Immigration

Volunteers Sentenced for Leaving Food and Water for Migrants in the Arizona Desert

The humanitarian aid workers with No More Deaths say that helping someone who is dying shouldn't be a punishable offense.

|

LUCY NICHOLSON/REUTERS/Newscom

In August 2017, four humanitarian aid workers were seen trekking through the Arizona desert on a 104-degree day, as they scattered jugs of water and cans of beans.

Last week, a federal judge sentenced them to 15 months of probation in connection with the incident. Their crimes? The volunteers—Natalie Hoffman, Oona Holcomb, Madeline Huse, and Zaachila Orozco-McCormick—left food and water for migrants crossing the dangerous stretch of desert in the protected Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge near Ajo, Arizona. Each will also be required to pay a $250 fine.

Prosecutors said they gave undocumented immigrants "false hope."

The four women are members of No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, an advocacy group that works to halt fatalities that occur as migrants navigate hazardous conditions across the southern border. Whether it be through the Arizona Uplands or the South Texas brush, travelers confront threatening landscapes where falls are customary and temperatures can exceed 115 degrees. Those daily highs plunge to nightly lows, leaving migrants—dressed in sweat-drenched clothes—vulnerable to hypothermia, according to a report by the organization. Water is scarce, and what little exists is often polluted.

That undocumented immigrants are negotiating precarious paths in favor of accessible ports of entry is no coincidence, according to No More Deaths. It's tactical, they say—part of a Border Patrol strategy that concentrates enforcement resources in urban areas to divert travel to hostile, potentially fatal routes.

Known as "Prevention Through Deterrence," Border Patrol conceived the practice in 1994. Such unsafe conditions should dissuade large swaths of immigrants from making the journey, the thinking goes. No More Deaths says the strategy is synonymous with "death as a deterrent."

And based on the data, it looks like the second moniker may be right on target. Reason's Christian Britschgi notes that between 1998-2005, annual migrant deaths rapidly increased from 263 to 492, which so alarmed the Pima County Medical Examiner's office that they began keeping comprehensive files on the undocumented remains that came their way. Even more staggering were deaths in the Tucson Sector, the area which houses much of the perilous southern border terrain. Those fatalities jumped from 11 to 219—a near 1,900 percent spike.

It's with this in mind that a coalition of faith and community groups came together in 2004 to form No More Deaths. "Since 1998, over 8,000 human remains have been recovered in Southern Arizona," Justine Orlovsky-Schnitzler, a spokeswoman for the organization, tells Reason. But even that doesn't show the full picture. "Since we know bodies break down quickly in such harsh environmental conditions, we know the true death count is much higher," she says.

Many of the remains are never found or decompose so dramatically that a coroner can no longer identify the body. Greg Hess, the chief medical examiner for Pima County, tells PBS that Border Patrol finds approximately half of the discovered bodies, while locals find the rest.

"I've become a little more hardened to it," Gregg Ladd, a rancher who has found 14 corpses, said in an interview with the station. "But it's still an experience you don't want to go through because it's a dead body. It's a human."

Art Del Cueto, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, tells NPR that the enforcement agency is the most "properly equipped" to address migrant emergencies and that they are "not out there mistreating anyone." But No More Deaths refutes that, pointing to footage showing officers dumping out water jugs, as well as seizing and destroying supplies left for migrants hiking through the desert.

The group has also documented Border Patrol's "chase and scatter" tactics. Those include using low-flying helicopters to pin people to the ground and all-terrain vehicles to pursue them through the obstacle-ridden environment, causing some to fall off cliffs or drown. The report includes allegations that migrants have been dragged and bitten by dogs, beaten with the butt of a gun, kicked, thrown to the ground, and struck with moving vehicles. In one instance, an individual was hit repeatedly over the head by a Border Patrol Officer. After landing in an immigrant detention facility, a doctor diagnosed him with swelling of the brain, which resulted in long-term vision damage.

"The agency of enforcement cannot also be the agency of humanitarian aid," Orlovsky-Schnitzler tells Reason. "U.S. border policy and enforcement is not compatible with the health and safety of migrant populations."

Another No More Deaths volunteer, Scott Warren, will go on trial this May. But this time, more is on the line, as he is charged with two felony counts of harboring undocumented immigrants and one felony count of conspiracy to harbor. If convicted, he faces 20 years in prison.

