Immigration

ICE Begins Nationwide Raids on Undocumented Immigrants

The raids will continue for several days as the Trump administration tries to track down immigrants for arrest and deportation.

|

A series of raids to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants are officially underway across the U.S.—with some cities and companies resisting federal enforcement efforts.

The crackdown reportedly began on Saturday, a day earlier than the Trump administration had announced it would start. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted that he received reports of "enforcement actions" in parts of Sunset Park and Harlem, but that officers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were unsuccessful after showing up without a warrant. Fox News reports that further ICE raids began late Saturday and are continuing into Sunday morning in jurisdictions across the country.

President Donald Trump previously said he would direct ICE to carry out the raids in June, but postponed them after some in his circle reportedly demurred. The course of action comes as his administration seeks to quell an influx of migrants from Central America, many of whom are showing up at the U.S.-Mexico border with claims of asylum.

Leaders in several of the targeted cities—including New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco—are resisting the efforts. The New York Mayor's Office, for instance, sought to remind migrant families of their rights, including that they are not obligated to open the door if approached at home. ICE is not permitted to forcibly enter a residence.

According to The New York Times, the agency is zeroing in on 2,000 migrant families in 10 major cities who received final orders to leave the country, some of them because they failed to attend their immigration hearings. Officers are also reportedly carrying out "collateral" deportations, in which undocumented immigrants who were not initially targeted by ICE but happen to be present may find themselves swept up in the raids as well.

"We're really looking for criminals as much as we can. Trying to find the criminal population, which has been coming into this country the last 10 years," Trump told reporters on Friday. "So we are really specifically looking for bad players, but we are also looking for people who came into our country not through a process, they just walked over a line. They have to leave."

Families who are arrested will be held together in family detention centers. Some may be jailed in hotels if those centers reach capacity, but certain chains—including Marriott International and Choice Hotels—have already suggested that they will not participate.

NEXT: Trump Administration Finally Wins a Sanctuary City Grant Condition Case

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. Thank you
    America Invest billions of dollars in Afghanistan for fighting a war against the Afghan Taliban but the U.S failed to get a positive response. Afghan Taliban become much stronger as compared to past that’s why the US is afraid that the Afghan Taliban will be an annihilate them. The world has a fear that Afghan Taliban becomes a supper army in upcoming days. So President Trump said,” America is decided to leave Afghanistan and sort out the matter with dialogue”

    Are the Afghan Taliban are future power after US army collapse

    1. So what kind of supper are we talking about here. If it has falafel and hummus count me in.

    2. ^This is a bot.

      1. Whew, I’m glad you told me, I had no idea, he almost cleverly influenced my next election with that slick presentation.

        Kinda like the time I saw Jesus and Trump fighting Hillary and Bin Laden, I just knew that, despite my feminism and support for abortion on demand up to the 4th trimester, I knew I couldn’t vote for Her. Imagine my horror at being duped

  2. Why does Congress hate immigrants?

    1. I suppose this has more to do with the illegal aspect of the ‘illegal immigrant’ raids, and less about hating all immigrants. Two of my daughters in law are immigrants, from Kowloon and Minas Gerais, and they are unafraid of Trump and the ICE raids. In fact, the Brazilian one can go on and on about those who jump the line…

      1. Bitter and jealous, indifferent to the suffering of others — they’re going to fit right in.

        1. OG
          July.14.2019 at 1:08 pm
          “Bitter and jealous, indifferent to the suffering of others — they’re going to fit right in.”

          If they end up around you, they’ll need to be stupid and proud of it to fit in

        2. Why do you keep running this lame ass sock Screech?

        3. There is nothing bitter and jealous about this.
          There is a legal way to become an American citizen and crossing the border illegally is not the way.
          If you are seeking asylum you will not be turned away if you present yourself at a legal point of entry. Also, since Mexico is seen as a safe country, you should claim asylum in Mexico and not cross the entire country.
          Personally, I would instantly deport anyone crossing the border illegally and direct them to a port of entry. This would instantly prevent illegals who have already been deported and who repeatedly sneak back across the border. We have heard of case where the same person has already been deported 5-6 times. These illegals would be refused at a legal point of entry.

      2. The people who hate immigration the most tend to be immigrants. Michele Malkin for example. It’s like “I’m through the gate, now shut it. Shut it! Shut it now!”

        My friends wife had a horrible time trying to get there. So much paperwork. So much meddling government. They had to turn over intimate love letters to prove that their marriage wasn’t just a way to get her into the country. At one point it was so nuts that he considered hiring a coyote to bring her in.

        A tiny few years later she’s screaming that immigration is ruining the country.

        1. I’m sure it’s not so much “I’m in, close the gate!” so much as it is “We stood in line for 4 hours to see this movie and that guy just cut in front of us RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE THEATHER OWNER and the theater owner just let him do it.”

          There is a process, as you’re clearly familiar with, and those who follow the process are of course welcomed here. I get it if they’re resentful of the failed policies that reward the lawbreakers and screw everything up for the legal immigrants who worked hard to get here and to follow the rules.

          If I invite someone, say a homeless person who is hungry, into my home as a welcome guest and feed him, let him use the shower, etc., that’s one thing. If someone forcibly breaks into my house or even if he just crawls in through an open window, helps himself to my food, etc. I’m going to call the police and it’s not a crime against humanity if I do so.

          If a guy get’s off an international flight at JFK, and when he approaches customs he bolts for the exit to avoid custom officials and their checkpoint porcesses, he might just get shot. Crossing the border on foot should not be any different.

          1. Not sure why I wrote “get’s off”; it’s obviously just “gets off”. Oh, for an edit button!

    2. They hate only legal immigrants.

    3. Illegals aren’t immigrants.

      1. Sure they are. They’re illegal immigrants. That’s where the shorthand ‘illegals’ comes from, dont’cha know.

        1. They aren’t immigrants. They are trespassers. They do not belong. These people, especially, they had their day in court and lost. They need to go home.

        2. Nope. IAW US Law, they are illegal aliens, aka non-immigrants. Just as tourists, work, and school visa holders are non-immigrants. Legal immigrants receive permanent residency status (aka green card).

  3. This is totally unacceptable. Koch / Reason libertarianism is clear — any person of any age should be allowed to enter and live in the United States, and nobody should ever be deported.

