Immigration

ICE Trashes the First Amendment to Suppress Immigrant Activists

The Trump administration is violating the rule of law in the name of upholding it.

|

ICE
Jetta Disco Zuma via Newscom

The undocumented problem in this country is entirely a function of bad immigration policies that scrapped the bracero guest program with Mexico in 1965 and erected a gazillion obstacles that, ever since, have prevented willing American employers from hiring willing foreign workers. The totally predictable consequence of such labor prohibitionism is a black market in labor where these foreigners fill the demand for their services without obtaining proper authorization.

But instead of fixing the law, hard-line restrictionists have been demanding a crackdown against the "law breakers" for violating the "rule of law." We are a country of laws, say these patriots. But a country of laws, above all, expects its government, the only entity in society that has a monopoly on force, to behave lawfully. That's why the Bill of Rights exists—as a way to constraint the awesome power of government—right?

Apparently not.

In its zeal to go after the foreign "lawbreakers," every administration—Republican and Democratic—has been eroding the checks on its power. But the Trump administration is taking matters to a whole new level.

It has quietly started cracking down not just on undocumented immigrants but also on legal immigrant rights outfits and activists. As I write in The Week,

In a bid to stifle the backlash against its harsh enforcement policies, federal agents are now targeting high-profile immigration activists in addition to the immigrants themselves. This is an affront to the First Amendment; by targeting lawful citizens for speaking out, the administration shows that in its zeal to uphold the "rule of law," it is willing to degenerate into lawlessness itself.

Go here to read the piece.

Advertisement

NEXT: This American Metalworking Company Is Already Paying Up to 30 Percent More for Steel Thanks to Trump's Tariffs

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. There can be no rule of law where the king is the sole arbiter of the same.

    1. I am making easily every week $4k to $5k just by doing simple work from home. Last month i have made $18512 from this job. Amazing and easy to do work and regular income from this is amazing. I have suggest you all to join this job right now as a part time and earn more than full time income by follow this link.GOOD LUCK look here more

      http://www.richdeck.com

  2. “The undocumented problem in this country is entirely a function of bad immigration policies that scrapped the barcerco guest program with Mexico in 1965 and erected a gazillion obstacles that, ever since, have prevented willing American employers from hiring willing foreign workers.”

    YES. The problems associated with illegal immigration are entirely due to the prohibitions that this country has enacted against ‘illegal’ labor.

    It’s the exact same goddamn thing as with every other prohibition. Government tries to prohibit free people from engaging in consensual activity, and those free people find various ways around the government-imposed rules. It’s the rules themselves, and (often) the means by which people go around the rules, which are the source of harm. Not the consensual behavior itself.

    1. Sure, but both you and Shikha are ignoring the root cause. 1965 is the period when The Great Society programs were enacted. The US became a much deeper welfare state at that point.

      You can’t have open borders with a welfare state.

    2. “The murder problem in this country is entirely a function of bad murder laws that have prevented willing American murderers from murdering whom they choose”

      “The trespassing problem in this country is entirely a function of bad trespass laws that have prevented willing Americans from traveling where they please”

      This doesn’t seem to work, depending on what we prohibit, right? So the question isn’t whether or not prohibition is bad inherently, but rather if the thing we are discussing should be prohibited, yes?

      1. Well of course. The term “prohibition” generally refers to activities that don’t violate anyone’s rights, but are nonetheless deemed by the state to be “bad” and therefore banned. Such as: smoking plants, drinking booze, owning scary-looking guns, and employing foreigners. So whose rights are violated if a willing employee and a willing employer come to a mutual agreement on an employment contract?

        1. The rights of all citizens are violated when you say “anyone who can get across the border can be one of us.” You foist upon them policies that they don’t want, that are theirs by right to determine. YOU violate the rights of the people of the United States.

          You demean our ancestral heritage, and what our forefathers built.

          And for what, chemjeff? What great good will be achieved by selling out the future generations, and betraying those that came before? Taco trucks? Diversity of food? That’s worth all the other freedoms that will be given up? That’s worth the racial tensions you work to engender by turning this into “Either you are for open borders or you’re a racist”?

          1. YOU violate the rights of the people of the United States.

            No. “The People” has no rights, and you don’t speak for “The People.” You have rights. My decision to hire a guy from Baja to trim my ivy has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with you.

            “Either you are for open borders or you’re a racist”?

            Chemjeff never said that. That’s just you being touchy about being racist.

            1. “The people” is a term for the individuals that make up the citizens of the United States. They have rights you retard. Just because they’re a group, and can be referred to as a group, and can act as a group, doesn’t somehow abrogate that.

              Chemjeff never said that. That’s just you being touchy about being racist.

              Scroll down the page. He said that I view brown people as mere animals. Don’t let reading actually get in the way of you spewing retard across the page though.

              1. “He said that I view brown people as mere animals.”

                That’s because you’ve referred to them as savages in the past.

                1. Savages are still people yo

              2. “”The people” is a term for the individuals that make up the citizens of the United States. They have rights you retard. ”

                So you place so-called “collective rights” of “the people” ahead of individual rights of individual citizens.

                And why again do you even bother to come to a libertarian web site in the first place?

                1. Except I’ve said nothing to that effect. Unless it is your contention that having a nation-state is a violation of the rights of the citizen.

                  1. “Except I’ve said nothing to that effect.”

                    Umm… you wrote above…

                    “YOU violate the rights of the people of the United States.”

                    And by “the people”, you are clearly not referring to individual citizens, but to a collective Volk.

              3. “The people” is a term for the individuals that make up the citizens of the United States. They have rights you retard.

                You are just such a charming little fellow!

                People, as individuals, have rights. “The People” is a collective that has no rights, and your claim to speak for it is disingenuous bullshit. You’re preaching Communism.

                Don’t let reading actually get in the way of you spewing retard across the page though.

                You’re constantly launching into spittle-flecked rants about cultural purity and the inferiority of foreigners, whom you consistently refer to as savages. No one’s imposing any subtle code on what you’re saying. You’re just one of those guys who insists you’re the only realist who truly understands the inferiority of foreigners, even though you prove your near-total ignorance of the world outside this country on a daily basis.

                I have to echo chemjeff’s sentiments – why do you even come to a libertarian site when you’re pretty much a straight-up fascist?

                1. Square, I’ve never said I speak for “the people”. I did refer to the rights of “the people”. The individuals (the people) that comprise the citizenry of the US have certain rights and privileges. You are tilting at windmills. The people have the right to open, or close the border. I hope and argue for the latter, but I recognize their right is to choose.

                  RE: “Cultural Purity” Not all people are the same. Japanese people have different tendencies than Indians who have different tendencies from Mexicans who have different tendencies from Swedes. If you want more of something, you have to nurture it, grow it, produce it. I presume you want a more liberty-minded America. Opening the door to everyone that wants in will not do that.

                  RE: Fascism… if it is fascism to say “Hey, if you move the entire population of Japan to the US, they won’t magically adopt US values” then sure, I’m a Fascist.

                  Why do I come here? Well, Square, I actually like to see differing views from my own and I think intellectual echo-chambers dull the mind. You’re welcome to change my mind on things. Sadly, others screaming “IF YOU DON’T SUPPORT OPEN BORDERS YOU’RE RACIST” isn’t really getting anywhere with me, and it does tend to piss me off. Sorry if I went off on you, since you didn’t start there.

                  1. It’s not your position on open borders that makes you a racist. It’s that you refer to people who aren’t ethnically white as “savages,” suggest that they’ll never adapt to American values, and imply that whites are inherently superior and any attempt to deny this will lead to the death of the “pure” white race.

                    1. Exactly. There are plenty of nonracist, logical, reasonable arguments for restrictive immigration policies. And then there are Kivlor’s reasons, which are based on arguments that “those people” are inferior savages who hate liberty and vote for socialism. Either you’re a nonracist making racist arguments in favor of closed borders, or you’re a racist making racist arguments in favor of closed borders – but either way, you’re making racist arguments. I don’t know if in your heart of hearts you really are a racist or not. But you are making public arguments that very strongly imply that you are.

                    2. It’s that you refer to people who aren’t ethnically white as “savages,”
                      I referred to savage people with savage traditions as savages. If you want an example for Mexico, the rule of law in that land is that as long as you agree to marry your victim it’s not rape to forcibly violate her. Is that the kind of liberty you’re interested in importing?

                      suggest that they’ll never adapt to American values
                      Some will. By and large they do not. And that is well evidenced. It’s you who needs to be showing how they by and large do adopt American values. People don’t magically change when they come to the US simply by breathing our pure liberty-loving air.

                      imply that whites are inherently superior and any attempt to deny this will lead to the death of the “pure” white race.

