Immigration

Border Patrol Raids a Non-Profit Providing Medical Aid to Immigrants in the Arizona Desert

An escalation of immigration enforcement tactics in the Southwest

|

Border patrol car patrolling on border

About 30 armed Border Patrol agents swarmed a small camp in a remote part of the Arizona desert last Thursday. From the intensity of the raid, you might think they were hitting a drug smuggling depot.

Instead, it was a humanitarian relief station run by the nonprofit No More Deaths. There volunteers provide water and urgent medical services to migrants crossing the inhospitable region.

Thursday's raid, in which four migrants were arrested, didn't just represent an escalation of interference with No More Deaths' work. It's part of a growing securitization of the southern border, a crackdown that is compelling immigrants to take increasingly hazardous and remote desert routes into the United States.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the country's border security infrastructure was much smaller: The 1,954-mile frontier between the U.S. and Mexico had a mere 60 miles of fencing and about 8,500 immigratrion officials patrolling it. After 9/11, the border fence stretched to 700 miles and the number of border patrol agents exploded to over 17,000 stationed in the Southwest alone. The border also became a surveillance state, with 8,000 cameras, 11,000 motion sensors, and even drones watching out for unwanted immigrants.

As Cato policy analyst David Bier pointed out in a recent Reason feature, "one byproduct of making it harder to enter is that people will choose to cross in increasingly dangerous points along the border." In 2000, the U.S. government arrested 1,643,679 illegal immigrants attempting to cross the southern border; at least 380 migrants died making the crossing. Last year, Border Patrol agents apprehended only 408,000 people for entering the country illegally, but the number of reported dead stayed roughly the same, at 322.

In other words, in 2000 one migrant died on the U.S.'s southern border for every 4,325 migrants detained by the Border Patrol. In 2016, the ratio was one dead migrant for every 1,269 apprehended alive.

The Office of the Medical Examiner in Pima County, Arizona—where the No More Deaths raid took place—recovers the remains of dead immigrants once every two to three days. The overwhelming cause of death is exposure to extreme temperatures and dehydration. Since 2000, 6,700 migrants have died in this way while traversing the American Southwest.

No More Deaths was established to bring that number down to zero. For the past 13 years they have been operating a desert outpost in Arivaca, Arizona. From there volunteers carry water to remote foot trails known to be used by immigrants. Throughout that time, immigration officials have reportedly harassed the group. Volunteers have been charged with littering for leaving full jugs of water in the desert. Border patrol agents have also been caught on film pouring water jugs onto the ground.

In 2013, however, the group reached an agreement with the Tucson branch of Border Patrol: The government would not interfere with the organization's medical and humanitarian work. That agreement was supposedly affirmed just two months ago. No More Deaths has released a statement calling last Thursday's raid a violation of that agreement, saying it "has deterred people from accessing critical humanitarian assistance in this period of hot and deadly weather."

"People crossing the deadly and remote regions of the US–Mexico border," the statement added, "often avoid seeking urgent medical care for fear of deportation and incarceration." Being allowed to provide that care in a safe environment was crucial to that work. But with raids like this—and with the Trump administration escalating immigration arrests and looking to hire another 15,000 Border Patrol agents—that lifesaving help may become far more difficult.

Advertisement

NEXT: Cindy McCain's Charities Are Plagued With Scandal and Corruption. Now Trump Wants to Make Her Human Rights Ambassador

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. TRUUUUUUUMP! [shakes Fist]

    1. Hey, what did Fist do? if you shake anyone it should be SIV or Ken Schultz.

      1. It’s because of my brown skin. I WAS MOWING IN THE SUN YESTERDAY.

      2. I don’t need a forty-minute lecture from Ken on why i should stop shaking him, and i really really don’t want to touch SIV.

        1. a forty-minute lecture from Ken on why i should stop shaking him

          I’d read that.

  2. Border patrol agents have also been caught on film pouring water jugs onto the ground.

    I can see why border clenchers are so eager to empower these people.

    1. They simply know that a moat is better than a fence and are doing their part.

    2. caught on film

      Really? Was it a college art project or something?

      1. How Things Work: Erosion.

  3. “It’s part of a growing securitization of the southern border, a crackdown that is compelling immigrants to take increasingly hazardous and remote desert routes into the United States.”

    Taking increasingly hazardous and remote routes INTO the United States is one option.

    1. Yep. It’s why I just shrug at concerned articles like this. No one is forced to sneak into another country.

      1. This isn’t like drug war policy, where congress has no business meddling in people’s private affairs.

        Immigration policy isn’t based on some dodgy interpretation of congress’ authority to regulate commerce between the states.

        We’re talking about an enumerated power of congress–given to them in the same place as the power to declare war and for the same reason.

        I said it before and I’ll say it again: imposing an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like imposing an unpopular war on them–and that’s why congress does and should have the enumerated power to set the rules of immigration.

        The rules also need to comply with the First and Fourteenth amendments, but so long as they do that, this isn’t an inappropriate assertion of government power. This is enforcing the rules set by congress in accordance with the Constitution.

        Maybe some of these people are anarchists. I don’t know. But if government has any legitimate purpose at all, it’s defending our rights against foreign threats and defending the Constitution as a part of that.

        I’d like to see a more expansive immigration policy, personally. So I advocate for something like an open borders treaty with Mexico–but I’m not looking to impose that on the American people against their will. That treaty would need to be ratified by two-thirds of congress. No one can call me an authoritarian on this. Well, they can, but they’d be wrong.

        1. We’re talking about an enumerated power of congress

          Where?

          Naturalization is not immigration.

          1. Naturalization is a process.

            The process ends with citizenship, but it starts with immigration.

            Hell, it start with tourist visas.

            1. Naturalization is just the conferring of citizenship. If a country’s laws allow it, you could be naturalized without even immigrating.

              1. A la Israel and it’s ‘if you’re Jewish, you’re a citizen’. I suspect it’s a little more complicated, but that’s basically it.

            2. Naturalization is a process.

              The process ends with citizenship, but it starts with immigration.

