ICE

Abolish ICE Now

It's an evil agency that terrorizes hard-working and peaceful people.

|

ICE
Jetta Disco/ZUMA Press/Newscom

If there was ever an evil agency other than the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), it is surely ICE (Immigration and Custom Enforcement). Its central task is to hunt down and deport peaceful and hard working people whose main "crime" is that they can't get the right papers from federal authorities. And in order to advance its mission, ICE is now trying to get its hands on raw intel amassed by the NSA through warrantless mass surveillance.

But ICE doesn't deserve such powers. It deserves to be scrapped, as my colleague at The Week, Ryan Cooper, recommends. "There is simply no need to have an agency whose major task is rounding up and deporting otherwise law-abiding immigrants."

Cooper offers a brief and highly incomplete list of some of the recent atrocities committed by ICE under Trump.

ICE has been:

Arresting fathers while dropping their kids off at school; staking out churches to round up people seeking sanctuary; deporting a successful businessman who has lived in the U.S. for 40 years; attempting to deport a veteran who served two tours in Afghanistan over a minor drug conviction; deporting an HIV-positive man to Venezuela, where a collapsed medical system means almost certain death; arresting, jailing for two weeks, and attempting to deport a doctor and green-card holder who has lived in the U.S. for 40 years over minor expunged charges from when he was 17; deporting the sole caregiver of a 6-year-old paraplegic boy; and even secretly compiling ways to strip citizenship from legal residents. Across the country, families are being ripped apart for no reason by a police force that is, quite simply, an anti-immigrant militia.

ICE focuses special attention on its political enemies, arresting and deporting leaders of immigrant rights' groups (some of them are suing the agency over this practice). They even tracked down and arrested an unauthorized immigrant who had written anonymously in The Seattle Times about his longtime girlfriend being arrested. "You are the one from the newspaper," the agent said.

Of particular note is a case in Kent, Washington, where an unauthorized immigrant called the police when he thought someone was breaking into his house. The cops discovered his status and an outstanding administrative warrant (not a criminal one), arrested him, and promptly turned him over to ICE. Now he's being deported back to Honduras, where he has not lived for 14 years.

This War on Immigration isn't just swallowing the liberties of immigrants, but also of gen-u-ine red-blooded Americans. Arizona, a leader in harsh immigration enforcement, has created criminal squads to raid employers suspected of having undocumented workers in their employ (because, apparently, the best way to save American jobs is by shutting down American businesses). Its border-town residents are forced to go through border patrol checkpoints just to take their kids to the dentist.

A good first step to stop all this would be by scrapping ICE.

"Let's just get rid of this rotten organization," Cooper sayz.

Amen, brother!

Bonus: My feature on how "Sanctuary Churches Are Taking In Immigrants and Taking On Trump."

NEXT: Border Bouncers Don't Need Big Brother Spying Powers Over Americans

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. You want to talk about an “evil agency?” How about the IRS.

    1. Talk like that will get you kicked out of a Chamber of Commerce cocktail party for sure.

    2. Or the FBI.

      The Incredible Tale of a Reckless, Partisan FBI Agent and Our Partisan Bureaucracy

      http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ureaucracy

      Quotes (but read the whole article):

      Yesterday, news broke that Robert Mueller had months ago asked a senior FBI agent to step down from his role investigating the Trump administration. This prince of a man was caught in an extramarital affair with an FBI lawyer. The affair itself was problematic, but so was the fact that the two were found to have exchanged anti-Trump, pro-Hillary Clinton text messages.

      Here’s where the story gets downright bizarre. This agent, Peter Strzok, also worked with FBI director James Comey on the Clinton email investigation. In fact, he was so deeply involved in the Clinton investigation that he is said to have interviewed Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, and to have been present when the FBI interviewed Clinton. According to CNN, he was part of the team responsible for altering the FBI’s conclusion that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in handling classified emails (a finding that could have triggered criminal liability) to “extremely careless” ? a determination that allowed her to escape prosecution entirely.

