Corporations

Motel 6 Announces Plans to Stop Sucking

The chain will no longer allow voluntary sharing of guest information with ICE.

|

Motel 6

This week Motel 6 found itself in hot water (though we can't say the same for their showers—bah dum ching!) after the Phoenix New Times exposed the fact that front-desk clerks at two locations were routinely handing over guest information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) voluntarily, with the goal of helping immigration agents round up otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants.

The company's initial response was to blame isolated misbehavior, saying on Twitter: "This was implemented at the local level without knowledge of senior management." The claim was dubious at best, given Motel 6's history of zealous cooperation with law enforcement and the fact that the motels in question aren't independent franchisees.

While the chain is sticking by their story that HQ had nothing to do with the narcing, Motel 6 has now made a clear statement about not permitting such behavior going forward and promising an internal audit.

The motel chain issued this statement to the press:

Moving forward, to help ensure that this does not occur again, we will be issuing a directive to every one of our more than 1,400 locations nationwide, making clear that they are prohibited from voluntarily providing daily guest lists to ICE.

Additionally, to help ensure that our broader engagement with law enforcement is done in a manner that is respectful of our guests' rights, we will be undertaking a comprehensive review of our current practices and then issue updated, company-wide guidelines.

Protecting the privacy and security of our guests are core values of our company. Motel 6 apologizes for this incident and will continue to work to earn the trust and patronage of our millions of loyal guests.

This is great news, and kudos to the New Times for taking a local story and effecting national change. What's more, this will certainly be an object lesson in the ways that being a rat is bad business—I suspect that a few other hotel chains are quietly "undertaking a comprehensive review of their current practices" as well.

NEXT: Public ignorance about the Constitution

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. Too late

    1. Absolutely agree. Motel 6 is terrible regardless of their immigration stance. I honestly wonder if the only people left who stay there are illegal immigrants? Lord knows every time I pass one their lots are empty, so perhaps the government is keeping them in business explicitly to rat out illegal immigrants. Stranger things have happened.

      1. I’m making over $12k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,…Go this web and start your work… Good luck.. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. Police drive thru hotel and motel parking lots and scan license plates and vehicles to fish for suspects.

    I wonder why this story about giving the info to ICE is making the news but hotels and motels allowing police to cruise their parking lots is never/rarely discussed?

    Oh yeah, because open borders is the agenda!

    1. Do you think it helps business when there is news that their employees voluntarily shared information about their guests to immigration agents?

      1. Like Google, AT&T, Intel, Facebook, ad nauseam… It should hurt business but it doesn’t after the next propaganda coup is implemented.

    2. What are you saying? That Motel 6 should have gated parking lots? Seriously?

      1. No gated parking lots are needed. When was the last time you saw police cruising a Target or Walmart parking lot scanning license plates? I have never seen that.

        Business can say we don’t want you harassing our customers and stay out of our parking lots unless we call you.

        People always need to sleep somewhere, so its a great police-state tactic of getting certain hospitality businesses to allow said vehicle scanning and getting direct guest personal information.

    3. Police cruising through a parking lot is good policing. Hotel staff handing over a list of license plates is the hotel staff being good Nazis.

      1. Illegals broke the law. This is simply reporting crimes in progress.

        Since its about shutting down companies that against allowing illegal immigrants free range, not a single article about Motel 6 is mentioning that businesses have a right to report crimes in progress.

        The bigger issue is business being too close to government and there are no recognized privacy rights with any teeth.

        1. Yes. Just existing and sitting a hotel room, which you paid for, is a crime.

          1. You know that entering the USA is a crime but you won’t admit it that illegal entry into the USA deserves the same police enforcement as other crimes.

            Typical lefty twisting violating federal law with being an “innocent” just sitting in a hotel room.

            1. Yeah, that’s because I think laws should have some sort of objective relationship to morality and justice. They shouldn’t just be arbitrary impositions of majority will.
              A person sitting in a hotel room, that they paid for, doing nothing, is not doing anything immoral or unjust. They are harming nobody. People shouldn’t be subjected to punishments for doing things that don’t harm anyone. This is not very difficult to understand.

              1. A person sitting in a hotel room, that they paid for, doing nothing, is not doing anything immoral or unjust.

                I reserve this right for the owner/proprietor of the hotel room.

                1. So renting things is immoral or unjust? Interesting….

                  Also – people will pay less to rent something if they have no rights when doing so. Therefore the owner of the item will earn less. That seems unfair to owners who might want to rent things out.

              2. The time for laws to be debated about its morality or whatever social justice you feel is before it becomes law. Since this is not really done much anymore and there are a bzillion laws, thanks to Nanny-Staters like yourself, some people might forgive your ignorance about how laws are made. I recommend School House Rock for you.

                So a person who commits a crime like murder, but is peacefully sitting in the hotel room they paid for, should be immune from police arrest? This example is why your argument is so shitty because you cannot reasonably say that a murderer is immune from arrest because they paid for Motel 6 room.

                Entering the USA without permission or being a citizen is illegal and is murder is illegal in a different but still unlawful manner.

                1. The issue is blanket information gathering. There is no solid evidence here and motel clerks are not police officers looking for probable cause. Should the motel clerk ask to see the patron’s visa stamp to ensure they are here legally? Why not have the Wal-mart checker do that too? We can all check each other’s papers to make sure we’re on the up and up.

                  This is not ignoring gunshots and screams, this is profiling and blanket data collection for profit. I don’t want anyone sending my personal information to the government and I’m a law abiding citizen who pays my taxes (a lot of them) and is here legally. But government is fallible and greedy because it is run by humans. So I want to have as little to do with them as possible.

                  1. Grumpy Bear: Information gathering by a private company, voluntary given by guests, under voluntary contract- about people breaking the law.

