Border zone

America's Border Patrol Behave Like Monsters: Activist Arrested Hours After Aid Group Released Video Showing Agents Dumping Out Life-Saving Water [UPDATED]

|

Scott Daniel Warren, an instructor at Arizona State University and a volunteer with an immigrant-aid group No More Deaths, was arrested last week on federal charges for harboring undocumented immigrants.

Nelvin C. Cepeda/TNS/Newscom

The arrest came mere hours after No More Deaths released videos that should have produced mass public disgrace and obloquy against the Border Patrol, showing them emptying out water bottles left in the desert to help save the lives of people who might be dying of thirst. This is apparently seen as an essential law enforcement practice to the Border Patrol since some people whose lives might be saved might have entered the country illegally.

As 12News, an NBC station in Arizona, reported, "Warren was arrested Wednesday after agents conducted surveillance on a building in Ajo where two immigrants were given food, water, beds and clean clothes."

The Arizona Republic's website reports that Warren's attorney, William Walker, says that Warren and the group "don't smuggle [immigrants], we don't do anything to help them enter the United States, we do nothing illegal…This place that they raided is not in the middle of the desert, it's not hidden anywhere. It's in the city of Ajo, and it's been used for a long time, not to help smuggle migrants, but to give medical care and food and water."

The Arizona Daily Star's website notes that No More Deaths finds the timing of the arrest, hours after the video showing the Border Patrol's monstrous destruction of life-saving water, suspicious and possibly retaliatory for their attempt to embarrass them.

Thousands have died crossing the deserts around the U.S. southern border in the past couple of decades. The UK Guardian reports that in 2005, an attempt to prosecute No More Deaths volunteers for transporting three immigrants to a Tucson church to get medical attention had their indictments tossed by a federal judge.

Someone in the judicial system should have the same wisdom to bring this attempt to prosecute Warren for trying to live up to a simple human duty to a quick halt, especially from an agency that acts in ways they know will lead to human deaths over the "crime" of entering this country without proper papers.

[UPDATE: No More Deaths announced in an emailed press release on Jan. 24 that in addition to Warren's felony harboring charge, he and seven other No More Deaths workers have been hit with "federal misdemeanor charges relating to their work with the organization in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, a vast and remote stretch of land near Ajo, AZ that shares 56 miles with the US-Mexico border…The preliminary charges for each of the eight individuals are varied and include "driving on a wilderness area," "abandonment of property," and "entering a wildlife refuge without a permit." The charges come amidst an escalation of interference toward No More Deaths and its efforts to provide humanitarian aid in the deadly migration corridor.]

The video that should shame the Border Patrol:

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Launches Solar Panel Trade War with China

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. Arizona border patrol are cunts

    1. Finally! There is a great way how you can work online from your home using your computer and earn in the same time… Only basic internet knowledge needed and fast internet connection… Earn as much as $3000 a week……. http://www.startonlinejob.com.com

    2. Man, the comments on that youtube video are despicable. Trump has really enabled these degenerates.

      1. Good people do not become drug warriors or border patrol agents. They’ve had a chance to arrange a decent livelihood, yet they chase doobies and migrants, tramping the Fourth Amendment and emptying water jugs along the way.

        How many of the best people in your high school (let alone college, or graduate school) class became border agents, or narcs?

        1. Rev, I don’t think your particular brand of virtue signaling will have the same effect here as it did in the VC sandbox.

          1. You figure my disdain for drug warriors and intolerance-driving authoritarianism with respect to immigration will be unpopular among an audience of libertarians?

            1. I think you’re conflating not one, but three items, to come to your conclusion. Dislike of the drug war and its incipient abuses isn’t the same as assuming all people who work for the state in such matters are authoritarian stormtroopers in snazzier uniforms, nor that they are personally intolerant.

              1. Also, given the commentariat here, your comments will tend to blend into the background on non VC stories.

                1. Thanks for the pointers from the authoritarian wing (make that authoritarian right wing) of the libertarians.

              2. Yes it does.

      2. Perhaps “No More Deaths” should focus on discouraging illegal foreign settlers from trying the trip at all.

    3. It’s not humanitarian aid if its a mechanism to lead the desperate past the point of no return: it’s an attractive hazard, and is actually causing deaths. Try playing a round of golf in 114 degrees sometime – you can chug water every hole and still hit the wall and experience impaired motor control somewhere on the back 9. I did it in my 30s and it hit me around the 15th hole. While I finished the round, I was in no real danger – I returned to the clubhouse to soak up some A/C and stay out of real trouble, and could have called it quits at any time to find safety in a matter of minutes. Knowing that… I call the “help” of setting a trail of water into hell an invitation to an early grave. These clowns should be helping to stop people from doing this at all if they actually cared about saving lives. Yeah, it’s a hard one: look at that border agent dumping water and think again, this time carefully.

      1. This. Exactly. A few bottles of water isn’t going to save someone whose caught in a desert.

      2. They aren’t playing golf, you fucking monster.

        They’re trapped, by that point, in the desert in the blazing sun, miles from anywhere. They can’t waltz back to the clubhouse and catch some AC if they give up. Whether going forward or backward, if they’re out of water, they’re in grave physical danger. If you disagree, let’s drop you in the fucking desert for a couple of days and then see if you want some water.

        Whoops, I dumped it out. It’s an attractive hazard you know. Good thing I was here to make sure you don’t have any water. For your own safety.

        People have been crossing the border for a long time, long before anyone was trying to help them. They aren’t going to stop, and water caches are not going to change their decision on the margin, because it’s a decision that’s driven by desperation. What they *might* do is save some of the hundreds of lives that are lost per year to dehydration and heat exhaustion.

        What an appalling failure of common sense and human decency. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

        1. They should overthrow their government like we did. Then they could make a better one and stay home.

          1. Like you and your friends did? When was that, exactly?

    4. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    5. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    6. Apparently American Libertarians aren’t loyal to the idea of the US being a sovereign nation, welcome illegal immigraion transforming it into Mexico’s Lebensraum and don’t care what the impacts of abolishing all limits on the world’s 7 billion moving into the US job market and social service waiting lists might have on other citizens.

    7. I’m making over $7k 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… http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. the “crime” of entering this country without proper papers.

    Oh Doherty. If you were a real libertarian you would know that there is no greater crime.

      1. PB you’re the expert on hatred towards our constitutional republic. So you should explain the glories of Marxism to us.

      2. Did you ever take the buttplug our of your ass and clean it or do you just sniff the exquisite odor and orgasm?

    1. You want worse? Suppose some of them desert people were to smuggle in plant leaves to infect “our” children with Reefer Madness, huh? Then what? So what if thousands have died in the desert. Beauregard Sessions knows by Revelation that millions have died from reefer madness, so there! The Creation Science is settled!

      1. Raving dumbfuck. If you knew a goddamn thing you would be well aware that no one would stoop to smoking Mexican brown bud ditchweed. You want reefer? Smoke American.

          1. Blue berry kush knows no borders.

    2. Property rights are sacrosanct! Unless you are harboring a swarthy job thief who will dilute our cultural purity.

  3. I would never vote to convict someone who took this guy out in the middle of the desert and left him there with no water, if I happened to sit on a jury.

  4. Too much government power produces real assholes.
    Why is that?

    1. It doesn’t create them. It attracts them. Like youth athletes and choir boys do pedophiles.

    2. The guy in the video went way beyond asshole straight into sadist. I’d bet serious money he poured gasoline on kittens and lit them up when he was ten and wet the bed until he was twelve. Serial killer profile.

  5. Were there any border patrol agents that #resisted?

  6. Strikes me as odd that they’d destroy these sites instead of simply training surveillance cameras on them. Clearly they’re both cruel and lazy.

    And I note to any hardcore anti-illegal immigrant folks out there that this is an equally vicious “FU” to any US citizens or legal tourists who might might find themselves lost in the desert.

    1. “And I note to any hardcore anti-illegal immigrant folks out there that this is an equally vicious “FU” to any US citizens or legal tourists who might might find themselves lost in the desert.”

      The next US citizen to die of thirst along the paths these people take will be the first so I don’t think there is much chance of that.

      1. But if a Mexican dies, so be it.

        1. Seems like that is a problem for Mexico, not for the US.

        2. You are getting into “won’t someone think of the children territory” with this sort of emotionally manipulative argument.

    2. That’s the part I don’t get. The makers of the sites say they don’t want to encourage illegal border crossing, so why don’t they just get together w Border Patrol to tell them where to stake out. Then nobody dies & nobody violates the border. Everybody gets what they want, & they’re all heroes.

      1. Well, obviously, because they are lying about not wanting to encourage illegal border crossings.

        1. That seems to be the case for No More Deaths. Also true for Border Patrol, whose true goal is apparently to provide employment to sadists. The only reason they pick on unauthorized immigrants is that they can get away w beating on them, but not on random folks.

