry that they'll be arrested themselves. And so we have pushes for things like "Good Samaritan" laws that would protect those who report drug overdoses to authorities from being arrested for possession. This helps save lives.

Making immigration enforcement harsher makes it harder for people to turn to the government for assistance and to inform about those actual "bad dudes" Trump worries about. The great paradox of black markets (and illegal immigration is certainly an example of a black market) is that harsher government intervention doesn't eliminate them—it makes participation all the more dangerous.

As Matt Welch previously noted, even Trump crony Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor, understood that overly harsh enforcement attitudes toward otherwise peaceful illegal immigrants made his communities less safe:

As [Giuliani] once put it, you need to "protect undocumented immigrants…from being reported to the [Immigration and Naturalization Service] while they are using city services that are critical for their health and safety, and for the health and safety of the entire city." If residents live in fear that each interaction with a government employee could lead to deportation, they are not going to report crime, seek medical attention for communicable diseases, or send their kids to school.

And when that happens, perhaps just like the drug war, there will be calls for even harsher government crackdowns from those who think the government just isn't trying hard enough. If you don't believe me, check out Kentucky, where lawmakers are considering even harsher criminal penalties for opioid trafficking.

Advertisement

NEXT: Left Mocks Wife of Venezuelan Political Prisoner; Right Celebrates Venezuelan Media Ban

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. So you’re in favor of misleading immigrants with the idea that government is there to protect them and they shouldn’t hesitate to turn to the law to defend their health and safety and well-being? What’s next, a suggestion that they should call 911 if they feel they’re in danger of getting shot or beaten or kidnapped by a gang of thugs? The quicker these people assimilate the better, and they need to learn real damn quick that the law dogs ain’t their friends.

  2. That is flat out insulting and racist towards immigrants Scott. Why would deporting people who are arrested and commit crimes cause immigrants to be unlikely to call the police? Do you honestly think an immigrant who has someone braking into his house or attacking him feels so much immigrant solidarity they won’t call the cops because that might get them deported?

    Making immigration enforcement harsher makes it harder for people to turn to the government for assistance and to inform about those actual “bad dudes” Trump worries about. T

    No it doesn’t Scott, unless police start arresting and handing over to ICE anyone who calls the cops. Last I looked they were only handing over people they arrest.

    We are talking about deporting criminals here. And Scott and reason and a lot of other people don’t want to see criminals deported. That is the bottom line. Those criminals won’t be living in Scott’s neighborhood and will be unlikely to prey on him. They will be living the neighborhoods and preying on the immigrants Scott claims to care so much about. But everyone but Scott is racist. He cares.

    1. The case he mentions was an illegal going to court for a protective order, and being detained. Say what you like about the appropriateness of deporting her, but that scenario absolutely chills voluntary interaction with law enforcement.

      The whole flap over Arizona and Arpaio was that cops were ferreting out immigration status from casual encounters. What makes you think that cops, who already operate at the behest of feds to use lame pretexts for making drug busts and seize property, wouldn’t operate a similar bounty system in cooperation with ICE?

      It’s not a perfect analogue, but it brings to mind New Jersey’s refusal to grant a firearm license to a woman who suspected her boyfriend would kill her. And she was right: he did. Disarming her likely facilitated her death. Is it possible she’d have used that gun to knock over a 7-11? I dunno, maybe. Maybe the state could address that if and when it happened. But denying her justice served no public interest.

      1. I’m not sure what NJ denying law-abiding citizens the right to self defense has to do with deporting criminal illegal aliens.

        1. Fucked up priorities is what. I’m not against the detainment or deportation. I’m against this practice discouraging recourse to police or the courts. We see this problem in the drug trade and in prostitution, both of which are greatly exacerbated by denying due process. I’m not making a moral appeal for decriminalizing illegal immigration, I’m making a utilitarian appeal against making bad situations worse.

    2. Re: John,

      That is flat out insulting and racist towards immigrants Scott.

      Your sudden concern with the sensitivities of immigrants is very touching, John.

      Why would deporting people who are arrested and commit crimes cause immigrants to be unlikely to call the police?

      Because next in the list are immigrants who haven’t committed a crime. That’s how government policies work, John. Or have you become politically naive all of a sudden?

      1. A slippery slope argument? Come on.

        1. Yeah. “Slippery Slope”. Right.

      2. Why would an immigrant – one who is complying with immigration laws – be concerned about being “next on the list”? Last I checked, having a valid visa, a Green card, or any other document that grants one legal residence, renders that person immune from deportation.
        Now, if they are here, illegally, that’s a different question and such a situation can be resolved by not having any illegal aliens in a position to need to contact law enforcement – OIW not here, at all, but where they belong.
        The underlying falsity of this argument is some kind of tacit approval of illegals being allowed to maintain their presence, while every immigration law grants no such allowance.

    3. 13 minutes to show up.

      What is it about focusing on branches and twigs that makes the forest so invisible?

      She went court for protection from an abusive boyfriend. She gets deported. In the big picture, is that the way to encourage or discourage crime in general?

      Oh, you can flap your fingers about if she weren’t illegally here, she couldn’t have been a victim. You can miss the point and say it serves her right, she’s here illegally, we want to discourage people from being here illegally. But that logic leads to removing all criminal protection from here — is it ok is she’s murdered? We just won’t investigate her death, just pitch her body in a landfill or the Rio Grande and wash our hands.

      Are you thinking this will be good because it will train criminals to hunt down illegals? Do you think it will keep criminals from attacking legal citizens?

      Tell me John. I really can’t fathom what makes you think it’s a good idea to encourage native criminals to go after criminals whose only crime is not having the right papers. And please, don’t point to her criminal background, everyone knows that’s just a shiny diversion to avoid answering the question.

      1. *whose only crime is not having the right papers*

        “Right” papers?

        They have NO papers.

        Get out. Stay out.

    4. Why should they call the police they do what is done in any prohibition economy they turn to the rogue predators among them to use their untrained force to protect the hood. Until they have created their own gurellia militias, to enforce what the courts can’t.

  3. Would any of this nastiness have happened if she hadn’t been in the US?

    1. I know right? how fucking disingenuous. It ignores the entire source of the problem!

      Isn’t Shackford one of the less of a hacks?

      1. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Reason’s support for immigration is some sort of new anti-Trump thing and not a common libertarian position we have consistently held for an extremely long time. And will continue to hold.

        I am seriously baffled by people who think this is something new. i mean, what have you folks been reading all this time?

        1. i mean, what have you folks been reading all this time?

          World Net Daily?

          Breitbart?

          1. I would say Infowars, but that’s mostly just Alex Jones, screaming isn’t it?

        2. Her problem only exists because she created it by coming here illegally. I have no sympathy for her and nor should you.