      After the Clinton investigation concluded, Strzok signed the documents opening the investigation into Russian election interference and actually helped interview former national-security adviser Michael Flynn.

    3. We could scrap the Federal Election Commission so that we don’t have to enforce campaign financing laws.

  2. whose main “crime” is that they can’t get the right papers from federal authorities

    If there is an actual law, then it’s not a “crime”. Just because you don’t like it, it’s not a “crime”.

    Honestly, there has to be someone that can cover this topic more maturely.

    1. Yup.

      I mean, I can accept arguments that “X is a crime, but shouldn’t be, because there’s nothing wrong with it”; that’s a great mode of argument and can be very convincing.

      And I’m pretty sure that’s what she means with her air-quotes.

      But she ain’t saying it, just air-quoting and demanding that we accept her framing of illegals as Almost All Really Awesome People Who Only Have A Tiny Paperwork Problem Whoops.

      Argue, don’t assert.

      1. How about this argument?
        1. Whereas there is no constitutionally enumerated power over immigration for the federal government;
        2. AND Whereas federal laws that are unconstitutional are null and void;
        3. THEREFORE Violating federal immigration laws are not real crimes.

        1. 1. So if something isn’t constitutionally enumerated that means it’s de facto unconstitutional?
          2. Also, are you roundabout arguing that immigration laws are under the states purview? That’ll make for interesting interstate travel.

    2. Yeah, the smug attitude probably isn’t winning over a lot of converts. Nor is the complete unwillingness to see beyond her fully open borders position.

    3. More maturely than how most libertarians cover taxation?

  3. Shikha, show us on the doll where ICE touched you.

    1. In the worst spot you can touch a proggy, In the FEELZ!

  4. I would argue TSA is evil.

    1. I don’t think this is a zero sum situation.

  5. Cooper offers a brief and highly incomplete list of some of the recent atrocities committed by ICE under Trump.

    Exactly how is this different from past administrations?

    1. ‘Cuz Trump!

    2. Why are past administrations relevant now?

      1. It’s not, but it is interesting that the topic didn’t get daily posts – and sometimes multiple posts per day – about it under the previous administration.

        1. The last president didn’t run for office promising to ethnically cleanse the country like the current one did.

          1. But (accepting your childish redefinition of words at face value) he did it anyway.

          2. No he just did it quietly. Check the annual statistics for deportations under Obama.

      2. Because you are a moron.

  6. ICE’s job is to enforce the immigration laws. Dalmia thinks there should be no such thing as immigration laws. Good for her but her beef is with the law not with the people who enforce it. For once in her life, can’t she just be honest and admit her position?

    1. So, you have an evil law, and evil people who enforce it, and we shouldn’t complain about the evil people at the same time as complaining about the evil law?

      1. Considering most of America seem overwhelmingly happy with the programs that make unlimited immigration self-destructive, you’d need to convince the majority of American’s to take a massive pay cut across the board to get to your preferred conclusion of open immigration.

        Do you see that happening? Over 100 years of anti-immigrant labor policy says ‘no’.

        1. “Over 100 years of anti-immigrant labor policy says ‘no’.”

          That’s the most hilarious part of all of this. We as the US have one of the most lenient and liberal immigration policy in the WORLD. All of these arguments are about ILLEGAL ALIENS.

          1. I find the most hilarious part to be people like Dalmia that are almost certainly ‘for’ many of these domestic programs who’s end result is more restrictive immigration. It’s like they can’t fathom that the issues are connected at all, or more likely they realize they’re connected but they refuse to be honest about the subject because they are fully aware that if people knew of the connection they would likely put forward a very different stated opinion on ‘more open’ immigration.

            Or, short version, they must lie and rely on people’s stupidity and feelings to make an argument. Yeah, that bodes really well for your underlying position. I can’t take people like Dalmia seriously because they insult my intelligence and that of everyone who reads their material.