    #AbolishICE
    #AbolishConcentrationCamps

    1. It is outrageous to brand these people criminals just because they have done a few things contrary to law. I agree with Nancy Pelosi that we need to be strong on securing the border, but not in any way that prevents anybody from crossing into the United States and becoming a US citizen at their pleasure. Or at least being allowed to vote. But not for Speaker of the House, that would be ridiculous.

      1. Can you imagine poor old Nancy being forced to pay a living wage to the workers on her husbands agricultural business.

        1. Maybe that’s where the first Ice raids need to happen. That and Reason HQ.

    2. End the welfare state, and open the borders wide.

      1. In that order.

      2. America needs the welfare state as a safety net for American citizens.
        Why would America ever want to throw the borders wide open. There is a lot more than welfare recipients crossing the border illegally. There are gang members and tonnes of drugs coming across as well. Also, immigrants should be screened for diseases. We are seeing cases of diseases in America which were eradicated decades ago.
        Surely the American people should be protected by the government they pay taxes to against drugs and diseases.
        It is the fundamental obligation of any government to protect it’s citizens

        1. Legalize the drugs too. Sheesh.

        2. “America needs the welfare state as a safety net for American citizens”

          False

    3. So the alt-right person behind the OBL character supports concentration camps? Michelle Malkin, is that you?

      1. At what point has Malk (yeah, I’m going with Malk) ever supported “concentration camps”? If the person behind OBL is “alt-right” then you’re a Justice Democrats useful idiot. Oh wait, you really are.

        I’m no border hawk but at the same time I calls ’em as I sees ’em when it comes to red-shirted smirkers dropping casual “concentration camps”, “nazi”, “alt-right”, etc to score bad faith lowball rightthink points with their Comintern pals.

        I actually don’t genuinely believe you are a flat out communist but I’m just going with it because I’ve typed this much of the reply and really all I ever see from you is nonsense posturing to tell the majority of us how deplorable we are. It’s arrogant bad faith assumptions all the way down, isn’t it? There are no winners.

        1. No, he’s not a communist – he’s a eunuch desperate for friends, thus he virtue signals to the “cool” crowd who aggressively proclaim their “moral superiority”

        2. Michelle Malkin wrote a whole book defending the Japanese concentration camps during WW2.

          1. Considering she is Fillipano and what the Japanese did to the Philippines, while her view is not mine, I can understand why she has that view.

            1. The Japanese that caused all sorts of atrocities in the Philippines were not the same Japanese-Americans that were put in concentrations by FDR’s administration. Perhaps you, and Michelle Malkin, should stop thinking of and treating people as nothing more than instances of some group, and instead to think of people and to treat them as individuals.

              1. I didn’t say I agree, in fact I said it wasn’t my point of view, I said I could understand why she has it. That doesn’t mean I think it’s rational, rather it means I can see how she justifies her view.

              2. So in other words argue what I actually said not what you thought I said.b

            2. You should hear what Koreans of a certain age have to say about the Japs

  4. When did standard enforcement actions turn into “raids?” These are immigrants who already received final deportation notices. Is it a raid when the police do warrant sweeps? Or is that terminology only reserved for non citizens?

    Reason sees no issue with hundreds of thousands ignoring final deportation orders? They can just openly flaunt american laws?

    By the way… replacing the american flag with a Mexico flag osnt helping your open border side at all. Not only was it disrespectful, but also racist as not every illegal immigrant is Mexican.

    1. “replacing the american flag with a Mexico flag”

      Replacing the invaded country’s flag with the invader’s own country’s flag is traditionally one of the first things that invaders do.

      1. B-b-but they’re not even carrying weapons or wearing uniforms!

  5. “Undocumented”

    you mean

    “ILLEGAL”

    why is this so hard?

    1. Well, some of us around here believe that actions should only be regarded as crimes if they violate someone’s rights. Crossing a border without the correct papers doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. Now, crossing a border without the correct papers, AND trespassing on someone’s private property, does violate the rights of the property owner, but it’s the trespassing part, not the crossing the border part.

      1. Chem…Illegal aliens do violate our rights. They do damage to our legal system, they stop our children from getting a better education, because we have to waste our tax dollars on them. They cause the expansion of government, which I am thinking you’d not want to see.

        Illegal aliens need to be deported immediately, and told to use our legal process to come here. Congress made the law, it is not unreasonable to ask foreigners to respect it.

        1. They do damage to our legal system

          If you’re talking about the time and resources required to track and deport illegal immigrants, that could be largely alleviated by making it easier to become an immigrant legally, so that we don’t have as many illegals to deal with. Of course, that leads to the question of how many immigrants the United States can realistically absorb in a given amount of time. I think we could take in a lot more than we have been.

          they stop our children from getting a better education, because we have to waste our tax dollars on them.

          I would be in favor of not allowing illegal immigrant children to attend public schools, but even if we continue to do that, you can’t just consider the cost that it takes to educate them in isolation. You also have to consider the contributions they’ll make to society as working adults. The same goes for legal children.

          They cause the expansion of government, which I am thinking you’d not want to see.

          If you’re talking about the cost of public welfare benefits for immigrants, we should make sure those are minimal or nonexistent. I think a lot of people can agree on that. If you’re talking about the fact that many of them vote for Democrats, well, that’s largely because people on the right antagonize them all the time. A lot of immigrants do have small-government values. Not all of them are hardcore socialists, or even care that much about politics.

          1. If you’re talking about…

            Quite the weasel phrase there.

            1. Quite the weasel phrase there.

              No, I was trying to flesh out what he actually meant with his comments. I wasn’t trying to put words in his mouth. If you have an actual argument to make, then make it.

              1. No, I was trying to flesh out what he actually meant with his comments.

                That’s an interesting way to say “erecting a strawman.”

          2. Public schools are largely funded by property taxes, which even illegal immigrants pay (unless they are homeless, but there are plenty of homeless citizens as well who might have kids in public school) So really sending their kids to school is one thing they aren’t taking away from anyone else for

            1. But we all know that even if illegal immigrants share of taxation covered their use of public schools–doubtful, but let’s pretend that it does–the true cost of illegal immigrants in our school system is not measured in dollars and cents, but in the cost of catering to an enormous underclass that is usually not proficient in English and often requires remediation in a number of subjects. The true cost, then, is the time and energy and talent that it takes away from American children.