                      Can you point to a time I’ve ever discussed the end of the “pure white race”? I’m thinking no. Because that’s what you imagine in your head. I’ve argued that we are different in general, and that mass immigration from pretty much anywhere is a bad idea. I don’t support taking in all of Europe either, so this “Kivlor just hates the browns and wants to import racially pure whites instead” line is something you’ve made up in your head dude.

                    3. If you want an example for Mexico, the rule of law in that land is that as long as you agree to marry your victim it’s not rape to forcibly violate her.

                      Please provide a citation for this claim.

                    4. I wouldn’t want to Google something that makes my pet demographic look uncivilized either.

                      I can’t find the link I used to use for this particular discussion. It had some other pretty nasty points about rape/sexual assault in Mexico. If I find it I’ll post it.

                    5. First, your article is 16 years old. I’m sure things have changed in the intervening years.

                      Second, yes you are describing some backwards traditions. But you did leave out the part where agreeing to marry a rape victim is for statutory rape, which is qualitatively different than violent, nonconsensual rape. And, I’ll be real honest, I’m not so sure that it is such a “savage” practice after all, for certain instances of statutory rape. IF it is between two similarly-aged people, and IF the sex was completely consensual, then I have a hard time throwing anyone in jail for consensual sex. Now if it was a much older predator against a very young victim, or if there was any violence or coercion at all, then yeah, throw the rapist in jail. But two teenagers fucking? I don’t see much harm in that, certainly not enough to warrant jail. So in Mexico, ideally I suppose, if an above-age man had sex with an underage women, and then got married, there would be no criminal charges. What would happen in this country? There would be hysteria and moral panic, and the man would be sent to jail and his life ruined. If there was a child, the child would either be aborted, or grow up fatherless. Which do you think is the superior result?

                  2. “I presume you want a more liberty-minded America.”

                    How do you get to a more liberty-minded America by attempting to centrally plan the cultural purity of America?

                    1. Are you going to get a more liberty-minded America by just letting anyone become a citizen, no matter how much they hate our values?

                    2. Talking about CITIZENSHIP here is a red herring. Once again: this isn’t about citizenship. This is about allowing willing sellers and willing buyers of labor to enter into an employment contract without some third party busybody vetoing the decision.

                      And letting people be free to do their own thing is pretty much the textbook definition of liberty.

                      How do you get more liberty by constraining people’s liberty to be free to do their own thing?

                    3. And before Kivlor gets all pedantic and starts bringing up OMG YOU ARE PRO-MURDER:

                      That should be the liberty to do their own thing, without violating the individual liberties of others.

          2. The rights of all citizens are violated when you say “anyone who can get across the border can be one of us.”

            That’s not even my argument. I don’t even claim that Mexican day laborers “can be one of us”. My argument is that they want to work, there are employers willing to hire them, and so why should any third party stand in their way? I don’t care at all who is the bigger patriot in this transaction.

            1. I don’t even claim that Mexican day laborers “can be one of us”.

              It is telling, though, that this is where Kivlor sees the main threat – it really does come down to identity politics and “fear of a black planet,” so to speak.

              1. I do try to make an effort to understand opposing points of view. I really do. But I confess that I have a hard time seeing the validity of the argument that places racial purity above all as the highest consideration of public policy.

                1. I do try to make an effort to understand opposing points of view. I really do. But I confess that I have a hard time seeing the validity of the argument that places racial purity above all as the highest consideration of public policy.

                  I agree completely, but in fairness I think Kivlor would characterize it as “cultural purity” rather than “racial purity.” I do think he’s indulging in a little denial in claiming that it there is no racial subtext to it, but he’s never indicated any ill feelings toward non-white native-born Americans who are members of the correct political party.

                  1. In which case “xenophobe” is really the more accurate moniker than “racist.”

            2. Chemjeff, under the current system, if foreign “day laborers” run across the border to give birth, their children are immediately citizens. By not changing that, and opening the border, you are in fact arguing that they can and will be the same as us.

              1. So you’re saying their children can’t be the same as us. Because why?

                1. Are you saying that we should expect their children magically abandon the parents views, behaviors, etc?

                  I’m not saying they cannot be. I’m saying they do not act that way generally

                  1. Are you saying that we should expect their children magically abandon the parents views, behaviors, etc?

                    If you think kids automatically adopt their parents’ views and behaviors, I can only conclude that you don’t have kids.

                  2. Are you saying that we should expect their children magically abandon the parents views, behaviors, etc?

                    I’m not saying they cannot be. I’m saying they do not act that way generally

                    Assimilation is a two-way street, but it’s not equal in both directions. The host country changes a little bit in the direction of the new immigrants, but the new immigrants change a great deal in the direction of the host country. This process also takes time, about 2-3 generations’ worth of time. The first generation act basically the same as they did in their native country, the third generation act basically the same as the native-born population, and the second generation is kinda 50-50. At least that is how it generally works. Do you have specifics that it may not be working this way this time around?

                    If your complaint is that new immigrants “vote for socialism”, then the problem really isn’t that they are acting far outside of the American mainstream and demanding some sort of Marxist revolution, but that they are supporting the American version of socialism that already currently exists, like social welfare programs. How is it really the fault of new immigrants to vote to support programs that the native-born citizens created? Are they supposed to be somehow wiser than the “socialist” native-born citizens who voted to enact welfare programs in the first place?

              2. I’m not referring to birthright citizenship. That is a separate issue. I’m referring to a simple employment contract. For simplicity of argument, suppose we have a Mexican day laborer who is MALE and presumably incapable of giving birth, and HE wants to work for a willing American employer. He’s not going to pop out an anchor baby. He’s not a citizen of this country and nobody is advocating that he should be automatically granted citizenship. He’s not going to vote for socialism, because even if he is a socialist, he has no right to vote. And you have said previously that even if the presence of Mexican day laborers were to depress native-born wages, you would still be opposed to this transaction on cultural grounds. So whose INDIVIDUAL rights are violated by this transaction? Because all I have read from you are arguments that the will of the collective should override the will of the individuals wishing to enter into this contract, and then you get huffy when you are called out for your collectivist leanings.

                1. er, that should be

                  “And you have said previously that even if the presence of Mexican day laborers were NOT to depress native-born wages,… “

                  1. Chemjeff, whether you like it or not, birthright citizenship for foreigners entering the US is reality today. If you are arguing that we should open the border to anyone who wants in right now then you are arguing for exactly what I stated.

                    They are inseparable currently, despite your attempt to claim otherwise. Now, if we changed that judicial ruling, then I’d be interested in your argument about letting people work here.

                    1. No, you are refusing to answer the question because in your mind it really is all about race and xenophobia, and you bring up red herrings like OMG CITIZENSHIP and OMG ANCHOR BABIES to deflect from the core question.

                      Face it: You don’t want Mexican day laborers here because they’re Mexican, full stop.

                    2. It’s not a red herring, because this will be a consequence of your proposed policy today.

                      I don’t care if they’re Mexican or French day laborers. Full. Stop.

                    3. it’s not a red herring, because this will be a consequence of your proposed policy today.

                      So you would forbid a MALE Mexican day laborer from selling his labor to a willing American employer, because maybe, someday, that person might father a child who will become an American citizen due to birthright citizenship? Is that your argument?

                    4. Is the policy proposed by you, or the author of this article:

                      “We should let male Mexicans (or any willing and able male foreigner) enter the country to work on a temporary basis, but restrict the women”

                      Because I actually might go for that, but I have a feeling you’re being disingenuous. Again, I’d rather just end the birthright citizenship nonsense first, and then sure, we can let migrant workers in. As long as they do everything on the up and up.

                    5. **By “on the up and up” I meant they should have to follow the same labor laws that everyone else here has to.

                    6. So you would let male Mexican day laborers freely sell their labor to an American employer? Well then we agree. But suppose some racist alt-right dirtbag comes here and says “but those Mexicans are inferior mongrels, we can’t let them come here, kick all the Mexicans out!” What would be your response to that?

                    7. “I don’t care if they’re Mexican or French day laborers. Full. Stop.”

                      So French day laborers are savages too?

                    8. French day laborers according to everything I have said would be removed right along side of the Mexican ones. I don’t care which country they came from.

                      Does that mean Frenchies are savages? No, but if you’ve got some good data to back it up, I’ll lump them in the same bin as other savages.

    3. Anyone who agrees with Stupid Bitch (Shikha) is an idiot. Our illegal problem is a function of ignoring our own laws. The solution is to actually enforce them. The simple proof is that illegal traffic dropped off after Trump became president just on the threat that he would step up enforcement.

      No open borders. No more illegals.

  3. “After learning that Palacios had overstayed a student visa and Balcazar had entered the country illegally, ICE had pretext to apprehend them.”

    Pretext? To the rest of the world, that looks like probable cause.
    You do know that overstaying a visa is an actual real crime, right? Of course you do.
    You do know that entering the country illegally is an actual real crime, right? Of course you do.