                    I don’t want most companies getting my personal information, so I don’t give it to them. I don’t stay at Motel 6 and I use a fake ID and pay in cash when traveling domestically.

                    All I can say, is that government needs to be cut by 50%+ and then they would have less resources to do shit like this.

                2. Dude, no one is saying anything about people being immune from arrest. If the police have a warrant, they can enter the hotel and arrest who they need to arrest. The issue here is the hotels handing over information about their guests (including those who have not violated any law) voluntarily. If the police or ICE or whoever wants that information, they need to get a fucking warrant. Would you really not have any problem with a hotel you were staying at sending your personal information to the police?

                  1. Zeb: That is EXACTLY what people are advocating. They are advocating to allow illegal immigrants to be immune from arrest.

                    BTW, you do not need a warrant to arrest someone if the officer witnesses criminal action. Being in the USA illegally allows an officer to (1) witness you are here illegally (2) gives said officer articulable probable cause to arrest you (3) the crime is ongoing as long as you are in the USA illegally.

                    The companies are voluntarily giving over guest information not that the police are demanding Motel 6 must give them the guest information (Big difference).


                    1. BTW, you do not need a warrant to arrest someone if the officer witnesses criminal action. Being in the USA illegally allows an officer to (1) witness you are here illegally (2) gives said officer articulable probable cause to arrest you (3) the crime is ongoing as long as you are in the USA illegally.

                      Yeah, but ‘being brown’ isn’t probable cause to check someone’s immigration status either. IF you are otherwise stopped and/or charged for an actual crime rather than simple profiling, sure, but pulling people over and checking that status is a breach of our rights as citizens.

                      This is the situation we’ve been put into, where the law as written is retarded. The Rule of Law does matter, but reform is clearly needed. Both can be true.

              3. I’m curious if you came into the country legally or illegally Hazel, since you’ve said you were recently naturalized. It seems odd that you would have bothered coming here legally since you clearly don’t think it matters.

              4. Well, a bank robber just sitting in a motel he paid for is also just sitting there, not doing anything immoral or unjust at the moment. I guess the hotel owner shouldn’t help police locate them either?

              5. So when some illegal breaks into your house and is just sitting there in your bedroom it’s cool right? After all, they’re just sitting there.

            2. Unless the hotel room is right on an international border, there is no crime in progress.

              1. By that logic of I stole something from my neighbor you can’t arrest me if I successfully make it off his property because the crime is past tense. I’m still in possession of stolen property just like I’m still in a country in exception to immigration law.

                1. Being in possession of stolen property is a crime. Being in the country without authorization is not. It’s a civil violation of immigration law.

                  My comment was in response to someone saying that there was a crime in progress, which is not true.

                  1. Zeb|9.15.17 @ 2:28PM|#
                    Being in possession of stolen property is a crime. Being in the country without authorization is not. It’s a civil violation of immigration law.
                    My comment was in response to someone saying that there was a crime in progress, which is not true.

                    So if you stole the property but ditched… you should be immune from arrest?

                    Funny thing about violating immigration law by entering the USA and staying – you have violated federal law (8 USC 1325) you have still failed to depart (8 USC 1324(d)).

                    U.S.Code sections 1331-1330

                2. Stealing property is harmful to others, crossing an imaginary line isn’t.

              2. Yeah there is.

            3. You know that entering the USA is a crime but you won’t admit it that illegal entry into the USA deserves the same police enforcement as other crimes.

              This is a libertarian site. Many libertarians believe that enforcing laws against many “crimes” is immoral. It has nothing to do with lefty anything. It’s a simple application of the NAP.

              1. “Many libertarians believe that enforcing laws against many “crimes” is immoral. ”
                Then those people are not Libertarians. If we don’t have rule of law then all bets are off. If you get to pick what is “immoral” then so do I.

                The NAP is far different discussion than how ICE is wrecking your open border agenda.

                This was a private company giving personal information away to ICE that guests voluntarily gave to the company. Nothing illegal happened.

                1. Open borders is a popular libertarian position. Get over it and stop pretending it isn’t.
                  I’m not saying that not being for open borders makes you a non-libertarian necessarily. I can understand some of the practical arguments against it. But your assertions that being open borders is a particularly leftist or socialist position is idiotic and absurd.

                  If we don’t have rule of law then all bets are off. If you get to pick what is “immoral” then so do I.

                  That’s true no matter what laws there are or how they are enforced. Rule of law (or the illusion thereof) may have it’s practical utility, but it has nothing to do with morality or libertarianism.

                  This was a private company giving personal information away to ICE that guests voluntarily gave to the company. Nothing illegal happened.

                  Who said it was illegal? It was just a shabby way for a company to treat its customers.

                  1. No its not Zeb. It actually is the antithesis of property rights, national defense rights, and national sovereignty.

                    You need to get over that rule of law and CLOSED borders are more Libertarian than open borders. I never said open borders is itself lefty. Open borders is used by lefties to further socialists agendas. LINOs advocate open borders for some of the same reasons and I have yet to hear a Libertarian reason.

                    Rule of law is the agreement we have that after debating legislation, a majority vote for the bill, then an Executive signs the bill into law, we all follow said law. You can call that an illusion but that is why I question you being a Libertarian. There are fundamentals to being a Libertarian and having citizens follow the laws after being democratically implemented is one of hose fundamentals.

                    Shabby way to treat customers? Maybe. I guarantee that business at Motel 6 barely takes a hit. Google is working with the government on unconstitutional domestic spying and Google is a stronger company than ever before.

                    1. No its not Zeb. It actually is the antithesis of property rights, national defense rights, and national sovereignty.

                      Actually it is you who want’s to control MY property rights. If I want to invite a foreign person to come live in my home and work for me, you would stand in my way. You would deny me the right to invite who I want onto my own property, and to spend my money as I see fit – by hiring a person you don’t approve of.