              1. They pay the same share as anyone else, so if they don’t cover their share then no one covers their share

                As for English, it depends how long the kids have been here, illegal children I’ve met speak English better than most citizens, as well as a second language

                1. Personal anecdotes? So you admit that when they first come here they don’t speak English, and thus require more assistance and specialized classes/teachers. They also require remedial education special textbooks, special assignments etc until they become proficient in English. The pay the same share (which is a questionable assertion) but require more services, correct?

                  1. And I’ve known at least 3 – Ramon, Cesar, and Mariano – who attended high school while being in their early 20s with extremely limited understanding of English. Their “uncle” (Pablo) and his common law wife (Lorena) have been here 20 years and can barely have a conversation in English. Well, Pablo can barely converse in English, but Lorena not at all. Their son, Carlito – a birthright citizen, had to translate as much as he could for an 8 year old.

                2. As for English, it depends how long the kids have been here, illegal children I’ve met speak English better than most citizens, as well as a second language

                  Shitthatneverhappened.txt.

                3. Kids pick up language in the same way you need to teach them to eat pizza.

                  I agree. Language barriers are not an issue in the US.

                  1. I guess if you don’t know or deal with any illegales they’re not

                4. Not really. Public education is financed by more than property taxes. Most states have a leveling process where the state government gives grants to poorer counties to subsidize the school system. The feds give grants to states to subside education. Most of this money is raised through corporate and personal income taxes.

                  1. Federal Department of Education 2016 budget: $68 Billion.
                    The feds don’t get that from property taxes.

            2. Except these illegals result in much larger class sizes. They increase the traffic on the roads. They increase queuing in the shops. The increase the prices of rents and housing as well as reducing the number of homes available. They also depress wages dramatically.
              There are virtually zero benefits to mass, uncontrolled immigration, especially since America is now seeing the re-introduction of diseases which have been eradicated from the country for decades.
              We keep hearing the phrase ‘strength in diversity’ or the ‘benefits of diversity’, yet absolutely nobody who uses such phrases ever bothers to explain why diversity is of any benefit whatsoever.

          3. blardo…Congress made the naturalization laws. They are what they are. You don’t like them, petition your congressman to change the law. Until then….illegal aliens are doing damage to our legal system.

            Every dollar I have to spend educating an illegal alien is one less dollar spent on citizen’s children. That is an opportunity cost as well. We could be spending more on inner-city youth education instead of spending this money on illegal aliens.

            No blardo, I am talking about the expansion of government. Congress makes laws, which create new agencies and programs, which we taxpayers have to pay for. It expands the size and scope of the federal government. I thought as Libertarians we wanted less Federal government, not more. I could care less about the politics or optics.

        2. Atlas, interacting with Pedo Jeffy is a waste of time. He is an intellectually dishonest shitposter who fucks up discussions. Better to beat him down and denigrate him.

          He also wants foreign child predators to come here in droves.

          1. intellectually dishonest shitposter

            literally posted by the guy with “Shitlord” in his sock

            1. He is good, isn’t he? Whether you agree with him or not, you can’t deny that he is absolutely at the top of his shitlording game. Really Jeff I think you’re just jealous,

              1. I’m intellectually honest, he’s not. I also don’t think it’s a good thing to bring child rapists here from other countries.

            2. Pedo Jeffy, I’m not a sock. There is only me. Why the fuck would I need another ID here? And it is continually pointed out by many people here, myself included what you do. You are a huge piece of shit.

              You were vile before you revealed your enthusiasm towards bringing child rapists here from other countries, and even worse now.

        3. So is everyone ok with the illegal immigrants so long as they pay their fair share of taxes?

          It would be a simple fix to just grant temporary work permits. These could be renewed periodically so long as the individual or head of household demonstrates gainful employment.

          We already do that. Trump uses those for his properties. It would be a gain actually as they would need to pay into FICA but would not be eligible for SS and Medicare unless they can gain citizenship and be issued a SS number. Friedman pointed this out.

          People should not be jumping the border but it is like the drug war. You can’t stop it by declaring it illegal and it has been going on forever. The fix is an efficient legal process to gain entry without causing additional tax burden.

          Rand Paul has suggested a start.

          1. Instead of tolerating illegals, why don’t we sort out the doesn’t situation first. Then we can streamline and modernize our naturalization system to make it cheaper to rent in and less cumbersome.

            Im sure we also need a new work visa program too. But none of this should be happening while we have tens of millions of illegals here, plus our border being swarmed the way it is now.

          2. Why should it be America’s responsibility to employ anyone and everyone who comes into the country, especially if they cross the border illegally. The vast majority of these illegals are uneducated and would end up taking the jobs of the most vulnerable American citizens. Those who already take the low paid manual jobs.
            America should run it’s job market as a meritocracy and only allow entry to those who can contribute to increasing her competitiveness on the world stage. The minimum requirement for immigrants should be a high school diploma or the equivalent. We need to be sure that these people entering should be capable of obtaining and holding adequate employment.

          3. “It would be a simple fix to just grant temporary work permits. These could be renewed periodically ”

            …and if they do not?

            It’s not like overstaying visas is rare. Or, you know, skipping asylum hearings. Don’t see why they’d be really good about doing this.

      2. It violates my rights when I have to work and pay taxes to provide welfare benefits to every leech out there, citizen or not. And if only actions that violate my rights are the only crimes, how do you view traffic lights, speed limits, breaking into someone’s home, theft? You can’t have a civilized society without some laws and crossing our border without proper documentation is not unreasonable. How about everyone in favor of allowing “undocumented” people in, provide their housing, food, medical care and pay extra taxes to educate the children? Frankly, I could care less what goes on behind closed doors, but I do care what the exorbitant taxes I pay fund.

      3. “Well, some of us around here believe that actions should only be regarded as crimes”

        No one cares. That doesn’t change the definition of illegal.

        God you’re fucking insufferable.

        1. Do you advocate incarcerating all of the “heartland” Americans who swallow a handful of street pills every day to get through another desolate day in deplorable America?

          Do you advocate incarcerating every person who violates a firearms law?