Warren is mounting a religious liberty defense, as he claims his deeply held faith compels him to assist those in need. "For me, we most definitely do unto others as we would want to have done unto us," Warren said at a court hearing last May.

Religious undertones aside, that mantra is core to No More Deaths' identity, with volunteers saying they are merely trying to provide some relief to those in mortal danger. They envision a country where helping someone that is dying of starvation isn't penalized by up to two decades in federal prison—and one where crossing the border illegally isn't punishable by death.

"The humanitarian work that has ultimately brought us here today will continue to address the border crisis until there are no more deaths," the four volunteers said in a statement after hearing their sentence. "We refuse to stand by and watch silently as the United States becomes more and more deeply authoritarian. This is something that affects and should concern us all."

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.

150 responses to “Volunteers Sentenced for Leaving Food and Water for Migrants in the Arizona Desert

  1. $250 fine for littering in a Natl Wildlife Refuge. Sounds about right.

    1. I was wondering why they didn’t just get them for littering…

      1. They should certainly add those charges too. It is particularly disturbing to see that one of them is invoking a “religious liberty defense.” Why do people keep raising this “First Amendment” nonsense when they cross the line and become criminals? Aiding and assisting the enemy during a national emergency?during a crisis without parallel in our great nation’s history?can hardly be justified on grounds of religious freedom. This is like saying that using criminal impersonation to disseminate an inappropriate message is actually just a form of “parody” protected by “freedom of speech.” As if criminal mimicry of an NYU department chairman could be just for fun, like a late-night television show. Well, the “truth” is not a defense, and that claim didn’t hold up any better than this one will. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

        https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        1. Fuck right off with calling them “the enemy”.

          1. I think he’s being factious, but the unhingedness rivals Hihn’s and it’s honestly hard to tell.

            1. Come now, such language. Here at NYU, we require respect for the bounds of propriety, and we expect to be treated respectfully by others as well. The enemy’s tactics are clear from their willingness even to use children as weapons, staging their “incarceration” as propaganda and fake news directed against our nation. I say why spend a single dollar feeding the children; eat them instead. And now we learn that certain elements among our own population are aiding and abetting this propaganda, leaving food for children being unleashed in the desert, seeking to divide us with “religious liberty,” and insulting our government in the process. There should be a law against that too, just the way there is in Russia.

        2. a crisis without parallel in our great nation’s history

          Poe’s Law.

          1. Striking that you should mention that, because some of us here at NYU have been working on a proposal to have it added to the books, as a formal homage to the author of that name, after the inappropriate criticism we received several years ago when we took down his alleged home?obviously an unnecessary structure that had outgrown its time, despite the misplaced sentiment surrounding it?to make room for one of our faculty and student lounge areas. And a far better law it will be than the “free speech” baloney we keep hearing about. Fortunately the ACLU, some of whose personnel are part of our adjunct teaching staff, has lately limited itself to litigating only “easy” cases of the so-called “First Amendment.”

    2. They violated the provision of 8 USC 1324 that prohibit “harboring” of illegal aliens — which is a felony. The charge should have been much more severe. Without a clearer message, folks will go on allowing illegal aliens into our country.

      1. Did you read the article? One of them is being charged with harboring in a separate trial.
        In too much of a hurry to come to the comments & hurrah a few church folks getting arrested for the heinous crime of giving water to men, women & children in a desert perhaps?
        By all means, explain to us confused libertarians how state control of labor markets is so critical that it demands this level of unhinged cruelty. Bonus points for arguing that foreign brown people endanger democratic norms requiring us to build concentration camps of farm & law workers or that “the rule of law” demands stealing private property along the border to transform it into a 2000 mile checkpoint charlie.
        Voluntary contracts for labor & nonaggression toward individuals seeking lawful employment as well as freedom of movement are definitional principles for libertarians. There are plenty of issues that reasoned libertarians can dispute, but this isnt one of them. If you find yourself defending the state starving human beings to defend labor regulations, you have embraced the absolute nadir of amoral authoritarianism. Take that sh*t to breitbart & quit stinking up reason.