    One columnist’s free speech is law enforcement’s suspicion of conspiracy.

    1. But the law is, like, mean. And Palacios and Balcazar are, like, cool. So, oppression!

  4. So if bank robbers started going on TV and becoming activists for the legalization of bank robbing, the feds arresting them would be “stifling free speech”? Sort of I guess.

    If illegals are so fucking popular, they shouldn’t have a problem finding activists and hacks who are here legally to make their case for them. If you are here illegally, you can be deported. Why should the activists get a pass when everyone else doesn’t?

    1. Because roaming without proper paperwork is the same as robbing a bank. Sure, John. Whatever you say.

      1. It is still violating the law. If you don’t like the law, good for you. But arresting you for violating it isn’t violating your free speech rights.

        1. That wasn’t what the article was about. I know nobody reads before commenting. Dare to be different. Read it.

          1. That is exactly what the article was about. ICE couldn’t target the activists unless they were violating the law in some way. Overstaying your VISA is being here illegally. I suggest you find other hills to die on besides defending Dalmia.

            1. This is an affront to the First Amendment; by targeting lawful citizens for speaking out, the administration shows that in its zeal to uphold the “rule of law,” it is willing to degenerate into lawlessness itself.

              I suggest you try reading the article.

              1. Those citizens were not lawful. They overstayed their visas. Dalmia is just lying there. Saying they are here legally doesn’t make it true.

                1. Dalmia is just lying there.

                  I read something similar from a different source yesterday or the day before. So I’m not so sure that she is lying. It isn’t important enough for me to go looking for it.
                  The entire immigration system as it stands is a cluster fuck. There’s no denying that. That a person can become a criminal because their permission slip expired seems unjust to me. Not that you care about the difference between just and unjust laws, so long as it affects people you don’t like.

                  1. So if I stay at your house one night (with your permission), I can stay as long as I like; it will never be trespass just because my welcome was worn out.

                    1. So if I stay at your house one night (with your permission), I can stay as long as I like; it will never be trespass just because my welcome was worn out.

                      Who is staying in whose house here? Is this one of those “‘the People’ own the country” things?

                    2. The citizens, each one individually, IS a part owner of the country.

                      That’s why WE hire and pay people to run it.

                      Or didn’t you notice that we were doing that?

                      WE pay for the upkeep, WE pay for the alarm system and the guards, WE do all the things an owner does.

                      Why do you think we don’t own the country?

                    3. The citizens, each one individually, IS a part owner of the country.

                      That’s why WE hire and pay people to run it.

                      You’re again demonstrating your inability to think beyond collectivism. Having a representative body that navigates and negotiates conflicts between individual rights is not the same as “hiring and paying people to run the country.”

                      “I run this country” is not the mantra of a libertarian politician.

                    4. For a libertarian you seem to have trouble grasping a principle.

                      A nation is, unavoidably collective – to a degree. If you are a pure hearted an-cap, then gambol to your heart’s content, if you can find a non-owned path of course.

                    5. A nation is, unavoidably collective – to a degree.

                      Yup. And we as libertarians, who are not an-cap (I am not), want to keep that degree of state collectivism to an absolute minimum. We certainly don’t want to use the reality of state collectivism to justify every single instance of mob rule we can think of.

                      The collectivism inherent in the state should be kept to an absolute minimum of guaranteeing the individual liberty of its citizens, and that’s pretty much it. Using a collectivist state to interfere in employment contracts between willing buyers and sellers of labor certainly isn’t guaranteeing anyone’s liberty. I would not expect any libertarian to argue “hey, we’ve already got collectivism, so let’s collectivize everything!”

                    6. We certainly don’t want to use the reality of state collectivism to justify every single instance of mob rule we can think of.

                      The collectivism inherent in the state should be kept to an absolute minimum of guaranteeing the individual liberty of its citizens, and that’s pretty much it.

                      ^ This.

            2. I hear they jaywalked 15 years ago as well.

              1. I hear they jaywalked 15 years ago as well.

                That’s it. Throw away the key.

        2. A assume you would have supported enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act? After all, the law is the law. Even if it is unjust.

          1. Having a border is just like slavery. You called dude.

            1. Unjust laws are unjust. Yes, I called it.

              1. Yes, every law you don’t like is “unjust”. Good thing you are not histrionic or anything.

                1. Um, no and no. You’re the one getting emotional. All I did was point out that the article said the people targeted were in the country lawfully, and you had a full-on fit. Take a sedative.

                  1. They had been here lawfully. they overstayed their VISAS.

      2. “Because roaming without proper paperwork is the same as robbing a bank. Sure, John. Whatever you say.”

        And rapists are just guys who forgot to obtain authorization.

    2. John, what is it with you and undocumented immigrants? Why do they bring out such antipathy in you, that similar law-breaking behavior by others do not? I don’t see you getting into a frothy rage about the scourge of trespassing in this country, or the scourge of drivers speeding on the interstates.

      1. The country has a right to enforce its borders. People don’t have a right to come to this country any more than I have a right to come to any other country. It is a simple position. You don’t have to agree with it. Apparently, you are too stupid to understand it.

        1. “The country has a right to enforce its borders.”

          So how do you go from “the country has a right to enforce its borders”, all the way to “the government is justified in imposing arbitrary rules on who may enter and exit the country”? Please show this chain of logic.

          One way to “enforce borders” might be for the government to simply tally who enters and exits the country, but not impose any prior restrictions on who those people are. Why is this not a legitimate way to “enforce borders”?

          Another, slightly more restrictive, way to “enforce borders” might be for the government to keep a tally, but also to screen out anyone who meets very broadly agreed upon risk profiles. Such as, people carrying horrible diseases, or people who are known international criminals. But otherwise healthy law-abiding people are free to come and go as they please. Why is this not a legitimate way to “enforce borders”?

          Of course, another way to “enforce borders” is for a centralized government to impose arbitrary rules, quotas, restrictions, and grant politically-motivated favoritism for, people crossing the border, regardless of any objective merits of their rationales for wanting to come to this country. This appears to be the model that you favor. Why?

          1. So how do you go from “the country has a right to enforce its borders”, all the way to “the government is justified in imposing arbitrary rules on who may enter and exit the country”? Please show this chain of logic.

            The logic is “enforce” means “enforce”. If a country has a right to have a border, it has a right to determine who crosses it by whatever terms it decides. If it can’t do that and is bound by some higher law requiring it only enforce its borders some ways but not others, then it doesn’t control its borders, the higher law or authority does.

            I get it. You want open borders. Go fuck yourself. Other people disagree. You don’t like it, convince more people to agree with you or move somewhere that has open borders.

            1. “If a country has a right to have a border, it has a right to determine who crosses it by whatever terms it decides.”

              So if a country decides that it wishes to “enforce” its borders by allowing anyone at all to cross freely, that would be a legitimate way to “enforce borders” then, in your view, right?

              1. Yes. It is its border. It can say yes or it can say no. And it can do one thing and change its mind and do the opposite later.

                1. Okay then. So both of us favor “enforcing the border”, it’s just that we have different visions of what that border enforcement might be like. So claiming that the status quo of immigration law is just because “we have to enforce the border” is a non-sequitur. There are multiple ways to enforce the border. So it would appear that your burden then is to justify the rightness of the status quo, rather than to appeal to border enforcement.

                  1. No, what constitutes “enforcement” is currently enshrined in law. It is onerous, and possibly cruel, but not a non-sequitur.

                    1. So there is only one way to “enforce the border”, and that is the status quo? No other ways are possible? That may be your view, but that plainly isn’t what John argued.

                  2. Typical Jeff, making some weak, gymnastic justification for not enforcing existing law. Which just makes us like every other country on the goddamn planet.

            2. “I get it. You want open borders. Go fuck yourself. ”

              Why does the concept of open borders scare you so much?

              1. It doesn’t. I am telling you to go fuck yourself because you are acting like your position has some kind of moral supremacy.

                1. It does have some moral supremacy, based on the moral standards from which it was derived. Mine is based more on individual liberty. Yours is based more on appeals to the status quo, and mob rule. So please try to tell us why your vision of immigration law via mob rule is more just than immigration law based on individual liberty.

                  1. “Yours is based more on appeals to the status quo, and mob rule”

                    This kind of mendacious nonsense is insulting.

                    1. If it’s insulting to plainly state a fact about a position, perhaps that says something about a position.

                    2. I suppose that’s true, but it has nothing to do with my objections, and so I can’t see why you would bring it up here.

                      He made a claim that wasn’t true earlier in the thread, and then built his attack upon his own claim.

                      That has nothing to do with the position and everything to do with him.

                    3. What I found mendacious and insulting was he assigned a position to John based not on what John said, but upon his own assertions and then attacked John for it. That’s the “Yours ” part.