                      Second, the second you introduced the word “national” you moved towards a collectivist (i.e. socialist) position. You are now asserting that the rights of the collective trump the rights of the individual.

                    2. HazelMeade|9.15.17 @ 2:06PM|#
                      No its not Zeb. It actually is the antithesis of property rights, national defense rights, and national sovereignty.
                      Actually it is you who want’s to control MY property rights. If I want to invite a foreign person to come live in my home and work for me, you would stand in my way. You would deny me the right to invite who I want onto my own property, and to spend my money as I see fit – by hiring a person you don’t approve of.
                      Second, the second you introduced the word “national” you moved towards a collectivist (i.e. socialist) position. You are now asserting that the rights of the collective trump the rights of the individual.

                      Aw, you have property right up against the border and can allow people to stay on your land?

                      Didn’t think so. Doesn’t matter anyway. Rule of law and all. Plus, all 50 states signed over part of their sovereignty to the federal government so the USA actually has legal control over all territory that is the United States of America. You can make an argument for Indian land being an exception but even then, nobody is discussing YOUR property rights under a tribes rules.

                      Typical of a socialist to construe rule of law by a Constitutional Democratic Republic as the same thing as a socialist state.

                    3. all 50 states signed over part of their sovereignty to the federal government so the USA actually has legal control over all territory that is the United States of America.

                      Where did I sign over my property rights to the state?
                      Is it okay if I fly the mexicans directly over to my property without using any roads?
                      Can I form an agreement with my next door neighbor giving me travel rights?


                    4. Where did I sign over my property rights to the state?

                      Every time you pay your property taxes one expects, although I’d be with you in thinking that’s not right since it amounts to leasing everything from the state.

                      Is it okay if I fly the mexicans directly over to my property without using any roads?

                      It’s well established you don’t own the airspace above your house.

                      Can I form an agreement with my next door neighbor giving me travel rights?

                      Sure, just make sure it extends neighbor-to-neighbor from the Mexican-U.S. border all the way to your house, wherever that is, although for your sake I hope you don’t live further than 50 miles away since that deal might take the rest of your life to iron out in property research alone. And, of course, it just takes one person to invalidate certain paths that could have taken years to figure out, but nothings really ‘stopping you’ except measly laws, right?

                      Did the laws against runaway slaves stop the underground railroad?

                    5. You have heard the libertarian argument for open borders 100 times, but apparently you are too fucking stupid to understand it. You don’t have to agree, but don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

                    6. Zeb: You have heard the libertarian argument for open borders 100 times, but apparently you are too fucking stupid to understand it. You don’t have to agree, but don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

                      The only excuse I remember you and your open border types spout is that the people have a right to go where they want foregoing all national sovereignty. That is NOT a Libertarian concept.

                      Since you are too stupid to know what a Libertarian concept is, I can see it is hard for you.

                      You don’t have to agree, but don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

                    7. people have a right to go where they want foregoing all national sovereignty. That is NOT a Libertarian concept.

                      Actually, yes, it IS.
                      Again, you’re a confused person who doesn’t understand libertarian philosophy. And I propose that you stop calling yourself one, and leave.

                    8. Fuck off progtard. You’re the one who doesn’t belong.


                  2. But your assertions that being open borders is a particularly leftist or socialist position is idiotic and absurd.

                    You’re right that it isn’t necessarily leftist, it’s just necessarily stupid no matter what direction you come at it.

                    The only way open borders works is if no country has them, at the very base level. There are many, many, MANY other considerations but a world without borders is a world ruled from on-high a la the U.N. in my view.

                    The libertarian idea that it means a world without governments is actually impossible. If you believe otherwise, you are a liar, na?ve, or stupid. I presume most of the people who think this way are simply na?ve idealists since they cry about globalism at every turn.

                    1. The unit of consideration is not the “country” it is the individual.
                      Either individuals have the right to engage in economic exchanges with whoever they wish, or they don’t. You rights don’t depend on your nationality, which is an arbitrary construct imposed by governments, anyway. The assertion that “countries” have rights is an assertion that collective entites, i.e. government, supercede individual rights.


                    2. You rights don’t depend on your nationality…

                      You are adorable when you get all ideological, but functionally this is false at face value.

                      You can say that some Rando Calrissian in North Korea has the ‘right’ to free movement, and arguably from the modern point of view they do, but as they are completely unable to exercise that right it makes the argument purely semantic.

                      So by all means, continue to spout ideological nonsense as if Nature or the World recognizes your right to anything. Ideals do not translate into reality as perfectly as we would like.

                    3. Well, if you wish to assert that all rights are arbitrary constructs created by government, we can take that route too.

                      In that case, we can argue about what rights people *ought* to have in a just society, and whether their rights *ought* to differ depending on national origin. Some people DO claim that people of the same nationality have more claims upon their fellow citizens than people of different nationalities. They just aren’t libertarians.

                      Libertarianism is founded upon certain principles like “equal justice under law”, “all men are created equal” etc, and thus they have (or should have) the SAME rights. There’s no provision in that to say that only people with American citizenship have (or should have) those rights. The goal of the libertarian project is to define rights which apply universally to everyone in the abstract, not just to come up with a list of entitlements endowed by the state, like the right to get a job preferentially over a foreigner, or the right to sell products in the market with lower taxes than a foreigner. Libertarians do not, in general recognize national interest or nations as entities which have any rights at all.


                    4. Well, if you wish to assert that all rights are arbitrary constructs created by government, we can take that route too.

                      This is a strawman argument and doesn’t at all represent what I was saying. I’m saying that just because someone has a theoretical right to something it doesn’t mean they get it. There are any number of reasons why this happens, but it happens every day across the vast majority of the planet.