    3. But if No More Deaths were serious about, well, no more deaths, they’d leave solar-powered cell phones instead of water. Water’s useful under some circumstances, but it’s not all that useful in case of serious heatstroke, or snakebite, or broken ankles. However, since No More Deaths’ agenda is really about Many More Immigrants…

      1. You’re exactly right. Giving water to thirsty people in the middle of the desert is part of a SINISTER AGENDA to DESTROY AMERICA! How dare those “good Samaritans” get away with such monstrous behavior?

        1. Whether they intend to destroy America or not, their actions have that effect. Either way they must be stopped.

          1. And the resulting dead migrants are… collateral damage?

            1. No, they’re people who tried to walk across the desert without being properly prepared.

              In any other desert, the leftists and leftist sympathizers would consider that to be unfortunate but ultimately the fault of the person who died. Not so in the desert where illegals cross whose votes Democrats need desperately.

              1. Yes it is the fault of the migrants for not being prepared. But you are the one who wants to stop the Samaritans from saving their lives, because (a) they’re leftists (probably) and (b) the migrants might vote for Democrats.

                You would literally rather see the migrants dead than vote for Democrats.

                1. You would literally rather see the migrants dead than vote for Democrats.

                  Considering Democrat policies, yeah.

                    1. You forgot “I can’t even,” “Ugh, no words,” and some other stupid milennialisms in your remark.

                  1. Errr…. really? Seriously?

                2. I would rather see them activate one of the Border Patrol’s rescue bacons and be sent back to their homes.

                  Even more I would rather that they not attempt to cross at all in view of the dangers of a desert trek.

                3. No chemjeff – I just want to see the “good samaritans” stopped from encouraging and aiding illegal activity. Last time I checked, crossing the border other than at an official checkpoint was illegal.

                  1. Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets in the commission of a crime. It exists in a number of different countries and generally allows a court to pronounce someone guilty for aiding and abetting in a crime even if they are not the principal offender.

                  2. Got it. So doctors who attempt to save the lives of heroin addicts are “aiding and abetting” a criminal act and should be restrained by the state. Do I have that right?

          2. Agree, Deflator. Moreover, whether or not you agree with our immigration laws, they are the law and leaving water supplies out in the desert for illegals crossing the border is aiding criminal activity.

        2. Nothing says “I have no rational response” quite like mouth frothing hyperbolic mischaracterization.

        3. Well, if they’re too stupid to learn how to apply for citizenship after living in the US for decades, they’re clearly going to be too stupid to try and cross into the country where there’s available water.

          1. Huh? We aren’t talking about Dreamers here, we are talking about…

            … oh wait I see what you did there! Yeah, those Hispanics sure are dumb, aren’t they? Dumb dummies! And that’s totally not a bigoted statement either!

            1. To be fair, they are smart enough to steal SSNs and IDs once they get here.

              1. To be fair, your father fucked his sister and then you dropped out several months later
                Faggot Republitard. I will pray to Baby Jeebus you die in a cross-burning fire.

                1. Slope-foreheaded shitlib, I will pray to Allah that the women in your family are raped by MS-13 gangbangers.

        4. One might wonder why Mexico isn’t providing water in the northern part of their country.

          I guess America ALONE is expected to help and protect illegals…

          Hell, I’m all for taking Mexico’s immigration policy, syllable by syllable, and applying it here.

      2. Old Smokin’ Bones, why don’t you take your white supremacist Contard act back to Brietard where it belongs.

  7. I just watched the video. I for one am glad to see women closing the gender gap @ 00:02.

    1. She had a pretty good follow through.

  8. “Someone in the judicial system should have the same wisdom to bring this attempt to prosecute Warren for trying to live up to a simple human duty to a quick halt, especially from an agency that acts in ways they know will lead to human deaths over the “crime” of entering this country without proper papers.”

    I really like this use quotation marks to signal ironic displeasure. Let me try!

    – Inserting your penis into a passed out man/woman will lead some to claim this is “rape” simply for not gaining consent.
    – Trying to breathe underwater will allegedly lead to what some call “death” simply for not breathing oxygen in a gaseous form.
    – Some claim if you do not repent the Flying Spaghetti Monster will send you to “hell” for being a bad person.

  9. “The arrest came mere hours after No More Deaths released videos that should have produced mass public disgrace and obloquy against the Border Patrol, showing them emptying out water bottles left in the desert to help save the lives of people who might be dying of thirst.

    I can see how the Border Patrol might consider that aiding and abetting

    “(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

    (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.”

    —-Wikipedia

    https://is.gd/UOsKPU

    1. Because it is aiding and abeting
      There is specific legal code for aiding and abeting illegal aliens
      This guy, and the authorities responsible for sanctuary cities, should all be prosecuted

      8 U.S. Code ? 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
      http://bit.ly/2n74Htk

      1. And it looks like they littered a shit ton of plastic jugs in an ecologically sensitive habitat.

      2. ByeByeBraindamage, do you ever tire of being a Contard parrot? Did they ban your from Breitard? Why even hang out at a libertarian site? You’re not fooling anybody.
        Also, I hope you die this year Seriously, drop dead.

        1. You’re trying way too hard.

        2. *smooch*

          Likely been here a lot longer than you have

          I was here back in the day when Reason was arguably libertarian
          Before the Progressitarian wave, and the mass TDS

  10. “This place that they raided is not in the middle of the desert, it’s not hidden anywhere. It’s in the city of Ajo, and it’s been used for a long time, not to help smuggle migrants, but to give medical care and food and water.”

    Again, we’re talking about something that the Border Patrol probably sees as aiding and abetting, right?

    If someone wants to advocate breaking the law or helping illegal immigrants sneak through the desert (sort of like lunch counter protesters during the civil rights era or even like the underground railroad) then make the argument for that. What Harriet Tubman did was breaking the law–even though I like what she did. Maybe this is like that.

    I think honest people can probably disagree about whether what they’re doing is facilitating illegal immigration–regardless of their intentions and regardless of whether what they’re doing is a good thing.

    1. If you want to argue that enforcement of immigration laws is more important than people’s lives, then make the argument for it.

      1. ^ False dichotomy.

        1. Re: Mark22,

          Learn logic for a change. Adam330’s admonition is relevant and correct.

          1. Actually, it isn’t.

            My argument was that this could be aiding and abetting even if it’s the right thing to do.

            That argument doesn’t even conflict with the suggestion that the lives of illegal immigrants are more important than the law.

            It’s entirely possible that someone could think 1) that aiding and abetting is the right thing to do even if it’s breaking the law and 2) that people’s lives are more important than abiding by the law.

            In fact, one could argue that 1) is correct specifically because 2) is correct.

            It’s a false choice.

            One can hold both positions simultaneously without conflict.

            That’s the stuff that false dichotomies are made of.

            P.S. Just because you disagree with a law doesn’t mean that breaking that law isn’t breaking the law.

            Just because I disagree with government policy doesn’t mean I have to pretend everything anybody says that seems to support the legality of that law is false. That latter bit is the stuff that intellectual dishonesty is made of. If you’re going around telling everybody that everything they think is false or irrational because it seems to conflict with your preferred conclusion at first glance, then you are doing a great disservice to the cause of free and legal immigration. And your intentions being good doesn’t justify squat.

          2. Learn logic for a change. Adam330’s admonition is relevant and correct.

            You think that because you need to “learn some logic for a change”.

            In fact, there are many other choices besides “let them die in the desert” and “enforce immigration law”.

            For example, locking up illegal migrants and their employers in prison for a few years would both discourage migration (hence reduce the number of deaths) and enforce immigration law.

            Or we could create government-provided stations throughout the desert where illegal migrants can get water and aid… in return for turning themselves in.

        2. No, it’s not.

      2. Border Patrol sets up hundreds of rescue beacons in the desert. If people don’t want to die they can just call for help.

        The whine that “if you arrest them when they call for help they won’t call for help” is idiotic, and never applied to any other type of crime. If a burglar gets stuck in your chimney and calls for help, he doesn’t get immunity from being arrested.

      3. Kate Steinle has a bone to pick with you.

      4. I’m perfectly fine arguing for it

        I think western civilization, and the freedom and prosperity it brings, is worth fighting for

        Killing for
        Dying for

        That’s what laws do. They threaten violence, and lethal violence, against those who break them.

        It’s rather pathetic that this needs to be explained to “libertarians”.

        We’re not required to leave supplies used to break our laws out in the desert, anymore than we’re required to put them out there in the first place.

        1. It’s pretty easy to say I’M WILLING TO KILL FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION when your hired goons from the state are the ones who do all the killing for you.

          So you see illegal immigrants as “enemies of Western Civilization”?

          And you see letting them die in the desert as consistent with the values and principles of Western Civilization?

          1. The largest enemy of Western Civilization is the lack of acceptance of the principles of Western Civilization in those who have not got it.

            If they did, their countries wouldn’t be shitholes, and they wouldn’t be so eager to come here.
            If they did, it wouldn’t be a big problem if they did come here.