          Do you advocate incarcerating every American who understates incomes or pays less than the legally established amount of tax?

          Or is your fetish for straight-and-narrow legality limited to circumstances in which it is congruent with right-wing bigotry?

          1. In other words, I’m right and you have no counter.

            1. That’s a lot of talk from a guy whose side has been losing — and losing big — in America throughout the entirety of his life and mine.

              Your muttering and ranting is made more tolerable by the trajectory of American progress.

              1. That’s a lot of talk from a guy whose side has been losing — and losing big — in America throughout the entirety of his life and mine.

                Honey, I hate to break it to you, but both progressivism and social conservatism are on the way out. People are as fed up with your kind of bullshit as they are with religious bullshit.

                1. The slack-jaws and malcontents who oppose my political preferences are not going to start winning — or to stop my preferences from continuing to shape American progress. There just aren’t enough bigots left in America for Republicans or conservatives to turn the tide.

                  1. Most people’s preference is that you have the ever living shit beaten out of you every second you pollute the earth with your existence, you retarded fucking rube.

                  2. Fortunately, drooling racists and bigots like you, Kirkland, are even more of an endangered species.

                  3. Arty, if you ever met me, or anyone else here I would consider it likely that you would be sweet as sugar out of fear for your own physical safety. As your impertinence just begs for a well deserved beating.

          2. Do you advocate incarcerating all of the […]

            Yes, laws are to be either enforced or struck down. Selective enforcement based on the whims and allegiances of police, prosecutors, or the executive branch is unacceptable.

            Or is your fetish for straight-and-narrow legality limited to circumstances in which it is congruent with right-wing bigotry?

            Not at all. My fetish for straight-and-narrow legality is based on wanting to live in a free society, rather than the kind of police state you obviously favor.

          3. I think most people advocate you shoving a .45 up your ass and pulling the trigger, you retarded gimp.

          4. It is possible to disagree with laws and simultaneously both obey them and realize that breaking them comes with consequences.

            I think the speed limit is too low in many places, and I try pretty hard to not speed. If however, I get reckless and speed and get pulled over by the cops, I pay the ticket.

            I think drugs should not be illegal and advocate for changing the law. But I don’t use illegal drugs even though I would probably enjoy some nice hash or fine Colombian every now and then if it were legal. Because if I did it while illegal I’d face prison time, which is the consequence of breaking the law even though I think the law is wrong.

            When I return from international travel, I don’ think I should have to stand in line at customs to be inspected. But I don’t jump the gate and make a break for the terminal exits. There’s consequences for that.

            For all I know, you may be a member of NABLA and think that it should not be illegal for a grown man to have sex with young boys. But if you get caught doing that, I don’t think your protestations about your beliefs should get you out of prison. Consequences for knowingly breaking the law, you see.

            Why am I even bothering to respond to the peacher from Costco?

      4. Crossing a border without the correct papers doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

        That statement is as absurd as saying “tapping into my neighbor’s cable service” or “tapping into my neighbor’s Internet connection doesn’t violate anyone’s rights”.

      5. It’s no violation of anyone’s rights if a non student sneaks into a college auditorium, occupy an empty seat and listen to the lecture. And yet the administration can throw people for doing just tht.

        A nation effectively has ownership of certain territories. The citizens pay taxes in part to maintain security and border of those lands. They’re no different than tenants who pay rent to live in a gated community, who has every right to alert management if a vagrant occupies empty apartment spaces or rec rooms they don’t own. “But they’re not criminals, they just want to play ping pong” is a moot point.

        According to your logic, I should be able to buy 12 guns without a single background check because – whose rights would be violated if I did? No one’s. If some unlicensed guy who speaks in tongues and prints manifestos wants to sell me an arsenal of weapon, why, that would be just two consenting adults engaging in a business deal.

        There’s a difference between individualist and an anarchist, and you’re more of the latter. John Stossel noted that he believes in limited government, not ZERO government. No ideology should be taken to the extreme by operating strictly within a vacuum. If there was open borders, why shouldn’t America just send an army of people down to Mexico to snatch up affordable real estate? We wouldn’t even have to hire anyone there, we could just send down our own workers.

        1. It’s no violation of anyone’s rights if a non student sneaks into a college auditorium

          “Sneaking in” is trespassing against the owner of the auditorium.

          A nation effectively has ownership of certain territories. The citizens pay taxes in part to maintain security and border of those lands. They’re no different than tenants who pay rent to live in a gated community, who has every right to alert management if a vagrant occupies empty apartment spaces or rec rooms they don’t own. “But they’re not criminals, they just want to play ping pong” is a moot point.

          You’ve just analogized every private property owner as mere tenants on land that they don’t really own. Are you sure you want to go there?

          According to your logic, I should be able to buy 12 guns without a single background check because – whose rights would be violated if I did? No one’s. If some unlicensed guy who speaks in tongues and prints manifestos wants to sell me an arsenal of weapon, why, that would be just two consenting adults engaging in a business deal.

          Yup. Buy as many guns as you want.

          You call me an anarchist. That’s funny. Others think I’m a Berniebro progressive. So I guess that makes me a libertarian.

          1. No, he states that land not owned by a private individual is owned by the state. Or another entity.

          2. No Pedo Jeffy, I don’t think you’re a garden variety progtard. You’re a squishy anarchist idiot whose heartstrings are tugged by the illegals. But not by the plight of American children raped by the sexual predators you would gleefully offer free reign here.

            So really, fuck you. You are the worst. This is why you are so hated.

            1. So which is it – am I a “garden variety progtard” or am I a “squishy anarchist idiot”? Can’t really be both.

              1. Actually, as in many things, they are not necessarily exclusive. You can be sympathetic to the progressive cause while also believing in anarchy. The late 19th century and early 20th century demonstrates this rather well. The overlap between anarchist and progressives was fairly large.

                1. For example: antifa

                2. You are confusing “progressives” with “communists”.

                  Progressives want to use the coercive state to fix every problem.
                  Communists want to tear down the state, to give ownership of the means of production to the people.

                  There is no overlap between progressivism and anarchism.

                  1. Again, study history. There was considerable overlap and there was overlap between socialist, Communist, fascist and progressive as well. I know, Hitler hated Stalin. It’s a work out argument, considering both Hitler and Mussolini were socialist/Communist before drifting to fascism.