                      What do Natural Rights derive from, in your view? Do you believe in God? Do you ‘just have’ those rights, or do you need to take them for yourself? I’ll tell you this, and it’s a fact, no one ‘just gets’ those rights they must constantly be fought for and won all over again and if those rights do come from God than clearly that entity expects you to fight for them.

                      I’ll tell you one thing Mexicans don’t seem to be doing for themselves in Mexico, fighting for those rights in particular. It seems to me that you’re the one trying to fight their battles for them, when they don’t seem that interested in fighting those battles against their own government.

                      Or, in short, project much?

                    5. I’m saying that just because someone has a theoretical right to something it doesn’t mean they get it. There are any number of reasons why this happens, but it happens every day across the vast majority of the planet.

                      Well, presumably, if you claim to be a libertarian, you ought to be advocating that they DO get the things that they have a right to.

                      What do Natural Rights derive from, in your view? Do you believe in God? Do you ‘just have’ those rights, or do you need to take them for yourself? I’ll tell you this, and it’s a fact, no one ‘just gets’ those rights they must constantly be fought for and won all over again and if those rights do come from God than clearly that entity expects you to fight for them.

                      My actual opinion is that rights are an implementation of normative justice principles which are derived by reason from first principles such as self ownership, individualism, and moral equality.
                      In other words, people are to be treated as individuals, not members of groups or appendages or groups, everyone should be regarded as moral equals before the law, and must be granted the same rights universally, and everyone fundamentally belongs to themselves and not any larger entity, especially not a national government, and thus has the right to control their own productive labor, and therefore their own property. Rights should not have to be seized by force as that would effectively be equivalent to might makes right.


                    6. My actual opinion is that rights are an implementation of normative justice principles which are derived by reason from first principles such as self ownership, individualism, and moral equality.

                      And I asked you, specifically, where those ‘first principles’ originate from; or did you not understand the question?

                    7. Those first principles come from biology. Human beings are separate entities. We don’t have a hive mind like ants or bees.


                    8. Those first principles come from biology. Human beings are separate entities. We don’t have a hive mind like ants or bees.

                      So in other words you’ve created a whole set of ‘rights’ out of whole cloth based upon essentially nothing. This is as expected. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying that what you’re talking about isn’t a concept outside of your own head. Nothing wrong with that, but I’d stop trying to pawn that off as ‘Natural Rights’ which are actually a defined thing.

                    9. You and your progressive friends have a hive mind. No independent thought to be found.

                    10. HazelMeade|9.15.17 @ 2:12PM|#
                      The unit of consideration is not the “country” it is the individual.
                      Either individuals have the right to engage in economic exchanges with whoever they wish, or they don’t. You rights don’t depend on your nationality, which is an arbitrary construct imposed by governments, anyway. The assertion that “countries” have rights is an assertion that collective entites, i.e. government, supercede individual rights.

                      You are not a sovereign individual in the USA. Sorry to burst your bubble.

                      You also have no right to conduct business with whomever you wish by violating other people’s rights and the law.

                    11. You are not a sovereign individual in the USA. Sorry to burst your bubble.

                      You also have no right to conduct business with whomever you wish by violating other people’s rights and the law.

                      Again, you are not a libertarian.
                      And my conducting business with a foreign person does not violate anyone else’s rights. Nobody has a right to do business with me, preferentially over a foreigner.

                    12. I don’t see how open borders means no distinct countries. If you are on one side of a border you are subject to the laws of the country you are in.

                      There may be practical issues with allowing just anyone to cross borders without any restrictions. But I think you will find that not very many people are talking about that when they say “open borders”. There is some legitimate interest in keeping dangerous people, diseases, etc. out of the country.


                    13. I don’t see how open borders means no distinct countries. If you are on one side of a border you are subject to the laws of the country you are in.

                      Ok, honest question then. If the United States border is completely open, but the Canadian and Mexican borders are closed to us but not to their citizens, do we still have the benefits of ‘open borders’ or do they have the benefits of open borders while we carry the negative consequences?

                      You see, the very concept of ‘open borders’ relies on international cooperation and freedom on a scale that has never even been conceived of because it is so incredibly opposite to human nature itself. At least, that is, to me and my readings of history, economics, psychology, biology, and basically every other source of human knowledge. That is, obviously, seen through my own lens but I believe this to be a basic truth.

                      Obviously I am no one, and anyone can disagree, but I fully expect disaster should anyone make a move on that. Fortunately, no one on planet Earth beyond a handful of idealists share that vision so we are in zero risk of that happening, ever.

                    14. All relationships have (at least) two parties.
                      If it’s legal for a Canadian to come to the US, but not for an American to go to Canada, the liberty of the Canadian is increased – but so is the liberty of the American who wants to have a relationship with the Canadian.

                      For example, if I want to hire a Canadian to come work for me, the ability of the Canadian to travel to accept the job, increases BOTH of our’s liberty. Likewise, Canada’s refusal to allow me to enter decreases the liberty of BOTH me, AND my Canadian potential employer.

                      it works the same way for trade. If someone wants to buy a product from China, and the US government imposes tarriffs on that transaction, they are infinging on the liberty of BOTH the Chinese seller, AND the US buyer.


                    15. If it’s legal for a Canadian to come to the US, but not for an American to go to Canada, the liberty of the Canadian is increased – but so is the liberty of the American who wants to have a relationship with the Canadian.

                      You say that while completely ignoring what I actually asked. Probably because you realize the answer to that question would explode at least half your own argument, so I’m going to go ahead and assume intellectual dishonesty judging from your past posts on the issue.

                      Also, once again, did you immigrate into the United States legally? Why, or why not? You mentioned you were recently naturalized, and it would seem to have bearing on the conversation.