            But as they do not have those principles, if they come here and bring their political culture with them, which they do, we soon will not have this civilization

            The ideas on which Western Civilization is based, and in particular on which the Anglosphere concept of Liberty are based, are far far far from universal. They’re far from universal *here*.

            We have no magic dirt to turn immigrants into Thomas Paine. When they immigrate, they bring their politics with them.

            Bring enough, add to them those Americans already hostile to freedom, and you have a permanent voting majority for UnAnglosphere values, relatively hostile to Liberty.

            1. Bring enough, add to them those Americans already hostile to freedom, and you have a permanent voting majority for UnAnglosphere values, relatively hostile to Liberty.

              Import enough socialists, like this country did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and you get the New Deal and, eventually, the Great Society.

              But people like chemjeff think “IT’S GONNA BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THIS TIME, GAIZ!!”

            2. But look at what you are advocating. Letting people die in the desert because they MIGHT vote for socialism or because their life-savers are promoting some agenda that you disagree with. How is this consistent with Western Civilization(tm)? You want to use the coercive power of the state to stop private individuals from saving people’s lives with their own time and money. You think Thomas Paine would have approved?

              1. No one is advocating letting anyone die.

                They are advocating having people in need use the rescue beacons–and they are many–provided.

                YOU are advocating that people not use those rescue beacons if they’re in need because the border patrol will send them back to Mexico if they do.

                It is not the LIFE that’s important to you–or the ‘No More Deaths’ people–it’s helping with an illegal border crossing. You, and they, actively DISCOURAGE using the beacons.

                Which leads to deaths.

                1. “No one is advocating letting anyone die.”

                  Yeah they are, read below. Especially Deflator Mouse who argues explicitly that “we’d be better off if they were dead”.

                  “YOU are advocating that people not use those rescue beacons if they’re in need because the border patrol will send them back to Mexico if they do.”

                  No I’m not, actually. Desperate people should use the beacons if they are in trouble. But, despite that, 300 people still die in the desert, and groups like NMD wish to lower that number.

                  “It is not the LIFE that’s important to you–or the ‘No More Deaths’ people–it’s helping with an illegal border crossing.”

                  I do not care why people are in the desert. I do not care if they are citizens or non-citizens. I do not care if they are there legally or illegally. I do not care if they are capitalists or socialists. It is the restrictionist crowd who are the ones hung up over the reasons and the ideology of the migrants.

                  1. Especially Deflator Mouse who argues explicitly that “we’d be better off if they were dead”.

                    You know, I started to respond to your endless repetition of this. You leave off the phrase “Let’s assume those are the only two options”–which is Deflator Mouse accepting your premise.

                    That premise being “they’re better off if they live” and “we’re better off if they die”

                    Deflator Mouse calls out the false dichotomy and specifically refers to illegal migrants being rescued by the BP–which give us the third premise–“they’re better off alive and we’re better off with them alive and back in their own country”–the one you reject because it secures the border, saves those in need and leaves NMD unable to aid or abet anyone.

                    And another thing I bring up below–“300 people die on the border Where on the border? What do they die from? Because while we have all kinds of specifics that reference the beacons in the area where NMD operates, we have zero specifics about those 300 deaths–which raises all kinds of questions.

              2. Letting people die in the desert

                Bullshit. There are government-provided rescue beacons all over the desert.

                1. Yes there are. No one is arguing that this is a bad thing. But the beacons aren’t everywhere, and not everyone is in range of one. NMD is saving people who are missed by the beacons.

                  My word. You are really arguing that private charity in this case should be illegal and the state should have the monopoly on providing relief to migrants in danger in the desert? In what other situation would this argument even deserve contemplation by any libertarian?

                  I get it. NMD are also activists promoting an agenda. The migrants are most likely illegal immigrants breaking the law. You oppose both of that. I get that. But there is nothing inconsistent with saying “I appreciate their humanitarian work while strongly objecting to their activism”.

              3. You think Thomas Paine would have approved?

                Do you? Thomas Paine’s been dead for centuries and never had to live in a barrio. What the fuck do you know what he would think?

                1. Does this comment signal that Red Rocks White Privilege parts company with other intolerant, backward, authoritarian right-wingers with respect to originalism?

                  1. Does this comment signal that Red Rocks White Privilege parts company with other intolerant, backward, authoritarian right-wingers with respect to originalism?

                    Thomas Paine didn’t write or take part in the Constitutional Convention, and the ones who did passed the Naturalization Act of 1790. You might want to look that up.

                    BTW, Arthur L. Dipshit, you have no idea what Paine would have thought about Central American peasants living in barrios near his neighborhood, either.

              4. We “let” people die all around the world every day.

                We take actions that increase risk to criminals all the time.

                We shouldn’t aim to kill them unnecessarily. And we’ve made provisions for rescue beacons in this case.

                More to the point, by having an immigration policy *at all*, we’re making the lives of those who want to come worse, and in general, reducing their lifespan.

                The deaths in the desert are just more “look, a sad face, you’re mean if you want to preserve your country”.

                Well, I want to preserve it, and I realize it costs the people kept out. I’m not pretending otherwise. They risk death *because* their countries are shitholes compared to the US. Shitholes are shit.

                I don’t want the US to become more like those shitholes.

                I wish everyone had a non-shithole place to live. Destroying the non-shitholes because sad face is not a path to that end, and not the obligation of those who have managed to create and sustain non-shitholes.

          2. And you see letting them die in the desert as consistent with the values and principles of Western Civilization?

            And you see letting the government extract my money at gunpoint in order to hand it to illegal migrants as consistent with the values and principles of Western Civilization? You see it as consistent with libertarianism? Because that’s what you are advocating.

            1. A libertarian would continue to welcome large volumes of immigrants to America.

              Right-wingers are intolerant, nativist, and xenophobic. Libertarians are not.

        2. ByeByeBrainDamage, You and your inbred hillbilly cousin-fuckers lost the civil war. Get over it. Your cracker ass isn’t the top of the heap in American anymore.

          1. Totally not racist

            And, by the way, my cracker ass ancestors fought for the Union. They freed the slaves of the South. Later, they helped defeat fascist totalitarianism. Then they defeated communist totalitarianism.

            What freedom there is in the world is mainly due to the cracker asses of the Anglosphere.

            You’re welcome.

        3. Is depraved indifference to human life the ticket to status in your social milieu?

          -jcr

      5. If you want to argue that enforcement of immigration laws is more important than people’s lives, then make the argument for it.

        Enforcement of our laws trumps the needs of non-citizens. We are under zero obligation to HELP people enter the country illegally.

        1. “”We are under zero obligation to HELP people enter the country illegally.”””

          What country feels obligated to help people enter their country illegally? I’m going with none.

          Some how it’s only us that is bad when it comes to keeping illegals out, or punishing those who enter illegally.

          How the Netherlands handle illegal immigration

          1. What country feels obligated to help people enter their country illegally? I’m going with none.

            Number of aid stations Mexico has set up on their Southern border? None.

            Only the US is expected to do so.

            And you’re aware that people bitch when the US does what the Netherlands does to its illegals, right?

            1. “”And you’re aware that people bitch when the US does what the Netherlands does to its illegals, right?”‘

              Of course, that’s the point. We have some of the most lenient immigration policy in the world. Yet people act like we are the worst.

      6. If you break the law in order to do what you think is right, be willing to own it and suffer the consequences.

        Perhaps other good people will visit you in prison as you bear the brunt of a job well done.

    2. Re: Ken Shulz,

      Again, we’re talking about something that the Border Patrol probably sees as aiding and abetting, right?

      Absolutely right, just like a certain Miep Gies was engaging in aiding and abetting, and you can bet the relevant thugs in that case were equally and justifiably annoyed, and you can also bet that a lot of people justified their thuggish actions with EQUAL DISDAIN for basic humanity.

      Clap. Clap. Clap. Bravo.

      1. “Immigration law makes the US Nazi Germany”

        Is Japan Nazi Germany too? Is every other country in the world that has immigration laws? Every other country in the world with *smaller* foreign born populations, by multiples when compared to the US?

        Do we live on Planet Nazi?

        Or is it only when the US ( or white majority countries) have immigration laws that they are Nazis?

        1. Hell, is MEXICO Nazi Germany?

          The bitching is about the country with the most lenient immigration policy on Earth. Nobody approaches us in that regard.

          1. It’s all Nazi Germany these days.

      2. I don’t know what you’re talking about, but did you see what I wrote about how the lunch counter protests during the civil rights movement and what Harriet Tubman did for the underground railroad were also against the law?

        MLK wrote to the effect that unjust laws should be broken. I’m suggesting the same possibility here!

        Why an anarchist like you can’t get past the suggestion that helping illegal aliens cross the desert might be the right thing to do–even if it’s illegal–suggests that this is a personal point of logical vulnerability that’s so sensitive to you, you can’t even tell between arguments that support your position and arguments against it.

        Did you imagine that I was condemning Harriet Tubman and the lunch counter protesters as law breakers?