          If you come to a country illegally, you made that choice and deserve the consequences and should take responsibility for it.

          If i free loafed at my friends apartment in Seoul past my visa. I would expect no sympathy from any person in the world and definitely not from any South Korean when I couldn’t get aid because i stayed past my visa.

          She is not entitled to any government resources because she is here illegally. Period.

          1. Even if the illegal’s rights are violated by someone else?

            So then it’s open season on illegals?

            1. What rights do illegal immigrants have in a country that is not there own? Only the ones we let them.

              1. Natural rights?

                1. Agreed. As soon as their country recognizes those than get back to me.

                  1. So if I cross a border without the correct papers, I lose all my natural rights?

                    1. So the status quo is moral and just according to you?

                    2. Where do you get that from my sentence?

                    3. Acknowledging the reality of illegal immigration in other countries isn’t assigning morality to those policies.

                2. She may very well have natural rights, but I fail to see why we have an obligation to enforce them. Your rights are free, but enforcement isn’t. I don’t see why it’s the US’s obligation to enforce the rights of someone who has no business being here in the first place.

              2. When the Constitution says “people,” it means *all* people. When it says “citizens,” it refers only to those with legal citizenship.

                A person’s immigration status, once they’re in the country, doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to the protection of the same natural rights every other human being has.

              3. What “God Given Rights” or “Natural Rights of Man” do people have.
                Some are directly addressed “enumerated” in the Bill of Rights protecting them from abuse by the Union. those in the ninth amendment are indirectly addressed as the UnEnumerated Rights.
                Both sets and their applicable Supreme Court precedence are now protected from the States as well by the 14th amendment. on the

            2. Again, services are rendered to people who are citizens or here legally. If you are here illegally you forfeit your entitlement to government services. Because you can’t be entitled to something you don’t have a right to and being here illegally forfeits that because you are a criminal.

              If she wants the government services come here legally. Not complicated.

              1. So when she is here legally she can be entitled to her rights.

                Just as a criminals forfeits their rights until they pay for their crime. (fines/time served…none of this felon forever BS. Once your debt is paid its paid and you have all your rights. No being banned from self defense forever BS)

                1. Criminals come in varying degrees. I suggest that murder, for instance, is far worse than crossing a border. If an illegal immigrant is murdered by a native, is that not worth investigating?

                  If you too think there are degrees of criminal, then why do you want to encourage natives to murder illegals? That’s what you are implying if you think illegal immigrants are just getting their just deserts.

                  If you say whoa! that’s not what you meant, of course we should investigate murders, even of illegal immigrants, then where do you draw the line? Here an illegal immigrant was trying to get protection from an abusive boyfriend. Are you saying abusive boyfriends are less dangerous than illegal immigrants?

                  Tell me, in the bigger picture, what harm have illegal immigrants done? Give a dollar figure, show some actual harm. Compare it to abusive boyfriends. A devil’s advocate might even say this illegal immigrant has done the community a service, by being the victim instead of a native woman. That sounds like a positive benefit, not a harm.

                  1. Do you believe if a citizen murders a non-citizen than the citizen wouldn’t be prosecuted? That’s pretty cute, but absolutely not true. Guess what, murder is a crime regardless. If you’re here illegally, you might be extradited to your home country for trial or you might be tried here if your home country doesn’t give a shit about you and doesn’t want to house you. Guess which option Mexico usually takes?

                2. Actually they don’t forfeit their Rights until due process convicts them.

              2. So just to be clear. When you are referring to “services”, you are including basic law enforcement, right? Not just things like welfare.

                So if an illegal has his stuff stolen, in your view, the proper response by law enforcement would be “tough shit – oh and we’re going to deport you”?

                You are basically advocating for open season on illegals.

                1. Than don’t come to a country illegally? Yep that fucking simple.

                  Its called personal responsibility. They made the choice knowing the risks.

                  How is this our problem? Rhetorical, it isn’t,

                  I don’t expect shit from a country i am in illegally.

                  1. just like when they get hurt in a ditch trying to cross the border…is that our problem? Should we save them? Should we rescue people from rafts coming from Cuba?

                    Fuck no!

                    They made their choice and we have ZERO duty to them.

                    1. A person being harmed by his/her own choices is different than a person being harmed by the aggressions of another.

                      Suppose the person on a raft from Cuba made it to shore in Florida, where that person was promptly raped and beaten and murdered by a native-born citizen. Would you say “tough shit, shouldn’t have come here on a raft in the first place”? Should the native-born aggressor suffer any consequences?

                    2. This is exactly the argument that supports forever war, regime change foreign policy.

                  2. Natural rights aren’t turned on and off. What is it about borders that turns so-called libertarians into such lusty government lovers? Do you seriously mean that crossing a border suddenly makes one an old fashioned outlaw who anyone can murder, rob, torture, enslave?

                    What is it about borders that suddenly turns mobocracy into the ideal government? What about them suddenly gives you the right to say “we” and “our”? I sure didn’t authorize any government period, let alone this particular one, let alone this particular idea of crossing a border making oen a legit target for murderers.

                    If you want to protect some line on a map, buy border property and enforce no trespassing laws. But stop telling me I have to pay taxes to support your bigotry and lust for government coercion on my behalf without my consent.

                    1. Natural rights do not get turned on and off, agreed. Now tell me where they are recognized.

                    2. A proper, just government recognizes the natural rights of everyone. I thought that was the whole point of having a government in the first place.

                    3. Does the U.S. have a right to remove someone who is here illegally?

                    4. Wait, Bacon, are you arguing that because some countries have really shitty views when it comes to Natural Rights, we should too?

                    5. Natural rights do not get turned on and off, agreed. Now tell me where they are recognized.

                      Hi Tony.

                      I mean Tulpa.

                    6. After World War Two during the War crimes an American Judge refused to act outside the rules of the Bill of Rights. This horrified many the idea of treating war criminals like real people was disgusting to them. But the Judge refused to move and if remember when those on the Supreme court was asked to talk to him.. they said they would have only two positions. It was either “not our business” or “And?”

                    7. You would think this would be commonly understood on a libertarian website, but it’s 2017 and… well, here we are.

                    8. Again the source of her whoas is her choice of coming here illegally. If she stayed where she was it would have never happened. If she came here legally than she is entitled to government services and protections but she did not.

                      I am not saying she doesn’t have rights. She does not have a right to the US government protecting them.

                      She has rights to her own original country to protect her rights.

                      So…

                      If her parent country wants to file a complaint to the US on her behalf about said crimes that is fine. If her parent company wants to petition the US to turn over the aggressor to her countries courts or petition the US to do something they can.