      2. Not everyone sees the law as being evil. That is the entire debate, isn’t it? If you think there should be totally open borders and no way to deport anyone, then say so. Arguing about ICE is just a distraction over the real issue.

        1. Evil or not, they are unconstitutional. There is no enumerated power of immigration. (See Art. 1 Sect. 8) Each state is free to allow or disallow migration [except slaves after 1808]. Oh and the federal government can charge $10.

      3. I think the argument back to this screed of madness is that A) the law isn’t evil and B) presumably many of the people enforcing it aren’t evil either.

      4. How about convincing us the law is evil, rather than asserting it?

        “Deporting people who immigrate illegally” is pretty low on the “evil” scale.

        Customs enforcement is equally not axiomatically and obviously “evil”.

        So can we maybe not pretend everything we don’t like is Nazis Just Following Orders, FFS?

        1. If someone forcibly sent you to a country you didn’t want to go, how would you feel about that? Just a case of the Mondays?

          1. If I was there illegally, I wouldn’t love it — but I wouldn’t really have a leg to stand on.

          2. This is a stupid argument. If you were half as smart as you constantly claim to be, you would realize this is a stupid argument.

            1. I don’t think any argument about social policy is complete without some measure of empathy for the actual humans being affected.

              I don’t expect empathy from libertarians, but I do expect them not to endorse jackbooted feds displacing millions of people for no good reason.

              1. Of course Tony’s empathy is restricted to groups that vote 60 percent+ Dems. Any other group and Tony busts out the SS uniform.

                1. It’s the same empathy he has for paying so many “urban” residents to live in shithole projects in exchange for their votes.

              2. Restricted immigration is a necessary end result of labor protections that have been heaped upon the private sector for almost a hundred years.

                Are you willing to give those up in service of unlimited immigration? Honest question, even while I already know you don’t understand the connection.

                1. I don’t think there’s a contradiction and I think you’re using the welfare state as a lame excuse to justify a totally anti-freedom agenda based entirely on racism.

                  1. That’s a whole lot of feels, yet no thoughts whatsoever. I guess I called that one, but lets be honest we all knew this already.

                    If illegal Mexican immigrants were all offered the same protections as the American workforce, should we just ignore that most of them wouldn’t be here at all? It literally removes their primary value to the market.

                    It’s almost like we need an underclass of low-education workers without recourse to do jobs that were priced too high by the Government to protect American jobs. Oh, wait, that’s exactly what happened and, furthermore, those programs were designed with that explicit goal. Oops.

                    How unusual, then, that people like you claim that the people who designed these programs with that explicit goal didn’t really do it for those reasons. Were they lying then, or are they lying now? I guess you’ll go with whatever is more convenient, but people with more intelligence than yourself recognize that it’s a logical disconnect. Smarter people also recognize that the results line up with those intentions.

                    This isn’t me making some value judgment on it, these are just facts. Personally I’d be fine with open immigration, but it matters how it’s executed.

          3. I would think ‘gosh, I’m going home with more money than I can spend in a year back in my home country who’s currency is worth a fraction of a fraction of the currency I’m taking home with me’.

            Then I’d think ‘lets do it again next year’.

        2. It makes foreign nationals choose between keeping their children with them, or leaving them in another country to be raised on public assistance. Presumably the argument is that they should simply be allowed to collect public assistance and stay in this country with their children.

          Somehow, this choice is considered ‘evil’.

          I don’t really think the argument holds water, but plenty of people seem to.

          Welfare states must at least pretend to control immigration. Instead of attacking the end-result of immigration policy, maybe Reason could take a stab at the root causes for once. I won’t hold my breath for Dalmia to write such an article though.

      5. Obviously. What do you think this is, some kind of utopian political philosophy that radically reimagines a freer society?

      6. “So, you have an evil law, ”

        Not in this case. Get rid of the illegals.

    2. It’s never a bad thing to point out that those who seek out the job of enforcing the law tend to be bad people with bad hearts who seek to cause pain in everything that they do.

      So yeah, the laws are a problem. But the enforcers are also a problem.