        1. MLK also knew and stated that the consequences of breaking the laws must be borne by the offenders. With all his faults, he was first a Christian preacher. You can’t get laws changed without the publicity that comes from getting arrested for breaking the unjust laws. So what is going on here is exactly what should be going on. They broke the law. They got arrested. They got publicity. And the comment section is alive with irrelevant blather.
          Carry on.

  11. The worst scum on this planet make up the ranks of “law enforcement”.

    1. It’s a tie, with authoritarian, bigoted, stale-thinking, superstitious, half-educated right-wingers from our depleted backwaters.

  12. Um, aiding and abetting criminals is against the law, TreasonNN.

    I thought Libertarians believed in the rule of law.

    SMDH.

    1. Treason? Try a little less hysteria

      1. Paloma,

        I believe that you missed Crusty’s sarcasm.

        1. I wouldn’t have known it was sarcasm except for the name on it.

          He basically just stated a pretty strong argument of his opponents (other than the treason exaggeration)

          1. That’s why it’s satire, Deflator Fucktard.

    2. Is there a word for something that is perfectly sensible despite being obviously intended as sarcasm?

      1. Web Post. (2 words, but there you are)

  13. Shucks, that’s no different from taking the methanol warnings off denatured alcohol containers. The 2016 Prohibition Party platform makes it all clear: “recognizing Almighty God as the Authority from Whom all governments receive their power, and with faith in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, do hereby pledge to preserve the freedoms and rights of the several States, and of individuals who are citizens of the United States of America…” Them (excuse the expression) “desert people” are illegals, and NOT citizens of These United States. In fact, if they were not Jews or part of some satanic papist conspiracy The Good Lord would send manna and rain from Heaven to help them. Like the people who drank methanol during alcohol prohibition they deserve to go blind or die. It’s the altruistic Positive Christian way!

  14. Build the wall to keep people from dying of desiccation in the Sonoran desert.

    For the children!

    1. That’s an argument that is every bit as valid as other arguments being floated by the other side.

  15. Listen, I have some illegal alien has to die so that American citizen can keep his job, then that’s the price I’m willing to pay.

    1. Freedom has to die because borders are mean, m’kay?

      1. When your father fucked his mother, did the family look on approvingly, hoping that in 9 months Baby Jeebus would bless your Klan with a bundle of cross-eyed joy? And was that bundle you?

        1. It’s pretty telling that you’re so obsessed with incest.

        2. Well reasoned retort!

    2. Can anyone point me to a site where I could find some libertarian comments, rather than the bigoted, backward, belligerently ignorant rantings of a bunch of superstitious, stale-thinking, right-wing authoritarians?

      Thank you.

      1. Buehler?

  16. Illegal humans have to DIE for the Greater Glory of Government Almighty!!!

    (We must kill them to save them).

    Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

    Government loves me, This I know,
    For the Government tells me so,
    Little ones to GAWD belong,
    We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
    Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
    Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
    And gives me all that I might need!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    DEA, CIA, KGB,
    Our protectors, they will be,
    FBI, TSA, and FDA,
    With us, astride us, in every way!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

  17. Breaking: Secret Society Within FBI colluded in an assault against democracy to sabotage elected President Trump

    How low will the FBI go? What did Obama know, and when did he know it?

    All I’m saying is that treason is punishable by death, so I hope Obama didn’t really do that. But we probably need a special investigation or something to figure it out.

    1. “Breaking: Secret Society Within FBI colluded in an assault against democracy to sabotage elected President Trump
      How low will the FBI go? What did Obama know, and when did he know it?”
      Uh, did you have a link or something?

      “All I’m saying is that treason is punishable by death, so I hope Obama didn’t really do that. But we probably need a special investigation or something to figure it out.”
      “Treason” has to include a nation with which the US is at war; and “enemy state”. So like Tony’s claims about Trump, it’s not likely, no matter what sort of story you have.

    2. Must. Warn. Others!!!

    3. It’s time to move on, Brian.

      1. All I’m saying is that the FBI is completely corrupt, and who knows how far the corruption goes?

        1. …and who knows how far the corruption goes?

          The Shadow?

        2. “All I’m saying is that the FBI is completely corrupt, and who knows how far the corruption goes?”
          All I’m saying is that Brian is an idiot. Who knows how far his idiocy goes?

    4. “All I’m saying is that treason is punishable by death”

      And yet she lives – – – – – – –

  18. I don’t understand why No More Deaths & Border Patrol don’t cooperate. It doesn’t seem their stated goals conflict. No More Deaths can put out the bait, where Border Patrol catches the violators drinking the water, etc. Everybody’s happy, right?

    1. You’re using the shortened name of the organization. Its full name is No More Deaths & More Democrat Voters.

      1. Could you just go back to Brietard, Deflator Fuckwit. Or drop dead. Either or.

        1. Democrats have admitted that is why they support open borders. Don’t hate DM for simply believing the Dems are serious when they say that.

          1. “”Democrats have admitted that is why they support open borders.””

            Not sure if dems really do support open borders. I haven’t heard any advocate for the rights of American citizens cross into Mexico without going to Mexican jail. I’ve never seen them protest an American held in Mexico due to border crossings. Nor did they raise a stink when Obama was deporting.

            They hate who’s in the Whitehouse now, so they are complaining. I would take them more seriously if they always complained about these things regardless of who is in control of DC.

  19. And that’s how Teump is Making America Grating Again: by stomping dissenters who dare embarrass the thuggish tax consumers.

    Nation Of Lawz, bitches!

    1. “…Teump…”
      Friends, I want to ask your assistance here.
      TDS is now a major cause of retardation. You can donate a couple of logical sentences to reduce the plague which now confronts us, or you can turn the page.
      It is YOUR choice!

  20. By planting supply caches for illegals, it’s encouraging them to enter the country and putting their lives at risk in the first place.

    If these people are so concerned, why not help them enter the country legally? Or use the money on supplies to help people in their home countries?

    1. No Democrat votes that way

    2. why not help them enter the country legally?

      Good luck with that! Wait 20 years for permission to LEGALLY enter the USA? And run a lottery that gives you very little chance of coming in legally, unless you are a model for Trump’s harem?

      Or use the money on supplies to help people in their home countries?

      And have it stolen by the drug gangsters or the government of Mexico or other nation?

    3. Why don’t they just try to improve Mexico?

      1. Because Mexican and other Central American leaders know that the US is a safety valve for getting rid of people who would probably revolt if they stayed in the country. Guys like Vicente Fox are also pretty open about the fact that they consider it to be a version of the Mexican Reconquista of the southwest.

        Keeping them from migrating would put these banana republic dictators in actual jeopardy, and they know it.

  21. The video collage does not show the agents of the Border Patrol picking up the plastic bags and containers left behind by the “immigrant-aid group No More Deaths” – the videos only show the agents rendering the containers (and the contents) unusable.

    If the agents had as their goal to remove the items to prevent them being used by illegal immigrants, would it not make sense to, well, remove the items… rather than expend the effort to empty the containers? Why empty the contents rather than pack them up and take them back where they can be properly disposed of?

    One agent claims that he is “picking up the trash left on the trail”. It seems from the available videos that his fellow agents are leaving the trash behind.

    Thoughts?

    1. That’s an awful lot of stuff to carry around. It’s not like they’re patrolling a little parking lot.

    2. And in fact, a more careful look at the video shows that only the first group of agents is clearly not interested in picking up the bottles. The guy you are referring to is in a different section of the video and it appears he is putting the empties in a plastic bag to carry away. The other sections are so heavily edited that it’s impossible to tell whether the agents removed the plastic bottle litter rather than just emptying it.

      1. The guy you are referring to is in a different section of the video and it appears he is putting the empties in a plastic bag to carry away.

        This is exactly what I implied by writing “One agent claims that he is ‘picking up the trash left on the trail’. It seems from the available videos that his fellow agents are leaving the trash behind.”

        1. I was responding to

          The video collage does not show the agents of the Border Patrol picking up the plastic bags and containers left behind by the “immigrant-aid group No More Deaths” – the videos only show the agents rendering the containers (and the contents) unusable.

          which is not correct. The guy talking to the camera is definitely intending to remove the litter, and while the other segments (other than the first) do not show the BP agents removing the litter, they also give no indication that they did not remove the found litter.

    3. Writing as someone who frequently picks up recycling (cans, plastic bottles, etc.), I would assert that individual/s can carry more “trash” when it has been *emptied* (especially if squashed) than if picked up as is (and weighs less!).

  22. Simple human duty?

    “One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy is the term “duty.”
    An anti-concept is an artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The term “duty” obliterates more than single concepts; it is a metaphysical and psychological killer: it negates all the essentials of a rational view of life and makes them inapplicable to man’s actions.” – Ayn Rand

  23. Notice that Doherty leaves out the fact that BP sets up call boxes where illegals can call agents for help if they find themselves in dire straits.

    The purpose of the water bottles rather than the call boxes is to allow the illegals to continue their journey rather than be picked up by BP. Same as if I left a car unlocked and running with the keys in the ignition right outside a bank that was being robbed.