                  2. Communism is a form of progressivism. As are fascism, democratic socialism, and the mildest version social democracy.

                    Progressivism is government dedicated to micromanage society to right the “wrongs” of nature/history/inequality and create New Man through central planning.

                    Jeff is, as usual, shallow and incorrect.

                    1. Communism is literally NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL, you moron.

                3. Anarchists needs the current system to implode, since they wont just pool their money and buy some land to start Anarchy-land.

                  So, they support almost any cause that might lead to system collapse and then hope that they can rise from the ashes.

    1. I saw that they started putting the New Yorker next to grocery store tabloids.

      Hilarious!

    2. Who knew that the New Yorker, a rather boring and ill informed rag catering to wannabe NYC intellectual elites for decades now, is aspiring to reinvent itself as an Onion clone!

  6. They’ve done fuck all so far. What are they waiting for?

  7. For those about to be deported . . .

    *Pow*

    We salute you!

    https://vimeo.com/2967046

    I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that just because you’re against the Vietnam War doesn’t mean you have to participate in propaganda for our enemies or pretend that American POWS are lying about being tortured . . .

    . . . and just because we want open, legal immigration doesn’t mean we have to support illegal immigration or denounce American democracy within its proper purview, either.

    I hope the constitutional rights of all deportees will be well respected.

    P.S. It is disingenuous of leaders within sanctuary cities to complain about ICE raids, when the same thing could have been achieved in a less intrusive way with much less suffering if only the sanctuary cities transferred criminals to Homeland Security instead of releasing them into the wild. This is much like radical progressives refusing to fund relief for hungry asylum seeking children. They create these spectacles because they intend to profit from them in the upcoming election.

    1. Yep. If the Democrats fund moving children out of unsatisfactory housing, where will they go to get their photo ops?

      1. Other empty parking lots?

        1. Ba-dump, ching!

  8. Our biggest problem is with our welfare state – not immigrants. Our focus should be on ending or minimizing the public welfare benefits that immigrants receive, so that we can let a lot more of them in legally. Then agencies like ICE can focus more on those immigrants who are violent criminals.

    1. I think there’s something to that, but I’m highly reluctant to entertain the idea that the difference between citizens and non-citizens is that citizens are entitled to public benefits. There’s an economic and political system where people are entitled to a home, food, healthcare, etc. just because they’re citizens, but that system is not capitalism. It’s communism. Meanwhile, there isn’t anything in me that feels better about people leeching off of my taxes–just because the leeches are American citizens. If anything, that might make me despise them even more.

      The flood of asylum seekers clouds that picture, too, because we’re bound by a ratified treaty to treat asylum seekers no differently from American citizens in terms of welfare benefits, at least until their asylum claim is settled. One of the things Trump is doing is going after the willing sponsors of asylum seekers if they go on welfare after the asylum seeker is released. To get released early, some of them have family members promise to care for them so they won’t go on social services, but it hasn’t been enforced in the past. Trump is actually going after those people if the asylum seekers they willingly sponsor end up on the dole.

      That being said, I’m all in favor of cutting welfare for American citizens and non-citizens alike. Let’s cut Medicaid, SNAP benefits, rent subsidies, and all the rest of it, too. I just don’t see any reason to differentiate between immigrants and others. Being an American citizen should entitle you to be here, run for office, and vote–and that’s pretty much it. The rest of our rights come from being human rather than from being American.

      1. ” I just don’t see any reason to differentiate between immigrants and others.”

        Those born in the USA are thought to be more deserving of welfare and charity. You’ve heard of ‘dog in the manger?’ Cite: Aesop’s fables.

        1. Anyone is deserving of charity which is freely given.

          Cite: Isaiah 58:10

          Nobody is deserving of welfare. We have it anyway but it has nothing to do with deserving anything.

          1. “Nobody is deserving of welfare. ”

            But it’s only in the context of immigration where I read here in the comments demands to end welfare. But obviously it’s not dog in the manger. We’re so much better than that!

            1. The biggest welfare program in the world is the U.S. military.

              1. Nice bumper sticker now explain how people who volunteer for service and undergo the hardhips of basic and AIT, as well as the dangers of deployment and field training (soldiers are killed or severely injured all the time in training because of the nature of what they are training for) in exchange for pay and benefits (which they received as part of a contract) is welfare? Oh right, it is just a damn inane talking point, isn’t it?

                1. It’s welfare because their pay is not provided voluntary by those whose money is given to them as pay. To think they are somehow more deserving because they exert more physical effort than recipients of social welfare is to subscribe to the utterly false and disproved The Labor Theory of Value much beloved by communists.

                  1. No, they are deserving because they work and in return they get paid. Your analogy is simply non-sequitor. And even if we accept the preposterous idea that military service is welfare, the fact is it isn’t even close to the largest welfare program. The DoD budget in 2018 was $700 billion, welfare was over a trillion dollars, 21+% of the country receive government assistance, the military is less than 0.5% of the US population.
                    And your assertion that someone who provides a service, who is employed, voluntarily, and performs their job, and then received pay is communism then what is capitalism? Your entire argument is basically “I don’t like the military, therefore I will label it welfare”. No, they work for the public. They receive pay for their work. I am not a fan of the FBI but that doesn’t mean their wages are welfare. Your argument is simplistic and illogical.

              2. No, that would be Medicare and Medicaid ($1.4 trillion last year and rising). The entire DoD isn’t even half that.

        2. Oh, thank God you’re here to explain this stuff to me! Now I realize why people think it’s okay to suck blood out of my back–is that what I’m supposed to say?!

          1. Ahhhhh, look at the victim. He’s looking for reasons to be violent. Do you talk in public this way?

            1. Do I publicly point out that paying for your own children’s’ education and caring for your own elderly parents is your responsibility–not mine?

              Do I routinely advocate cutting off Medicaid, SNAP benefits, rent subsidies, and privatizing our public schools–to people’s faces?

              Do I typically refer to people who live off the taxpayers as “leeches”?

              The correct answer is yes to all of the above.

          2. ” what I’m supposed to say?!”

            Don’t rape me too much, you damned hispanic asylum seeker, you!

      2. I wonder how long it took for this example of passive aggressive violence to be written? Such a shame that Reason now has to depend on Troglodytes like this.