              What a pile of shit. You can be naturalized without ever setting foot in a country.

              Regulating immigration is NOT an enumerated power of Congress. If it were a power you disagreed with you’d be more literalist than Scalia, but since you’re against open borders (and personal freedom for immigrants) you declare that an implied power is actually enumerated and come up with a stupid commerce clause style argument to rationalize your position.

          2. So the Founding Fathers just ignored how people got here but wanted to give the government authority to regulate how they stayed here?

            US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9:
            The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

            The slavery compromise forced the Founding Fathers to push Congress’ role in migration (immigration) until 1808.

            1. Why are you referencing a clause about the slave trade (that is no longer in effect) to argue about voluntary immigration? “Such persons” is referring to slaves, not immigrants in general.

              1. Read real hard.

                Importation relates to slaves.

                Migration relates to immigrants who are not slaves. That is why there is a importation fee for slaves but not for migrants.

                The Founding Fathers had the issue of slavery and that many Americans, including some Founding Fathers, were not born in the USA. The solution was to give time for new generations to be born in the USA as citizens, slavery to end, and incoming immigrants to become citizens.

                In other words, the Founding Fathers deferred federal power to regulate immigration and importation of slaves to states until 1808.

        2. two-thirds of the senate–you know what I meant!

          Sheesh, I need some caffeine.

        3. Because you find the drug war icky and find the immigrant war to be justified. So you support the harm reduction efforts of one group but oppose those of the other.

          A principled stance would be to oppose both.

      2. And no one is using force to stop volunteers from giving them water to prevent them from dying in the middle of the desert?

          1. What law?
            8 USC 1324

          2. THAT’S NOT AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, MR. SCREAMING CONSERVATIVE.

      3. Yep.

        Hell, fuck those guys who hand out Naloxone – harm reduction? But this guy was breaking the law so he deserves to die after ODing on some bad shit he got because government intervention means he has no access to a safe supply.

        1. Can you refer me to the law or rule that says I’m responsible for someone else’s dumb decisions?

        2. You are responsible for your own actions. If you do tainted shit and you get ill, tough shit.

          On that note, drugs should not be illegal.

          1. Both people are doing something illegal because the legal avenues have been closed. Both situations have people conducting operations to mitgate the harm that prohibition is causing those who do these things.

            But people are ok with harm reduction efforts for illegal drugs but not harm reduction efforts for illegal immigration.

  4. It’s part of a growing securitization of the southern border, a crackdown that is compelling immigrants to take increasingly hazardous and remote desert routes into the United States.
    GOOD!

    Stop breaking our laws and coming to the USA uninvited.

    1. Who invited you to the US?

      1. It wasn’t me.

      2. Arguing that our immigration policy should be expansive and arguing that congress shouldn’t have the authority to set immigration policy are two different things.

        Arguing for an expansive immigration policy is like arguing against a particular war.

        Arguing that congress shouldn’t have the authority to set immigration policy is like arguing that congress shouldn’t have the power to declare any war.

        Setting the rules for immigration is an enumerated power of congress for good reason–because imposing an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like imposing an unpopular war on them.

        Becoming a citizen by complying with the constitutional rules of naturalization is not like sneaking into the country despite congress’ rules of naturalization. Why would it be?

        1. To the left, law is a hinderance to progress (in this case demographic voting changes) unless the law prevents some American from enjoying Liberty and freedom.

      3. My ancestors came here and lived in tribes.

        My other ancestors came thru Ellis Island and had their name changed from O’ to something less Irish.

        Who invited you?

        1. If you’re not gonna answer my question, I’m certainly not going to bother with yours.

          1. I answered it there cuck.

            1. I asked you who invited you to the United States, you told me about a number of people who aren’t you coming here also presumably without an invitation. Try reading each word aloud slowly, that might help with your comprehension.

              1. If you could read, you would have noticed that I have members of the Cherokee Nation in my family.

                In other words, they were here first.

                Then they married white people from Europe and other brown people from Asia. Then those relatives invited other relatives from Europe and Asia to the USA. Then those relatives were invited into Ellis Island to become Americans.

                1. Who invited you into the United States? This should not be so difficult for you to answer.

                  1. My other relatives and the US government.

                    It should not be that difficult to understand the answer. Keep asking it and you might get the lefty answer you are looking for.

        2. I can honestly say that my family came over through the Ellis Island queue as well, only our Irish family kept their names. In hindsight, that was probably a mistake at the time since it made it tough to get a job that wasn’t insanely dangerous since there was a general policy of ‘no Irish need apply’ at the time.

          That being said, they were still allowed in. Needless to say, the times have changed drastically since then in that if you successfully waddle across the border and drop a kid out you are now entitled to money from the state, housing, internet, phone service, public schooling, and really the list goes on and on.

          Apparently people around here want no immigration rules whatsoever, but they also have no problems leaving the welfare state in place while doing so. Since that’s an absurd position, I hope the open borders retards don’t mind if the sane adults in the room demand the abolition of the welfare state as a prerequisite for such a policy. If that’s a political non-starter, well I guess we just won’t have wide open borders either. Such is politics.

          I’ll be damned if open borders should ever be a thing if there isn’t major entitlement reform though. That’s something I will never, ever accept.

          1. That’s us. We have no problems with the welfare state.

            1. We’ll deal with getting rid of the welfare state after we’ve bankrupted the public treasury paying for plane tickets, housing and food for every Muslim refugee from the middle east and doling out hundreds of billions to every south and central American that can get over the border. Because you give so much of a shit about the welfare state, right?

              1. I read that as sarcasm from MJGreen, but too many of the open borders types around here fail to mention the elephant in the room that’s really keeping immigration tightened up. Clearly they don’t need to mention it, but if they don’t they aren’t doing the subject a service.

                1. If you’re looking at the practical politics of it all, ending welfare is not on the table. But then neither is open borders on the table. Just looks like people talking past each other to me.