  24. At least the new guy at Reason attempted to get both sides of the story. More than we can expect from Brian Doherty at least!

    Passement says that far from being opposed to the mission of No More Deaths and similar groups operating along the border, CBP is working toward the same aims.

    “Nobody here in the Border Patrol wants to see anybody die out there or suffer in the desert. We have that goal of also saving lives,” he says, adding that CBP has installed 34 rescue beacons in the same area No More Deaths operates, allowing lost or distressed migrants to call for help.

    In 2016, these beacons were activated 232 times, leading to some 364 people being picked up by Border Patrol agents. Those who use these beacons to call for help are subject to detention and possible deportation.

    The No More Deaths report argues that mixing medical assistance with immigration enforcement is contradictory: Any offer of aid that comes with the threat of deportation creates a huge incentive for undocumented migrants not to seek help at all. The group also calls it “a band-aid solution to a crisis of [the Border Patrol’s] own making.” The very fact that people are crossing in the deeply inhospitable Arivaca area is the result, the group says, of an explicit policy of “prevention through deterrence.”

    1. The NMD reasoning is of course baloney. When the choice is between death and going to jail, criminals of all kinds give themselves up to the authorities all the time. How much more would a person faced with the choice of dying of thirst or being sent back where they came from also choose to activate the beacon. But NMD’s true agenda is not to prevent deaths, but to assist in illegal immigration.

      1. So what is your solution?

        Should the state prevent NMD from handing out water to thirsty people in the desert?

        1. They’re not handing out water to thirsty people in the desert.

        2. Assuming you meant “should the state prevent NMD from leaving water bottles in the desert”, and were not dishonestly attempting to change the nature of the topic under discussion, the answer is yes.

          1. On what pretense? Littering?

            http://articles.latimes.com/20…..r-20100903

            1. it’s not a pretense, it’s the law.

              Of course BP was not arresting NMD for leaving water bottles in the desert either. They were content with removing the litter.

              1. Deflator Faggot — drop dead, asshole

            2. They are removing the water bottles, not arresting anybody. They don’t need a “pretense” for that: it’s public land and government employees are within their right to remove anything left behind. In fact, other hikers are also perfectly within their right to remove stuff that was left behind.

        3. Yes. Aiding and abetting criminals should be harshly punished.

    2. I guess it’s it’s my fault when a trespasser dies trying to crawl in through a sewer pipe to get to my house, because I “forced” him to go through the sewer by putting up a fence around my property on the ground level.

      1. Deflatior Asshat — is it your fault your father fucked your mother?

      2. You are fortifying an imaginary and arbitrary line.

    3. At least the new guy at Reason attempted to get both sides of the story.

      “Steven Passement, acting special operations supervisor for the Tuscon Sector of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), says that while individual agents have destroyed supplies, doing so is in contradiction to agency policy.

      ‘We don’t condone or encourage the destruction or tampering with any of the water or local food caches,’ Passement tells Reason, adding that ‘if someone has information regarding an agent, one of our employees, doing something like that, doing any damage, we definitely want to know about this to hold this individual accountable.’

      Passement says that far from being opposed to the mission of No More Deaths and similar groups operating along the border, CBP is working toward the same aims.”

      I am glad that you provided this link. It partly backs your opinion and partly backs opinioins in opposition to yours (and several in between, perhaps). As I think you might agree with me, there are many considerations in this debate.

      Have a safe night,

      Charles

    4. “At least the new guy at Reason attempted to get both sides of the story. ”

      The Nazi!

      Didn’t he get the Open Borders Uber Alles conditioning?

  25. So if I have a barbed-wire fence on my property, and somebody leaves wire cutters and ladders outside of it so trespassers can get over it without hurting themselves, would it be “monstrous” of me to remove these items that encourage trespassing?

    1. Simply having a fence makes you a monster.

      Someone could break their neck trying to climb over.

      Nazi.

      1. Hell, anybody who has a door on their house is, literally, Hitler.

    2. Better to just booby-trap them – – – – –

  26. If they didn’t bring enough provisions for their trek, fuckin ’em; shoulda planned better!
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    /sarc

  27. The water bottles are a harm reduction technique. Like needle exchanges for drug users, or free taxi rides from the bars for drunks, or free condoms at schools. The idea is, people are going to engage in risky behavior anyway, so might as well try to make it just a little bit less risky. Similarly with the water bottles. People are going to cross the border illegally anyway, so might as well reduce the risk of death just a little. And if your opinion really is that “it would be better if those illegal immigrants died in the desert rather than make it across and become a burden on the welfare system” then I think you need your head examined, frankly.

    And yes, the guys running this organization do have an agenda. If you read up on John Fife, one of the principal organizers, he comes across like a left-wing loon. But there is no inconsistency in objecting to the agenda while appreciating that this group is saving lives. And there is certainly no inconsistency in objecting to the agenda but also objecting to the Border Patrol’s own outrageous behavior.

    1. Poor examples.

      Needle exchanges would not be necessary except for laws against non-medical possession of hypo needles. AFAIK there is no federal or state law against possession of water bottles.

      There is no law against getting drunk. So taxi rides PREVENT illegal activity.

      Likewise, there is no law against teens of similar age having sex with each other, so the condom example is irrelevant as well.

      1. And of course it’s quite possible that the so-called “harm reduction programs” you mentioned actually do result in encouraging more risk-taking behaviors. While needle sharing/reuse would not prevent hardened addicts from using heroin, it would serve as a deterrent to those who are considering getting started.

        1. Studies from harm reduction programs regarding heroin use in Switzerland have not demonstrated this.

          http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68804-1

          1. Which is irrelevant to the current discussion.

      2. It is HARM reduction, not crime reduction. Even if heroin were completely legal, using dirty needles would still be risky. Bringing up the legality or illegality of the activity is besides the point, *when it comes to harm reduction*. That is the whole point here.

        1. If heroin were completely legal, then that would just make that analogy off the mark for the same reason the taxi and condom analogies were. It would just be another example of taking the risk that you are encouraging legal (but socially disfavored) activity in order to reduce the risk of harm.

          Taking the risk of encouraging ILLEGAL activity to reduce harm is a whole other ballgame. And as I stated below and you never address, Border Patrol has set up rescue beacons where people can call for help.

          1. Yes they set up rescue beacons. Despite all the beacons, 291 people died along the border last year. So here comes NMD who wants to reduce that number further. And your response is… no?

            1. NMD wants more illegals to come here. Period. This faux outrage is just about waving the bloody shirt.

            2. 291 people died along the border last year

              First, note that it says ‘people’. Not ‘migrants’ That’s a big red flag.

              Second, it says ‘border’–not ‘where NMD operates’ or even ‘Arizona’, It says border. The whole thing. That’s another giant red flag.

              Where all these deaths from people trying to enter the US illegally?

              How many died of exposure? How many died of thirst? How many died in the area where NMD operates?

              We don’t know– but we have a clue–

              CBP has installed 34 rescue beacons in the same area No More Deaths operates, allowing lost or distressed migrants to call for help.

              In 2016, these beacons were activated 232 times, leading to some 364 people being picked up by Border Patrol agents.

              34 beacons, 232 activations, and 364 people saved where NMD operates. REAL specific. Almost as if getting specific isn’t that much of an issue–so why this unspecific statement–” 291 people died along the border last year

              . No mention of deaths–at least in that stretch. Were they all from some other point on the border?

          2. And one more time. Harm reduction is not about legal vs illegal behavior. It is about reducing harm, period.

            1. But that’s the thing — it’s very debatable whether those programs are truly reducing harm in the big picture. They reduce one kind of harm (drunk driving, STD/pregnancy, needle disease transmission) at the potential cost of increasing the incidence of the behavior and other harms that result from it.

              1. Handing out condoms is good because sex is also good and STDs are not. Also no amount of counseling is going to stop people from having sex.

                1. Also no amount of counseling is going to stop people from having sex.

                  We’ve solved that problem by turning every awkward inter-gender encounter into rape.

    2. And if your opinion really is that “it would be better if those illegal immigrants died in the desert rather than make it across and become a burden on the welfare system” then I think you need your head examined, frankly.

      Let’s assume those are the only two options. It’s not better for them if they die, but it certainly is better for us if they die, and your shaming/emotional appeal shows you intuitively know this.

      But you are really presenting a false dichotomy; the Border Patrol set up hundreds of rescue beacons in the desert. So there is a third option: they can be rescued and then sent back home where they came from. But that doesn’t help Democrats get elected, so it’s outside the Overton window for leftists and people like yourself who claim not to be leftists despite just happening to always side with them.

      1. So your position is: Illegal immigrants aren’t really people, we’d be better off if they were dead, and the Border Patrol should use the coercive power of the state to prevent individuals from saving their lives. Does that about sum it up?

        And no, I absolutely do not agree that anyone would be better off if they were dead.

        1. So your position is: Illegal immigrants aren’t really people, we’d be better off if they were dead, and the Border Patrol should use the coercive power of the state to prevent individuals from saving their lives. Does that about sum it up?