      1. The only way this stuff is shocking is if you don’t like the immigration laws. I don’t think people have a right to be here illegally. So, I really don’t give a shit that ICE is deporting fathers. Yes, ICE enforces immigration laws and doesn’t cut people breaks because Dalmai thinks they should. That is how law enforcement usually works.

        1. I don’t think people have a right to be here illegally.

          “Show me your papers!” sound better in the original German.

          1. You disagree. And that is the whole debate. The fact that ICE enforces the law is really besides the point.

            1. If you really want to know, this is how much I give a shit.

              1. The Philadelphia Eagles, check.

                The Eagles (Henley, Frey, Walsh et al), check.

                The Eagles of Death Metal, not so much.

                1. Don’t knock it ’till you try it.

                  1. Admittedly, I am not much of a metal type of guy.

                    1. Personally I happen to hate the Eagles. But I would never characterize EoDM as metal.

          2. Zeig mir deine Papiere

          3. Wrong kind of papers, but I suppose if we pretend hard enough we can be like the NAZI. How are those Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, and passports not already NAZI papers by this broad metric?

          4. “Everything I don’t like is Nazis” is not actually an argument.

            (Especially since, note, the Nazis demanded literally everyone have papers, and would drag you off to prison or to a death camp for having the wrong things on them, like “being a Jew”, say.

            Here … people who aren’t legally in the country and in almost all cases were well aware of it and chose it* can be sent to their nation of citizenship, alive and unharmed.

            It’s almost like there might be some vague sort of difference in kind going on here.

            * Reasonable sympathy for those deported consequent to their parents’ decisions still won’t make this Nazi territory.)

            1. It’s only a matter of time.

          5. And your point of view was infinitely less nerdy when Trotsky expounded it. So what?

  7. I wonder what Dalmia’s opinion on UBI is. Just for reference.

  8. Pure fucking evil and it’s a magnet for all the shaved head Nazi admiring scumbags and I assume some are good people too.

  9. Of particular note is a case in Kent, Washington, where an unauthorized immigrant called the police when he thought someone was breaking into his house. The cops discovered his status and an outstanding administrative warrant (not a criminal one), arrested him, and promptly turned him over to ICE. Now he’s being deported back to Honduras, where he has not lived for 14 years.

    So what? This whole thing is nothing but question-begging. These horror stories are only shocking if you don’t like immigration laws, which is the entire issue. If you don’t object to immigration laws, there is nothing shocking or horrifying about them being enforced. The guy came here illegally. He had a nice run until ICE caught up with him. He knew the risks and took them. Them is the breaks.

    1. After watching Live PD (entertaining show, honestly), cops pretty consistently say “I can let lots of things slide, but I don’t have any choices in regards to warrants”. Do cops have leeway to ignore warrants when they are aware of them?

      And the guy “hasn’t lived in Honduras for 14 years” because he was here illegally. Should we ignore Polanski’s crimes and convictions too since he hasn’t lived here in decades also?

      1. I can’t watch that show, or any other cop-sucking program, without feeling a need to retch.

        The zeal with which these people go after people who committed crimes with no victims, combined with the callousness with which they treat actual victims of crimes, makes me wonder how anyone would ever ask the cops for help.

    2. “He knew the risks and took them. Them is the breaks.”

      Obligatory:

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

  10. Don’t abolish. Just vote for the guy who promises to scale it down. Same advice for all similar police state issues. We’re safe now.

  11. I agree that all laws should be enforced selectively, depending on who is willing to vote Democrat. Thank you, Reason.

    1. You people are awfully preoccupied with the idea that Republicans might not be in charge of the country someday.

      1. I think it may be more like “preoccupied with not having Democrats running the place”.

        One can oppose Democrats without supporting Republicans.

        Easily, in fact.