  2. I cannot imagine this sentence holding up on appeal.

    1. it makes no sense

      1. Diane, the criminal justice system in this country has been crooked since jumpstreet. If anything, I wouldnt be surprised to see an appeals court give them jail time. Cant have the plebs thinking they deserve a trial or the whole rotten sh*tpile breaks down. Thay said the next trial will be the one to watch – theres a higher bar for adjudicating felonies in court. The tack thw prosecutor takes & the ultimate resolution of the case will likely prove a bellweather for similar charges moving forward.
        Its disgusting, but whether its drugs, prostitution of undocumented immigration, when you want to crak down on a victimless crime you have to terrify the population for it to work. The more people are scared, the more likely they are to adopt the kind of morally aberrant behavior the state is seeking to encourage. turning in your own parents for smoking weed, letting kids starve in the desert for GDP numbers, its all symptoms of the same sickness.

    2. 8 USC 1324 makes it a felony to aid, shelter or facilitate entry of illegal aliens. Landlords and truck drivers are also covered under this law. The Catholic Immigration Law Network has an excellent white paper on the case law.

      Sanctuary folks: Shielding the location of illegal aliens from federal authorities is a felony as well, and government officials are specifically included.

  3. I thought aiding and abetting WAS illegal. Reason is arguing it is not?

    1. Reason is arguing that the almighty State is not always to be obeyed just because the State enacts legislation and regulations.

      Are you arguing that the law is the law and MUST BE OBEYED?

      1. No, the law can be disobeyed without consequence if one has “good intentions”
        The rest of us who shirk the white man’s burden and do not sufficiently idealize noble savages should of course still face consequences for violating laws.
        Arbitrary enforcement is the only moral course

        1. Yes we know Nardz.
          The “noble savages” are illegal humans who deserve to die in the desert.

          1. What’s “deserve” have to do with the realities of life?

            1. The “realities of life” like an oppressive state?
              So we should just submit and obey? “Oh well, whatcha gonna do”?
              There are people willing to save lives in the desert and you are the one who wants to see them punished. It’s not a “reality of life”, it’s an arbitrary use of state power.

              1. Illegal sub-humans are, after all, illegal sub-humans. They were born (even if 5 inches or 5 yards on the wrong side of the Sacred Border) on the WRONG side of the border!

                They deserve NO mercy! Nor do those who show mercy to those who deserve no mercy!!!

                1. My property line was just arbitrarily drawn 10 feet to the wrong side. I should actually own part of your house.

                  Give it up…bigot.

              2. Immigration laws arent oppressive dipshit. If they wanted amnesty they seek it through legal ports of entry or an embassy. They chose to violate the law and cross illegally. The proof is the fact they are attempting to avoid detection.

                1. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal to help them not die.

                  On the other hand, it’s kinda fucked up to keep putting food and water in the middle of the desert, helping to ensure more people travel that way.

                  1. It isn’t illegal to help them not die.
                    It is illegal to trespass on a wildlife refuge, operate a motor vehicle in that refuge without permit, and litter.
                    If doing these things was what they felt were necessary, then those are the consequences.

                    Incidentally, there are probably much better ways to help them not die (as you allude to).
                    -missionary work
                    work
                    -Visa sponsorship/application
                    -preventing them from crossing the border.
                    Maybe other ways too, but those come to mind.

                    1. Definitely don’t disagree with you on any of that. I had no idea what they were actually charged with and shame on Reason for not being clearer and on me for not doing more research.

                    2. 15 months probation is excessive and it is politically motivated prosecution. the border patrol leaves more trash in the desert and drives around more than anyone else. none of the harms that are covered by these laws happened here, and nobody thinks this is “littering”.

                      it is not illegal to trespass a wildlife refuge, that’s insane. It’s an open desert where anybody can hike if they wish. a “permit” is nothing, and it only to regulate uses, not prohibit it. leaving water and food for other hikers is not “littering”.

                  2. Actually “Harboring,” facilitating, sheltering and shielding the locations of illegal Aliens from federal authorities are all illegal under 8 USC 1324.

                    Employing, renting housing, providing transportation, shelter, or supplies to Illegals is a FELONY.

                    The Catholic Legal Immigration network, Inc has an excellent and readable white paper on the topic.