          Can you include a link to the version of Reason you’re reading? Nothing written matches your summary.

          BP can both save your life AND send you back to your home country.

          It seems your beef is being sent back to the home country.

      2. So your position is: Illegal immigrants aren’t really people, we’d be better off if they were dead, and the Border Patrol should use the coercive power of the state to prevent individuals from saving their lives. Does that about sum it up?

        And no, I absolutely do not agree that anyone would be better off if they were dead.

        1. No, that’s not my position. If you want to see what my position is, reread my post with your goggles set to a setting other than “leftist seeking reason to be outraged.” Though I suspect you’re not wearing goggles and are in fact a leftist seeking a reason to be outraged.

          1. Gee I don’t know, it’s kinda hard to interpret a statement like “we’d be better off if they died” as something other than denying the fundamental humanity of these people. So you think they are people, but not people with lives worth saving? Oh wait, I know.. they are people whose lives are worth saving, but not by those dirty filthy leftist hippies No More Deaths, and if the state prevents them from saving lives then all the better, despite the dead bodies, because it’s more important to wage ideological war against the left than to save actual lives? Is that it?

            And you know, I’m not a leftist, I have never been a leftist. The fact that you see my outrage (yes it is outrage) as “leftist” is part of your problem. I was the one who actually described the group’s founder as “left-wing loon”. I’m arguing for recognizing the basic humanity of these individuals. That shouldn’t be a left-right thing. But evidently it is, to statist assholes like yourself.

            So I believe that every human life has intrinsic worth, even illegal immigrants, and if an individual wants to save the life of someone in danger, I am not going to inquire into the ideological credentials of that individual. If that makes me a “leftist” in your book then so be it. But for goodness sake pull your head out of your ass and stop trying to argue the indefensible position of “who cares really if they die in the desert”.

            1. Gee I don’t know, it’s kinda hard to interpret a statement like “we’d be better off if they died” as something other than denying the fundamental humanity of these people.

              I don’t deny their fundamental humanity at all. You can be very much human, and the rest of us will still be better off if you’re dead.

              So you think they are people, but not people with lives worth saving?

              Yep.

              Oh wait, I know.. they are people whose lives are worth saving, but not by those dirty filthy leftist hippies No More Deaths

              We’d be better off if they were dead, too.

              because it’s more important to wage ideological war against the left than to save actual lives? Is that it?

              When it comes to politics, dead bodies are the coin of the realm. If that makes you squeamish, you need to find another hobby.

              And you know, I’m not a leftist, I have never been a leftist.

              That’s good. Or I’d say we’d be better off if you were dead, too.

              I’m arguing for recognizing the basic humanity of these individuals.

              I’ll be happy to recognize their basic humanity – through my crosshairs.

              So I believe that every human life has intrinsic worth

              And you derive that assumption from – what?

              and if an individual wants to save the life of someone in danger, I am not going to inquire into the ideological credentials of that individual.

              Neither will I. There will be plenty of opportunity for that at the funeral.

              1. At this point, the comments and responses are getting so outrageous – especially on a libertarian site – that I don’t know if you’re just shitposting and trying to trigger me, or are being serious. So I guess that means it’s probably time for me to go to bed.

                “And you derive that assumption from – what?”

                Let me guess, you don’t believe in natural rights either?

                Am I the only libertarian-minded person around here who actually believes in natural rights?

                1. Let me guess, you don’t believe in natural rights either?

                  What the fuck are “natural rights” supposed to be? The rights you possess in a state of nature?

                  Let me point out the crashingly obvious. In a state of nature, the only “natural right” you possess is the right to end up as dinner for some grizzly bear. Nature does not recognize you as having any rights she is bound to respect. Ever. Unless you can produce the stone tablet from on high which grant these “natural rights”, I submit they are a hallucination. Seek help!

                2. Am I the only libertarian-minded person around here who actually believes in natural rights?

                  Many libertarians are consequentialists and/or rule utilitarians who consider “natural rights” to be the political philosophy equivalent of angels dancing on pinheads. But assume FTSOA that there are natural rights.

                  The illegals have no natural right to trespass on US property, and certainly no natural right to have water provided for them on said property.

                  The only person here questioning natural rights, indeed, is you, who claim that people have to suffer litter on their property if it’s meant to help illegals trespass.

                  1. Utilitarianism is incompatible with libertarianism. Utilitarianism holds that acts are justified if the benefits outweigh the costs in some meta-ledger-balancing ethical exercise. So, that, the reason why pot should be legal is because pot isn’t so harmful. No, that is not the reason why pot should be legal (even though the claim is true). Pot should be legal because IT’S MY FUCKING BODY and I have a right to do with it whatever I please, including poison it with even more terrible drugs than pot if I so choose. I do not need to justify in some cost-benefit accounting why I ought to be justified in smoking pot. I simply am, by virtue of self-ownership, and the burden should be on the state on why it believes it has the authority to prevent me from exercising my liberty.

              2. Dick, when you burn crosses on weekends, does your face take on a warm red glor under that pointy white hood? Also — I hope you get cancer and die .

            2. Gee I don’t know, it’s kinda hard to interpret a statement like “we’d be better off if they died” as something other than denying the fundamental humanity of these people.

              Only hard if you’re a leftist seeking an excuse to spew outrage. Someone interested in a rational discourse would have no problem understanding the meaning.

            3. And you know, I’m not a leftist, I have never been a leftist.

              Of course not! You just randomly happen to take the leftist position all the time! Complete coincidence! The similarity of argument style to that of a leftist (shaming language, appeals to emotion, reinterpreting what I write to mean something else so you can spew outrage) is just coincidence too!

              But for goodness sake pull your head out of your ass and stop trying to argue the indefensible position of “who cares really if they die in the desert”.

              Again, if this were a WASP who died trying to cross the Nevada desert because he didn’t bring water, you and the leftists would opine that it was his own fault. Change the desert and the ethnicity and suddenly it becomes a crime against humanity to have allowed it to happen.

              1. So, let’s review. If someone gets outraged over a moral injustice, then that makes them a “leftist”? So if a group of people gets outraged over, say, 4 Marines dying in Benghazi due to a preventable terrorist attack under dodgy circumstances, that makes them all leftists?

                I have not taken the “leftist” position once in this entire discussion. My position has been consistently humanitarian, not “leftist”. You know this, you are just using it as a smear.

                “Again, if this were a WASP who died trying to cross the Nevada desert because he didn’t bring water, you and the leftists would opine that it was his own fault. Change the desert and the ethnicity and suddenly it becomes a crime against humanity to have allowed it to happen.”

                Nobody here is arguing that it isn’t the migrant’s fault for trying to cross a desert unprepared. I agree with that. You are the one twisting the argument into something that it isn’t. The moral injustice is when some Samaritan tries to save the dying person’s life – either in the Nevada desert or in the Arizona desert or wherever – and statist assholes like you want to use the state to prevent the life-saving efforts because you disagree with the ideology of the Samaritans, or because you disagree with the motives of the traveler.

    3. harm reduction techniques = moral hazard

    4. The idea is, people are going to engage in risky behavior anyway, so might as well try to make it just a little bit less risky.

      That’s the idea, but there is no evidence in this case that it has any benefits; that is, that it (1) actually saves more lives than would be saved by existing beacons, and (2) doesn’t encourage even more illegal migration.

      Furthermore, illegal migration is not a victimless crime, so it also means aiding in the victimization of others.

  28. So, a fairly common libertarian opinion, is that it shouldn’t be illegal for someone to self harm, but I shouldn’t be liable for their actions. How is it, that when illegal immigrants trespass on other’s property and put themselves in harm’s way, voluntarily, suddenly their voluntary risk trumps all debate or other issues? Open borders is practically identical to communal property in practice, and that’s hardly libertarian.

    As for the guy getting arrested for putting up some random people in need, unless they can prove that he was intentionally helping them evade the law, he can hardly be expected to be checking ID.

    1. “Open borders is practically identical to communal property in practice, and that’s hardly libertarian.”

      Looks like we have a winner in the “Conclusion Jump” competition this evening.
      Nope. You may dislike “open borders” for a lot of reasons, like letting terrorists and criminals in, but that’s problematic in that we (the US) have been really bad at identifying those folks.
      For all the noise about costing welfare, every ‘study’ I’ve seen which seems reliable says the self-selected border-jumpers tend to be pretty ambitious people and tend to increase the wealth of the US when they get here.
      What IS libertarian is the freedom to sell your skills without government constraints.
      I’ve beaten the Trump drum, ’cause the guy has done a lot which is positive from a l’t’n POV. But (assuming this is his effort), this isn’t one of them, along with that stupid solar panel tariff; dunno how many votes he hoped that would buy, but it’s bone-head move.

      1. For all the noise about costing welfare, every ‘study’ I’ve seen which seems reliable says the self-selected border-jumpers tend to be pretty ambitious people and tend to increase the wealth of the US when they get here.