        Tell us more Ken about non white people you want to hurt. You’re very transparent.

        1. The race card is the best you can do? Pretty lazy trolling.

          1. In America, every card is a race card.

            1. Oh how droll. So basically you are incapable of mature debate and must resort to ad hominems and generalizations. Glad you admit that.

              1. Haven’t you ever noticed how race creeps into just about every issue discussed here? Like this one on immigration – nothing to do with race, apparently, yet here you are dragging race into the picture, but this is not trolling to you.

        2. Oh fuck off you inane twat.

        3. Actually, I don’t want to pay for you, your parents, or your children no matter the race of the blood sucking leeches.

          Oh, and pretending that the only reason I wouldn’t want to pay for your lazy ass is because of race is an insult to legitimate victims of racism. You should be ashamed of yourself.

          I care more about my money than I do about you. Why would that make anyone a racist? If you care more about me than you do about your money, feel free to send me some.

          Oh, and you might the sick kind of person who think that people on rent subsidies, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. are so pathetic that would wander around in circles until they dropped dead from starvation and exhaustion, I think more of them than that. I suspect they’d find something useful to do–at which point they’d stop being bloodsucking parasites.

      3. Why the hell are people trying to find alternatives to stopping illegal immigration.
        Anyone who is a genuine asylum seeker and travelled through Mexico to get to America should be refused considering Mexico is classed as a safe country and the rules are that asylum seekers should ask for asylum in the first safe country they get to.
        You cannot pick and choose which country you want to live in and then violate their border by crossing it illegally. These asylum seekers/refugees should be transported immediately back to Mexico and not housed in America at America’s expense while they wait for processing.
        America has a process for entering legally. These people think they have the right to circumvent this process because they want to live in America. That is no justification for breaking any country’s immigration laws.
        Also, when you consider that nearly 90% of asylum claims are not upheld, then this confirms that the vast majority of these claims are a ruse and that most of them are economic migrants trying to garner the system.
        America has no obligation to these people. They start their life in America, not just illegally entering, but also lying to immigration officials to attempt to stay in America.
        If America deported these people back to Mexico where they should have claimed asylum in the first place, then this would sent a clear message to others that America will no longer tolerate illegal immigrants who do not present themselves at a legal point of entry. Doing this will dramatically reduce these immigrants travelling hundreds and putting their kids at risk of murder and rape.
        What kind of parent does that just to live in another country.

    2. “Then agencies like ICE can focus more on those immigrants who are violent criminals.”

      Better yet, let ICE focus on non-violent immigrants, and form yet another federal law enforcement agency to deal with violent immigrants.

    3. our biggest problem is the federal debt. welfare is a part of that, but not the majority.

      1. Actually welfare (including Medicare and Medicaid) and social security are all non-discretionary spending which accounts for 75% of the budget. In fact Welfare’s budget in 2018 exceeded 1 trillion dollars. The defense departments budget in comparison was $700 billion. The difference is the Constitution actually gives the government the responsibility for national defense but nowhere does it give it responsibility for Welfare.

  9. “ICE Begins Nationwide Raids on Undocumented Immigrants
    The raids will continue for several days as the Trump administration tries to track down immigrants for arrest and deportation.”

    It’s like you’re CNN’s little pet. Do they pat you on the head and tell you what a good little proggy you are?

    “Undocumented Immigrants”
    Fuck off. Illegal invader is more accurate.

    “tries to track down immigrants for arrest”
    Patently false. Immigrants won’t be tracked down at all. They will go about their daily lives not fearing anything from ICE, BECAUSE THEY’RE HERE LEGALLY!

    Stop trying to change the narrative. Where’s your story about the US flag being torn down and a Mexican flag being raised after an illegal ‘raid’ by protesters at a federal facility on US soil? I suppose when the Nazi’s blitzkrieg-ed France they were just Undocumented Immigrants? Right?

    Oh, it’s ok for a population to all just trespass on someone else’s land, tear down their flag and put up their own. That’s cool, they’re just “Undocumented.”

    FUCK YOU REASON.

    1. “Undocumented.”

      The Horror.

    2. Not even six months ago: “MANUFACTURED CRISIS!!”
      Today: “CONCENTRATION CAMPS!! LITERAL NAZIS!!”

      These exceptional fuckheads need to make up their minds.

  10. Side note: Why was the top link to the comments removed? Is it to make us scroll down the article first?

    1. It was a comment made by a bot.

      1. Everybody could tell that the Taliban/S400 guy was a boy, eunuch.
        But thank goodness you were there to point out the obvious!

        Shortviking was referring to the icon that used to be at the top of articles which could be clicked to go straight to the comments, but is now only below the (still not worth reading) article(s).

        1. *bot

          Damn you, aurocorrect!

  11. This isn’t a sweep of suspects. This is an arrest of people whose cases have been finalized?

    Why is this controversial?

    1. Because “controversy” is beneficial?

    2. Because democrats are inherently racist, and only look at skin color when making policy.
      And TDS.

    3. Because the Party of Slavery is losing slaves with every deportation of illegal immigrants.

  12. Alternate headline:
    ‘ICE begins to follow US laws and court orders’

    Just for the record; there are two issues, legal immigration and illegal border crossing.

  13. Law enforcement agency enforces laws.

    The Horror!

  14. alternate headline: “ICE continues nationwide raids as usual”, but President stupidly announces them first.

    1. Stupid?
      Maybe.
      Maybe not.
      He just got his political opponents to storm a federal building in Colorado and fly a Mexican flag alongside an upside down American flag.
      How’s that look for the Ds?
      Not good in the average voter’s eyes.

  15. Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted Immigration Practices And Policies, guys!

    What time are the meetings of Libertarians For Tariffs and Libertarians For Statist Womb Management?

    1. Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted Immigration Practices And Policies, guys!

      You know, if wanting criminals with legal deportation orders against them actually deported is “bigotry”, then I’m a bigot. After all, that’s a position I am not willing to compromise or negotiate on.

    2. Another appearance by Reverend Shit for Brains who still obviously has gotten the message that all of humanity wants him to throw himself in front of a speeding train.