                  3. Actually “Harboring,” facilitating, sheltering and shielding the locations of illegal Aliens from federal authorities are all illegal under 8 USC 1324.

                    Employing, renting housing, providing transportation, shelter, or supplies to Illegals is a FELONY.

                    The Catholic Legal Immigration network, Inc has an excellent and readable white paper on the topic.

                2. they aren’t trying to avoid detection, they aren’t permitted to cross at the ports of entry at all. what you just wrote doesn’t make any sense, obviously. nobody is afraid to go through the port, and most people try.

                  I don’t know what makes you think it’s illegal to hike in the desert. there is no such thing as an “illegal border crossing”, you went and mixed up two words: “immigration” and “border crossing”. two very different things.

                3. They are INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY violating US law.

                  That is NOT a good foundation for becoming an American.

              3. Well Jeffy, we all know nothing is more important than getting these people into the US, even your illegal friends from your chapter of NAMBLA.

                Then it’s an all you eat buffet of little white kids for them to rape, right Jeffy?

            2. What’s “deserve” have to do with the realities of life?

              Also, it’s really pretty easy to be undeserving of such a fate. Like, seriously not tough at all. To the point that when people talk about bright, hard-working immigrants coming to this country and starting businesses and opening up taco trucks if they’re really talking about the same people who would willingly walk to their death in the open desert.

          2. racebaiterjeff projecting his hatreds onto others, as per usual

      2. I’m arguing that if you feel the law is unjust, feel free to breal it and face the consequences.

        The Civil Rights movement didn’t seem to back down from punishments for their actions.

        1. The entire world entering our nation without our permission is not a “right.”

      3. That is the point of laws.

    2. It’s true that Aiding and Abetting a criminal is against the law, but there is a HUGE difference between giving a starving person food and trying to cover up a murder

  4. Known as “Prevention Through Deterrence,” Border Patrol started the practice in 1994.

    A better time in America.

  5. Ironically, if the government didn’t seize this land, it would be private land. Then the migrants would be trespassing on private land and Reason’s crew would be very angry at them.

    1. And this is wrong from an individualist perspective? Ar you too arguing that the State must always be obeyed?

      1. You are really dumb on this subject. You and Jeff should go hash put your facial analysis more and come up with a better argument that’s based on rational thought.

      2. As the great thought leader George Whitefield said, Liberty can only exist in an environment of virtue. Our nation and freedoms can only survive if the people police themselves and follow rules and laws established by the community.

        Our immigration laws are created by our elected officials; if we want the nation and our liberty to stand then we need to follow our own laws willingly.

      3. As the great thought leader George Whitefield said, Liberty can only exist in an environment of virtue. Our nation and freedoms can only survive if the people police themselves and follow rules and laws established by the community.

        Our immigration laws are created by our elected officials; if we want the nation and our liberty to stand then we need to follow our own laws willingly.

    2. Unless those people were invited onto the property in the first place…

    3. Ironically, if the government didn’t seize this land, it would be private land.

      How is that ironic?

      Also, it might simply be unclaimed land. Being out in the desert, that’s quite likely.

  6. I understand why the law is the way it is, and one of the reasons it can be that way is because juries are supposed to make sure everything passes the stink test.

    “Warren is mounting a religious liberty defense, as he claims his deeply held faith compels him to assist those in need. “For me, we most definitely do unto others as we would want to have done unto us,” Warren said at a court hearing last May.”

    That should be the end of that case.

    Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

    —-Matthew 25: 37-43

    Oh, here’s another verse we should all know . . .

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

    —-First Amendment

    1. For me, we most definitely do unto others as we would want to have done unto us
      What about the masochists?

      1. old joke
        “beat me, beat me” cried the masochist.
        “no, no” said the sadist.

    2. And this one

      “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God”

      Leviticus 19:34

      1. So, you’re pro theocracy

        1. TIL freedom of religion = theocracy.

          1. No, the implication put forth above is that federal law should be based upon scripture.
            That would be theocracy

      2. Is this more of non religious people telling religious people what they believe?

        1. This is one guy claiming that his religion compels him to help others.

      3. Neither.

        It is a quote from ancient times. A piece of wisdom which has endured for millennia.

        Look at it in terms of deep history and what we know about human evolution and migration. We are all descendants of a long history and many migrations. We are, every one of us, from another place.