                      If he said that a particular position was based on mob rule, and the status quo, without dishonestly asserting that position was John’s, then I would have had no problem with it.

                  2. Yours is based on appeals to “I want”. You make no case for it having any moral supremacy other than you think it does. I am sure you think a lot of things.

                  3. Jeff, your position is derived from idiocy and ignorance. It has no inherent morality and is not based on logic, but merely feelz. Just like every other idea the progs exalt.

              2. “Why does the concept of open borders scare you so much?”

                It will destroy our country. Porous borders are part of a recipe of destruction. Why are you so afraid of running the country correctly?

          2. Go all the way from?

            This–

            “the country has a right to enforce its borders”

            is this–

            “the government is justified in imposing arbitrary rules on who may enter and exit the country”

            .

            The rules are debated and voted upon–they don’t become arbitrary because you don’t like them. Words have meanings. YOU and yours WANT the immigration laws enforced arbitrarily–ignored for those you want in, enforced against those you don’t, lightened for those who tug your heartstrings, tightened for those who don’t.

            1. “Words have meanings”

              Speaking to words having meaning, countries don’t have rights, only individuals do.

              1. And we individuals used those rights to grant the federal government it’s enumerated powers via the constitution. Or are you against the constitution?

                Among those powers is the authority to regulate naturalization, which includes immigration. It also grants authority to protect our borders. Hence our current system of immigration.

                There is no constitutional basis for open borders. Which I would equate to the Soros movement and international al socialism. Such is the way of treason and sedition.

  5. Authority trying to deny the rights of citizens?

    Who would have ever thought that would happen?

    1. I have right to come to this country illegally, stay here, use whatever social services I want, and then spit in your face by becoming a political activist demanding that you let me stay. And if you enforce the laws against me, you are just denying my free speech rights.

      Why Libertarians can’t get more than 5% of the vote, the mystery continues.

      1. And if you enforce the laws against me, you are just denying my free speech rights.

        Except that the point of the article was that lawful citizens who speak out against immigration policy are being targeted.

        1. The person in the article overstayed their VISA. They were no longer lawfully here.

          1. Apparently, they couldn’t be anywhere they wanted to be.

        2. They aren’t lawful citizens you lying shithole.

          If they’re US citizens they aren’t getting deported. They are at best lawful residents, but if you actually read, the ones they are kicking out are not here legally any longer, because their VISA has expired.

      2. Why Libertarians can’t get more than 5% of the vote, the mystery continues.

        Some people would rather be right than popular. You’re not one of them.

        1. Everyone thinks they are right. Sorry kid, you are not special.

          1. I don’t think so. I think many people just go with the flow because it’s easier. They don’t even bother to evaluate their stances or engage in critical thinking because doing so could risk being thrown out of the collective.

            1. Sometimes the flow is correct.

            2. “They don’t even bother to evaluate their stances or engage in critical thinking because doing so could risk being thrown out of the collective.”

              In your case, you’re just wrong. Painfully wrong.

      3. Its true John. Libertarians make lots of good points, but then ruin it by hitting the crazy button. The simple solution is to stick to the constitution as written. Unfortunately, some people here can’t do that, and shit on the whole movement by advocating progtarded ideas, as if they were ever libertarian.

  6. If the government is singling out some lawbreakers for their 1st Amendment activities, that would suggest that they are going soft on other lawbreakers.

    I suppose the answer to such discrimination would be to shame the government by showing people who are permitted to get away with violating the law, while similarly situated people who exercise 1st Amendment rights are targeted.

    I mean, this is Dalmia’s claim, isn’t it? She’s saying that the govt is prioritizing the deportation of immigration lawbreakers who have exercised 1st Amendment rights, while winking at similarly-situated lawbreakers who remained quiet.

    If that’s *not* her claim, what is her problem?

    If it *is* her claim, then I would humbly suggest a remedy – a discrimination suit where the courts will order the government to impartially act against *all* violators of immigration laws, whether they exercised 1st Amendment rights or not.

    However, I think Dalmia’s remedy is to let these violators off the hook as a remedy for the alleged discrimination.

    The remedy for discrimination (if such it is) is to stop the discrimination, not to ignore the immigration laws.

    1. I suppose the answer to such discrimination would be to shame the government by showing people who are permitted to get away with violating the law, while similarly situated people who exercise 1st Amendment rights are targeted.

      Like Hillary and Flynn?

      1. The people who get the book thrown at them aren’t necessarily the people who need to get the book thrown at them.

        The higher your rank, the more likely your crime will be classified as “boys will be boys” (even if you’re a girl).

    2. Why would anyone ever assume Dalmia is right about anything? She’s a special blend of stupid, ignorant, and disingenuous. Her word means nothing. In fact, I consider it likely any claim she makes is utter bullshit, based on her track record. Anyone agreeing with her should take a good look in the mirror.

  7. “Papiere, bitte”

    1. Because anyone enforcing any law is Hitler.

      1. Yeah. That’s exactly what I said.

        1. It pretty much is. “Oh no! If we have borders and try and determine for ourselves who can and cannot come in the country then we’re literal Nazis! Papiere bitte!”

          This is a part of why normal people don’t take libertarians seriously. You may as well be any other SJW far-leftist screaming “NAZI” at anyone you disagree with.

          1. I mean, I get it, you are the guy around here who thinks immigrants are basically inhuman animals, so you don’t really give a damn how many liberties are stripped away from the savage beasts, but please do try to understand that labor prohibition affects YOUR liberties as well. How else is the state going to know who is a legal resident and who is not? By placing burdens on CITIZENS to have to prove their compliance with the law. These burdens come in the form of employers having to provide documentation to the state on all their employees, greater state surveillance of everyone in order to root out those “troublemakers” who are “aiding and abetting” those nefarious savage animals daring to find gainful employment in a foreign country, being hassled in public by the authorities – and heaven help you if you bear a passing resemblance to one of those savages!

            I know you don’t care about brown people at all, but do you care about your own liberties?

            1. No, that’s just how you see your opposition in your head. Because somehow, telling someone “No, you can’t move here, you must return to your home nation or find another willing to take you” is the logical equivalent of “You’re not human and it’s okay to treat you like a beast”

              For me it is hardly about the work. Let’s pretend for a minute that labor was totally immune to supply and demand, and mass immigration had zero depressive effects on wages, okay? I’d still be opposed to it because these people by and large vote for socialism. They balkanize and organize based on race. And that is bad for the country as a whole. We’d be better off taking a small economic hit in exchange for a chance at more liberty for our citizens, rather than attempting to invite them into our nation to ruin it like they ruined their own.

              1. “No, that’s just how you see your opposition in your head. ”

                I’m not talking about all opposition to immigration. I’m referring specifically to you.

                ” I’d still be opposed to it because these people by and large vote for socialism.”

                So you collectivize immigrants and lump them all in the category of socialists.

                I do find it more than a little bit ironic that you have no problem collectivizing them, but you insist on being judged on your own individual merits.

                1. Chemjeff, in a democratic republic, where everyone can vote, and when discussing millions of people, the numbers matter greatly. When 75-80% of a demographic group has a given tendency, it is highly relevant in discussing where your nation is going should you intentionally import millions of people belonging to that group.

                  And didn’t you just collectivize them as brown? Aren’t there non-brown illegal immigrants? It’s almost like you’re guilty of exactly what you claim I shouldn’t be doing. Like it’s fine for you, but for your opposition it is evil.

                  As to collectivizing, I refer to all sorts of groups collectively, because it is useful to real-world decision making. Normal people do so. I am an individual, but I may belong to several demographics, and it makes sense to refer to those demographics collectively, including myself in them, or pointing out when I am in the minority of said demographic.

                  1. Look at how you refer to “them”. You don’t even try to distinguish among them or assess their strengths and weakness. You just refer to them all as an undifferentiated mass. You would never tolerate such behavior used upon yourself by others. Why do you think you are justified treating others like you yourself would never tolerate being treated? The answer is because they are not full human beings in your mind. You DO treat them like second-class people, at the very least.

                    And why should there be any central plan on “where your nation is going”? Why should there be any agency or bureau or plan AT ALL? Let people be free to do as they will, without any central plan or architect guiding the happy citizens to where they are supposed to go.

                  2. And didn’t you just collectivize them as brown? . . . As to collectivizing, I refer to all sorts of groups collectively, because it is useful to real-world decision making.

                    Which is actually a normal human brain function. Where you go wrong is when you collectivize people and claim to speak for one collective with a goal of depriving the members of another collective of their individual rights.

                    Do you see the difference?

              2. “Those people can’t understand liberty! They’ve turned their own countries into hellholes and now they want to pollute ours and destroy and insult everything our pure and noble ancestors have constructed! Stop calling me racist!”

                1. Yeah, it’s amazing that they have destroyed their nations. And somehow you think they won’t continue to vote for those same policies, when every indicator of patterns shows that they do exactly that in general. Because individualism!