        If you’re talking about the “studies” Reason attempts to use to support open borders, those are studies of LEGAL immigrants.

          1. So you don’t actually have an argument. This is my shocked face.

            1. That shocked face is you seeing video of your father fucking your mother over Thanksgiving turkey.

          2. If you’re talking about the “studies” Reason attempts to use to support open borders, those are studies of LEGAL immigrants

            Bullshit

            Look it up. In fact, on nearly every article that Reason puts out with those glowing studies in them, one of the first comments points out the fact that Reason is conflating legal and illegal immigrants AGAIN.

      2. For all the noise about costing welfare, every ‘study’ I’ve seen which seems reliable says the self-selected border-jumpers tend to be pretty ambitious people and tend to increase the wealth of the US when they get here.

        If you mean that they increase the absolute GDP, of course they do, but that’s the wrong measure. At a minimum, the two measures you need to look at are: (1) do they increase the per capita GDP, and (2) do they pay more in taxes than they consume in government services. The answer to both question is that, on average, they don’t.

        have been really bad at identifying those folks

        Fortunately, it’s not hard to identify people who increase the per capita GDP or pay more money in taxes than they consume in government services: people making about $100k or more per year.

      3. Explain how these illegal aliens are able to magically teleport themselves to job locations without trespassing?

    2. “Open borders” means different things to different people.

      One of the best reasons to have an open borders treaty with Mexico would be that the only people sneaking through the desert at night would be people who couldn’t cross the border legally.

      The treaty simply would need to specify that we’ll let any Mexican citizen go by simply by showing an ID and having it run against a database of wanted criminals, convicted felons, etc.

      Such an open borders treaty would benefit the U.S. greatly in a number of ways–many of them associated with all those immigrants using legal checkpoints to cross the border rather than trespassing across private property.

      In fact, using your standard, it’s a closed border that’s more like communal property in practice–hardly libertarian.

      1. I think you must mean something different by “open borders” than most people mean by it.

    3. You are responsible because (sad face)
      You don’t want to be a meany, do you?

  29. New Dem playbook: any criticism of Dems to be cast as Russian interference and demanded to be shut down.

    Top-ranking Democrats in the House and the Senate are calling on Twitter and Facebook to launch investigations of potential Russian-linked accounts pushing for the release of a controversial congressional memo.

    The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), and the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), sent a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey asking that they “provide a public report to Congress and the American public by January 26” on the matter.

    Notice “The Hill” uses a headline with false information in it.

    The letter also requests that any accounts found to have been promoting the hashtag be suspended or deactivated.

    So let’s recap:

    Trump making an offhand comment at a rally that he thinks players who kneel during the anthem should be benched: horrible authoritarian first amendment violation

    Dems sending a threatening letter on congressional letterhead demanding that accounts be deactivated and hashtags be suppressed: peachy keen

    1. Trump is icky. Democrats are usually good on civil rights so this can be treated as an outlier. That is the narrative and they are sticking to it

    1. “The fact is, the people who rule over us no longer know much about us. The Marines are not as bad as the other branches, but they too are staggering around in the thick fog of the estrogen laced miasma known as multiculturalism. That means they are slowly detaching from reality, confusing the much dreamed for future with present reality. They think G.I. Jane is real.”

      ^^This

  30. I can see both sides. The border patrol isn’t happy they have to patrol that shithole of a border, despite the natural beauty and all that, it is a suitable to have to patrol day in and dayout, if it were a garden spot attractive for anything but it’s desolation there would be a lot more people living there. They see the activists enabling both the illegal aliens and the coyotes that are profiting on people risking their lives to supply cheap labor for capitalist exploitation.

    The activists on the other hand don’t want people to suffer and die, although it’s ironic the easier they make it for people to make the crossing the more people will try and die.

    1. I’m sure they’re all supporting The Wall so that no one tries to cross the desert and risk their lives.

  31. Finally! There is a great way how you can work online from your home using your computer and earn in the same time… Only basic internet knowledge needed and fast internet connection… Earn as much as $3000 a week..

    ……………………. http://www.homework5.com

  32. “Crime”

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

    Crime. End of Story. Don’t like the law get congress to change it.

    1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

      (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
      (v)
      (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
      (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts

  33. Am I the only one who noticed that the videos all dated to before Trump became President? That, in fact, they’re all from the Obama administration?

    Surely if this were current practice, they’d have been able to document an incident after January 20 of last year.

  34. When did Reason comment threads become infected with hillbilly Contards?
    Is Breitard not taking new submissions?
    Is The Federalist too sedate?
    Why not go hang out with the other Fauxbertarians at the glib site?

    1. When did Reason comment threads become infected with neo-Marxists and progressives like you?

      Oh, I guess you’re done killing off other discussion platforms and news media, so now you have trained your crosshairs on libertarian sites.

      1. I sense the genuine libertarians fled this site after a bunch of right-wing bigots began pitching their authoritarian, prudish, ignorant, disaffected, superstitious conservative tents here.

  35. Those people should stop littering in the desert.

  36. Nothing says libertarianism more than bringing in more people to put on welfare.

    All so rich folks can have low-cost domestic help.

    The Libertarian Party: It Ain’t Slavery When WE Do It.

    1. We need immigrants to inject some desirable attributes — intellect, ambition, education, entrepreneurship, optimism, motivation — in the can’t-keep-up communities ravaged by generations of bright flight.

      (That’s when all of the smart, ambitious young people depart at high school graduation to pursue education and opportunity on campuses and in our modern, successful communities, never to return to the sticks.)

      This loss of character and brains improves our successful communities but creates a depleted human residue of backwardness, ignorance, bigotry, superstition, disaffection, dysfunction, and failure in the backwaters.

      1. We need immigrants to inject some desirable attributes — intellect, ambition, education, entrepreneurship, optimism, motivation — in the can’t-keep-up communities ravaged by generations of bright flight.

        Unfortunately, immigrant communities tend to reflect the same shithole countries they fled from, and the bugman urban areas you worship are rather vulnerable to sudden changes in the infrastructural status quo.

        1. Do you contend there is no hope for the depleted human residue that inhabits our can’t-keep-up rural and southern backwaters?

          Should we just leave them to their economic inadequacy, bigotry, backwardness, disaffectedness, superstition, substandard character, lousy education, stale thinking, and general dysfunction?

          Should we build a wall around them?

          1. Do you contend there is no hope for the depleted human residue that inhabits our can’t-keep-up rural and southern backwaters?

            It’s not nice to talk about black people that way.

  37. ” Warren and the group “don’t smuggle [immigrants], we don’t do anything to help them enter the United States, we do nothing illegal…”

    Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets in the commission of a crime. It exists in a number of different countries and generally allows a court to pronounce someone guilty for aiding and abetting in a crime even if they are not the principal offender.

  38. All these posts and not a single question as to who’s property this illegal immigrant rest-site is on. If its public property than leaving water bottles and junk behind is littering too.

    This is aiding and abetting someone violating the law. Although this is not treason, treason does involve giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    1. No wonder libertarians despise and mock right-wing bigots.

  39. So, what I have learned today.

    If a drug addict overdoses on heroin – due to the fault of the addict alone – and the addict is rushed to the hospital in order to save his life, before the doctor tries to save his life, there’s a whole bunch of “libertarians” who would argue:

    1. That an agent of the state should stop the doctor and say “no, stop that, if you try to save his life, you are abetting the illegal behavior of this heroin addict”.

    2. That an agent of the state should stop the doctor and say “no, stop that, if you save his life, the addict will just end up voting for socialists, and we can’t have that, so it’s better to let him die”.

    3. That an agent of the state should stop the doctor and say “no, I distrust your agenda for wanting to save his life, you have bad motives and therefore let the addict die”.

    These arguments are revolting and repellant. Only in the context of illegal immigration would they ever have any currency, unfortunately. Gee, I wonder why.

    1. Nice strawman you have constructed there.

      1. Have you read the arguments above? Not strawmen at all. People in this discussion literally are fine with good Samaritans being prevented by the state from saving the lives of illegal immigrants dying in the desert because saving their lives would mean more voters in America voting for socialism. Regardless of what you think about socialism (I am very much opposed), it is repellant to hold someone’s life in the balance because of their PERCEIVED political views judged only based on their nationality.

        1. If the hospital was leaving heroin lying around, they’d be penalized harshly, even if they saved the person who OD’d on what they left out.

          1. So water left out for the illegal humans is like heroin? I did NOT know that!

            1. The water left our causes more deaths as it leads to more illegals trying to make the trek. Just like how deaths on Mt. Everest have increased over the last few decades as more and more people try to make the climb.

            2. The water left our causes more deaths as it leads to more illegals trying to make the trek. Just like how deaths on Mt. Everest have increased over the last few decades as more and more people try to make the climb.

              1. If I lay out supplies (sell or donate) for people making the trek up Mt. Everest, no Government Almighty thugs thwart my efforts. I guess in Nepal, Government Almighty is more benevolent, and has more common sense, than Government Almighty in the USA…

                1. If I lay out supplies (sell or donate) for people making the trek up Mt. Everest, no Government Almighty thugs thwart my efforts.