            2. When I see argument after argument regarding open borders immigration with no reference whatsoever to the expansive welfare state, I can only conclude that those people are either willfully ignoring the issue or feel strongly enough about open borders that they don’t mind if open borders come before welfare reform.

              Welfare reform before any attempts at open borders. Full stop. I’ve heard plenty of talking heads try and read the plaque on the Statue of Liberty and pretend that now is exactly the same as when the French gave her to us, but today is not the same. Why would someone pretend that the circumstances have not changed? Because they’re either stupid, dishonest, or simply don’t care about consequences.

              Incentives matter, as we love to say around here, and right now one of the main incentives on crossing the border is access to our welfare state. Certainly jobs, opportunity, and freedom are all very good reasons to come here as well but if you don’t have valuable job skills to the American economy, and have less than an elementary school education, you will be nothing except a burden to the American welfare state. That is the majority of our illegal immigrants from the South, so I have very little problem saying ‘no’ to them.

              While I’m sure you can find exceptions, this is overwhelmingly the majority of illegal immigrant families. We don’t have a lot of unskilled manual labor jobs in the U.S. anymore. We just don’t.

              1. I can only conclude that those people are either willfully ignoring the issue or feel strongly enough about open borders that they don’t mind if open borders come before welfare reform.

                There’s also a notion that the closed-border types are being a little delusional about how much impact that border really has on immigration, anyway. Kinda like the Drug War. Show me a 10′ wall, I’ll show you a 13′ ladder.

                While I’m sure you can find exceptions, this is overwhelmingly the majority of illegal immigrant families

                Do you have a citation for that? I have a fair amount of experience with immigrants of varying legal status, as I’m in an immigrant-heavy field (construction), and this has not been my experience at all. My experience is that the less-than-fully legal people avoid calling attention to themselves, which includes right near the top of the list avoiding signing up for government-provided services.

                Again, this is just from my personal experience, and would certainly be interested in a source that says otherwise. OTOH, we’re going nowhere fast on so many fronts with “we can’t get rid of this tyrannical state power without getting rid of thattyrannical state power.”


                1. Do you have a citation for that?

                  I do, but not at work unfortunately. Legal immigration skews entirely differently on education and job skills. This should be pretty obvious though, in that if the immigrant had valuable skills they .

                  While I agree with the notion that closed-border types are generally a bit delusional in how we can physically stop border crossers, the fact remains that the incentives themselves are a driving force. We may never know which factors drive illegal immigration the most, divided between job opportunity / welfare, but both factors are pretty clearly at play. I would wager that both considerations play a major factor, in that you can find a job and be eligible for government programs.

                  What you’re failing to account for in the welfare qualifications are the childrens eligibility, as they are usually citizens who are eligible for various programs including WIC and food stamps.

                  Construction is quite immigrant heavy, both legal and illegal, but that presents it’s own problems in regards to minimum wage law and payroll taxes. I find those to be lesser concerns, in that those people are gainfully employed so more power to them, but are they only employed because it saves the employer money and time over hiring a citizen? Perhaps so, which is actually rather ironic.

                  1. I would wager that both considerations play a major factor, in that you can find a job and be eligible for government programs.

                    I would tend to agree, particularly in that illegals that I have known tend to come from very poor, essentially anarchic areas, and the prospect of food and healthcare, however come by, must be very tempting.

                    There’s an additional factor to consider, however, in that (again, in my experience) illegals who work in this country tend to work under fake SSNs and do pay the full run of taxes everyone else does. Especially when you consider how much welfare is paid from things like state property and sales taxes, which no one dodges, legal or not.

                    In sum, I think the root problem is simply the entitlement/welfare state. Whatever impact illegal immigration is going to have on that is already there, and is unlikely to change whether we have strong rhetoric coming from the feds or not.


                    1. In sum, I think the root problem is simply the entitlement/welfare state.

                      Yes. See, I actually do like the sentiments engraved on the Statue of Liberty but the Federal leviathan has grown too much since then to continue on that way. The state, and especially it’s monetary transfer payments, must be shrunk to continue that ideal.

                      I have nothing in particular against illegal immigrants other than these issues. Immigration is overall a good thing for us, even if it’s a bad thing for their home countries. We are, in effect, ‘stealing’ the liberty-minded go-getters of the world. More power to us.

                      I would assume that if there are no ‘easy money’ transfer payments, that they would solely immigrate here for work at market rates which means that pretty much everyone ‘wins’ so to speak, except for the country that loses their brain trust. (I.E. not us)


                2. OTOH, we’re going nowhere fast on so many fronts with “we can’t get rid of this tyrannical state power without getting rid of thattyrannical state power.”

                  True, but in the case of welfare benefits (or transfer payments in general) they are self destructive when paid out to foreign nationals combined with open borders. The treasury could never survive such a policy, so there is a very real order of operations on that front.

    2. You… you know the United States is not like someone’s house, right?

      1. Yeah, congress can’t set the rules for who’s allowed in Citizen X’s house.

        And Citizen X can’t set the rules for who’s allowed into the country.

        1. Citizen X’s house is in the country.

          1. Citizen X’s house is his property.

            Property rights are a choice–just like our other rights.

            Property means the owner gets to choose how its used and who gets to use it.

            The United States is not Citizen X’s property.

            1. Yeah, congress can’t set the rules for who’s allowed in Citizen X’s house.

              But what if Citizen X has someone over to his house that the government deems to be an illegal immigrant?

            2. The United States is not Citizen X’s property.

              Also, can you explain whose property it is then?

        2. Citizen X can set rules about who is allowed into the country via his/her elected Congressman.

      2. Actually it is. They have the absolute right to determine who enters.

        1. Is that the legal basis for Roe v Waid?

          1. Its Cuck vs Tulpa and you are the plaintiff and defendant.

      3. It’s communal property, X.

        1. What a tragedy.

        2. Everybody knows there is no such thing as communal property, except when we want to protect bums and Occupiers shitting in the park, BLM rioting their way through any given urban center or a taco truck squatting in the middle of the thoroughfare in front of Taco Bell. MUH FREEDUMB!