                  But you’re the one who somehow is stuck on race. Is it your contention that only brown people can destroy their home nation? Because there’s plenty of white nations that we shouldn’t be taking millions of immigrants from if we want more liberty.

                  1. I’m not even arguing to make them citizens! I’m arguing that there is no good reason to prevent a willing employer and willing employee from entering into an employment contract based on some lack of government-issued immigration papers. You are the one advocating that every private contract should be subject to public approval, if that contract happens to involve one of the “bad people”. What exactly is the difference between what you advocate and actual socialism?

                  2. Yeah, it’s amazing that they have destroyed their nations.

                    Again, your total ignorance of world history combined with your eagerness to make declarations about it is quite stunning.

                    Please outline the series of local parliamentary votes that made the Middle East how it is today.

                    1. I know, right? It’s as if people like Kivlor believe that every nation on the planet is governed by pure Athenian democracy, and the reason why some nations are worse off than others is due to the pure unadulterated will of the people to choose to make their nations terrible places to live, completely ignoring the various dictators, tyrants, kings, warlords, generals, and sundry potentates that have deprived people of self-government and stolen the national wealth.

                    2. “Why didn’t they vote to make the Ottoman Empire last forever? Stoopid people!”

                    3. It’s as if people like you think that these terrible policies and terrible rulers just magically pop up out of nowhere due to the geographical location of these places or the “magic air” theory, and if we just let them all move here then it won’t happen any more.

                    4. It’s as if people like you think that these terrible policies and terrible rulers just magically pop up out of nowhere due to the geographical location of these places or the “magic air” theory

                      It’s as if people like you are 100% ignorant of the history of the world outside of this country, as I’ve said before.

                      I asked for your account of how the Middle East came to be the way it is today, including an account of the extent to which the people who live there participated in that process. You clearly have no idea, and prefer to hand-wave about “culture.”

                    5. Yup. It has definitely nothing to do with the people there, and totally the magic air that has led to this.

                      I think the Middle East, like most places, are a product of genetics and culture and history. Is it your contention the US would be the same if it had never been colonized? Or if the Chinese had colonized this continent?

                    6. I think the Middle East, like most places, are a product of genetics and culture and history.

                      Well duh.

                      The point is that you clearly don’t know anything about any of those things, yet you are eagerly condemning whole countries full of people you literally know nothing about.

                      Lesson number one in Middle Eastern history: do you know the difference between a Turk, an Arab, a Kurd, and a Persian and why this is important to the politics of the region?

                      Lesson number two: are you aware of how the modern borders in the Middle East came into being and how they are maintained?

                      Lesson number three: are you aware of any tensions between these two things in light of recent major events in world history that might have a causal relationship with current ongoing conflicts?

                      But, “genetics, culture, and history.” Brilliant display of the depth of your learning.

                    7. Let’s take Egypt as an example. It has been conquered and colonized for literally thousands of years. Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, French, British. They have only been an independent nation in the modern era since 1953. They got their first democratically elected ruler – FIRST EVER, in 5,000+ years – in 2011. In all of those thousands of years of rule, how much wealth was stolen and siphoned away from the country? Customs and cultures are built up from tradition over generations. Suppose you grew up in a culture where it was just accepted as normal that you were the subjugated servant of some colonial master, and not as a free citizen entitled to inherent rights. How long do you think it would take for your cultural viewpoint to change from one of servitude, to one of liberty? Maybe it would take more than just a few decades? I’m not saying all of Egypt’s problems, or those of former colonies, are ENTIRELY the fault of their colonial masters. The people living there now are absolutely responsible for the decisions that they make right now. But for heaven’s sake cultural customs and traditions don’t change overnight.

                      Imagine if the Soviets invaded a la Red Dawn style, conquered and ruled America for 200+ years, stealing all of its valuable resources and wealth in order to prop up its failing communist system, and then decided to leave. How long do you think it would take for America to get back on its feet? Do you think America would look like it looks today?

            2. Yup, reality can sometimes suck. Unless we have a magic wall (and I don’t want to go there), citizens may sometimes have to prove their legal status.

              Or are you advocating for a one-world nation?

              1. The open borders libertarians are arguing for a one-world nation, even though I don’t think they’re actually aware of it.

                After all, what are the most porous borders? Interstate borders.

                They don’t shill for these things on purpose, or at least I don’t think they do, but functionally it’s where it leads.

                I suspect that the libertarians who are in favor of these types of policies approach libertarianism from the classically liberal side of things, which I can otherwise respect but sadly in this particular arena is leads to a lot of war.

                I could truly respect this breed of individual if their rally cry was ‘annex Mexico’ but for some reason they only want to grant people on the American side liberty. It’s like they don’t believe in borders, but somehow the Mexican border in particular is magically one-sided. Essentially they want it both ways, and are too stupid to realize it.

                1. Essentially they want it both ways, and are too stupid to realize it.

                  I don’t think that’s really engaging the people you’re disagreeing with.

                  I could truly respect this breed of individual if their rally cry was ‘annex Mexico’

                  I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve been advocating the reunification of Alto and Baja Californias for years and years. The artificial separation of Baja from Alto in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo has permanently colored the way immigration law and migrant labor interrelate in CA.

                  The issues, as with most issues, are largely local, which is why national debates almost always go off the rails (and why we need to move back in a states’ rights direction on almost every issue).


                  1. I don’t think that’s really engaging the people you’re disagreeing with.

                    That’s largely because the people who make those arguments are unhinged, by and large. The notion that borders don’t exist and nation states are illegitimate is the territory of wingnuts.

                    The reason I say I could respect the annexation angle is because it seems to me that often the basis of the rationale for why we must let in this or that group rests upon the notion that all humans have natural rights and we want to extend those to people who live in regimes that disagree.

                    While that’s a noble enough goal, it’s notably the stated rationale (even if not the actual rationale, which can only be guessed at) for much of our military adventurism around the world. I.E. bringing democracy to those godless savages.

                    The non-aggression principle is something that tries to keep that in check with libertarianism, but since that’s an idyllic principle that barely exists, if it exists at all, in the real world it leads somewhere other than where most libertarians think it leads in my opinion.

                    It’s one reason why I rarely refer to myself as a libertarian, because while I respect the ethos I also recognize that it’s a utopianist dream to strive for rather than something that can actually be realized. I think a lot of self-avowed libertarians would disagree with me there.

                    1. The real utopian nonsense is the notion that somehow, someway, the monopolization of the administration of justice will effect the most efficient, just, peaceful, and prosperous results.

                      That is some Tony level stupid.

                    2. “I also recognize that it’s a utopianist dream to strive for rather than something that can actually be realized. I think a lot of self-avowed libertarians would disagree with me there.”

                      No disagreement there. Seems like a lot of the detractors of libertarianism argue about its utility. We’re not going to delete all the roads overnight. It’s just a lens of prioritizing liberty and non-aggression when considering policy decisions. A perfect implementation of a communist society is just as impossible as libertopia for a lot of the same reasons.

                      I’ve just eschewed political labels. It’s really silly to distill all of my opinions derived from a lifetime of experiences down to a single word. If there are truly people that agree with every position of a major party platform, they should adopt some skepticism.

                    3. It’s just a lens of prioritizing liberty and non-aggression when considering policy decisions.

                      ^ This x 1000.

              2. citizens may sometimes have to prove their legal status.

                Well we do have this thing called the Fourth Amendment.

                1. I had no idea that the Fourth Amendment had anything to do with checking immigration status as it is neither a search nor a seizure.

                  Maybe you’re thinking of the Fifth Amendment.

                  1. A police officer demanding to see my identification, if I’m not suspected of doing anything else wrong, is an unreasonable search. I’m not required to carry ID on my person.

            3. “I mean, I get it, you are the guy around here who thinks immigrants are basically inhuman animals”

              Jeff, you’re the guy around here who makes stupid hyperbolic statements like that one, or even more obtuse semantical arguments like how the government not having a legal basis to regulate immigration or our borders. when these things have long since been worked out. Its the sort of bullshit I expect from some proggy college freshman in some philosophy class. Not from a real adult making an adult argument based in reality.

              Whether you agree with John or Kivlor, they’re certainly capable of that.

          2. Normal people?

            You mean the types that are just fine with living in an electronic cage under the watchful eye of the Panopticon?

            You mean the types that just dutifully and willingly allow themselves to be grabbed and groped and prodded and poked by uniformed analphabets at the airport?

            You mean the types who dutifully and willingly agree to have a third to half of their income confiscated by the taxing authorities?

            If that is normal……

            1. You know what I love about comments like yours, LM? Go back and read it. This is the most elitist, “TOP MEN” kind of argument imaginable. The plebeians are beneath you, and deserve only scorn. They can’t be convinced or persuaded toward liberty. But if we open the borders to the socialists and authoritarians to our south, those people can totally be convinced to support liberty because it feels good man. What a joke.