                      The US has no duty to her plain and simple. This is where the problem lies. We have no duty to her because she came here illegally. There is no refuting this simple point.

                      She took the risks and needs to own it.

                    9. Again…i have said this like 10 times. We do not have a duty to protect illegals. Just as criminals can loose rights for crimes they commit until they repay society. Illegals loose certain rights and services until they pay their debt.

                      This is well founded in law and natural law.

                    10. Well, this is where we disagree.

                      A just government, in my view, would defend the natural rights of everyone within its borders, citizen or not.

                      The difference between citizenship and non-citizenship are the additional *civil rights* and privileges associated with citizenship (e.g., voting, jury service).

                      So the US government should not let illegals vote or serve on juries.

                      But if an illegal is robbed, then that is a violation of that illegal’s natural rights and the perpetrator ought to be brought to justice, whether the victim is an illegal or not.

                    11. Oh, so we shouldn’t recognize natural rights of people outside of our borders Chemjeff? Now who is using imaginary lines to demarcate who has natural rights and who doesn’t? Cute.

                    12. No, everyone has natural rights. But governments only have jurisdictions over their own territory. So while a just government can *recognize* everyone’s natural rights, everywhere in the world, it should *defend* the natural rights of everyone within its borders.

                    13. I would argue our government has a duty to respect illegals rights but not to enforce them. Enforcing requires money which they do not put into the system so we do not havve a duty to protect them.

                      So by respecting I mean the US does not torture illegals, blow them up via drone, and so on.

                      Enforcing is the exact issue above. We have no duty to enforce her rights. Can we? She but we dont have a duty to do so because she is illegal.

                      But we do need to respect them…aka government cant turn illegals into slaves or rape them if caught.

                      Respecting and enforcing rights are two different things and i do not think we have a duty to enforce their rights.

                      Just like we have no duty to save them from their own choices.

                      Legals we very much have a duty to.

                    14. Actually the Courts have been very clear the Police have no Duty to Protect. Their duty is to act as agents of the Courts, to begin due Process.
                      The Bill of Rights Originally was Only to restrain the Union from violating personal rights. The 14th amendment expanded the restraint of the Bill of Rights and precedence to the States and possibly violation of rights by organization.

                    15. Got it. So, in your view everyone has natural rights but we have no moral calling to enforce those rights in other countries because…

                    16. its not our business? Its their fucking problem to fight for their own rights? Not mine.

                      If US goes bat shit crazy, I won’t flee and bring my problem to another person. I’ll grab my gear use my training and fight for my rights. That’s why if cops are stupid and no knock raid my house I’ll be in the news. I fight for my rights and my countryman’s’. We live in a civil society. I have made my points clear about how warrants work in the US.

                      I won’t fight for someone else’s in another country.

                      I am a big supporting of not allowing amnesty and forcing Mexicans to fight for their rights. We have over 6 million illegal Mexicans in this country. If you didn’t allow them to flee. Do you not think it would turn to a boiling point and they would revolt and fight for their rights?

                      I think that would happen and would love to see Mexican fight the cartels and government and get their rights back. I would love to see mexico turn into a prosperous country that I would visit and have respect for.

                    17. Says who? The US army could secure the us government jurisdiction over the Yucat?n Pennisula by 10PM tonight. So we are back to those imaginary lines which lustily defend when it’s convient.

                2. Do you realize how stupid this sounds?
                  Since when investigation of a crime dependent on the status of the victim?
                  The crime is by the one who commits the act, upon whom is irrelevant.
                  Completely unrelated to what crime might be reported is that people, without the requisite permission to be here, are at risk, at all times, of being deported and our laws say that is the case.
                  Worried about illegals not wanting to report crimes? Don’t have any illegals, here, and that worry disappears.

              3. So criminals have no rights? Is that what you’re saying? Then why don’t we just shoot them all the moment a guilty verdict is reached even if they’re a citizen? After all, according to your theory, they’re a criminal and therefore no longer have *any* rights.

                1. you never even read this whole thread. It is quite obvious. Honestly, I expect better from you Diane Merriam from what i have read from you.

                  The issue is the government doesn’t have a duty to people who it never allowed in the country. It must respect them but has no duty to enforce them.

                  Read this post from above….you obiosuly skipped it.
                  http://tinyurl.com/z5vthns

                  1. Also its well established that criminals loose certain rights when they commit a crime just like an illegal immigrant looses/never had a right to government services because the government as i explained above with basic logic and natural law has no duty to people it never agreed to let in.

                  2. The duty is in the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment. since they give no rights but simple RESTRAIN tampering with them.


        3. The image of a bunch of immigration officers descending on a woman who turned to the court for protection from a violent man is exactly the kind of thing that’s going to spread around and discourage immigrants from cooperating with the police or turning to the police for help.

          Or, you know, having a prior criminal past and history of being deported from the country might also be considered a deterrent as well would it not? Yet in this literal example of what you claim, it absolutely did not have that effect. Yet you make zero case for that, which is interesting. I get you don’t want this argument to be considered, but it’s a pretty bullshit example overall.

          Is it also true that if she were an American citizen, and she had a warrant out for her arrest for whatever crimes, that she would also have a disincentive to go to the police for help? So what the fuck is your point here, other than criminals don’t generally get along with law enforcement? The immigration veneer doesn’t hide what really happened here.

          Tell you what, kill the welfare state and then we can have a conversation about immigration and how, right now, the rule of law doesn’t mean shit.

          1. Exactly, he is being completely dishonest in this article. Ignores the elephant in the room as the saying goes. Elephant being her being a criminal, illegal, repeat offender, creating this situation all on her own, and so much more.

            1. He isn’t being dishonest, I wouldn’t accuse Scott of that. Overall I tend to agree with him on a lot of issues, but this is such a shitty example of a good case study that it’s counter productive to anyone who can reason; or it should be.

              Scott, like many others, is somewhat blinded by conflicting ideology on this subject. I am too, frankly, since I tend to lean more conservative but I have nothing against opening up more immigration I just have other things that need to happen first for us to go back to the warm fuzzy sentiments engraved on the State of Liberty.

              Also, my great-grandparents were Irish immigrants so even those warm fuzzy’s are patent bullshit to my family. Not much has changed on that front in 100 years except more welfare and bennies for those who cry the loudest.

          2. The point is not her criminal background, which you seem to latch on to in relief as a distraction from her illegal border crossing status. The point is only her border crossing status. The very fact that you latch on to the side show is damned good indication of how weak your core argument is, or rather how weak you yourself perceive it to be.

            1. The point is that both her immigration status and his/her prior criminal background did not dissuade this individual from going to law enforcement. You’ll note that Scott’s claim is that this individual wouldn’t have gone to the police because of those two things, yet they did exactly that.