          1. Everybody knows there is no such thing as communal property, except when we want to

            round up migrant workers in the desert.

    3. I invited them so that they can mow my yard and move my rocks around, build my house, and baby-sit my kids, for less than a million dollars an hour… And to butcher my chickens, pigs, goats, etc. Pick my fruits and veggies. So they ARE invited! Unless YOU want to take those jobs for an affordable wage, maybe?

      1. Because the government has no business saying who you can and can’t hire to mow your lawn doesn’t mean they don’t have any business deciding who can and can’t come into the country.

        We’re talking about the most basic aspects of democracy. Taxes, wars, immigration policies–these are the appropriate purview of democracy.

        I may oppose a war for being unconstitutional in that it wasn’t declared by congress. If the war in question was declared by congress, I might still oppose it–but not on the basis that the war is unconstitutional and therefore undemocratic.

        Being in favor of an expansive immigration policy is like that. You may not like the immigration laws as they stand, but they’re constitutional and democratic. Feel free to advocate to change them, but don’t tell me that immigration policy being constitutional and democratic doesn’t matter–and call yourself a libertarian.

        Is it your desire to impose open borders on the American people despite the Constitution and congress?

        That’s called “authoritarianism”.

      2. You are going to sponsor them, give them steady jobs and house them, right? You are going to pay their costs to apply for a temporary worker visa?

        Yeah, I didn’t think so.

        1. ^^This, too.

        2. a temporary worker visa

          So glad we have so many libertarians commenting here instead of conservatives who think they’re libertarians.

          1. Because being a Libertarian means OPEN borders and ignoring federal law about immigrants.

            More like Bizarro Libertarianism.

            1. Because being a Libertarian means OPEN borders and ignoring federal law about immigrants.

              Yes.

              1. I’d say one of those is correct.

              2. If being pro-open borders is a Libertarian position, than it’s really little wonder that we get zero political gains year-over-year since it’s an absurd position to take. It mean’s you’re an anarchist, not a libertarian, although according to some there’s no real difference between the two.

                1. If being pro-open borders is a Libertarian position, than it’s really little wonder that we get zero political gains year-over-year

                  You can say that about any number of libertarian positions. Therefore we should be more like Democrats and Republicans, you know, winners.

                  1. No, I mean that since it’s such an absurd position to take that it’s self destructive in the extreme. If we have no borders, we have no enforceable law and would be annexed by either Canada, Mexico, or both. There is this thing called ‘the rest of the planet’ and they all have borders. What would stop Mexico from drawing it’s northern border at Canada’s southern border, or the other way around?

                    If you don’t have borders, that doesn’t mean no one does. It just means you’re not a sovereign country at all.

          2. Good thing there’s no rabid left wing liberals on here who want to rob American taxpayers to import middle eastern Muslims and subsidize Mexicans so they can contribute to our wonderful multicultural society.

            1. hello,

              so many people revealing themselves as true conservative around here

        3. Oh, your good-American-citizen plumber, lawn mower, baby sitter… Are you “going to sponsor them, give them steady jobs and house them”?

          No, you pay them for their services, and otherwise let them have the freedom and responsibility of taking care of themselves and theirs. That’s called “free market”. We should try it sometime, instead of socialistic thinking.

          1. We have federal laws about immigration and worker visas.

            That’s called rule of law.

            I get that you people want open borders, are willing to twist legal logic to that end, and ignore federal laws on the issue. Unfortunately for you, there are federal laws restricting immigration.

            Change the laws!

            Same with drug laws. All these supposed Libertarians blather on about ignoring laws because they feel drugs should be legal. Yet, these same people want people to respect their property, privacy, and reproduction rights.

            Push to make drugs legal!

            If you are a Libertarian, then you respect the rule of law.

            1. We have federal laws about immigration and worker visas.

              That’s called rule of law.

              Dude. Face it. You are a conservative.

              Yet, these same people want people to respect their property, privacy, and reproduction rights.

              Are you fucking kidding, guy? Ever hear of the Nonaggression Principle?

          2. No, you pay them for their services, and otherwise let them have the freedom and responsibility of taking care of themselves and theirs. That’s called “free market”.

            Your cherished Mexican lawn jockey working for less than minimum wage with no fear of getting prosecuted and going to jail like those lazy white fuckers you hate so much, paying no payroll taxes, filing bogus income tax returns with the social security number he stole from your neighbor and getting thousands of dollars in bogus refunds, with his girlfriend at home in their subsidized housing collecting welfare for her 4 kids… that’s not called a “free market”, you retarded piece of ignorant shit.

            1. Actually, illegal humans pay in about $10 billion per year to prop up Social Security (under fake SSNs), with little if any hope of ever getting to benefit from what they paid in. That’s why the Feds are half-assed in fighting illegal humans, is because they (“illegals”) are so helpful in propping up Social Security. This is the actual truth, but illegal-human-haters don’t want to talk about that particular FACT…

              1. So you’re telling me they have an accurate count of how much money is being paid into social security on fraudulent SSI numbers? Go and tell another one. Not only that, but you don’t find it at all concerning that people are using fraudulent social security numbers in the first place? Where do you think those numbers came from, exactly?

                And, furthermore, why do you think they won’t be able to get anything back with those fraudulent numbers one wonders?

                I imagine you believe this is on purpose, in that the government ‘knows’ who is cheating, but they allow them to pay in while making note of who to deport when they reach their eligibility age. That’s pretty amusing, frankly, and assumes a hyper-competent government.

                1. My post got eaten, so let’s try again? Sorry I am a tech weenie; piece these 4 together to create a link, or use the title and/or sub-title as search strings. This is for any (mythical? Unicorn-like?) readers out there who may have an open mind, that can be persuaded to actually change their thinking, after hearing facts: https://www.theatlantic.com/
                  … business/archive/2016/09/ ?. undocumented-immigrants- … and-taxes/499604/ (now title) The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes
                  They’re contributing billions of dollars a year to Social Security, but may never reap any retirement benefits from it.