        Each one of us is an individual. From that our moral basis derives.

        Therefore treat each other as such.

        That is what it means to me.

      4. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.”

        John 10:1

        1. That applies to a shepherd leading his flock. It’s a metaphor for pastors/priests where Jesus is the door. A good shepherd will lead his flock through the door (Jesus). It doesn’t apply to this situation.

          “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

    3. Now do the Koran, or however they spell it. I’ll bet there’s stuff in there that allows breaking laws too.

      1. Is the defendant a Muslim?

    4. “I can break all the laws I want because God”

      Sounds like Rule of Law.

      1. Who are you to say if he has a deeply held belief to not bake the cake?

        1. It’s generally not illegal to *not* bake cakes. I’m not baking one now.

          1. My bad if you weren’t one of the people that argued the baker had every right to express his religious liberty and not bake the cake for the gay couples wedding.

            Just find it interesting that some people think breaking that law and justifying it with 1a is somehow different.

            1. He doesn’t have to have a reason not to bake the cake. Just because, is good enough. Not a religious argument.

              1. pUbLiC aCcOmMoDaShUnZzzz

            2. Just find it interesting that some people think breaking that law and justifying it with 1a is somehow different.

              So you advocate slavery?

              I mean, if he HAS to bake the cake, whether he wants to or not, then he is a slave, is he not?

              1. Not at all, but buybuy getting his panties in a twist because some idiot is using the 1A as a defense for breaking this law smacks of hypocrisy.

                *I knew I should have put a disclaimer that I agreed with the baker exercising his 1A to not bake the cake. And I don’t see the problem with this guy using it as a defense either.

                1. As for the cake baking, my understanding was that it was never about the baking, it was about the demand to decorate the cake in a way that celebrated a gay marriage. It was never about discriminating against any person, but not being compelled to engage in expression one disagreed with.

                  The proper 1a defense is freedom of speech, not religion.

                  You shouldn’t get extra rights because you say “But God told me to.”

      2. “I can break all the laws I want because God”

        Sounds like Rule of Law.”

        The laws can’t compel you to violate your religious convictions–although they can convict you for violating someone’s rights.

        Was this guy trespassing?

        Whose rights were being violated because he left water for people who might need it?

        1. Is your contention that it is a violation of his rights to not allow, the same as the rest of us, him to trespass and litter because his religious beliefs instruct him to trespass and litter?

        2. The rights of Americans not to have their country invaded.

        3. And the law most certainly can compel you to violate your religious convictions.

          God may command you to kill the infidel. But it’s still illegal.

  7. They were charged with entering a national wildlife refuge without a permit, abandonment of property and operating a motor vehicle in a wilderness area. Not leaving food and water for migrants.

    1. So Reason has engaged in fake news. Imagine that….

      1. CNN has a misleading headline but at least they’re honest in the article: https://tinyurl.com/y46l3ta8

        “Four women who left food and water for migrants in the Arizona desert have been sentenced and fined for entering a national wildlife refuge without a permit.”

        “In addition to entering without a permit, the women were also accused of abandoning personal property, according to a statement by the Department of Justice. Hoffman was also convicted of operating a motor vehicle in the refuge.

        1. They should have been convicted of a FELONY under 8 USC 1324, which prohibits sheltering, facilitating, or harboring illegal aliens and enabling them to remain in the US illegally.

          1. +1

    2. Thank you.
      Was wondering what they were convicted for but couldn’t remember.
      I recalled from another article that the charges weren’t “aiding and abetting” – in fact, they were charges that would apply regardless of illegal immigration.
      Reason is shameless

    3. Are you a real idiot or just pretending? The property they abandoned was water jugs and food. They drove to the sites to drop off the food and water. And you usually don’t need a permit to enter a wildlife refuge so I’m not sure what that’s about.

      1. It was “good” littering

        1. A wall isn’t littering nor does it migratory harm wildlife.

          1. nor does it migratory harm wildlife

            hehe, that’s for sure

      2. From the Department of Justice News release:

        “On Aug. 13, 2017, United States Fish and Wildlife Service officers assigned to the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Ajo, Ariz. responded to a group of trespassers who were operating a motor vehicle in a protected wilderness area. Hoffman admitted to driving the car into the wilderness area, and all the defendants admitted to entering the refuge without a permit and leaving a stash of water and canned food at Charlie Bell Well. On Jan. 18, 2019, after a three-day bench trial, the Court found the defendants guilty on all charges, rejecting the defendants’ multiple defenses.”