        1. Not really. It’s one or the other. No bonus points for being above it all and “special” in your own mind.

          1. Last I saw, there were elected Independents jackass.

          2. Tony, your democrat masters are partially responsible for that binary choice. Both got FEC rules in place after Ross Perot got real traction back in 92. Democrats worked hand in hand with republicans to make sure it is hard as hell to get on each state’s ballot for third parties. Same for televised debate participation.

      2. Reason’s contributors are uniformly excellent on the immigration issue. Unfortunately, too many Reason commenters fail to see the obvious benefits of changing the demographics of the electorate to the point where Democrats never lose another presidential election.

        On a related note, the voting age should be lowered to 16.

        1. Obama and the Democrats openly admitted that the push to legalize illegal aliens was to gain electoral advantage and had nothing to do with how much and what kind of immigration is good for the US.

          LEAKED MEMO: DREAMers Are ‘Critical’ To Dems ‘Future Electoral Success’

          Quotes:
          The Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund circulated a memo on Monday calling illegal immigrants brought here at a young age ? so-called “Dreamers” ? a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

          CAP Action’s memo says protecting DACA is not only a “moral imperative” for Democrats, it also key to getting votes.

          “The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

          “If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” reads the memo. “In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.”

          1. “Do the moral thing and gain an electoral advantage” is superior to “Do the immoral thing and gain an electoral advantage”.

            If you need help, the immoral thing is ripping apart families and forcing humans to go to countries they don’t want to go to for no good reason.

            1. Except those aren’t the only two options. There’s also ‘claim a thing that gives us an electoral advantage is a moral imperative’.

              How are families ripped apart? Are you telling me that if someone is deported the American government says they can’t take their kids with them, regardless of their nationality? Weird, I hadn’t heard that.

              1. I just watched a video a couple weeks ago of a father being extricated from his family for no fucking good reason.

                1. And his family didn’t go with because….?

                  1. Maybe they liked living here. Is this place about individual freedom or is it about jackbooted feds deciding how people should live? Pick one, jackass.

                    1. So you fully support an individual’s freedom to defend himself, right?

                      (How’s THAT for moving the goalposts!)


                    2. Maybe they liked living here.

                      So they made a personal value judgment and went with it, which is contradictory to your initial statement. Whoops.

                      I guess if you view Mexico as a place no one should live this makes some level of sense. Honestly that’s what I already assume, in that people consider being sent to Mexico for any reason to be cruel and unusual even while, shocker, that’s their home nation that they return to often on purpose.

                    3. Tony, you support candidates, and a party completely dedicated to deciding how everyone should live in nearly every way. From cradle to grave, and morning to night.

                      So I find your selective outrage to be both hypocritical and disingenuous.

                      Oh, and fuck Tony. You mendacious human colostomy receptacle.

            2. “Do the moral thing and gain an electoral advantage”

              I do think that is a fairer reading of the memo.

              But Team Red partisans cynically interpret the memo to mean “import new voters to replace Republican voters”.

              I think it is much like the guy in Pennsylvania who bragged on an open mic that voter ID in that state would help Romney win in 2012. Team Red said it was because there would be less voter fraud. But Team Blue cynically interpreted his comments to mean that it was because Republicans intended voter ID to deliberately suppress the vote of constituencies who tend to vote Democrat.

              Either way, even if the cynical interpretation of the memo is the correct one, it’s a memo from CAP, not “Obama and the Democrats”. It is one leftwing advocacy group’s view of the DREAMers, not official Team Blue policy.

              1. Voter ID DOES help limit voter fraud.especially when you have groups like ACORN registering underage teens to vote, and even a Disney characters.

        2. the voting age should be lowered to 16

          LOL, never change CNN.

      3. I wonder why.

        Obama’s warning: ‘Right-size’ immigration expectations

        Quote:
        Adding to the elevated hopes about what Obama will do is the feeling among Democratic strategists that immigration reform is a clear political winner: … voters whom Obama might be able to activate, both among immigrant communities and progressives overall who see this issue as a touchstone, are exactly the ones that Democrats are hoping will be there to counter a midterm year in which the map and historical trends favor GOP turnout.