                  1. I don’t think you really understand what it means if an illegal alien is using a fraudulent social security number in the first place…

                    1. You didn’t read my link, did you? It probably doesn’t matter, since your mind is petrified, locked in stone, like a religious fanatic, on this topic… I might as well argue with my air conditioner!

                    2. To be fair, your link is fucked.

                    3. Again, sorry I am tech weenie… “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one…

                    4. If the article talks about how illegal immigrants pay their fair share in taxes, ok, I guess. If they managed to pay zero taxes, I’d high five them. Way to go. I’m jealous. Now, if they pay no taxes and then sponge off the system, they’re assholes, and fuck them. Not sure how that makes them so different from a citizen welfare mooch though.

                    5. Well, actually they kick in about $10 billion a year to Social Security (with illegal or made-up SSNs), with little if any hope of ever actually collecting Social Security. So the Feds actually love this HUGE subsidy to Social Security… The feds like to (mostly) PRETEND to be “illegal humans” hard-asses, while mandating that the locals (cities and states) pay for schools and hospital emergency rooms… Different branches of Guv Almighty have different axes to grind. But in light of the “fake SSNs” thing, and Fed-Guv making out like a bandit on that one, it is ***NOT*** a one-sided argument, where the “illegal humans” are tax-dodging vermin, and we “good American natives” are all pure as the driven snow… It is (surprise!) a complicated issue. But mostly, the illegal humans get screwed!

                    6. A) Your link that will ‘blow my mind’ is fucked. It’s not even a link, it’s a random string of nonsense.

                      B) You don’t understand what a social security number is, or how it works. You can not ‘make up’ a social security number, there is a literal database with every valid or previously issued number to easily compare to, and if it isn’t on the list ICE gets called.

                      C) If they have stolen a social security number and manage to find work with said stolen social security number, did they take it from a dead person or a living person? In either case, they have broken additional laws not all of which are as victimless as you seem to believe

                      D) Why do you think that, if they have managed to steal not only a social security number but also an identity, that they won’t be able to collect those benefits once they retire? Is it because they are almost certainly going to retire in Mexico where they send virtually all of their income?

                    7. I cannot blow your mind, it is already blown to smithereens!

                      You still have obviously not read the article with anything approaching an open mind. Live in your illegal-human-hating world if that gives you a thrill of superiority… But recall, what goes around, comes around.

                      You may find yourself in an old geezer’s home one of these days, still cussing up storms of hate against the illegal humans, while your care-taker may secretly be one of them, while he or she is spoon-feeding you or wiping your ass! I hope that he or she doesn’t slip you a mickey in your baby food at that time, but ya never know… Hate is a powerful thing, and can back-lash…

                    8. You still don’t have an actual link for anyone to read, so again I refer you to point A in my above paragraph. An A HREF link is one of essentially three HTML code strings that everyone should probably know by now.

                      I even included some specific points assuming that you’re link was everything you claimed, which you ignored.

                    9. Are you too stupid to follow the following instructions?

                      “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one…

                      “I even included some specific points assuming that you’re link was everything you claimed, which you ignored.”

                      Yeah, well, you have not refuted a DAMNED thing that the referred-to article says, which backs up my claim that “illegal humans” account for a HUGE surplus (Approx $10 billion per year) for the coffers of the SS system.

                      “… assuming that you’re link was everything …” You mean YOUR link, not you’re link, maybe? If you are going to be an internet-link NAZI, I can be a grammar NAZI, just to point out your lack of a proper education or at least literacy.

                      More to the point, you “assume” what the referred-to article says, w/o reading it, obviously.

                    10. I’m not sure why you’re getting so pissed off when you don’t understand how identify theft functions off a stolen social security number, which is an argument you yourself have already agreed to the truth of as well as implied it through the basic synopsis of the linked article.

                      I also don’t see how you can possibly be so trusting of a patently absurd number such as $10 billion dollars paid into social security by illegal aliens, or why you think they wouldn’t be eligible for social security having paid into it for years under a manufactured false identify. That false identity would be eligible for payout from SS based on their payments into the system, would they not?

                      I mean, identify theft by itself is a pretty serious crime so I’m not sure why you give them a pass on an actual crime with a victim on top of the mostly victimless crime of illegal immigration. These would actually be the very type of people we want to arrest the most.

                    11. Illegal humans are a substantial source of funds, propping up our faltering SS system, and, since they are “violating the law”, we should punish them? WTF?

                      I think we are looking at a fundamental mis-match between “value systems” between you and I. I think, looking at the substantial essence of what is going on, that we should hang our heads in shame, as “good Americans”, parasite-sucking on these hard-working people… Making them pay SS for our old-age support, while they have little if any chance of getting paid back. Apparently “they broke the laws” is enough to justify all that, to you, you law-worshipper you! What about JUSTICE!?

                      Yes, I know, in balance, the “illegal humans” do somewhat burden the schools and emergency rooms, maybe, net-net, compared to the local taxes they pay. Maybe. I acknowledge that point. Do you even make ANY acknowledgement, that the SS thing is way screwed up, in favor of us “legal humans”?

                    12. Oh, and for the record you’re totally full of shit even when reading your source material.

                      “Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, estimates that about 1.8 million immigrants were working with fake or stolen Social Security cards in 2010… He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year, and only got about $1 billion in benefits.

                      Ok, since this is social security that means that young healthy illegal workers are paying in $13 billion, which is a number I don’t trust but I’ll assume it’s valid for the moment, and aging illegal immigrants were paid out $1 billion in benefits.

                      Which is exactly as expected, in that the FedGov is terrible at tracking down identify theft or false identities, and that illegal aliens are in fact using federal welfare programs fraudulently. Even with this supposed stream of ‘illegal’ revenue, SS is still going to go bust so isn’t that an argument to do exactly what I say and reform welfare programs to open immigration up?

                    13. “…and reform welfare programs to open immigration up?”

                      Get rid of ALL welfare in the USA (Government Almighty coercing your and my charity choices), so that we can open up our borders? (Charity also = coerced old-age transfer payments, although the transition would/will be one HELL of a bitch!!!).