                    16. I immigrated legally, but it’s hardly relevant to the topic.

                    17. It’s very relevant to the topic, actually, since the literal topic at hand is immigration. You advocate for open borders and open immigration, which I can understand if you went through the legal channels, but it also indicates that you personally have some sort of respect for those rules of naturalization as you followed the process even while you advocate the abolition of that system.

                      I’m not going to call you names or anything, but it would at least appear that you acknowledge that the system at the very least worked for you.

                    18. Well I follow the process not so much out of respect for the rule of law, but because it’s not in my self interest to wind up in prison or deported.


                    19. Well I follow the process not so much out of respect for the rule of law, but because it’s not in my self interest to wind up in prison or deported.

                      And yet, somehow, we’re saying that Mexicans in particular are unable to make that consideration. Interesting.

                    20. A sociopathic answer from a progressive, what a surprise.

                    21. And to reply to one bit that was relevant to my question, if I can not go work in Canada but they can come work in the U.S. it’s not really open borders, is it? What you’re describing is just another version of NAFTA that only involves a more free Canadian workforce.

                    22. And, one of the many reasons why it’s a stupid idea is because American’s aren’t dumb enough to think it’s a good deal for Americans even while it’s a great deal for Canadians. Americans, in that scenario, are the only one’s who are at a disadvantage in their labor. They can’t go where their labor is most valuable, they can still only trade their labor in the United States.

                      Now if you want to make the case that America is better off with an isolated workforce that’s put in direct competition for work with Somalis make that case but I think you’ll find it a difficult one to make cogently.

                    23. This is the joke. Open borders means to me that I can go anywhere, anytime, for any reason.

                      These “open-borders” people don’t want massive hordes of white people who support the Constitution to come to the USA. These people still want massive government behemoth to only allow those deemed worthy, like for menial work or to change voting to a more progressive stance.

                      As you say, its why NAFTA is fair trade agreement not free trade.

                    24. These “open-borders” people don’t want massive hordes of white people who support the Constitution to come to the USA.

                      Keep on arguing with the voices in your head.

                      I’d love it if people who supported libertarianism (whatever the color of their skin), immigrated en masse to the USA. Sadly, the world is not full of white libertarians. But on the plus side, the world IS full of people who are totally capable of grasping the concept of liberty, of all sorts of skin colors.

                    25. Again, more freedom for the Canadian workforce also involves more freedom for American employers.

                      And why should the government favor the American workforce over American employers? They both have the same, equal, right to engage in commerce with each other. If the Canadian government wants to harm it’s own employers, that’s their problem.

                    26. Again, more freedom for the Canadian workforce also involves more freedom for American employers.

                      So the assumption here is that we should do something to benefit the employers while specifically and overtly screwing over all American labor? Also, you suddenly seem a lot more ok with collectivization. Note I don’t normally make pro-labor posts, but American labor isn’t dumb enough to shoot themselves in the face to benefit American employers so that they don’t have to hire Americans anymore, ya dig?

                    27. No, we should maximize liberty to the extent that we can. The fact that Canada restrict’s the freedom to travel is not an excuse to do the same.
                      We can’t control Canadian policy. We can control American policy.

                      Note I don’t normally make pro-labor posts, but American labor isn’t dumb enough to shoot themselves in the face to benefit American employers so that they don’t have to hire Americans anymore, ya dig?

                      So you’re saying that people should just vote for whatever is in their self-interest, rather than the libertarian position? You realize that pragmatism is not principle right?


                    28. The fact that Canada restrict’s the freedom to travel is not an excuse to do the same.

                      Actually, it kind of does since what you’re talking about is self destructive and not of benefit to the majority of Americans. Notably, ‘big business’ are the one’s pushing for ‘more open’ immigration which is exactly as expected but not for the reasons you cite.


                      So you’re saying that people should just vote for whatever is in their self-interest, rather than the libertarian position? You realize that pragmatism is not principle right?

                      Are you saying that self-interest and libertarianism are at odd’s? If so, it’s doomed because people absolutely do vote in their own self interest. Amazing, but true. Admittedly they are often lied to, or misunderstand their own self interest at times, but overall this should be the expected thing that people do. Voting in a collective interest only happens to the extent that people perceive themselves as benefiting from it.

              2. Many more libertarians believe in the constitution. In which the power to enforce and protect our sovereign borders and regulate naturalization are enumerated powers of the federal government.

            4. > you won’t admit it that illegal entry into the USA deserves the same police enforcement as other crimes.

              I, for one, certainly won’t. Can you tell me, exactly, whose person or property was being trespassed on? Who was the victim? How were their rights diminished?

              1. you’re not the only one who lives here. A gigantic majority believe in our sovereign borders, and are backed up by the constitution.

                Why are you against the constitution?

    4. Or it might be because allowing police to cruise their lots is passive and has the benefit of added security for guests and actively handing over guest information actively compromises the privacy of guests and is likely perceived by many as a breach of trust.

      1. Anytime I see cops regularly visit a place passively, I do not feel safe. It means that there are constantly issues that require police intervention.

        1. There’s a tipping point where it moves from deterrence to what you said.

        2. It means that there are constantly issues that require police intervention.

          And at a cheap-ass motel, that may well be the case.

    5. It’s a shame they decided to stop helping ICE. But then, I believe in our sovereign borders and the constitutional mandate for the the federal govt. to secure them.

      1. How are you being injured, what right of yours has been trespassed on by Jose Sixpack swimming the Rio and getting a job/ paying for a room without Leviathan’s permission?

        1. So you’re against the constitution? I’m not, and there is not and endless supply of jobs here. Jose and his 30+ million pals are artificially driving down wages and cost a lot to the system that we are borrowing money, or having our currency deflated to support.