              Therefore this claim is bullshit. You can’t pretend this is the first time this has happened, yet they keep going to the cops. So, which is it? Does it deter or doesn’t it?

              Regardless of those facts, this individual is a legal citizen of their parent country. That countries laws apply to this person unless they legally change their citizenship or show that they deserve political asylum due to personal risks if they stay in their home country, which they failed to do. The result of that decision is that the laws of their country still apply. And why shouldn’t they, unless you have this idea in your head that borders only apply if they’re our borders. What if an American goes to North Korea and is imprisoned? Well, I guess they’re just fucked huh? After all natural rights don’t exist there. Would you make that argument?

              You want to apply natural rights to the whole world? Go ahead. In concept it’s a beautiful thing, but in execution it’s a world war. Your idea that natural rights shouldn’t stop at borders is a literal call to war, but too many idiots don’t seem to understand what the rule of law actually means.

              1. I guess you believe there exist no deterrents for crime, or else we would live in a crime-free world.

                1. How did you infer that one wonders? Of course there are deterrents, but it would seem that at least in this case being an illegal immigrant with a past of violent crime did not deter this individual from seeking the aid of a foreign government while currently in violation of laws they must have known about (especially given that they had previously been deported and arrested).

                  So was this individual retarded, ignorant, or trying to get prosecuted for a crime they knew would have some public outcry attached in order to further their cause? I doubt it’s the third option, but it’s certainly an option that I wouldn’t discount entirely.

                  I’m more curious about an individual with a past of assault charges trying to get a restraining order on someone. That’s a story I’d like to hear more about. But hey, lets ignore everything about this entire story except one minute facet of it because we have an agenda to drive home. I’m sure that will go over well with reasoned individuals.

                  1. From your insistence that this one woman’s choice proves Shackford is wrong about the deterrent effect.

                    1. So why didn’t the deterrent deter this literal case study of an individual who should have been very deterred?

                      Violent prior crimes? Check.

                      Illegal immigration status? Check.

                      Prior deportations for aforementioned violent crimes? Check.

                      Re-entry into the country consequence free six times? Check.

                      Where, exactly, is the deterrence in this equation?

                      We’ll probably never know, but using a person who should have been very deterred who was clearly not deterred in the least is what we would call a weak argument. In fact, it’s so weak that it’s a counter-argument to the point he was trying to make.

                  2. How did criminal get changed to “violent” crime?

                    Not going through proper channels on entering the country is all it takes to make someone a criminal. Nor, since she didn’t know she even had a “criminal” background, had she ever been charged with, much less convicted of, any crime beyond the simple fact of being here.

                    If you get in legally on a visa and then overstay your visa (which is a large percentage of “illegals”), it’s not even a felony, just a civil offense.

              2. I think, more likely, that you have no idea what natural rights are or where they come from. Governments may ignore them, but that doesn’t make them go away, it just means it’s an unjust government.

                1. again you are failing to understand the simple fact that if a government doesn’t protect someone doesn’t make them infringing someones rights. The infringer is the individual and the government does not have a duty to someone who it never agreed to allow into the country.

        4. The bizarre stance on immigration is at odds with a philosophy that has respect for property rights at it’s core.

          One could say that the ‘open borders’ stance is, in fact, antithetical to everything libertarianism stands for. At times, it seems almost grafted on by the extreme left–and given that this stance causes such division amongst those who call themselves ‘libertarian’ this may be the case.

          Every animal and plant that is able maintains a territory that it defends from competitors and all others it sees as a threat. Humans are not an exception to this universal rule.

          1. You have the right to decide who comes on *your* property. You do *not* have the right to decide who comes on your neighbor’s property.

            1. Again the government…the collective of people, have the right to decide who can and cannot come into their country. fuck…..

              1. Um… countries and/or collectives don’t have rights. Only individuals do. fuck…

                1. A sovereign nation has the right to protect its people, its interests and who they allow in…..dumbass

      2. In addition to Scott’s comment, I’d thank you to not believe I agree with your nonsense.

  4. lawls. Why would police help illegals? They are here illegally, don’t pay taxes, drain our services, and so on.

    Since they are here illegally they are not entitled to our services. Boo fucking who! Maybe don’t come here illegally? Problem solved? Yep.

    Anyways, we all know here you never call the police. They are fucking worthless and a liability.

    1. The hell they don’t pay taxes.

      They pay sales taxes on stuff they buy.

      They pay property taxes on places they rent.

      They pay fuel taxes fi they drive, plus registration.

      They pay SS taxes which they can never collect, unless their employer is fudging the books.

      1. They don;t pay SS or medicare tax and yes many of them collect it. They also collect tax brakes too.

        Do you not read reason? This is well known here. This took all of 5 mins to google. So much more exists.
        http://tinyurl.com/8p8tw5u
        http://tinyurl.com/zy6jjlf

  5. I would have to know the immigration status of the boyfriend before I decide whether to feel bad for that woman for being beaten.

    1. I completely agree.

      Wife-beating is only bad if it isn’t committed against an illegal. Amirite?

      But if some illegal gets her head bashed in by her loser husband, then it’s her own damn fault. What was she doing sneaking across the border anyway?

      1. When I was writing that post I thought for sure I was staking out some decent satirical ground. Imagine my dismay to find that several people had posted the same sentiment ahead of me but with zero irony.

        1. Offensive! Irony has been dead since 9/11 you insensitive prick.

      2. What someone’s husband does, or doesn’t do, is completely unrelated to her immigration status. If he assaults her, his act is illegal, regardless of how she came to be in the country, but reporting it doesn’t grant her some kind of protection from being subject to immigration law enforcement.
        Does someone, who has an unrelated arrest warrant pending, or, is even, a “person of interest” in another crime, get immunity from that if they are reporting another crime?

  6. In the inevitable “This person is no angel” category of reporting, she had apparently been deported before repeatedly and had also been charged with crimes in the past. We don’t want to ignore those details.

    Good, but I’d say that puts you in the minority of writers on the site these days.

  7. Making immigration enforcement harsher makes it harder for people to turn to the government for assistance

    That is the reason some of them are coming here, for assistance.

    1. Study after study has shown illegals consume fewer government services and commit fewer crimes.

      Why do you repeat nonsense?

      1. That’s bullshit and you know it. How the fuck can you do a study on an entire population that does their very best to remain hidden?

      2. Actually, a while back I went looking for studies on whether illegals really are welfare leeches. Mostly it seems that it’s hard to track what illegals do, but there are studies about what foreign-born residents do, of which illegals are a subset. And among foreign-born residents, it is absolutely true that they commit fewer crimes and consume less welfare *when adjusted for income*.