                      If THAT is what you are actually saying, I say, “Amen Bro or Bro-ess!”

            2. Your cherished Mexican lawn jockey

              Dude, face it. You are a conservative.

    4. Yep. And we should start with the largest source of illegal immigration in the whole country – babies.

      Nobody invited those motherfuckers here. They never got permission from the government to come here. Kick ’em all out until they can come in legally.

      1. Babies born on US territory are US citizens per 14th Amendment.

        1. Yeah, but Agammomon would have to not be an illiterate piece of stupid fucking shit to actually spend 5 minutes reading the constitution.

          1. I do find myself repeating the same Constitutional facts over and over to people like him.

        2. Only by the whim of Congress. And they’re not citizens *until they’re born*. Before that they’re illegal immigrants.

    5. Stop breaking our laws

      loveconstitution1789 never breaks laws. He loves all laws and follows them to the T.

  5. Government Almighty bastards are just about the same as the ones who gleefully chortled during alcohol prohibition, every time that people died from wood-alcohol poisoning from bad illegal booze… Pouring out water bottles set out for “illegal humans”, so as to prefer death from thirst for said “illegal humans”! Bunch of MONSTERS, w/o consciences!

    “When humans are outlawed, only outlaws will be humans”.

    1. Wow, there must be some ancient geezers posting here. You think it’s the yogurt that keeps them young?

  6. “From there volunteers carry water to remote foot trails known to be used by immigrants. Throughout that time, immigration officials have reportedly harassed the group. Volunteers have been charged with littering for leaving full jugs of water in the desert. Border patrol agents have also been caught on film pouring water jugs onto the ground.”

    Charged with littering?

    I’m surprised they weren’t charged with conspiracy to facilitate human trafficking.

    The difference between providing water along the route for thirsty illegal immigrants and facilitating human trafficking may be a matter of interpretation.

    If Coyotes guide illegal immigrants through the desert by way of various checkpoints, where they can obtain water, and these people are providing illegal immigrants with water along known routes used by illegal aliens, a jury might conclude that they’re doing the same thing as coyotes.

    1. Hi Ken,

      A prime-prime PRIME precept of proggie & Government Almighty logic is that, as soon as ONE dollar is exchanged in a transaction, all freedoms fall by the wayside. AKA, when Government Almighty uses force and threats of violence and violence to move money around, money is GOOD! If any OTHER money moves around, money is EVIL!

      So do-gooders who respect human lives (even the lives of illegal humans) put out water, for FREE (accepting no money), Government Almighty has a MUCH harder time persuading a jury to hang them high! As soon as a dollar or a peso is exchanged (read: coyotes), brainwashed juries are suddenly ready to hang them high… Because we have been persuaded to accept Government Almighty non-logic!

      1. I don’t see selfishness or profit or any other motivation as being at issue here.

        People go to prison for armed robbery even if they robbed the bank to raise money for crippled children.

        If you facilitate human trafficking, don’t be surprised if someone charges you with facilitating human trafficking.

        There people are complaining about being charged with littering?!

        I can’t believe they’re getting off so easily.

        1. So crossing an arbitrary line in the sand is now “human trafficking”? The prey fauna and megafauna of North and South American no doubt did NOT invite the first “Native American” humans to come here and prey on them, so no doubt, those first “Native American” humans were the victims of “human trafficking”!!!
          When Europeans first came here, they were then similarly un-invited victims of “human trafficking”!!!

          WHEN can we all get back to being just plain humans, and treating each other as such?

          1. “So crossing an arbitrary line in the sand is now “human trafficking”?”

            Did I say that?

            No.

            I said if A = B and A = C, then a jury might conclude that A = C.

            You can see it for yourself. It’s a couple of comments up from yours. You responded to it!

            1. I said if A = B and A = C, then a jury might conclude that A [B] = C.]

              Fixed!

            2. You said “If you facilitate human trafficking…” with regards to illegal humans crossing arbitrary lines in the sand, so there you go. It is highly loaded language.

              “People go to prison for armed robbery even if they robbed the bank to raise money for crippled children.”

              There is a substantial VICTIM in armed robberies! WHERE is the victim when I leave bottles of water out in the middle of utterly God-forsaken desert? Just because “democracy” blesses our inhumanity, does NOT make it right! Slavery, lack of allowing women to vote, on and on, was all blessed by your “democracy”! “Right” is more important than “democracy”!

              1. “If Coyotes guide illegal immigrants through the desert by way of various checkpoints, where they can obtain water, and these people are providing illegal immigrants with water along known routes used by illegal aliens, a jury might conclude that they’re doing the same thing as coyotes.”

                “If” is a qualifier.

                So is “might”.

                “If you facilitate human trafficking, don’t be surprised if someone charges you with facilitating human trafficking.”

                That sentence, IF IF IF included in two different places, is so clear, it’s hard to imagine how to make it any clearer.

                IF IF IF you facilitate human trafficking, don’t be surprised IF IF IF someone charges you with facilitating human tracking.

                How’s that for clarity.

          2. SQRLSY: Lefty logic at its worst!

          3. The border is just an arbitrary line in the sand? I guess it’s nearly impossible for the US Gov to be meddling in foreign wars or foreign affairs since the thing that makes them foreign and not domestic is borders and since borders are arbitrary lines in the sand.

            1. The lefty logic of this is astounding.

              They want renters rights but the USA cannot have a national border that it enforces.

              They want safe spaces but the USA cannot be a place free from invading socialist theory.

              They want communal living but will not let hundreds of illegals live on their property.

            2. It’s actually a good point, in that all of our ‘wars’ are really just law enforcement efforts. I mean, the NAP doesn’t even apply since they attacked us first and they are our citizens of the world.

              In one stroke, everything that’s happened since 9/11 is suddenly libertarian as fuck.

  7. Expecting Trump to be bragging about how many illegal immigrants died on his watch…

    1. Shika Dalmia is expecting that nuclear war to start any time now too. There’s a weird correlation between expecting really fucking stupid things and being a really fucking stupid person.