          The fact is that the control of our sovereign borders and regulation of immigration and naturalization are enumerated powers of the federal government. No mission creeping leviathan needed. It is you with your desire for open borders that is in the wrong. You stand with the progressives on this. Me, I believe in constitutional government and our republic.

    6. Police drive thru hotel and motel parking lots and scan license plates and vehicles to fish for suspects.

      Oh yeah, because open borders is the agenda!

      With the cases of hotels, this has been the case since forever. If I walked into pretty much any hotel chain, insisted on paying cash and was unable to produce any ID except a foreign voter ID, you’d better believe the staff would be phoning the local PD without regard to the particular nation of origin of the voter ID.

      Also, it’s nice to act like overbearing local government drove flophouses out of business and that’s the end of it, but the truth of the matter is even when they were legal, flophouses were hard to run and frequently a blight on the community or at least businesses adjacent to them. Not to say that, that’s a perfectly good reason to enact zoning laws against them, but the case/story in this instance would be the same ultimate effect. Flophouses disappeared because nobody likes transients and they like people housing transients even less.

      1. Because international visitors, students and workers never come over and stay in hotels, amirite?

        God, I bet you’d run a great tourist town.

      2. “With the cases of hotels, this has been the case since forever.”
        Less than 20 years ago, you did not need an ID nor a credit card for “incidentals” at hotels/motels. They might charge a deposit and you got that back when you checked out.

        Not wanting to show your ID does not make one a transient. I can guarantee that transients still stay somewhere and flophouses still exist.

        Plus, one might argue that government pushing most flophouses out of business led to more homeless on streets and that is definitely not a bigger problem these days.

  3. otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants

    Fuck these people. Seriously, just fuck these people.

      1. Every lawbreaker should be in jail. smh

          1. That YOU don’t like so police should not enforce it.

        1. Especially those who blow on a cheap plastic flute without authorization by a licensed physician!!! Or ditto for those who would use a little electro-mechanical assistance when basically pinching their noses and blowing on it.

          If’n ye donna believe me about gittin’ prescriptions for “coughing” or “nose-blowing” then please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com ? And search for “lung flute” and “ear popper”.

          “Three felonies a day” is a “thing”… Google it…

            1. “Three felonies a day” is a “thing”… Google it…

              And if one commits a felony, one should be punished, and if one doesn’t want to be punished, then one shouldn’t commit a felony. Duh.

              1. If you willfully let one felony go unpunished, you’re letting all felonies go unpunished. Complete breakdown of the rule of law.

                1. Well, how about a little BALANCE and REALITY here?

                  How many murders, rapes, robberies, and incidents of senseless property destruction go totally unpunished, for lack of sufficient law enforcement resources? While said law enforcement resources are tied up punishing illegal humans, illegal witches, and illegal blowers upon cheap plastic “lung flutes”? Since there are untold MILLIONS of said unpunished felons already, then we ALREADY have “Complete breakdown of the rule of law”, per your logic!

                  1. Wrong. We were doing all right until people started crossing the border illegally. If that is allowed to slide, then game over, the Republic’s dead.

                    1. Can you seriously tell me that you lose more sleep at night, worrying that your local handyman or waiter might be an illegal human, than you do about the “murders, rapes, robberies, and incidents of senseless property destruction” that go undetected and unpunished, for misallocation of law enforcement resources? Are you off of your meds?

                      Also consider this:
                      The only international border that is actually, really, truly “secure” is that between N. and S. Korea… Is THAT what we REALLY want in the “Land of the Free, & the Home of the Brave”?

                    2. SQRLSY One|9.15.17 @ 12:11PM|#
                      Can you seriously tell me that you lose more sleep at night, worrying that your local handyman or waiter might be an illegal human, than you do about the “murders, rapes, robberies, and incidents of senseless property destruction” that go undetected and unpunished, for misallocation of law enforcement resources? Are you off of your meds?
                      Also consider this:
                      The only international border that is actually, really, truly “secure” is that between N. and S. Korea… Is THAT what we REALLY want in the “Land of the Free, & the Home of the Brave”?

                      I sleep really great every night because there are still good people enforcing the rule of law and working to change corruption in government. Are you off your meds?

                      The border does not need to be secure to be effective. Trump winning and running on a more secure border and 180 change in US illegal immigrant policy caused millions of illegals to leave and/or never come into the USA.

                      I would be happy with a fence covering the entire length of the US-Mexican border that was maintained. Heavily populated border areas would need a buffer zone to catch jumpers and deport them. Deporting all current illegals, including DREAMERS would largely fix that problem. The the cost to maintain the border with Mexico and catch any illegals inside the USA would drop dramatically.

                    3. You can tell that most of these open borders nuts don’t live somewhere that makes them the victim of illegal alien criminal activity. Just armchair open borders advocates.

                    4. Unlabelable MJGreen|9.15.17 @ 12:03PM|#
                      Wrong. We were doing all right until people started crossing the border illegally. If that is allowed to slide, then game over, the Republic’s dead.

                      Come on…don’t lie. Anyone advocating securing borders is racist, ammirite? You can be honest here.

                      Nothing like trying to twist reasons for securing borders into a single fear that illegals=dead republic.

              2. Or you can just ignore the laws you don’t agree with, duh.

                I mean everyone in American wants open borders, ammirite?

                1. Or you can just ignore the laws you don’t agree with, duh.

                  Isn’t that what everyone does?

                  1. I ignore laws and accept the consequences.

                    I speed and if I got caught, would not make up a long lie that Libertarianism dictates that we ignore all speeding laws because I don’t like them.