        1. Of course, a study that includes legal immigrants would be skewed considering they are often better educated with valuable skillsets (M.D., I.T, Etc.).

          Only a fool points at a flawed data set as proof of anything. I’m not calling you a fool, by the way, I appreciate your candor in fact. If anything I would expect illegal immigrants to also make a reasonable income since it is often tax free, but as you say it’s impossible to say for sure.

          America can’t even accurately say how many people in the United States are illegal immigrants. I for one say that the critiera for emigrating to the U.S. should be easier but it needs to go hand-in-hand with both tax reform, welfare abolishment, and a raft of other impossible-to-achieve policy goals. Am I fine with holding immigration hostage until those goals are met? Absolutely. To do otherwise is to destroy our nation from within. Some are fine with that, and in fact want to see the whole thing burn. I can’t agree with that.

          As for welfare leech? If the child is a citizen and the parents are not, it would be virtually impossible for them to be anything but a welfare leech. No provable income, eligible for many federal benefits, and virtually no chance of ICE deporting the parents with a citizen child? This is on top of no-doubt below the board income? It’s a bad recipe, to be sure.

        2. I posted above that legal immigrants and illegal immigrants draw more welfare than native residents. It is in the 5 URL links.

          Personally, I don’t care either way. I just want illegals out. I hate people who think they are entitled to things they are not and cheat the system to get their. Their shitty people on principle.

  8. Arent sanctuary cities more run ins with cops not trying to assess immigration status?

    Im a little confused why this would apply to woman going to court for restraining order

  9. lets not punish criminals because the y are illegal or have kids. to bad Citizens can’t be treated as nicely

  10. Sorry but I look at stories like this the same way I do complaints that we’re supposedly “breaking up families” by sending parents who entered and/or remained in our country illegally but had kids here. They made the decision to break the law knowing that deportation could happen at any time. The collateral consequences of that decision are their fault.

    1. Remember when libertarians were all about voluntary assumption of risk? That doesn’t seem to be a concept that gets much play in libertarian circles anymore.

      1. Remember when libertarians were all against coercive government and against victimless crimes?

        Good times, good times.

    2. Yea this is a good point. They took the risk knowing the consequences.

      I personally prefer an enforced border, promoting LEGAL immigration and for the illegals here a permanent resident alien (or a temporary migratory visa like if they want to work only for a season or something) provided they aren’t a criminal. All the ones with a felony or charged (or things like vandalism, theft etc) will be booted out. And then they will be put behind legal immigrants if they want on a path to citizenship. Legal gets priority.

      Perhaps it should be a less of a pain for legal immigrants (i have heard they have to jump thru a lot of hoops). Whereas we reward folks for sneaking in…doesn’t seem very fair.

      1. They took the risk knowing the consequences.

        Relevant:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn0WdJx-Wkw

  11. The complaint, filed Feb. 9, indicates that Gonzalez (the one seeking the court order), whom Bernal identified as transgender, had been deported six times since 2010 ? apparently after arrests for crimes including possession of stolen mail, false imprisonment and assault.

    It’s always unfortunate when these heroic heroes fall on tough times. Clearly the US government should be going out of its way to make her life better.

    1. Everyone knows that all crimes committed after illegal immigration don’t count. That’s the only crime they committed, and if they kill someone after they enter the country illegally the immigration laws made them do it. Everyone knows this.

      Keep in mind that I’m actually for immigration; but I’m also for the rule of law. Please tell me why Mexican immigrants have more rights than Indian or European immigrants. Oh, it’s because of geography? Fuck you, then.

      1. No one has any more natural rights than anyone else based solely on their citizenship status or country of origin. By the same token, no one has any fewer natural rights than anyone else based solely on their citizenship status or country of origin.

  12. Reason scribe playing clever octopus again.

    Harshness and profound disregard toward the plight of vulnerables is something that should be rejected from the machinery of fucking governance which in order to foster said system will require rapid waving about of the supernatural magic wand of all the wizards and prophets.

    However, common decency offered to broken lives is an entirely different issue from creating a system where people are discouraged from squatting for the rest of their lives on taxpayer property and dime while at the same time offering law-abiding immigrants who deeply appreciate the liberty ethos fair and speedy confirmation to participate under the same legal system that assists or oppresses the rest of us Americans.

    1. You make more sense than Reason.

      1. That Reason person is the worst.

        1. If sloopy were still here, he might have something to say with you comparing his little girl to Nikki…

  13. Uh, am I the only one who thinks that if she were deported her abusive boyfriend would probably have a pretty hard time locating her? Assuming, of course, that he was a lawful resident of the United States.

    Then, in their legal country of residence, could she not pursue legal recourse against her abusive boyfriend? You know, that legal entity who holds jurisdiction over her?

    Or are we saying that everyone has a right to live in America and benefit from our right to council? I think that’s it. In that vein, I think we should absolutely go to war with all of Africa. The whole thing, top to bottom. After all, none of those people are currently getting their Constitutional right to legal council when accused of a crime, and that can not stand.

    The American Constitution applies the to whole world, which is why we must go to war with literally the entire planet. They are not respecting our authority in all matters.

    Thus, we arrive at a point where ostensible Libertarians authorize worldwide war. Kudos. I know it’s hyperbole, but if the Constitution and Natural Rights are universal, or even just Natural Rights, how can we sit by and let that happen? This is ultimately where that logic is leading, and frankly it’s where our government is trying to take us. It’s literally the imperialism of good intentions.

    1. Whatever you want to do as an individual person regarding countries where natural rights are not being protected is one thing. Totally up to you. A just government, on the other hand, only has authority within its own borders to fulfill those functions which it was instituted for and based only on the portion of natural rights the people have decided to delegate to it.

  14. From the El Paso Times story:

    The criminal complaint states that on Feb. 2, Homeland Security Investigations Border Enforcement Security Taskforce agents received information that Irvin Gonzalez, who also is known as Ervin Gonzalez, was in the U.S. despite having been previously deported. The information received stated that Gonzalez was staying at the Center Against Sexual and Family Violence.

    The complaint, filed Feb. 9, indicates that Gonzalez, whom Bernal identified as transgender, had been deported six times since 2010 ? apparently after arrests for crimes including possession of stolen mail, false imprisonment and assault.

    This person is not a good symbol for which to fight and die for the immigration flag.

  15. Two questions.

    1. Does the NAP apply to illegals?

    2. If so, then how should NAP violations against illegals be redressed?

    1. Wouldn’t redressing violations of the NAP require some form of A, in and of itself? Who gets absolved of the P, when they are to be redressing the violation?
      Kind of makes the whole NAP stuff, except as an abstract, seem rather silly, doesn’t it?