      1. In this case, causation = correlation

  8. Instead, it was a humanitarian relief station run by the nonprofit No More Deaths. There volunteers provide water and urgent medical services to migrants crossing the inhospitable region.

    Umm, they are actively trying to invade a country and these people are assisting them. Why the hell wouldn’t ICE go to that spot, given that illegals are going there? It’s like being mad that local cops who want to make some revenue are camping out near bars and pulling people for drunk driving.

    1. ‘Actively invading’ Well shoot. Literally. After all, they’re invading, right?

    2. Umm, they are actively trying to invade a country and these people are assisting them.

      You must realize, on some level, that a bunch of poor people hobbling across the desert looking for work is not quite the same thing as “an invading army.”

      Alternately, you must have terrible trouble sleeping at night.

      1. Not a well supplied army anyway.

        1. When you visit a foreign country, do you count it as an unsuccessful invasion attempt when you come home?

          1. So illegals are “visiting” now?

            What do you call it what people cross a national boundary and use violence to change the way the host country does things?

            1. Re: loveconstitutuon1789,

              So illegals are “visiting” now?

              They’re not “illegals”. No human can be “illegal”. Only actions can be deemed illegal.

              And immigrants are being invited in by The Market, you Marxist.

              1. Illegal immigrants. As in immigrants that are not following federal law on crossing the US border.

                If what you said was true, then why are there unemployed illegal immigrants? Why do they stay here, if there is not market for them?

                Please let me shoot more holes in your ridiculous logic.

                Just admit you want as many immigrants in the USA as possible.

              2. They are ‘illegal aliens’ which is about as descriptive as it gets. And a human can be called an illegal alien when they have violated immigration laws of their host country.

                Tell you what, open borders folks, lets make every other nation part of the United States by declaration and see how it goes. The assumption on your part would appear to be that the U.S. could welcome everyone who can manage to get here a citizen automatically, although I would say we should really boat people in from Africa and other nations far away to be ‘fair’ about it.

                Because functionally speaking, if the United States has no borders than we will be the only superpower without borders. Know what happens then? The United States gradually gets subsumed into Mexico and Canada until their rule of law overrides our own. That is because there will be no border on where the non-existant U.S. starts and Mexico starts, and they will then be able to claim the property rights of the whole U.S. After all, what is property if not borders?

                A nation is foundationally a set of borders, among other things, and to ignore that is to pretend that the rest of the world will somehow acknowledge our non-existent, undefended, borders. Laughable at face value. It assumes much not in evidence within the character of mankind.

            2. So illegals are “visiting” now?

              The “migrant labor” ones, yes, which to my understanding is the overwhelming majority, but I may be wrong about that.

              What do you call it what people cross a national boundary and use violence to change the way the host country does things?

              Who’s doing that?

            3. Yes. They”ll soon be known as undocumented visitors.

              1. But not illegal visitors?

                Naturalized visitors?

            4. What do you call it when people don’t actually do that?

          2. You know who else crossed national boundaries and used violence to change the way the host country did things?

            1. Europeans coming into the Americas?

              Or “Native Americans” coming into the lands of the North American Ice Age Megafauna, and preying on them?

              1. The Native American Indians weren’t really a country. So… wrong.

                1. Ah, right. ‘No true Scotsman’ or ‘they didn’t have a flag’?

            2. Who else, the Germans, since the 4th century at least.

      2. “You must realize, on some level, that a bunch of poor people barely managing to cross the ocean looking for a home is not quite the same thing as “an invading army.”

        –Patuxet leaders, c1590

        FTFY

        1. Yes. Clearly a super-duper analogous situation. You’ve got a humdinger in that one. I’m gonna have to go rethink things, yesiree!

  9. I don’t care and you can’t make me. People want to roll the dice then that’s on them.

    1. Well, that’s pretty obscure…

      The Government Almighty thugs that are pouring out water jugs that might otherwise save the lives of “illegal humans” are “rolling the dice” of human outrage! One of these days, outraged humans might string them up on a lamp-post, like they did “Il Duce”, Mussolini… “Then that’s on them”, are you saying? On the monstrous water-pourer-outers? If so, I do agree…

      1. Sure, take it whatever way you want to. I don’t care.

  10. When I read the title, I was outraged. I mean, how dare the government mistreat immigrants who’ve gone through proper channels to enter the country? Then I read the article and it sounds like these folks were trespassing onto US soil, rather than legally immigrating. Pouring out the water is an asshole move, but

    And I’m a high-fence (not literal fence) wide gate guy. The rules to allow legal migration and temporary work permits need to be relaxed substantially, but we are under no obligation to treat these folks like they have any right to be here.

    1. I’m not a high fence guy – but I’d support a high fence with that wide gate as a sufficient compromise.

      Unfortunately, not very many other high fence guys want that wide gate.

      1. I’m not a high fence guy

        Or a high IQ guy, we’ve found out through bitter experience.

        1. Oh look, I’ve got a stalker. Hello guy who has nothing going on in his life.

      2. Wide gates make great fences, my grandfather always used to say.

    2. we are under no obligation to treat these folks like they have any right to be here

      True. But do other legal citizens of this country have no right to try to keep those people from dying of thirst?

      1. “But do other legal citizens of this country have no right to try to keep those people from dying of thirst?”

        Apparently not, under the rule of Trumpista-style fascists and illegal-human haters.

        I for one, put simple common decency and HUMANITY on a MUCH higher pedestal than I do my generally Libertarian theology / politics…

        1. Illegal immigration has been illegal for quite a bit longer than “Trumpisa-style fascists” have been in charge, dumb fuck.

          Don’t forget to spare some of that big ol’ heart full of humanity of yours for the victims of kidnapping, rape and murder by your friendly neighborhood gardener. I’m sure you take your big, fat American humanitarian heart out there and put in a lot of charity too, don’t you? Or maybe you hire a Mexican at 3 bucks an hour to do it for you. What a compassionate fat American brain dead fuck you are. They should give you a medal.