              At heart, you’re really a tyrant, aren’t you? It’s okay to admit it.

              1. Yeah, like I want authoritarians and socialists.

                How can you construe my comment as being a “TOP MEN” argument?

                Do your rights or my rights end at the feelings of the “normal people” of whom I write? Such people are the quintessence of snowflakehood.

                1. How can you construe my comment as being a “TOP MEN” argument?

                  Well dude, if the people WANT to be groped by TSA flunkies, who are you to object to the will of the people?

              2. Kiv, Mike has no real argument, Just that drivel you read.

  8. They should renounce public benefits such as welfare, which are used as a pretext to expel them. They are mostly young and healthy and industrious and don’t need them anyway. That way people will know they embrace American values such as self reliance and 1A.

    1. “That way people will know they embrace American values such as self reliance and 1A.”

      No, those are the old and busted American values.

      The newfangled American values are: fear of foreigners, outrage against any “microaggression” no matter how slight, demanding that your political adversaries be treated as inhuman monsters, inordinate and excessive chest-thumping and flag waving about whatever America does regardless of the merits.

      1. Every nation in the world controls its borders. The US always has as well. Do Canada and Mexico fear foreigners too?

        You really are not very bright are you?

        1. Before WWI the borders were pretty free.

          1. So what? They were “free” because we decided they were not because they had to be. After WWI we changed our minds.

            1. We? I’m sorry but I don’t recall being included. Government is not society, and society is not government. Just because the government decides something doesn’t mean society necessarily agrees.

              1. You are included now. If you want the borders to be free, go convince the country and win an election. If you don’t, well that is how life goes sometimes.

                1. You know John has lost when his argument goes down to “People said it’s this way, so tough shit.” It’s a nothing argument. “It is what it is.”

              2. Society agrees.

            2. You used the word “always.” I’m just saying it wasn’t “always.”

        2. But even that is relatively new, John. This idea of strict border controls is not very old.

      2. You left out the desire for a nanny state and seeking a risk free world, including protection from ideas that might offend.

    2. The only way to enforce this, even if they agreed to it, would be to issue papers that could be demanded to be seen by the government. So we’re right back to square 1: If you don’t let them all in, and give them welfare then you’re literally Hitler.

      1. Why? Just give them a card. That’s easy as hell. I think you already need to show ID at the Welfare office.

        1. A card that they have to supply if they are asked to at the Welfare office? Like forcing them to carry papers on them that the government can demand at will? Dude, that’s Nazism according to the other libertarians on this page. Literally Hitler. Just look at Sarcasmic’s comments for a great example.

          Plus, it would be racist. You’d be creating a disparate impact on brown people. You don’t want to be racist do you? Even if you do, surely the SCOTUS will overturn such a policy, because they’ve previously ruled that any policy that has a disparate impact on the browns is obviously illegal racism. Huzzah for liberty!

          Sure, they may use welfare at very high rates BUCS, but at least we’ll have diverse food options. That’s worth it if you’re libertarian. It is known.

          1. You lose credibility by characterizing me as making an argument for “TOP MEN” because I point out the “normal people” whom you praised above are such snowflakes as to demand and insist that their feelings trump my liberty. Just like the students who think their feelings trump my liberty.

            1. No Mike, this is about YOUR feelings. You’re the snowflake.

              Reasonable Americans expect the government to observe the constitution, not whatever you personally feel might be fair.

          2. A card that they have to supply if they are asked to at the Welfare office? Like forcing them to carry papers on them that the government can demand at will?

            Clerk at welfare office asking to see card identifying you as qualified to receive benefits = have to carry papers at all times and be subjected to random searches by government authorities or be locked in a cage.

            Seems legit.

    3. They should renounce public benefits such as welfare, which are used as a pretext to expel them.

      In my experience, most of them do. They’re just not as well publicized as the others.

      1. And in my experience, I’ve overhead plenty of conversations in spanish by people of questionable citizenship about how to best gain access to disability payments.

        Our Mexican neighbors are no more noble or special than our own citizenry. They’re fully able to game systems just as much as Americans, just with a few extra crimes tacked on to basically the same offense. Somewhat amusingly, deportation is actually less of a punishment than what they might receive by being a legal citizen for the same crime though.

        I’m not trying to delegitimize your experiences, of course, just adding some of my own. I know more than a few second or even first generation legal immigrants from Mexico and somewhat ironically they have a bigger problem with illegal immigration than I do. Texas is a pretty conservative place, though, so I assume they chose Texas over California for a reason.

        1. And in my experience, I’ve overhead plenty of conversations in spanish by people of questionable citizenship about how to best gain access to disability payments.

          And I considered including a point to this effect – my experience is in construction where the people I’ve dealt with are specifically looking for work, typically have families back home they are sending money to, and are very, very concerned not to lose their position by drawing attention to themselves or by trying to use government services. They also tend to have a strong work ethic where they don’t want government services and handouts and don’t approve of those who take them.

          Working in an emergency room, you probably are exposed to the exact opposite demographic, one I never see.

          But I’m more of the camp that says “let the illegals expose the flawed assumptions behind the welfare system” because I don’t think you’re going to get rid of it as long as it’s a system of privileges and entitlements for registered citizens, which isn’t really what “America” was supposed to be in the first place.

  9. “Remember team, the law is the law, and all laws must be enforced. Without the rule of law we would have complete anarchy. Now go harass some browns, and remember: be safe out there.”

    1. “Remember team, the law is the law, and all laws must be enforced. Without the rule of law we would have complete anarchy. But anytime the law is imposed on somebody brown, it represents racist oppression, and so they must be excused.”

  10. The obligation to obey the rule of law is predicated on two prior assumptions:

    1. That the law itself is just; and
    2. That the government enforcing the law is legitimate.

    If the law is not just, then we as moral beings have a higher obligation to ignore the law. (See: Fugitive Slave Act)

    If the government is not legitimate, then we as moral beings are justified in breaking ordinarily just laws in order to end the tyranny imposed by an unjust regime. (See: revolutionaries anywhere overthrowing despotic governments)

    So before anyone else screams once again “We must enforce immigration laws no matter what because rule of law!”, first demonstrate that the two preconditions are valid: that you believe immigration law itself is just, and that the government enforcing the law (the US government, via ICE) is a legitimate exercise of its just powers.

    1. Your problem is that you think “I don’t like this law” is the same as “this law is immoral such that I am under a moral obligation to break it.” You are basically a historic simpleton who thinks every policy dispute is a moral crusade on par with that of slavery. Sorry but it’s not. You are not fighting a great moral crusade because one isn’t required and be thankful for that. Instead, you have a policy disagreement and are just another person with an opinion. Grow the fuck up.

        1. Right, guvna!

      1. Know who else accuses libertarians of acting on “like and dislike” instead of principles?

        1. Every position you have is a moral principle and every disagreement is a moral issue of the highest importance, but calling you people histrionic is just so unfair. No one gives a shit about your principles. Other people have principles too. Who says yours are the right ones? Appealing to your principles is nothing but you refusing to debate your opponents and declaring their position morally illegitimate. That may make you feel good, but it isn’t going to ever convince anyone of anything.

          1. Well then. I guess your principles don’t matter, that your morals don’t matter, that nothing you say matters because it’s just histronics, and you’re wrong about everything. No point in any debate at all.

            1. They matter just as much as yours. Mine are different than yours. Why do you get to claim yours are more important and demand I bow to them?

      2. So is it your position that immigration law is just solely on the basis of majority support?

        1. Immigration law is especially just, based on majority support of those legally part of the nation–as long as we pretend democratic ideals. And those outside the legal nation, literally or figuratively, have no standing.

        2. Ideally, wouldn’t this be true? Our border regulations would be subject to the will of the people, and the government should faithfully enforce them?

          1. “Ideally, wouldn’t this be true?”

            Well in a purely ideal world where every citizen was a virtuous saint, then sure.

            But in the real world where citizens routinely demand the authority to restrict the liberties of their neighbors based on arbitrary and capricious sentiments, then no.

            1. Isn’t this an argument for moving to another country?

              If you live in a place where the government routinely enforces unjust laws because that’s what the majority of the citizens want, what is your other option?

            2. Fair. Mainstream politics is entirely about using the government to force everyone to adapt to another’s morals.

              So when John’s saying that he wants the current rules enforced, that makes sense to me. I don’t agree with drug prohibition, but neither can I say that the government doesn’t have the right to imprison people for violating it. I’m happy when they turn a blind eye to it, but I also find it be a worrisome slippery slope of selective enforcement. The law is unjust, but justice is supposed to be blind (ha!). Other than jury nullification or a change in laws, how could we argue that the government was wrong to enforce the rules that we ostensibly established?