        Evidently you can’t enter a protected wildlife refuge without a permit. Because it’s “protected” maybe? Nor can you just drive around and tear up the “protected” refuge. Or litter for that matter.

        1. Exactly! What part of ‘protected’ do you not understand?
          When the elites put the US off limits the US citizens, it is for their enjoyment only, not you casual wanderers.

          Papers, please!
          No permits, no freedoms.

          Pay attention, there WILL be a quiz.

          1. I’ve been out there. The need for a permit is valid. See my post downthread.

        2. ” Nor can you just drive around and tear up the “protected” refuge. ”

          Sorry, Gaia comes *after* illegals in the intersectionality victim hierarchy.

          Open Borders Uber Alles!

    4. Thank you.

  8. Known as “Prevention Through Deterrence,” Border Patrol started the practice in 1994.

    This Billy Binion fellow catches on quick. Make goddamn sure you put something in there so that everybody knows you are in no way whatsoever criticizing anything Our Lord and Savior Donald J Trump has anything whatsoever to do with lest we be subjected to a comment thread filled with the usual suspects defending inhumanity as the very sine qua non of Making America Great Again.

    Billy Binion is the Spring 2019 Burton C. Gray Memorial Intern at Reason.

    Um, but he’s been writing articles here for nearly a year. Are you saying he was fucking promoted to “intern”? What the hell was he before he was “intern”? “Orphan”?

  9. Warren is mounting a religious liberty defense, as he claims his deeply held faith compels him to assist those in need.

    Fair enough. His deeply held faith should be compelling him to go south and help these people not start north. It turns out they can actually eat food and drink water in their country of residence. Safer for everyone, and a bit closer to rendering to Caesar – – –

    1. His deeply held faith is that *invaders of America* must be fed, not just anyone.

      Open Borders Uber Alles!

  10. If only there were some way to stop migrants from wandering through dangerous desert areas. Perhaps keeping them from crossing the border? But that would require some kind of…barrier…and of course it wouldn’t be 100% effective and only 100% effective policies are worthy of discussion.

    1. Interesting how this seems to be an exception to the oft-heard mantra of politicians: “if it saves just ONE life”

    2. It would be about as effective as the current methods employed to stop people from using drugs.

      1. Jeff’s contention is true because Jeff really, really wishes it to be true

        1. “Free people will find the path of least resistance around laws that prohibit consensual behavior” is not exactly a wish of mine. It appears to be more grounded in reality than any prohibitionist nonsense, that the state can coerce its way into creating a model citizen.

          And by the way, at least as far as drugs are concerned, I don’t *wish* it were true. Drug addiction is a horrible thing that I don’t wish upon anyone. But hey guess what, if the “cure” is Prohibition, then the cure is worse than the disease.

          1. How do you feel about child rapists?

            1. Jeffy loves child rapists!

              1. Those child rapists are simply finding “the path of least resistance around laws that prohibit consensual behavior”.
                The rapist consents, that’s all chemjeff seem to need, because “grounded in reality”.

            2. How do you feel about child rapists?

              They violate the NAP, unlike drug users and border crossers.

          2. “Walls don’t work” because muh moral preening.

            I didn’t consent to this invasion of America. Neither did a lot of other Americans.

            1. I didn’t consent to this invasion of America. Neither did a lot of other Americans.

              LOL, as if your consent matters at all to what the government does.

              1. racebaiterjeff called the Invasion USA “consensual behavior”
                I pointed out that he was mistaken, as per usual.

          3. If we put physical barriers around drugs you might have a point.

            Drug prohibition = immigration restrictions

            1. that should have ended with “not physical barriers”.

  11. “That undocumented immigrants are negotiating precarious paths in favor of accessible ports of entry is no coincidence, according to No More Deaths. It’s tactical, they say?part of a Border Patrol strategy that concentrates enforcement resources in urban areas to divert travel to hostile, potentially fatal routes.”

    Someone is being disingenuous.