  16. What is it, like 6-20 years for the path to legal immigration?
    Obviously illegal immigration is going to be a problem. No shit.

    Until the source of the problem is addressed, bureaucratic band-aids are certainly NOT going to fix it.

    “Cracking down” on a problem that they create is what’s known in gov’t circles as job security.

  17. Don’t want the time, don’t do the crime. That’s the libertarian motto.

    1. I know, right?

      Evidently now, a person’s natural rights are contingent on magic pieces of paper handed out by government bureaucrats.

      If you cross a border without the magic papers – well then it’s open season on you!

      1. How do we know that there’s a natural right to cross borders?

          1. Where does NAP come from?

            1. It comes from the reasoned realization that aggression is evil. And an immigrant is Not committing an act of aggression by coming into the US so don’t even start with such equivocation.

              1. Who decides what aggression is? It always sounds to me like “aggression” is whatever somebody is doing that somebody else doesn’t like.

                1. Aggression is initiating an action that physically harms another person unwillingly or unknowingly or their property (or credibly threatening to do so) or perpetrating a fraud. Defense is not aggression, it is a response to it.

                  Once self defense gets past the immediate moment of the aggressive act, that is the part of self defense we delegate to government. To act in our name to try to minimize the possibility of letting emotion overcome reason in convicting the right person and setting an appropriate penalty.

              2. I consider theft and fraud an aggression. U?sing tax payer money and coming illegally is an act of aggression.

                1. It is also insulting to property rights.

                  1. You have the right to control *your* property, not your neighbor’s.

                    1. A government has the right to control its property, which supersedes an individual’s dominion over their portion of the land.
                      The government is endowed with that right through our Constitution and that document says that the Congress has power over immigration.
                      Libertarian abstractions notwithstanding, the laws are clear, it is illegal to enter the US, or remain here, without the permission of the federal government.
                      Go live in Libertarianland if you don’t like it.

                2. Taxpayer money *is* an aggression, regardless of what it gets used for.

                  There is no fraud or theft inherent to simply being here without permission. People who overstay their visas, which a significant portion of “illegals” is, aren’t even criminal. It’s just a civil offense.

              3. oh stop – we saw the numbers of those detained and the crimes they had committed – you are in your bubble I see – wish I could put in the barrio I lived in next to LAX with the 106th St. Tepas and MS13 going at it and you might have another view about what can provide security to all of us –

            2. It comes from the reasoned realization that aggression is evil. And an immigrant is Not committing an act of aggression by coming into the US so don’t even start with such equivocation.

              1. What part does the immigrant play in the government taking from me to give to them?

                1. they accepting it…duh? If they don’t accept it the money isn;t spent resulting in a surplus.

              2. That would depend on one’s definition of what constitutes an act of aggression.
                To may of us, it includes using the resources of this nation, without being granted permission to do so.
                Just as you would consider someone entering your residence, and making themselves at home, committing an act of aggression.

        1. Re: Homple,

          How do we know that there’s a natural right to cross borders?

          It’s derived from your right to ACT (i.e. freedom).

          The only thing you do NOT have a right to is someone else’s property which includes stepping on it without permission. But don’t even try to argue that the property an immigration is stepping on is “collectively owned” because that’s a crock. Immigrants DO obtain permission from private individuals who rent to them or lodge them and who employ them, marry them, etc.

          1. But what if they need to cross my property to get to yours? Therein lies the rub. We call that mediator ‘government’.

            1. “But what if they need to cross my property to get to yours?”

              Um… that question would apply to anyone.

              1. 1 your problem for buying a land locked property…dumbass.

                2. it is also called easements.

                learn property laws.

          2. Go outside your residence, on to that paved-over area, and try to claim it is yours, or some other individual’s.
            That is what is known as public property, collectively owned, and your rights to do with it as you please are severely restricted.
            Try to tell a court that the government’s claim to that property is “a crock” and see how far that gets you.

            If what you maintain is a libertarian principle, then you show why libertarians are not take seriously.

        2. How do you know there are other natural rights?

          You make ’em up, then stick to ’em.

          1. Nobody makes up new natural rights. There’s only LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY, and from LIBERTY we can reason and conclude everyone has the freedom to migrate and thus cross “borders” (which are merely lines on a map conjured up by conquerors)

            1. Nobody makes up new natural rights

              Really? Do you believe that rights are things that exist independent of any being actually having them?

              1. You’ll find in reading about natural rights that they are conferred and created by God. So, yeah. As a secular society we’ve had to find ways around that particular issue, but you’ll note that a secular society doesn’t really give a shit about those rights either.

                France, we’re looking at you.

                1. You’ll find in reading about natural rights that they are conferred and created by God

                  So rights only exist because of God and since rights exist then God exists. Is that correct?


                  1. “So rights only exist because of God and since rights exist then God exists. Is that correct?”

                    No, because there likely is no god. It’s possible there is one, but I’m not he one making the argument. The men who thought up natural rights made that argument. It’s hard to deny that the more secular a society becomes, the less of a shit they give about these so-called ‘natural rights’ though. In fact, the more secular a society becomes the more utilitarian they seem to become. This naturally seems to lead to authoritarianism, but that’s a whole different conversation.

                    I just find it amusing that secularists would defend natural rights so vehemently when no such rights exist in nature. A cougar won’t respect your property boundaries, a cave in does not acknowledge your right to freedom, and a comet will not respect your right to life. They are not even intrinsic to humanity, in fact. They are aspirational and inspirational in spirit, nothing more and nothing less, and must won & reinforced time and time again from tyrants. That much the founding fathers definitely understood.

                    Trying to give or force those qualities and aspirational goals to someone is a fools errand of monumental proportion. They must be earned in some form or fashion or they are utterly meaningless.

                    1. It’s unfortunate that Old Mex disappeared like a fart in the wind. He always seems to act like he has these deep philosophical positions that must remain unchallenged because the moment they are challenged he’s lost. Oh well.

              2. Natural rights exist in species that are capable of both understanding the concept and applying them to others. A rational alien species from outer space would have the same natural rights that we do.

            2. And if they migrate, do they have the right for the government to threaten us with confiscation, dispossession, prison or death if we don’t pay the extra taxes their use of the welfare system causes?

              1. “And if they migrate, do they have the right for the government to threaten us with confiscation, dispossession, prison or death if we don’t pay the extra taxes their use of the welfare system causes?”

                No.

              2. No. No more than any other person does that uses the government to take what they want from some people to give it to others.

        3. How do we know that there’s a natural right to cross borders?

          There isn’t.

          Every animal and plant that is able maintains a territory that it defends from competitors and all others it sees as a threat. Humans are not an exception to this universal rule.