                  If you die, they also leave your corpse there.

                  Forever.

                  Corpses are now used as guides for paths.

              2. Got it. Giving water to thirsty people is like giving heroin to addicts.

                I mean, if we start giving water to thirsty people, it will only encourage them to become dependent and hooked on water! We can’t have that!

                1. The Border Patrol does that.

                  Again, your complaint seems to be that they won’t let them STAY here.

                  You seem unconcerned if they die.

        2. It is a strawman because it really is not analogous to what No More Deaths is doing. This is more like a Walter White congratulating himself for making a purer meth which ends up encouraging more users.

          1. Shorter chemjeff: that guy in the van at the school giving kids candy? How DARE you not let him prevent those kids from starving or give them rides home!

        3. I know I know, its repellent to not let hordes of people into the USA because they want to come in.

          We Americans are just so evil!

          /S

        4. Amen chemjeff!

          Sad to say, arguments and facts (and good analogies) will affect the haters of illegal humans, the same way that they affected haters of witches in the Dark Ages… Which is to say, not at all! It’s like arguing with the walls… Hello, walls…

          1. Spoken like someone who doesn’t live in a barrio.

        5. you forgot “if you save his life, you’ll just encourage more people to try heroine.”

          but yeah. the “libertarians” on this site are disgusting. thanks for fighting the good fight chemjeff. it seems pointless, but im glad someone’s doing it.

    2. Its a strawman with all the refinements of a turd dressed up.

    3. Not before.

      AFTER.

      The border patrol saves the lives of the illegal immigrants FIRST.

      Because life, all life, is important.

      With heroin addicts agents of the state administer medical aid or see to it that medical aid is administered FIRST.

      Because life, all life, is important.

      After the lives are saved, THEN we can talk about broken laws and whatnot.

      Sorry reality tore your strawman apart.

      1. “The border patrol saves the lives of the illegal immigrants FIRST.”

        They do that by destroying water supplies that have been laid out for them? Hello?

    4. 2. That an agent of the state should stop the doctor and say “no, stop that, if you save his life, the addict will just end up voting for socialists, and we can’t have that, so it’s better to let him die”.

      Agreed, chemjeff…

      Also it occurs to me that what we have going on here, is a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy… Non-socialists (libertarians) too often (as we have seen in these pages here), sad to say, evidently hate immigrants (or at least their friends and family who are illegal humans). Not-usually-as -socialist-as-the-Demoblicans (Republicrats & Trumpistas) evidently hate illegal humans with a passion. Who else are they (legal Hispanic citizens / voters who have friends and family who are illegal humans) going to vote, for, then, other than the more-socialist Demoblicans? Demoblicans are the “last man standing” here that apparently might, from time to time, think that illegal humans are worthy of living…

      1. http://www.theonion.com/ice-ag…..1822307567

        ICE Agents Hurl Pregnant Immigrant Over Mexican Border To Prevent Birth On U.S. Soil

        With photo! PROOF!!!

  40. Arguably leaving these xaches in the desert is creating an attractive nuisance encouraging people who are making an illegal crossing to try the most dangerous path. It is not axiomatic that No More Deaths methods and rationale for doing what they are doing is correct. Thos is not as black and white an issue as the Reason writers covering it want it to be.

  41. How many of the best people from your high school (let alone university, or graduate school) class became border patrol agents?

    Drug warriors are similarly low-quality people. What kind of person would not want a better livelihood than chasing doobies?

    1. What do you think they go to work in? Most go to government or useless non-profits.

    2. Well, thanks for displaying the utter disdain you have for regular people, so typical of progressives and Marxists.

      1. You figure drug warriors and fans of a ‘papers, please’ government are popular among libertarians?

        If so, you don’t know libertarians.

        Carry on, clingers.

  42. Why assume the water is life saving? Do we all live in a bubble? Two thoughts on this problem pop into mind. First is… have these “activists” actually set a complete route, or are they leading the desperate into the middle of nowhere past the point of return? Can we charge these people with manslaughter for the attractive hazard they create? Second is we are dealing with illegal aliens – underscore the illegal part, because these water bottles are in fact aiding and abetting, and serve to subvert our laws. But if we were thinking clearly, doesn’t the problem of people dying of thirst in these remote and barren locations come to a screeching halt if we [gasp]… control our borders and limit crossings to proper points of entry? Admittedly, the bulk of these “activists” are well intentioned, big hearted and soft headed. But a large question is missing too: how many are mean, vindictive racists who delight in setting half a water trail to get the unfortunate past the point of no return? We should as this question, to probe the minority evil hiding inside what may be sold as charitable acts.
    The activists need to switch their brains on, and start hammering congress to build the wall if they really want to save lives.

    1. “doesn’t the problem of people dying of thirst in these remote and barren locations come to a screeching halt if we [gasp]… control our borders and limit crossings to proper points of entry?”

      YOU CAN’T. Border controls are a type of prohibition that cannot be fully enforced, ever. Alcohol prohibition didn’t make the booze go away, drug prohibition doesn’t make the pot go away, and labor prohibition doesn’t make the migrants go away.

      You might as well argue “if we enforce drug prohibition harder, then lives will be saved from people not overdosing or taking tainted drugs!” In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn’t work that way.

      1. YOU CAN’T. Border controls are a type of prohibition that cannot be fully enforced, ever. Alcohol prohibition didn’t make the booze go away, drug prohibition doesn’t make the pot go away, and labor prohibition doesn’t make the migrants go away.

        Funny. Mexico doesn’t seem to have an illegal immigrant problem. Wonder why.

  43. “Scott Daniel Warren, an instructor at Arizona State University and a volunteer with an immigrant-aid group No More Deaths, was arrested last week on federal charges for harboring undocumented immigrants.”

    So if they can arrest him for harboring can they then arrest California’s legislatures and governor for harboring

  44. the real question becomes are they helping someone who may perish by supplying needed supplies at time of need which would be the human thing to do or are they providing supplies at regular intervals much like a crumb trail which would be aiding and abetting a criminal act.

  45. Putting out those water bottles is engaging in a conspiracy to abet illegal border crossing. Don’t want to die of thirst in the desert? Don’t try to enter the U.S. illegally.

  46. UPDATED!! Reason joins again in conflating OTMs and actual Mexicans! MS-13 27 year olds as ‘the poor Children of DACA’ claim that 1 innocent person killed by the State is NO JUSTICE; but…

    KATE? 14 YEAR OLD RAPE VICTIMS OF ADULT OTMs?

    OH! THESE OTHER THAN MEXICAN CRIMINALS NEED THE DISENGENOUS, ANTI-US; ANTI-LAW; ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS; AND

    ANTI-LIBERTARIAN BRIAN DOHERTY’s LAWLESS, LYING, CONIVING BS???

    How about stating that OTMs at the Mexican Border of the US – wait…

    Quick Culture Lesson: Bolivia is in “America”, Brian, but not the United States. Mexicans, including those of Mexican Heritage born Natural US Citizens on US Military Bases. absolutely hate ignorant Uber Alt-Left and Uber Alt-Right morons, e.g.

    ‘unbridled arrogance of anyone from the “States” that talks about the US being the only place in 2 Continents and the entire Western Hemisphere!’

    So, again, new Editor in Chief, Ma’am: How about some Editorial Oversight to stop the Lying, Anti-Libertarian, Anti-US hysteria of these Alt-Left Brian? Or the thought of Reason and it’s founding principals too much to overcome the naked pro-MS13, never-Trumper BS of your Columnists, who now seem no different the Mr. Lemon, or Al Franken??

  47. So the border patrol are evil for pouring out water left to help criminals knowingly entering our country illegally. The Professor should be arrested for aiding and abetting. Maybe the Professors’ efforts would be better spent exposing the issues of why the poor native Mexicans are compelled to leave their home country while the European heritage Mexicans become millionaires due to protectionist laws. Are their still more millionaires in Mexico than the US?

    1. Are their still more millionaires in Mexico than the US?

      Are xenophobes still mostly subliterate?

      1. More literate than beaner peasants.

  48. “and it’s been used for a long time, not to help smuggle migrants, but to give medical care and food and water.”

    Which helps smuggle, not migrants, criminals.

  49. What an idiot this author is. Monstrous? How about the fact that the Illegals that have never been in these country before have maps directing them to these watering places? I mean you do not think that these groups just stick out there in the middle of thousands of square miles of desert and these people just “Happen to find it”. I get it, the American Hating Left wants a country more like Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, Mexico or Cuba where the elite control everything and have created a paradise for the people. Or is it they want cheap labor to take care of their children, their hotels rooms, and their lawns… Probably a bit of both….. I mean,,,, someone with no High School Education and does not speak English is not threat to their or their children’s jobs… @$$HOLE LIBTARDS that care nothing about the jobs lost or where wages are depress because of these people….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.