    If anyone is trying to stop people from moving from area A to area B, then the first routes to be guarded are the easiest. Then harder routes are cut as resources are available.

    Guarding the easiest, most convenient routes isn’t some evil trick to kill illegals.

    1. Yeah, that’s some lame “reasoning.”

      “If he hadn’t locked his front door, I wouldn’t have had to break a window to steal his shit and slice my hand all up.”

    2. I was hoping someone would point this out. It seems blatant that the areas they’re guarding are the places people are most likely to guard.

      These people dropping supplies along potentially fatal routes also may be encouraging deadly behavior; like someone telling kindergartners there’s candy hidden down at lumber mill. “Just make sure to look real hard!”

      1. These people dropping supplies along potentially fatal routes also may be encouraging deadly behavior;

        Would you traipse through a desert just for the chance of getting some free water?

        1. Disingenuous again.

          Scenario: I’m thinking about crossing the desert to get into the US. I’m concerned that it may not be worth it since there’s a fucking desert and a possibility of death.

          Then someone tells you, “Well, actually, there’s all kinds of people leaving stuff out there for you to find because they don’t want people to die crossing the desert.” If I think there’s people out there to help me, maybe I’m encouraged to the point that I make that decision, yes.

          1. If you are willing to cross a dangerous desert based on unverified rumors on what may or may not be in the desert to aid your journey, then it doesn’t really matter if there actually is water in the desert or not. You’re probably going to die.

            This is like saying “sure, go ahead and try heroin, I hear that there are some sweet free needles you can get at the needle exchange clinic”. If that is your attitude, then the free needles aren’t going to make a difference.

          2. It’s worse than that. These groups also hand out maps and trail guides to the crossers inviting them even more than just offering food and water. There is also the practice of giving groups paygo phones so they can call for help of they get lost or injured. People still die because dehydration is a hell of a way to go with your mind being the first to go. Likewise the use of these remote calls for help have essentially bankrupted the southern Arizona trauma one centers greatly effecting healthcare for actual citizens. But Jeff doesnt give a fick about actual citizens.

            1. They’re engaged in criminal conspiracy to violate US immigration law.

              Lock them up.

              1. +100

        2. I see you never played OG Legends of Zelda.

  12. I know a few “No More Deaths” volunteers. A couple of them hang out at the same bar I do in South Tucson. I’ve also been out in the same area they were busted. The dumbest thing they did was neglecting to get the free permit to be in the area. And if you want to bitch about needing a permit, the area is adjacent to Goldwater Bombing Range. It’s kinda a good idea to know if anyones out there.

    Free Permits

    If they had a permit, BP would have had a much harder time proving their case.

    1. It seems to me that their strategy is horribly inefficient given their stated goals. They should be crossing the border themselves, then finding people who want to cross into the US before they leave, and then giving them backpacks full of supplies. Perhaps also handing out maps and compasses so they can avoid getting lost. Maybe they can hand out some burner cell phones as well so they can call for help if they’re near to death.

      If you’re going to claim a religious duty, you may need to do a better job than leaving stuff out where they might not be found.

      1. All of that and more happens across the line.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoyta#Present_day

    2. “And if you want to bitch about needing a permit”

      A *free* permit.

      These guys are just dumb.

  13. Those people aided and abetted criminals. PERIOD. Those migrants are considered criminals until they are permitted to enter the USA, no matter how else you want to look at it.

    We should not be encouraging them. This is the problem with air-headed, bleeding heart dimwit dems.

    1. Lock them up.

      The only thing that Trump lacks is the *will* to enforce immigration law.

    2. Illegally crossing the border deserves execution?

      1. There’s a world full of people we don’t save from death.

        Violating US law should put a foreigner to the back of the list for saving, not the front.

        1. Ahh, yes, the paragon of human worthiness: the products of congress.

          1. Yet Lefties continue to want Congress and government to do more.

            Its almost like Lefties lie about their motivations and goals.

      2. Don’t be disingenuous. All law enforcement involves the threat or use of potentially-lethal force. All law enforcement is a case of “death as a deterrent”

        Shoplifting doesn’t “deserve execution”, but it certainly should be illegal, even though that means people caught doing it will have to be arrested, arrests rely on force or the threat thereof, and the use of force to carry out an arrest inevitably carries a chance of fatality.