      1. Hasn’t* Obviously if he had he might consider doing the right thing.

  16. Good. Deport as many as possible.

  17. Well, it’s about time. I hope they do this every week, last I heard they’ve got about 10-20 million to deal with.

  18. Even if nothing appreciable is done concerning the immigration issue with this, Trump has gotten a lot of high profile Democrats to obligingly brand their party as not giving a fat damn about all the people who are worried about the mass influx of illegal aliens.

    Democrats in 2020, “Don’t vote for Trump again! He didn’t keep his promise about a Wall!”

    Trump, “And these are the Transnational idiots who stopped me!”

    So, the Democrat far Left base votes Democrat…or stays home. And anyone who is at all worried about illegal immigration (rightly or wrongly) makes a point of voting for Trump.

    1. That’s your recipe for right-wingers becoming anything close to competitive in the American culture war?

      1. Your constant need to tell everyone how much your “side is winning” betrays a deep sense of inferiority on your part. Winners rarely have to point out that they are winning. It is generally self evident. Your protest are a perfect example of the old saying about protesting too much.

        1. Pretty sure he’s a paraplegic.
          It would explain so much

      2. A good recipe for you would be a jug of antifreeze and repeated kicks to your retarded face.

        1. I usually suggest Drano, but antifreeze works too. Maybe brake fluid?

          1. As long as the label says “fatal if swallowed” and leaves that shitfuck writhing in excrutiating pain before a well-deserved demise, I’m ok with any variety of household or vehicle fluid.

  19. ICE Begins Nationwide Raids on Undocumented Immigrants

    It is bad enough to refer to illegal migrants as “undocumented immigrants”.

    It is positively absurd to refer to illegal aliens who have been ordered deported by a court of law as “undocumented immigrants”. These people have generally been excluded from the US for cause and have no right or expectation of staying in the US under any circumstance.

    1. Good Lord. You’re just repeating state propaganda at this point.

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/14/politics/ice-raids-undocumented-immigrants/index.html

      Acting US Citizenship and Immigration Services director Ken Cuccinelli took issue with referring to the targets of the raids as undocumented.

      “They’re not undocumented. They’ve got a court order on a piece of paper — federal order — that says they’ve gotten due process, and (there are) over a million people with removal orders. That’s the pool that ICE is drawing from,” he told CNN.

      1. So technically both J W and Ken Cuccinelli is correct? Additionally, how is it any less propaganda to use the inaccurate (in this case) term undocumented alien.

        1. JW is just being Cuccinelli’s mouthpiece.
          I find it rather pathetic to be a mere drone on behalf of those who wield immense power.
          Those with power don’t need our help to spread their propaganda.

          1. Is he or is he staying his own belief? You haven’t yet stated why they are mistaken. Instead you impugn them and then imply that makes them wrong. This isn’t intellectually honest. In fact, it seems rather as if your entire argument comes down to that if they disagree with you, they must be wrong. In other words it seems as if you are requiring them to submit to your interpretation.

          2. “Those with power don’t need our help to spread their propaganda.”

            Yet here you are doing their bidding.

          3. JW is just being Cuccinelli’s mouthpiece.

            No, I am stating facts: these are individuals who entered the country in violation of US law and have deportation orders against them. Furthermore, to actually get a deportation order against you, you have to have done something else to make you unwanted. These people are not “immigrants” either in a legal or a common sense; they are not merely people who crossed an imaginary line and they have no expectation of staying in the country under any circumstance.

            I find it rather pathetic to be a mere drone on behalf of those who wield immense power. Those with power don’t need our help to spread their propaganda.

            I agree. Which is why it is so offensive that you keep misrepresenting illegal aliens who have been ordered deported as “undocumented migrants”. You’re repeating the propaganda of Democrats who are using desperate people as pawns in their evil political games and to get cheap slave labor into the country for their corporate paymasters. And you are such an ignorant fool that you actually think your word games and propaganda are helping anybody.

            You, Chemjeff, are a propagandist and a fool, and in pulling this crap you are advancing an authoritarian agenda. And you are completely ignorant of the human suffering that the policies you advocate cause. You actually delude yourself into believing that tolerating illegal migration helps anybody.

      2. Illegal aliens is the technically correct term.
        Undocumented immigrants is horseshit newspeak.

        1. +100

  20. I think the drug war is one of the most-harmful domestic policies of the last hundred years at least, but I don’t go around calling illegal drugs “undocumented substances.” Someone who enters the US in violation of the law is here illegally, hence “illegal immigrant.” If you want the policy changed, fine, argue for that, but stop the weaseling.

    1. And the war to stop illegal immigration has been equally effective.

      1. Yes, but the war to stop illegal migration could be easily won, unlike the war on drugs.

        How do you win the war to stop illegal migration? You require documentation of citizenship or legal presence for pretty much all transactions that government is involved in: driver’s licenses, social security, banking, housing, medical care, education, car registration, insurance, taxation, etc.

        You also enforce international asylum law strictly on the border and deport right away.

        You stop providing services in languages other than English (since legal immigrants are required to be proficient in English anyway).

        Another good idea would be to eliminate jus solis.

        1. We could win the drug war tomorrow. Just require a drug test for all those things.

          1. Notice J W only spoke about those interacting with the government, i.e. asking for welfare or filing for a driver’s license. He didn’t say anything about outside of government interaction. I think you would find the idea of requiring drug testing for welfare recicpients or other government benefits isn’t controversial among a good many Americans.

            1. Notice J W only spoke about those interacting with the government, i.e. asking for welfare or filing for a driver’s license. He didn’t say anything about outside of government interaction.

              Not true. He went further than just interactions involving the government – “banking, housing, medical care, education”.

              So what about undocumented immigrants who get sick, or need a place to live?

              1. Point being what he advocates is a major expansion of intrusive power by the government. I have this thing about that. I am a not merely “libertarian leaning”.

                1. Point being what he advocates is a major expansion of intrusive power by the government.

                  I’m doing no such thing. I’m saying wherever government interaction (including verification of identity via id cards or social security numbers) is required, the law should be enforced. That is, people not present legally in the US should not be issued identity cards of any form, and any interaction that requires reporting (e.g., financial, housing, employment, etc.) should report people correctly based on their id.

                  Basically, I’m saying that we should follow the law as written. If you favor letting illegal aliens use these services, you are implicitly advocating that American citizens should have their privacy intruded into by the government, while giving illegal aliens a free pass.