          1. You are a Beautiful Person.

          2. My negihborhood is full of gardeners, truck drivers, maids, tire shop employees, janitors, etc. None of them have kidnapped, raped, or murdered anyone.

        2. I for one, put simple common decency and HUMANITY on a MUCH higher pedestal than I do my generally Libertarian theology / politics…

          If you have to set aside your libertarian beliefs because they are–to you–lacking in common decency and humanity, you are not really a libertarian and, in fact, despise them.

          To you, common decency and humanity involve depriving people of their innate liberty–which means you also have no grasp of common decency OR humanity either.

          1. So dumping out water intended to save illegal humans from thirsting to death is decent and humane? Would it be OK also to POISON those water jugs? (I shudder at giving Government Almighty new/more bad ideas, but we must plug the limits of the evil minds of some “Libertarians”, to see, just WHERE are the limits? It is a useful intellectual exercise…).

            Where is your respect for the “innate liberty” of illegal humans?

            Then we wonder why Libertarian thought cannot gain traction…

            1. Personally I would prefer them to stake out the water barrels and arrest anyone who comes to use them. It’s kind of like deer hunting from a blind, only instead of bullets you use handcuffs.

              Of course, that would train the border jumpers to avoid the water barrels and die so I imagine some people would still blame the border patrol for making water scary, even though the immigrants could use the water and not die before being arrested.

              And, last but not least, a properly intelligent immigrant of the sort America might want would be smart enough to bring their own water on a several hundred mile hike through the desert. Those who fail to survive ‘the desert challenge’ were probably not ‘the right sort’ of illegal immigrant.

              /sarc

      2. On someone else’s land? No.

        On public land? Sure.

        1. So you agree that interfering with these people was a fucked up thing to do.

    3. I mean, how dare the government mistreat immigrants who’ve gone through proper channels to enter the country?

      So mistreating lawbreakers is not worthy of outrage?

      1. The illegals get food and water in the paddywagon or at the immigration detention center.

        Mistreating. Really?

        1. Re: loveconstitutuon1789,

          Yes, mistreating. Neither you nor the government have the right to come between what is a peaceful and voluntary transaction between immigrants and those who want to engage in trade with them, hire them, rent to them, sell to them or even marry them. Such invasi?n of people’s rights Is mistreatment. And please don’t dare bring up “we as a community have the right to…” because only individual humans of will have rights, not “communities”.

          1. US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9:
            The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

            After 1808, Congress’ enumerated power is to regulate immigration and slavery.

            1. Dark Ages “Christian” European “Community Understanding”:

              “We the community have agreed that secret witches are responsible for killing our unborn children and calves, ruining our crops, and causing diseases and deaths. We as the community hereby decree the Death Sentence for all witches (following duly court-sanctioned torture).”

              Community sanction (or other form or “might”) cannot make right, that which is not right. The history of that should be totally obvious to all with an open mind.

            2. So, you’re go-to justification is actually the compromise that allowed the importation of slaves into the US?

              This is basically saying that we’re all owned by the government and that’s an acceptable justification to you for this?

      2. They’ll get far better medical care at an actual medical facility, where they were taken 1st. Mistreatment? Try again.

        1. Who was taken first? The Americans working at the non-profit that was raided? The migrants who die of exposure don’t get treated, and the whole controversy is that a number of migrants cross without being
          “taken.”

          TLAH’s hypothetical objection was that the government was mistreating a non-profit that was aiding legal immigrants. He found out they were aiding illegal immigrants, and that makes the government mistreatment OK.

  11. Border Patrol has SAVED far more than not. Trained EMTs are on every shift should there be a need more for border crossers than them.
    If these idiots are soooooo concerned with “saving lives” then STOP encouraging and enabling them to cross in these crazy dangerous areas and cross (this is truely outside the box so try to keep up) at a LEGAL PORT OF ENTRY!
    these camps are there to providr for sancuary and nothing more. This is humanitarian in name only and doing more harm than good.

    1. Hi other guy,

      I appreciate your apparently decent motives here… Unlike some of the other posters.

      Last I heard (admittedly a few years ago) the wait line for the worst-case nation (the Philippines) was, apply for right to immigrate to USA; wait 20 years to hear back! I don’t know WHAT is the current waiting period for “illegal humans” from Mexico, sorry… Yes, please, go through your / our ” LEGAL PORT OF ENTRY “… But for that solution to actually WORK, we need USA Fed-Guv to actually work QUICKLY, which may be a foreign word to them…

      1. So what you’re saying is that only Mexicans have the right to immigrate to the United States because of their proximity? That would actually be more logical than some of the arguments you’ve made in this thread.

        1. “…only Mexicans have the right to immigrate to the United States because of their proximity…”? Are you tripping on LSD or what, Dude? Maybe tripping on anger? I never or implied anything vaguely related!

          What I said to the intelligent and sincere reader is, legal points of entry (in order to make any difference at all, to those desperate to come to the USA to WORK for a living) need to operate on a timely basis! If I am going to have to wait for my entire lifetime, or what is commonly understood to be a “human generation” (20 years), then my “access” to a “legal point of entry” is meaningless!

          Through your anger-and-hate clouded eyes, can you comprehend that, or do you simply refuse to see logic and reason for what it is?

    2. The camps are not what are drawing people through the desert. It was the last wave of crackdown on illegal immigration that sent people through the desert, since that’s where the “going around” option is right now. In addition, of course, to the tunnels, boats and trucks.

  12. Poor Mexicans, they have to walk hundreds of miles to get a drink of water in Arizona.

    1. Yes, and after they do that, thugs (using my taxpayer funds to fuel their bodies and their hate-filled minds) go and dump out the water that they are seeking.

  13. Many a comment on here associating the Border Patrol’s misdeeds with the policies of Trump. Problem is, cops are cops are cops and they always have been. Shitty acts to apparently powerless people is certainly not new or rare.
    Not that Trump isn’t bad, or better than alternatives, or whatever else your ox might be named.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.