                    The manner to handle said “immoral law” is to get your elected rep to change it, jury nullification, get government to be smaller and have less laws.

                    ignoring laws without consequence is just not a good option and opens me ignoring whatever laws that I don’t like.

            2. That means we’d all be in jail and that would include you. With all the laws we have, we’re bound to break one now and then even if we don’t mean to.

              1. If everyone obeyed every law, there would never be a case making it to the Supreme Court, allowing an uncontrolled state to do whatever it likes.

          1. The very notion of the rule of law implies that the law can be understood by the common man, and yeah we’ve moved beyond that and the law books need to be culled thoroughly as part-and-parcel of returning to the rule of law which is all but dead in this nation.

            That, I suspect, is where LC1789 and I diverge.

            1. That would be an interesting discussion.

              I agree that there are far too many laws on the books. Once they are, though, we all need to follow them or suffer consequences. Either that or follow none of them and then we have something other than a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

              My humble opinion is that the more people pissed at how many laws affect them, the more likely these shitty laws will be repealed.

              Look at how many open border types are advocating ignoring federal immigration law but refuse to advocate scaling back the government by 50%+. Its all smoke and mirrors to undermine one of the great things about America- Rule of Law.

              I have traveled the World and one thing that destroys countries fast is corruption by Rule of Man rather than Rule of Law.


              1. My humble opinion is that the more people pissed at how many laws affect them, the more likely these shitty laws will be repealed.

                Maybe, or maybe not. I would tend to agree but it’s hard to deny that everyone commits a lot of crimes literally every day without even being aware of that fact. Once you start tacking on the fact that you can break dozens of laws with only one action things start to become even more ridiculous. Tack on selective enforcement, and what you end up with is a fa?ade of the Rule of Law that merely masks Totalitarianism.

                I’m all for the rule of law, but I also recognize that reform must happen across the board to return to it. I’m starting to think that if the rule of law is truly dead, and there are a lot of reasons to suspect that it is, than lawlessness can be a virtue. Certainly that was the case in 1776.

                I think that’s psychotically insane when it comes to issues such as base citizenship of one’s nation, but in one’s every day life this becomes readily apparent. There is a tenuous connection there, at least.

              2. The thing is, most people just don’t care enough about the shitty laws that don’t affect them to have it change how they vote. I think you are being very naive about the effectiveness of democracy in limiting government.


                1. The thing is, most people just don’t care enough about the shitty laws that don’t affect them to have it change how they vote.

                  This actually becomes even more true when the people you’re discussing have no ability to vote at all, but at the same time kicking them out would be a more merciful result than making them pay for the privilege of working at below market rate wages under threat of being removed at any time at the pleasure of random law enforcement.

                  Labor reform is a must, but again the voters like to vote a higher and higher wage for themselves while paying zero attention to the actual market rate for wages. You can only burn the candle from both ends for a certain amount of time, yet we have been told we can do this indefinitely

                  I’ll tell you this, I am sick of amnesty. Absolutely and thoroughly fed up with it. It’s an admission that the law doesn’t work, and an admission that no one cares to do a single thing about it simultaneously.

                  1. Amnesty is also admitting that you can disrespect our laws and get away with it if you just give enough money to Democrats and wait long enough.

                    Fuck these illegals. Leave the USA and apply like everyone else. If you left now and peacefully, I might even cave on the ability for DREAMERS to get moved up on the application list.

                    If not fuck you and your illegal kids. I will never stop fighting for America to avoid becoming like corrupt south American shit holes.

                    1. I’m ok with the originally estimated 6-8k of them. To this 800k plus their whole extended family horseshit being floated.

                  2. Amnesty is doing something about it.

                    1. Yeah, specifically the thing we did before. And the time before that. And the time before that. Like I said, it’s an acknowledgement that it’s broken, and they have no intentions of fixing the features of American law that create the mess because those bits are incredibly popular even while the second and third order consequences are not popular.

                      Basically, what they’re saying is if we can just centrally plan harder we’ll reach utopia. No, we won’t.

                    2. And putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger is doing something about a nasty head cold, but I don’t think you’re going to Iike the outcome.

                      Amnesty is a progtard position. Advocate no for amnesty means you’re with the progtards.

                    3. “Advocating for amnesty means you’re with the progtards”. Fixed my typo.

    1. Show us on the doll where the illegal immigrant touched you.

      1. Dick Puller hangs his head in shame, sighs, and touches the doll’s heart.

      2. Aw, because violating the law and then having useful idiots advocate ignoring the rule of law is funny.

        Haha. You’re so funny lefty.

        1. Isn’t that pretty much the plot of every stoner movie ever?

          1. Because living real life as a stoner movie is great advice…lefty.

            Jesus, you people live in fantasyland.

            1. The only part about living life as a stoner movie that isn’t funny, is the part where you get arrested for a victimless crime.

            2. A fantasy-land devoid of 100-mile border zone checkpoints?

              I wish.

              1. Aw, poor Crusty does not like unconstitutional checkpoints but is okay with ignoring rule of law for illegals. How are we ever to straighten this out?

                I mean we demand that government enforce the law but not against illegals.

                I am sure you never refuse the ICE agents at these unconstitutional checkpoints.

                1. Keep virtue signaling to your lefty, union pals, 1789.

                  1. Aw, poor Crusty cannot read enough to know that lefties and union people are not my pals.

                    1. They are. You just haven’t realized who your friends are yet.

                    2. I can tell you that police don’t like me very much when I never roll my window down at unconstitutional license and DUI checkpoints.

                      In your and Crusty’s World, dissenters of open border agendas are automatically friends of corrupt police and government.

                    3. HazelMeade|9.15.17 @ 12:32PM|#
                      They are. You just haven’t realized who your friends are yet.

                      Is this like socialists who have not realized that Nazis were/are socialists too?