          The ‘natural right to cross borders’ is a leftist invention designed to undermine ideas of national sovereignty and private property.

  18. woman in El Paso County, Texas, went to court to try to get a protective order against a boyfriend she claimed was abusing her. At the courthouse, according to a county attorney, a pack of immigration officials staked the woman out and then detained her.

    This was not some random occurrence as a result of President Donald Trump’s call for tougher enforcement. Immigration officials tracked down the woman because of a tip. The attorney, who represents domestic violence victims seeking help from the court, worried that it was the abusive boyfriend who snitched on her.

    Of course this happened in a vacuum, nothing she did led to this outcome, no fault of her own whatsoever. Illegal immigrants have no responsibility of their own because they apparently lack agency. Maybe people who actually do have agency should immigrate legally to avoid unfavorable legal outcomes down the road.

    1. Re: Free Society,

      Of course this happened in a vacuum, nothing she did led to this outcome,

      At least you’re tacitly conceding the truth that immigrants have cause not to rely on the help from police or authorities.

      By any token, yours is a ridiculous argument. Should a woman who committed something like a traffic violation accept her fate if she is violated and is arrested upon seeking help from the police? An undocumented immigrant is not committing a crime by merely not possessing the required government – issued papers. That is, an actual crime with a goddammed victim and not a “crime” conjured up by statists. Yet they’re liable to be treated like criminals. That would discourage even the most desperate.

      1. irrelevant because you are comparing legal vs illegal and comparing a citizen vs government agent.

        We have no duty to enforce illegals rights but we must respect them even if illegal.

        Government not raping someone is respecting a right.

        Government preventing another person who is not the government from raping an illegal is enforcing their right.

        We have no duty to protect illegals but we still can’t trample them via the government.

        1. So if we have a murderer on the loose, as long as he only kills illegals the law shouldn’t care about him? Is that what you’re saying?

          1. I made my point quite clear, our government has no duty to illegals.

            Whether or not we go after a killer because he is a killer is a different issue. We are under no obligation to provide protective services to illegals. We have no duty to put a squad car in front of their house. We have no obligation to put them into witness protection unless we so feel like it.

            obligation and duty is key here. We do not have a duty to protect them. Capturing a murder is a different issue. Protecting them is a different issue.

            Should we capture a murder? Of course, are we required to give the illegal a protection detail? Fuck no! They can protect themselves or better yet leave the US. If the murder goes to Ecuador than we are responsible for out citizen (assuming the murder is a citizen and not another illlegal) going to Ecuador.

            1. *change killer to murder. Killing is not wrong…murder is. My mistake. I followed your terms in the beginning and didn’t catch that.

              Killing in many cases is justified and a killer is not necessarily a criminal.

      2. Should a woman who committed something like a traffic violation accept her fate if she is violated and is arrested upon seeking help from the police?

        Yeah totally valid comparison. You got me good.

        An undocumented immigrant is not committing a crime by merely not possessing the required government – issued papers. That is, an actual crime with a goddammed victim and not a “crime” conjured up by statists. Yet they’re liable to be treated like criminals. That would discourage even the most desperate.

        And yet her present circumstances were entirely preventable if she had just played the game like millions of legal immigrants had the wherewithal to do. I doubt she is an anarchist that avoided getting documentation on principle. She did it for her own reasons and the consequence of that was entirely foreseeable. I’m sure that somewhere out there in the world, a tiny violin is playing just for her.

  19. I’m rooting for the government.

  20. If she is deported, then doesn’t that protect her from her abuser? He would have to self-deport to get at her now.

    This logic is poor anyway — by your own admission, she was a criminal, the sort of illegal immigrant the government is prioritizing for deportation. If she was a citizen with several outstanding warrants, should she not have been arrested, because otherwise she would not go in to report the crime? Either way is a win/lose scenario for law-enforcement.

  21. Let’s say an abusive boyfriend uses the Fifth Amendment to get out of a rape charge. Does that mean we should be against the Fifth Amendment? If it weren’t for the Fifth Amendment, rapists wouldn’t be allowed to confront their victims in court; rapists wouldn’t have the assistance of attorneys; rapists wouldn’t have the right to remain silent!

    Using that logic, I guess libertarians should be against the Fifth Amendment, since, you know, it’s pro-rape, right?

    1. You never fail to amuse Ken, and I mean that sincerely. I may not always like what you say, but I always take the time to read what you have to say. At least you’re thinking.

      1. I am so weary of public policy being a question of who has the cutest bunny rabbit.

        I guess another way of countering this story would be to find an illegal alien who abused his native born girlfriend? If only she could have had him deported, but noooOOOooo, they were in a sanctuary city!

        LoneWacko: “My bunny is cuter than yours–it has a bushy tail!”

        Shika Dalmia: “No, my bunny is cuter than yours–it has bigger, floppier ears!”

  22. I guess I’m gonna start hammering on this over and over again:

    There’s a big difference between saying that our immigration policy should be expansive and saying that we shouldn’t have an immigration policy.

    Even if we let any Mexican citizen come across the border to look for work so long as they came across the border legally, then we would still need to expel those who came across the border illegally.

    The point of open borders is not to let anybody and everybody come across regardless of whether they present a threat to the rights of Americans. The point of open borders is to let people come across the border legally, so that it will be easier to keep out those we reject as a security risk. In other words, even with open borders, we would still be expelling illegal aliens who came across the border illegally.

    And if open borders means we’d still be expelling people who come across our borders illegally, suggesting to people that illegal border crossers shouldn’t be deported seriously undermines the case for open borders.

    Please stop undermining the case for open borders.

    1. If it is not “to let anybody and everybody come across”, then it is not an open border.
      It can’t be considered “open” if it is closed to some.
      And therein lies the problem. To whom should it be open, and to whom should it be closed?
      Crossing the border and subsequent allowance to remain is called naturalization and our Constitution places the power over that in the hands of the Congress, and they have made it abundantly clear who should be allowed to come, and remain, and who should not.
      There isn’t, really, any question as to what the law says. It is that some seem to think their ideas, somehow, supersede what the law, and the Constitution say it is.
      Such people should be relegated to the realm of delusional.

  23. It sounds like it’s no fun being an illegal alien.

  24. The complaint, filed Feb. 9, indicates that Gonzalez, whom Bernal identified as transgender, had been deported six times since 2010 ? apparently after arrests for crimes including possession of stolen mail, false imprisonment and assault.

    I always like to point out that you cannot use simple criminality as the basis of whether or not illegal immigrants should be deported. The state can and has made all manner of victimless action criminal. You’re a criminal. Shackleford is a criminal. Every person over the age of ten is a criminal. Either deport someone because they’ve been deemed trespassing or don’t.