    3. Those people aided and abetted criminals. PERIOD.

      What should Harriet Tubman’s sentence be?

      1. Heros do what is right no matter what the consequence.

  14. Okay, let’s play a game.

    Let’s suppose you are a CBP chief in charge of a particular sector. (For many of you, this would be your dream job!) And, a remote sensor is activated in the desert, indicating that there is someone out there in a very inhospitable area who will very likely need assistance. But, you cannot leave your post at the current moment. Instead, a No More Deaths person comes up to you and says “I have all the food and water that I need to save that person in the desert, if you will allow me to go and save that person, if you will give me immunity from being reported. Oh and I am recording this conversation now, in case you change your mind later.”

    What do you do? Do you:

    A. Agree to the deal, let the NMD person save the migrant, and don’t prosecute the NMD good samaritan.

    B. Refuse the deal, and let the migrant perish in the desert.

    C. Agree to the deal, then later welch on the deal and prosecute the NMD people anyway once the migrant is saved.

    What is your choice?

    1. In the Tucson sector, the unspoken truce used to be you will not be arrested for giving aid. If you provided transport, you were subject to arrest.

      1. Knowingly transporting illegal aliens is specifically a crime
        U.S. Code ? 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
        (a)(1)(A)(ii)
        https://liicr.nl/2J1fUo9

    2. My choice is that you present really shitty hypotheticals.

    3. Jeffy wants to p,ay a game…….

      Run children! Run!!!!!!!!!! And don’t accept those funny juice boxes from him!

  15. Sounds about right. If they survive the wild they get to stay.

  16. “Volunteers Sentenced” to 0 days in jail for criminal conspiracy to violate US immigration law.

    U.S. Code ? 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
    https://liicr.nl/2J1fUo9

    Lock em up.

    1. Law enforcement personnel get a pass for conspiring to kill people – but leave food in the desert and you should be locked up?

      1. “Law enforcement personnel get a pass for conspiring to kill people”

        When that’s actually the case, I’m against it.

        When it’s only spin on the American government protecting Americans from invasion, that’s too bad.

        “but leave food in the desert and you should be locked up”

        Conspiracy to commit crime is a crime.

        You want to destroy America. I don’t.

        1. If America can be destroyed by a few cans of beans left to keep people from literally dying, it wasn’t a place worth saving.

          1. Poor trolls hate America and everything it stands for but wont leave.

            Hmm… must be because its not so bad for them.

          2. You, shorter: America is not a place worth saving.

  17. “Prevention Through Deterrence,”

    “death as a deterrent.”

    Yeah, that’s pretty standard government operating procedure.

    See: Prohibition, War on Drugs, etc.

    If you don’t do what the government wants it will find an excuse to get you killed if not kill you directly. That’s literally how government works.

    1. Migrants must cross the border. They are like salmon, trying to get to the stream where they were spawned. They really have no agency in the matter.

      1. The government put that desert there specifically to kill and deter migrants. All the deaths it has caused is on their heads. If it weren’t for CBP, the place would be a luscious paradise brimming with liberty.

        1. “The government put that desert there specifically to kill and deter migrants”

          They put that desert there with global warming!

  18. I have, many times. They are destroyed by treatment. I had a friend who died recently. He was ‘mentally ill’ for years. His brother is too. Both his parents are psychiatrists. On Facebook last year a friend was bullied into getting a temporal lobotomy. I raised a cry and then his friends starting bullying me and telling me that I needed a lobotomy too. What was so weird is that no one intervened, other than me. Even though together we had hundreds of friends. Now he is sitting in an institution somewhere blowing bubbles. #treatmentkills

  19. “They envision a country where helping someone that is dying of starvation isn’t penalized by up to two decades in federal prison?and one where crossing the border illegally isn’t punishable by death”

    If you die doing something dangerously foolish, you are not being punished for that foolish act. Even if the reason you are doing the foolish act is in the course of breaking laws.

    They are being punished for leaving stuff on land they do not own. Arguably creating an attractive nuisance that might get more people killed by making them think it is safer to cross there.

  20. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  21. Well, unless you can get them all together and can use a bomb. Hmmm, sayyyy, are there are any places you can think of where central planners are collected together?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.