                    4. Yes, it is quite a bit like that.

                    5. Thanks. I had no idea that dissenting against open borders is like being all buddy buddy with corrupt police.

                      I hope Hazelmeade notices that I outed socialists and Nazis having a socialist background.

                    6. It’s somewhat more like Nazis who haven’t realized they are socialists. But close enough.

                    7. Aw, poor Hazelmeade comes from a position that socialists are superior non-racists and Nazis are not quite socialists but close enough.

                      You still cannot admit that Nazis are socialists can you?

                    8. Socialists are certainly all nazis deep in what passes for their hearts.

  4. What about illegal witches? Are Motel 6 employees allowed to voluntarily share information about suspected illegal witches?

    Inquiring minds want to KNOW!!!

    1. Witches, yes. Wizards, no, because patriarchy.

      1. Snitches get witches.

  5. Would it have been considered scandalous if Motel 6 provided the names of gusts to the U.S. military to help them catch deserters?

    1. Man, NOAA is naming gusts now? Cut their budget!

    2. Make amor not war.

  6. …they are prohibited from voluntarily providing daily guest lists to ICE.

    So make sure that information is passed through an intermediary source.

    1. Or, just make it compulsory.

  7. From now on Motel 6 will supply guest lists only to the police, ATFE, or Border Patrol agents.

    1. All in Tom Bodett’s voice.

      1. We’ll leave the red and blue lights on for ya!

    2. They already do supply them to the police in Idaho according to my source.

    3. Came in to say this. My friend’s brother was arrested at that very Motel 6 in the story due to them sending all their license plates to the police for checking.

      This line, “prohibited from voluntarily providing daily guest lists to ICE” seemed specific to the point of telling.

  8. “with the goal of helping immigration agents round up otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants.”

    “Otherwise law-abiding” apparently is supposed to mean they get a pass from being illegal aliens.

    Let’s expand that concept.

    The IRS shouldn’t come after anybody for not paying their taxes if they were “otherwise law-abiding”

    The cops should never give anyone a speeding ticket if they were “otherwise law-abiding”

    There are many more possibilities.

    1. Are those supposed to be examples of things we don’t want? Because both of those sound just fine to me.

      1. Hey I’m all for me getting to unilaterally decide which laws I’m supposed to obey and which one’s I’m not.

        As long as nobody else gets to decide they don’t have to obey the one’s against hurting me or taking my stuff, that is!

        1. Your two examples aren’t people hurting you or taking your stuff.

          -jcr

          1. I never said they were.

          1. Except illegals. They get a pass.

    2. Maybe we need to figure out where illegal immigration sits on a scale from speeding to murder.

      1. We actually don’t need to figure that out.

        There is a law that prohibits entering the USA without permission and that is popular in the USA by a substantial majority of Americans. If you violate that law, you will be deported.

        If their is probable cause for speeding and murder you will ticketed/arrested and arrested in that order.

        1. I see, so if a law is popular with other Americans, that makes it one of the really important ones that we must obey.

          1. I know most socialists don’t know how to use democracy to implement laws based on majority, so your ignorance might be forgivable to some people.

            You and I know you’re a liar and useful idiot for the left.

            1. I know most socialists don’t know how to use democracy to implement laws based on majority

              That’s pretty much ALL socialists do. It’s the entire premise of Democracy in Chains. Those terrible libertarians, trying to thwart majority will!
              You seem to not even know how much you have in common with the far left. You both believe that “the people” should control individuals, whether they are harming anyone else or not.

              1. Aw, poor socialist trying to compare Libertarians with socialists and it is not working.

                Aw, poor you trying to not mix words up and at the same time wipe the spittle away from the corners of your mouth.

                1. Project much?

                  1. Aw, poor projected on Hazelmeade. Run! Run for you safe space. Run!

                    1. Do I look like I’m running?

                    2. Walking to a safe space then or are you already there?

            2. Still waiting to hear about that dry anal, bro.

              1. Dry anal? That’s rough.

    3. YES! I’m off the hook!

  9. Motel 6 might not give their info to Big Brother anymore but I assure you, they’ll never stop sucking.

    1. “they’ll never stop sucking.”

      Neither will the bed bugs you take back home with you after staying there.

    2. There are many other reasons not to stay at Motel 6, which is why this story is clearly an open borders propaganda piece.

      Save up money people and stay in a nice hotel or use Air BnB. It really is a much better experience than Motel 6 or any place to stay with “motel” in the name.

  10. Off topic: Is there a way to mute people? I love the funny stuff, but the ad hominem makes me feel like I’m on a MSM/Fox/Blaze site.

    1. If you use Chrome, look for an extension called “reasonable”. I think there is something for Firefox too.

      1. Thank you!

  11. Off topic: Is there a way to ignore logic, reasonable thought, and discussions based on the article? I love the discussions but the funny stuff makes me feel like I’m on MSM/FOX/Blaze?

    Thanks in advance.

  12. So now we have “sanctuary motels?” FFS.

    1. You are Motel 6!

      I am not a motel! I am a sanctuary hostel!

    2. Yes, businesses cannot report ongoing criminal activity when it comes to illegal immigrants.

      1. Is it petty of me to wish a brutally violent home invasions perpetrated by illegals on all these open borders no matter what advocates?

  13. Too little, too late.

  14. Was that a conscious to not suck?

  15. I’m a bit weary of the word ‘daily’ in “…prohibited from voluntarily providing daily guest lists to ICE.”

    Is HQ ok with weekly then? How about semi-daily?

  16. Have to say that I disagree with the author on this one. Motel 6 is a common place for bad folks to stay because it’s so inexpensive, and a lot of the people arrested based on their cooperation were seriously bad people, not just undocumented immigrants. Motel 6 now sucks more than it did before in my view.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.