    However, this one seems to have been committing actual assaults. So, while I get Shackelford’s point, probably a case of good riddance here.

  25. Was she arrested because she sought out the protection of the state? No. She was arrested because a 3rd party tipped of ICE as to her status and probably schedule.

    Prostitutes & drug dealers do get arrested for seeking protection from the state because explaining the situation implicates them in crimes. Not so much in this case.

    I’ll actually agree with this premise if the tipster turns out to be someone in the court system related to her case, but at this time the only guess is it’s the abusive ex.

  26. Thus displaying another downside of having illegal immigrants in the country – it breeds a lawless subpopulation. Whether you pick them up at court or not.

    ( also the shocking discovery that having a criminal history has downsides as well)

  27. oh stop – we saw the numbers of those detained and the crimes they had committed – you are in your bubble I see – wish I could put in the barrio I lived in next to LAX with the 106th St. Tepas and MS13 going at it and you might have another view about what can provide security to all of us –

  28. Well the current sanctuary policy hasn’t done anything to make the barrio’s any safer; in fact, it just perpetuates the violence because the perpetrators are protected by the system allowing them to prey upon the innocent.

  29. By this logic, we should allow colleges to prevent alleged rapists from confronting the victim since it would traumatize her (forcing her to relive the entire incident) and potentially discourage other victims from reporting rape.

    If the police conducted terrifying immigration raids nightly and demanded citizenship status from every tipster or alleged victims, then we would surely have a problem. But we’re not there yet. We were never there. America is one of those few places where local police cannot act as a de facto immigration agent. That’s in stark contrast to places like Korea, where a local cop could drag in a foreigner (on a trumped up charge) to a precinct and punch his name to a database. The foreigner, or an English teacher, is better off just paying off his accuser to evade deportation.

    Trust also goes both ways. Most white people do not harass immigrants. Whites in suburbia won’t reguarly snitch on Korea town room Salons even though they probably suspect what’s going on there. They sort of allow certain ethnic worlds to blossom in communities and do their own thing. If an illegal immigrant on a deserted street witnessed a rape of a an American woman and won’t report it, that relationship will take a hit.

  30. “…immigration officers descending on a woman who turned to the court for protection from a violent man is exactly the kind of thing that’s going to spread around and discourage [illegal] immigrants …” from breaking into the USA. Fixed it for you.

    As the virtue signalling Reason knows, the issue is legal tax payers vs. tax dependent illegal immigrants, not xenophobic nationalists vs. wonderful, hard working people who just want a better life.

    Libertarian Party failure to recognize that immigration into a welfare state is a disaster, as its incentive for tax dependency, regardless of legality, not only prevents assimilated social harmony, but encourages hostile separatism, is why I’m not a Libertarian. That and the repulsive hypocrites, just like the left, incessantly blame everyone but themselves for today’s hostile, entirely tax oriented separatism.

    1. Libertarian Party failure to recognize that immigration into a welfare state is a disaster

      If money were the only problem, it would be dumb, but not suicidal.

      The bigger problem is importing big government voters from big government cultures. That is libertarian suicide. And the Left knows it, and that’s why they’re so big on Open Borders.

      Reason’s Open Border Uber Alles squad are just useful idiots for the big government crowd.

      1. Agree with you, totally. USA’s immigration is a vote buying scam. Quite sure Reason, like the rest of the leftist media’s, “Open Borders” propaganda hides an actual immigration agenda of discriminatory immigration, favoring high numbers of the no/low income, unskilled, uneducated, skewed towards welfare dependency, while preventing immigration of those inclined to work for a living and vote as a tax payer.

        What I don’t understand is why national suicide is so popular. Virtue signalling isn’t going to put food on anyone’s table when welfare expenses inevitably exceed tax payer’s ability to pay them.

        1. “Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.”

          1. Can’t get to heaven pretending that taxation and charity are synonymous.

    2. Isn’t it wonderful that it is illegal for them to pay social security. I wouldn’t be supprised if horror of horror counties actually let illegals pay property tax, better fix that.
      At least we made it Illegal for them to attempt to fix the legality of their status.
      Lawyers make to much money, better it goes to Coyotes, Pimps, and Drug dealers.
      **End Snark**

  31. Criminal aliens have no right to be here. That they flout the law – then expect the law to serve them – is the zenith of hypocrisy. Criminal aliens should enjoy NO legal protections. No emergency medical care, no police protection, no process in courts. If she was beaten, raped and murdered – too damn bad. She should not even BE here in the first place.

  32. The bottom line is: So what. Obviously criminal illegal aliens need to go. If it creates some short term issues, so friggin’ what? That lady SHOULD be thrown out. So should all of them probably, but if we’re going to be nice and do one more amnesty then whoever gets tossed out because they got nabbed between now and then, oh well.

    If we’d been enforcing the laws as written the whole time WE WOULDN’T HAVE THIS ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE. We need to have more sensible immigration rules… But before then we need to begin enforcing the rules, and then IF we grant another big blanket amnesty like the 80s we need to KEEP enforcing the rules after.

    Otherwise the same shit will happen all over again. No matter how sensible the rules are some people will try to break them. People like that need to be busted and sent home 100% of the time. Proper enforcement deters criminal actions. Some will always continue to break the rules (like hookers or drug dealers do) but it will deter massive law breaking… Like 11 million+ people ilegally living here for instance, if the law was enforced.

    1. If we’d just caught and booted people as they illegally came in all these years there would be no “innocent families” to break up etc. Same with this chick. She shouldn’t have been here getting beat by her asshole boyfriend in the first place. I’m from California, I’m part Mexican on my moms side, I get that not all Mexicans are horrible people… But we need to have rule of law on this issue, and frankly we don’t need millions more half illiterate workers in a country that can’t even employ it’s own low education folks.

      Jesus. I’m sorry but people don’t have the right to move to any country in the world any time they want just because they want to. It should be the right of the Swiss to tell me to fuck off and that I can’t move to their country because I don’t meet the requirements they want of a citizen, just the same as it should be our right as a nation to collectively decide what type of people we want moving here. IMO anybody who doesn’t have a hell of a degree or valued trade should be told “NO” at this point in time. The 21st century no longer has employment for everybody with a strong back and a will to work. If you don’t have 21st century skills you’re not really bringing much to the table in America in 2017. It’s harsh, but true.

  33. Step away from immigration and consider the context of our drug wars and our war on sex work and prostitution. We know that because of enforcement of the law, people who voluntarily participate in these black markets cannot easily turn to police for help if they’re victimized or harmed because ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? they have to worry that they’ll be arrested themselves. And so we have pushes for things like “Good Samaritan” laws that would protect those who report drug overdoses to authorities from being arrested for possession. This helps save lives.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.