        In many competitive House districts and several of the Senate races that Democrats need to hold onto to have a chance of retaining the majority ? Colorado and Iowa, and to a lesser extent, North Carolina and Arkansas ? immigrant communities make up a significant bloc of votes. Done in a way that energizes Latinos and Asians, Obama’s taking the lead on immigration could prove a margin-making move for the midterms.

        Much of the discussions have focused on what can be sold to the American public and midterm voters, with the 2012 Dreamers model very much on the participants’ minds? Hispanic and Asian voters turned out in large numbers that fall.

        1. Honest question, KevinP: Why do you think Latinos tend to vote Democrat? Do you think they are genetically programmed or culturally programmed (i.e., lack individual agency)? Or maybe, they vote Democrat because Republicans continually threaten to deport them and their families?

          1. I think at least one reason is because Democrats are more willing to give them largesse from the public treasury. We already know that Americans like ‘free stuff’, so is the assumption that illegal Mexican immigrants specifically are more resistant to this? Especially for their children, considering that America is a much better deal for their kids than Mexico?

            We already know that when there’s an economic downturn in the States there are a large number of these people who go back to Mexico voluntarily.

          2. They vote democrat partially because the DNC has 95% of the media carrying water for them and spreading their propaganda. Also limiting republican coverage to hit pieces and and anti republican editiorial content.

            Latinos also come from cultures where they are programmed to favor larger government and top down government solutions. Which is another reason to keep them out.

            Or in simpler terms, if the DNC favors something, it is almost a mortal lock that whatever it is will be bad for Americans.

      4. which is different form your unhinged rage and preoccupation with the republicans being in charge today (and a long while the polls are moving) how?

        Please Jeff sessions don’t crack down on Tony’s flustered rage it’s a hell of a drug.

  12. I was stunned to see that Shikha wrote this article after clicking on the headline.

    I agree that should abolish ICE. I do wonder, which federal agency should take over the duties of Customs and Immigration Enforcement?

    1. “None, because open borders and no nations!”

      I mean, for those of us who aren’t Rothbardian Anarchists who Must Oppose The State Entirely Forever, though, that might not sell well.

    2. No agency should. All these folks should be allowed to run free.

      Hundreds of immigrants convicted and not deported committed more crimes ? even murder

      Quote:
      A U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee document, obtained by el Nuevo Herald, contains comprehensive information from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about the number of immigrant convicts in the United States, their whereabouts, whether immigration authorities have succeeded in deporting them and whether they committed additional crimes after being released.

      A committee letter sent to the Department of Justice and the Departments of State and Homeland Security nearly two years ago said that at least 121 homicides “could have been avoided” between 2010 and 2014 had Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), under the prior Obama administration, deported immigrant convicts instead of releasing them.

  13. Its central task is to hunt down and deport peaceful and hard working people whose main “crime” is that they can’t get the right papers from federal authorities

    Using this logic, the main crime of murderers is having really good aim.

    Arresting fathers while dropping their kids off at school; staking out churches to round up people seeking sanctuary; deporting a successful businessman who has lived in the U.S. for 40 years; attempting to deport a veteran who served two tours in Afghanistan over a minor drug conviction; deporting an HIV-positive man to Venezuela, where a collapsed medical system means almost certain death; arresting, jailing for two weeks, and attempting to deport a doctor and green-card holder who has lived in the U.S. for 40 years over minor expunged charges from when he was 17; deporting the sole caregiver of a 6-year-old paraplegic boy; and even secretly compiling ways to strip citizenship from legal residents. Across the country, families are being ripped apart for no reason by a police force that is, quite simply, an anti-immigrant militia.

    Were they here illegally?

    Seems like it’s those people’s problems.

    1. “Using this logic, the main crime of murderers is having really good aim.”

      Murderers violate the rights of their victims.

      Whose rights are violated by the *mere presence* of illegal immigrants?

      1. There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal) and the average cost of this education is $10,500 per year (2012 figures). An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $126,000 to graduate from high school.