              I think there is a “rule of law” argument to be made for immigration, although I certainly think a lot of people are using that as an excuse to justify esoteric, emotional fears of immigration. Enforcing the law is the government’s job, and it’s our job to vote for people who will change that law to a just one.

              1. Drug prohibition is, per se, evil.

                Drug prohibition is not a power that was granted to Congress. Thus, any statutes enacted to prohibit drugs are a violation of the rule of law.

                Ditto with immigration. Congress was not granted the power to do anything with immigration. I trust that you are not dopey enough to conflate immigration with naturalization.

                1. Drugs could easily be said to fall within the ‘general welfare’ clause while immigration is an enumerated power of the Federal government. So, I’m sorry to say that you’re wrong constitutionally. I would be inclined to agree with you that those are potentially the FedGov overstepping, but that’s a minority opinion ‘to be sure’.

                  The obvious remedy is an amendment or convention of the states, but I note that’s about as likely as the Earth falling into the sun tomorrow.

                  1. Congress’ power is one of enumeration and there is no language in Article I, dealing with Congress, which gives it the power to prohibit or regulate drugs.

                    In fact, the general welfare clause is in the preamble and there is nothing in the preamble which specifies that it is to be considered a basis upon which to relied in construing the enumerated powers given to Congress.

                    Moreover, legal custom and practice existing at the time of the Founding did not regard preambles to any document as conferring binding authority. In my own practice, with regard to Trusts, Wills, and some contracts, I specifically draft language which makes the Recitals (Whereas clauses) operable and binding.

                    1. No, immigration is not an enumerated clause. Remember, you are not dopey enough to conflate naturalization with immigration.

                      Also, no power is to be implied. After all, the frothing at the mouth central planning federalist zealots who supported ratification swore up and down that the filthy document did not indulge Congress with implied powers.


                    2. No, immigration is not an enumerated clause. Remember, you are not dopey enough to conflate naturalization with immigration.

                      nat?u?ral?i?za?tion.
                      [?naCH(?)r?l??z?SH?n, ?naCH(?)r??l??z?SH?n]
                      NOUN
                      1.the admittance of a foreigner to the citizenship of a country.

                    3. Citizenship does not embrace all elements of immigration. After all, not all immigrants, intend to be citizens. Not all visitors intend to be citizens.

                    4. Well if you want to get pedantic, “immigration” is just the word “migration” with the “im” prefix, indicating inward migration. “emigration” is the word “migration” with the “e” prefix, meaning outward migration.

                      So foreigners IMmigrate here (migrate IN to our country), but they Emigrate from their home countries (migrate OUT from their original country).

                      So strictly speaking, neither one has any necessary connection with naturalization. One can migrate inwards (immigrate) or migrate outwards (emigrate) without changing citizenship status.

                      That is why the term “undocumented immigrants” actually is a pedantically correct phrase, even if it does make Team Red mad. The phrase refers to migrants, migrating inwards, without proper documentation. But it doesn’t necessarily mean anything regarding citizenship.

                    5. Good observation.

                      And, somewhere else here, you made a great point about applying collectivism to the movement of guns.

                    6. Why thank you 🙂

                      I don’t know if the people making the collectivist argument against immigration really understand the logical consequence of what they are arguing. If they really mean “the public may arbitrarily decide to limit what people do on public lands because collective ownership!”, that type of argument is way more likely to be used against them when it comes to things like restricting gun rights, or restricting what types of vehicles they can use (“your gas-guzzling SUV is destroying the planet! So we the collective are going to forbid you from driving it on public roads!”) than applying it in the context of immigration.

                    7. How about Company X, which is publicly traded, and has lots of government contracts.

                      Notwithstanding the fact that there have been a handful of random assaults at various of its offices / facilities, some with knives, some with guns, Company X bans its employees from possessing guns on any of its grounds, including an employees car.

                      How do you stand with regard to the right of employee Y to keep a gun in his glove compartment? He signed no contract in which he specifically agreed to abide by the no gun policy.

                    8. In my view, property owner decides what may be done on the property. The “publicly traded” and “lots of government contracts” are irrelevant. If property owner says “no guns on my property, even if that gun is in your private vehicle which is on my property, then those are the rules.

                      Now if the government were to say “in order for you to receive this government contract, here is a list of conditions that you must meet, including permitting all of your employees to carry guns in their cars while on your property”, then that is a different story.

                2. Drug prohibition is, per se, evil.

                  This is a non sequitor.

                  Drug prohibition is not a power that was granted to Congress. Thus, any statutes enacted to prohibit drugs are a violation of the rule of law.

                  And yet, here we are. The majority of your fellow Americans disagree with you and even if they’re wrong they’re the ones effectively enforcing the rules.

                  Congress was not granted the power to do anything with immigration.

                  And yet, here we are. You may not like the rules and/or believe they’re unjust, but the majority of your fellow Americans once again disagree with you.

                  1. Actually, a majority of Americans agree that MJ and alcohol should be legal. A majority of Americans also agree that a veritable plethora of drugs, to be found in the armamentarium of their doctor and BIG PHARMA should be legal.

                    Given what the lefties want, and they have been stacking up victories over the cucky lefties (the GOP), I wouldn’t be so sure of the absoluteness of the proposition that a majority of Americans disagree.

                    Since we are both Massholes, how about the land governed by Charlie “too tall Deval” Baker?

                    1. Actually, a majority of Americans agree that MJ and alcohol should be legal.

                      Then one would hope that the government will catch up like it appears to be doing slowly but surely.

                      Given what the lefties want, and they have been stacking up victories over the cucky lefties (the GOP), I wouldn’t be so sure of the absoluteness of the proposition that a majority of Americans disagree.

                      Ahh ‘the lefties’. They certainly have become the go-to villainous horde. Like you, many others believe that those dastardly lefties are getting things done despite the will of the vast majority that oppose them. Maybe you should rethink your assumptions on who does and doesn’t agree with them.

                      Since we are both Massholes, how about the land governed by Charlie “too tall Deval” Baker?

                      What about it? I have long since given up hope that things in this state will in any way correspond with my values. I live here because my family is here and I have managed to arrange my life in a way that I’m comfortable with.

                    2. Spark, I wasn’t questioning your reasons for living here. There are good people who live just like there are good people who live in California, Illinois, Maryland, and even New York and Jersey.

                      You can discern the differences in thought and philosophy of the regulars here. You know that peeps like me and sarc do not fit what you wrote in your second paragraph which begins, “Ahh’ the lefties.”

                    3. Spark, I wasn’t questioning your reasons for living here.

                      What was your reasoning behind asking about it then? I answered what I thought your question was, if you had some other intent then rephrase and I’ll try to answer.

                      You know that peeps like me and sarc do not fit what you wrote in your second paragraph which begins, “Ahh’ the lefties.”

                      Do I? If “the lefties” are always to blame for anything bad that happens, then how am I mistaken? If this extremely small but extremely vocal segment of the population is taking over everything, then who really is to blame?

                    4. Regarding Massachusetts, my question was intended for you to apply your point about the majority’s view on immigration to the Commonwealth.

                    5. my question was intended for you to apply your point about the majority’s view on immigration to the Commonwealth.

                      Given how many Puerto Rican refugees the state recently absorbed and the seemingly constant influx of immigrants, it appears to me that the majority of the state residents are just fine with immigration.

                    6. Agreed.

              2. Enforcing the law is the government’s job, and it’s our job to vote for people who will change that law to a just one.

                And at the end of the day this is as likely to happen as an end to burdensome immigration laws or an end to the welfare state.

    2. well said

    3. “[F]irst demonstrate that the two preconditions are valid: that you believe immigration law itself is just, and that the government enforcing the law (the US government, via ICE) is a legitimate exercise of its just powers.”

      OK.

      The very definition of nationhood rests on the self-determination of those who are members of the nation, and that includes deciding who else can join the nation.

      As the legally formed agency of the members, the government has the right (and responsibility) to enforce current laws.

      1. “The very definition of nationhood rests on the self-determination of those who are members of the nation, and that includes deciding who else can join the nation.”

        Why does this collective decision-making on who may “join” the nation extend to anything beyond citizenship?

        I would agree with you that the citizens of a nation may justly set rules for who may join it as a fellow citizen.

        But for simply being a visitor? That is a higher burden to prove on your part. If I wish to invite a guest onto my property, why should you or anyone else have any veto power on that invitation? I’m not extending citizenship to that guest.

        1. I agree that “visitors” are different. But…

          The citizens share ownership of the national commons, including public spaces and public resources. I would argue again that collective decision making can set rules on sharing (or not) with non-citizens.

          As for guests on your property, that is your business. Unless the guest tresspassed my property to get to yours. Or until you or your guest claims that by residing on your property, coincidently within the bounds of the nation, they attain a new legal status equivalent to citizenry.