        Illegals (who usually have a low income) are definitely not paying taxes to the same extent that they are consuming public school funds. And they are consuming public school funds at the expense of native-born taxpayers, including minorities who struggle with underfunded schools to begin with.

        Basic math: Each child costs the public school $10,500 per year. Very few illegal aliens are paying this much tax into their local school districts.

        If you assume that 30% of the cost of rent goes to indirectly pay property tax, each illegal alien parent will have to pay out $35,000 in annual rent to break even with the taxpayer. I can assure you that this is not happening.

        1. I said by the *mere presence* of the illegal immigrant. They may or may not be kids going to public school. How do their presence violate your rights?

          1. It’s black and white in the constitution: thou shalt not be required to suffer taco trucks on street corners.

          2. So you hand wave away stated concerns and then repeat your question as if it wasn’t already answered. Seems legit.

            After all, the rational assumption is that these people cross the border then freeze in time in a state of indeterminacy. As long as we don’t observe them, the waveform won’t collapse?

        2. Schools are mostly paid for by property taxes. So if an illegal happens to have a place to live, then they are directly or indirectly paying property taxes. That means your argument is not against illegals, but against anyone who has children in school while earning a low wage.

          1. I know, right?

            It is morbidly amusing to see public schools labeled as some huge deprivation of liberty only when the kids there happen to be illegal immigrants.

            1. Somehow I don’t think chem will support cutting taxes to school by 100%.

          2. You touch on a part of the problem, which is that our social programs in the United States are not designed for this.

            Question: if currency policy is kept as-is except for unlimited immigration what would you expect to happen to the public school system? How many immigrant children can our school system support?

        3. So the immigrant benefits from the rights violation done by the taxing authority.
          Who violates the rights? The taxing authority (city, county, school district).
          Who has their rights violated? Property owners/renters
          Who benefits from the violation of rights. Teachers, School Administrators, Parents of school attending kids (specifically those whose taxes are less than private tuition would be).

  14. This a nation of laws. So as a nation laws the laws we have will have to be enforce. So if you don’t like ICE seeking and deporting immigrants that are not here legally then change the law. If the law is changed in certain ways there would not be a term “illegal” that could be applied to immigrants thus no need for ICE. But that would be a disaster to the US economy. There would be so many immigrants that labor wages would crash for both the US citizen and the immigrant. With so many immigrants coming to the US labor market there would not be enough jobs to provide all of them jobs. Because this $5/hr is much better than these immigrants can get in their home nation they would work at that lower price and the US citizen would not be able to live on that wage thus more US citizens having to turn to the federal and state government entitlements just to be able to live. They most definitely would not be able to immigrate to another nation, they would not be accepted there. Now with so many immigrants that there are not enough jobs for them many would starve or they would have to turn to crime to live or more to the liking of many would also have to turn to government also or starve.
    A much better way is to correct the deficiencies in the immigration laws which would make it easier for someone to immigrate to come to the US just for work or for longer terms and even eventually citizenship. Illegals would have to be deported immediately.

    1. So if you don’t like ICE seeking and deporting immigrants that are not here legally then change the law.

      Um, yeah. Sure. Because laws are changed all the time based upon, um, I can’t even finish this farce of a sentence.

      1. Don’t complain that your desires are hard to accomplish.

        1. Government is a one-way ratchet. Facts is facts.

    2. “This a nation of laws. So as a nation laws the laws we have will have to be enforce. So if you don’t like ICE seeking and deporting immigrants that are not here legally then change the law.”

      Actually, civil disobedience is one way to try to get laws changed.

  15. Unlike Shikha, I actually want to shrink government, but scrapping this agency is going too far!

  16. I bet it’s just a coincidence that the most clearly sexually frustrated posters here all support open borders. It has nothing to do with flooding the country with desperate, rootless, and young immigrants. No siree just a coincidence.