          1. “The citizens share ownership of the national commons, including public spaces and public resources. I would argue again that collective decision making can set rules on sharing (or not) with non-citizens.”

            Okay, but then if that’s your argument, I’m going to insist that you apply that standard uniformly. For example, if the citizens were to decide, say, that because they “own” the national commons (not really, but let’s just go with it), that they will not allow guns to be transported in public places, you would have to conclude that this too would be a just application of the citizens’ collective decision-making power, by your standard. Even though it would constitute a severe restriction on the right to own a gun (you could buy a gun at a gun shop, but would have no legal means to transport it home). Same with protest demonstrations on public land that the majority found offensive, etc., etc. And so that gets into the second assumption, that a government which attempted to use its authority to suppress individual liberty would not be a legitimate application of government power, *even if* the majority demanded it. The purpose of publicly-owned resources in the first place is to expand human liberty, not for the state to use its ownership rights as a cudgel to beat citizens into submission.

            I agree that trespassing on your private property would not be legitimate, and I agree that simple residency alone should not grant citizenship.

        2. It’s really not the fault of Libertarians that Americans in general prefer labor policies that put immigrants at a severe disadvantage.

          Get rid of almost 100 years of American labor policy like the minimum wage, workman’s compensation, collective bargaining, and welfare and then I suppose we could take you more seriously.

          Simply throwing the doors wide into a massive redistributionist welfare state is the worst idea the left has. Unless, of course, you’re the type that advocates for anarchy for anarchy’s sake. At least then you’d be less disingenuous.

          If you want wide open immigration, don’t talk about immigration. It’s the end result, not the cause, of some pretty terrible things. People who argue against the end result instead of the programs that lead there are irrational, so please stop being irrational.

          Or, maybe you are rational and you know that those programs are so ubiquitously popular that there’s zero chance they’re going away so you need to lie and deflect to get to your preferred outcome and damn the consequences of collapsing the nation.

          Also, I suppose to be fair I should also proffer the most likely scenario where you’re just ignorant and are emoting your way to an outcome.

        3. “If I wish to invite a guest onto my property, why should you or anyone else have any veto power on that invitation? I’m not extending citizenship to that guest.”

          The country doesn’t belong to you. So you don’t get to unilaterally decide who comes here.

    4. “So before anyone else screams once again “We must enforce immigration laws no matter what because rule of law!”, first demonstrate that the two preconditions are valid: that you believe immigration law itself is just, and that the government enforcing the law (the US government, via ICE) is a legitimate exercise of its just powers.”

      This has already been done a long time ago. You;re the one who is confused here. No one needs to prove anything to you. You are not an arbiter of anything. No one owes you shit.

  11. Praising the bracero program is evidence enough that Shikla Dalmia has no idea what they are talking about.


  12. The undocumented problem in this country is entirely a function of bad immigration policies that scrapped the bracero guest program with Mexico in 1965 and erected a gazillion obstacles that, ever since, have prevented willing American employers from hiring willing foreign workers.

    Wow, so she’s being disingenuous from the very first paragraph. If she honestly thinks this started in 1965 she really needs to take an American History class. Try since the turn of the century, Dalmia.

    1. Try when the second wave of Asians wandered down from Beringia and started encroaching on the territory of the “first” Americans.

      1. That’s a bit more abstract since ‘immigration policy’ at that time was basically ‘you strange, hit with rock’, but I suppose that could work too.

        Historically speaking though, I was under the impression that those were the first ‘Americans’ since there were no hominids on this continent at the time. My knowledge there is a bit limited though.

        1. I just want to make the point that “undesired” immigrants predate Columbus, or the Vikings, or other Euro-trash.

          Genetic and other archeologic evidence supports the model that early “Americans” arrived in at least 3 big waves over a few thousand years. I expect that each wave annoyed those already here. And more recent intra-continental migrations caused trouble, like the 1500’s arrival of Navajos and Apaches in the domain of Pueblo culture in the southwest US. That was not exactly a peaceful immigration, or welcomed by the locals.

          1. Ah, those cases I’m a bit more familiar with and it’s a truthful if obvious point that violence and war have generally gone hand-in-hand with ‘immigration’ throughout the entirety of human existence that we know of.

            It appears that humans are simply tribal by nature.

            1. Ah, those cases I’m a bit more familiar with and it’s a truthful if obvious point that violence and war have generally gone hand-in-hand with ‘immigration’ throughout the entirety of human existence that we know of.

              That’s actually not true. There is, in fact, a real, tangible, and definable difference between “immigration” and “invasion.” Peaceful immigration has gone on throughout human history. Just read the early books of the Bible and note how many people from how many different places peacefully co-existed in Canaan in the second millennium BC.

              1. Immigration and invasion have been difficult to really distinguish between in prehistoric or biblical times, but my point is more akin to there are exceptions but they are not the rule. Mankind as a whole is tribal in nature, even while sometimes they organize themselves into groups that take advantage of their tribal differences and can live in relative harmony for a time.

                Inevitably, though, that tribal nature rears it’s head again and ruins any harmony that was achieved. I do suppose though that one could make the argument that resources have more to do with it, and I would tend to agree, but war over those resources tends to spit people by tribe more often than not.

                It’s collective thinking on the grandest possible scale, perhaps, but I find it to be a useful observation regardless.

                1. Immigration and invasion have been difficult to really distinguish between in prehistoric or biblical times, but my point is more akin to there are exceptions but they are not the rule.

                  And I would vehemently disagree.

                  History focuses on conflict and war because “and they all lived together peacefully and went about their business” makes for a really boring story. But the latter has been the case among most people in most places in most times in human history.

                  1. “History focuses on conflict and war because “and they all lived together peacefully and went about their business” makes for a really boring story.”

                    But I also want to dispel any fairy tales about how indigenous people, especially in the Americas, lived in a peaceful, dreamy paradise, at least until the white guys showed up. Those “invaders” just did it faster and harder, and with more tech, but were hardly the first to take land by force.

            2. “It appears that humans are simply tribal by nature.”

              This is the one sentence summary of all of politics. Some liberts believe that the only sustainable society is one where folks have self-segregated into small tribes/clans. It pretty much always boils down to “us vs. them,” where “them” means “literal Nazis.”

              1. Some liberts believe that the only sustainable society is one where folks have self-segregated into small tribes/clans

                And this is arguably the worst, i.e. least-sustainable, thing. And the thing that identity politics is currently driving us towards with great enthusiasm among members of both major Teams.

  13. It seems to me that if you are an illegal alien it would behoove you not to make yourself visible. They are being arrested for being illegals not because they are “speaking out”.

  14. “The undocumented problem in this country is entirely a function of bad immigration policies that scrapped the bracero guest program with Mexico in 1965 and erected a gazillion obstacles that, ever since, have prevented willing American employers from hiring willing foreign workers . . . . But instead of fixing the law, hard-line restrictionists have been demanding a crackdown against the “law breakers” for violating the “rule of law.”

    The illegal immigration problem in this country is entirely a function of the American people’s unwillingness to accept open borders. The reason our immigration laws are the way they is because that’s the way the American people want it.

    Instead of trying to use the coercive power of government to force your favorite law on an unwilling American populace, how ’bout making the case for why open borders are in the best interests of the rule of law, American security, the American economy, and the American people? Do you imagine American voters like being treated with contempt?

    If there’s anything more counterproductive to the cause of open borders than calling the people who oppose it racist or trying to strip them (through legislation or the courts) of their constitutional right to influence immigration policy through their vote, I don’t know what it is. The beatings will continue until morale improves?

    P.S. Why put “rule of law” in scare quotes? Are you making fun of the Constitution and the separation of powers?

  15. “In a bid to stifle the backlash against its harsh enforcement policies, federal agents are now targeting high-profile immigration activists in addition to the immigrants themselves. This is an affront to the First Amendment; by targeting lawful citizens for speaking out, the administration shows that in its zeal to uphold the “rule of law,” it is willing to degenerate into lawlessness itself.”

    Are these people being deported for what they say, or are they being deported because they’re illegal aliens?

    1. Exactly. It’s basically acting indignant that people who have knowingly broken a law get arrested for it when they stand on a public soap box and loudly declare that they broke a law.

      I might be sympathetic to their cause, but since those who advocate for open borders never even discuss the labor policy that by necessity restrictions immigration I must assume they’re idiots and should be ignored. They aren’t making arguments, they are emoting. Plain and simple.

      ‘Feelings’ do not make for good policy.

    2. Stop injecting facts into the world of Shikha Dalmia, where legal and illegal immigration are the same, not two separate topics; and all who disagree are full blown racists.
      Everyone in her fantasy agrees that these are first amendment deportations, not actual law violations based on judicial proceedings.

    3. Well if Shikha says they’re being targeted, it must be so. She’s never wrong, or an idiot.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.