    1. Then you must really support open borders. I mean, like really open. Wide open.

      1. I am disappointed that you didn’t use the word ‘gaping’ in this context.

    2. Hey, it’s only a coincidence that my brother’s ex-wife and his current wife needed green cards in a hurry. It’s not a pattern until it happens 3 times.

    3. I support an immigration program of unlimited hot chicks.

      1. For example, any Zcictoria’s Secret model or Play oh Play,ate should get automatic residency, at my place.

  17. “There is simply no need to have an agency whose major task is rounding up and deporting otherwise law-abiding immigrants.”

    Not one law abiding immigrant has ever been rounded up or deported by ICE.
    They have arrested, and turned over for trial and deportation upon conviction, many criminal border crossers, and some criminal visa violators.
    But never a law abiding immigrant.

  18. It’s obvious that Shikha Dalmia hasn’t flown recently, or TSA would be right up there with DEA.

  19. The silly ideas “[ICE’s central task is to hunt down and deport peaceful and hard working people whose main “crime” is that they can’t get the right papers from federal authorities.” or that those who break our immigration law are “law-abiding” detract from the more legitimate concern about access to NSA data (not to mention the existence of those data).

    Reason should shuffle its ideologues around a bit, have the open immigration ideologue write about gay issues for a while and vice versa.

  20. We can shrink ICE after we deport as many illegals as we can and establish more secure borders.

    1. Agreed. Job one is getting rid of the illegals.

  21. Its central task is to hunt down and deport peaceful and hard working people whose main “crime” is that they can’t get the right papers from federal authorities.

    You can say the same thing about an unlicensed psychiatrist, yet for some reason, no media outlets outside of the libertarian movement argue that we have an inherent right to hand out free samples of antidepressants to our neighbors who paid $200 per hour to talk to us about their feelings.

  22. Seriously? You’re saying we have no interest in finding people who actively hid their entry into our country knowing full well they were breaking federal law? That we have no BUSINESS doing that? That our border should essentially become a goal line; break the plane and you score? You can’t imagine any way THAT could turn into a flippin’ nightmare? Border agents lives would become worthless overNIGHT soon as word got out that once you’re in you never needed to worry about being found. But hell, why even HAVE border agents once our borders are meaningless, huh? We’re all Children of the World; EVERYBODY in!! The hell is wrong with you people?.

  23. 1/2

    While not a fan of SD’s rhetorical style, I agree with the thrust of the article. There is a lot of comments here about how Illegal immigrants break the law by coming here illegally. That doesn’t really convince me. If a law is unjust, it should be broken. Its not a right violation for an immigrant to move here illegally, it is more an administrative infraction like having expired tags or not filing your taxes on time.

    We should be looking at the underlying incentives that make illegal immigration attractive as compared to going the legal route. I suspect the cost (time, red tape, etc) is too high and needs to be easier to shift the margins towards a more desirable outcome. Some have mentioned the fact that labor regs also contribute and I find this pretty persuasive. It creates a black market for labor that tips the scale towards illegals.

    1. 2/2

      Arguing demographics is especially puzzling, I agree with some that the sentiment that the DNC loyalty has more to do with signaling towards minorities that the Republican Party hates them, and the pervasive reputation that the GOP for being the “rich old white man party”. I hardly find political expedience a reason to prevent immigration reform as I outlined above. But this may be because I have no particular love for the GOP, and should be signaled that being anti-immigrant is an unpopular platform plank.

      The economic argument against immigration is strained as well. Despite temporary labor shocks (mostly in the lowest of the low education levels) economist find net positives. Most of the negative externalities that revolve around illegals would be allieviated by streamlining the legal immigration process.

  24. Open Borders fanatic wants to abolish agency that enforces immigration law

    Shockeroo

  25. ILLEGAL
    KILL EVERY ONE of the DISEASE INFESTED VERMIN

    OH YA
    BURN ALIVE EVERY NIGER LOVER THAT SUPPORT the SPICCK SCUM

  26. These Law Abiding Immigrants sell pirated DVD’s, so they are contributing to our economy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.