                  Now, as a libertarian, I believe that these laws should be changed. But as long as we live in a social welfare state with draconian intrusions into privacy, the rules should be applied as written.

                  As a libertarian, I’d like to see a libertarian society with open borders. What I strongly object to is a progressive social welfare state that turns a blind eye to illegal migration.

              2. Education, for most Americans is provided by the government. Also, most mortgages are backed by the Federal Government. Banking is also insured and regulated by the government. While I think that is extreme, it hardly proves he went beyond government interaction.

                1. Well if you go by that standard, then literally every single interaction between two parties involves the government in some way. Breathe American air? Well that air is clean because of American government regulation! Right?

                  1. Was I defending it? Didn’t I say he took it to far? Or did I point out the weakness of your rejoinder?

                  2. Also,did I say I supported the government having this much control over people’s lives?

                  3. Well if you go by that standard, then literally every single interaction between two parties involves the government in some way.

                    Correct. And as a libertarian, I consider that deeply wrong.

                    But what I find even worse is if I, as a law abiding American citizen, have to follow these rules, while illegal aliens can simply walk in over the border, lie and commit identity fraud on a massive scale, and use the “we are undocumented, we don’t have any choice” excuse.

                    What makes this even worse for American citizens is that American citizens have all their assets under US jurisdiction and have no choice but to submit to the US legal system; illegal aliens keep a lot of their assets abroad and can simply leave the country instead of facing justice.

                    That’s the kind of two-tiered justice system you advocate, a system that subjects Americans to authoritarian progressivism, while giving illegal migrants an environment that is far closer to libertarianism than any American citizen can hope to get.

                    When I became a US citizen, I didn’t just receive the benefits of citizenship, I accepted the responsibilities. I expect the same of any other immigrant. The two-tier system you advocate is unacceptable.

              3. Not true. He went further than just interactions involving the government – “banking, housing, medical care, education”.

                All of those involve usually involve interactions with the government, either because they require verifiable identification or reporting.

                So what about undocumented immigrants who get sick

                If it’s an emergency, they’ll get treated and will be required to pay for it. If they can’t pay, it’s like any other kind of unpaid bill.

                or need a place to live?

                They will have a hard time finding a place to live. Which is the point: you don’t “immigrate” to a place if you can’t get housing.

            2. Nope he also said banking, medical care, and insurance.

              So I should need to have a piss test to get a drivers license?

              Oh and the welfare requirement I object to. Drug use should be decriminalized if not outright legal.

              1. I don’t care if you opposed it for welfare or not, the fact is it isn’t really controversial. That doesn’t mean there are those who don’t oppose it but that it really isn’t that far out of the mainstream (actually, according to a number of polls it is fairly mainstream actually).

            3. Soldiermedic it means all of us would need to prove citizenship for those things. Are you ok with that?

              1. Did I say one way or the other? I simply pointed out that your rejoinder was non-sequitor.

              2. “papieren bitte”

                And people wonder why payday lenders and title loan places are so popular

                1. Godwin’s law so early ChemJeff, you’re getting lazy.

                  1. It’s actually not “Godwin’s Law”, it is modern day reality in America *right now*. To open a bank account, people need to present all sorts of ID right now, to prove they’re not terrorists or drug dealers. They’re doing this for the reasons that JW espouses. What this has led to, in part, is a flourishing of the payday loan and title loan type places, which are complete ripoffs, but are also an outlet for people who lack ID. So what happens when the state starts demanding people meet these requirements in order to enter the formal banking market? People make more unsavory choices which end up ripping them off. Again this is happening *right now*. This is not hypothetical.

                    So if JW gets his way and starts demanding proof of citizenship before getting medical care at a hospital or clinic, then what do you think will happen for those who lack ID and who get sick? Clinics will still pop up who will serve the undocumented, but they will either be predatory – charging way higher than market rates, to take into account the additional risk of serving this clientele – or they will be full of quacks and frauds, who can’t work at a reputable establishment. Is this what you want?

                    1. There are a variety of reasons besides immigration and drugs that we have to present ID. The first one is to prove we are who we really say we are. My wife has had her identity stolen twice. This has nothing to do with immigration but requiring ID does make it harder (though not impossible) to steal a person’s ID. Anti-terrorism and anti-espionage are also valid reasons to require ID. I’m neither defending nor supporting these reasons but am calling bullshit on your thesis that it is all about drugs and immigration.
                      You still seem to be assuming I support J W. And yes, what you did is the very definition of Godwin’s Law. As opposed to Nazi Germany and the Gestapo, the banks aren’t stopping us in the streets and asking for our papers. Instead, if we want to voluntarily do business with them we have to present our papers. Provide a good argument as to why this is akin to the Gestapo and I will admit that we are just days away from Krystalnacht. Otherwise, admit you are guilty of commiting The logical fallacy I accused you of.
                      Now, if you strictly had focused on internal checkpoints and other questionable law enforcement practices, I would say you had a stronger argument. But instead you decide to bring up payday loans, which are not necessarily a bad thing. I have taken advantage of them a time or two, I have hocked a gun or other possession a time or two and my family has been here since (at the latest) 1890. I also have had a bank account since I was 15.

                    2. The broader point is, is that if JW gets his way (not saying you support his/her POV, just stating that as a supposition), and if government ID cards are required for banking, medical care, education, etc., that the markets for those services won’t go away, they will just get seedier. You will have clinics, and schools, just like payday lenders, that will emerge to fill the medical and educational needs of the undocumented. And, just like with payday lenders, they will charge a premium for the extra risk, and/or have questionable business practices which take advantage of vulnerable populations. Requiring ID for the formal medical/educational systems won’t have the effect JW thinks it will have – it won’t necessarily cause undocumented migrants to self-deport – it will instead drive their economy underground.

                      And when this inevitability happens, JW and friends will then demand that the state start cracking down on the “unlicensed clinics” and “unlicensed schools” where “they’re harboring illegals”. Is that what we really want?

                    3. The bigger point is that when you get hyperbolic, such as your comparison to the Gestapo, you usually drive away support. Also, by asserting you know what JW would do if there were unlicensed clinics etc is pure assumption on your part. As is your assumption that they necessarily will be seedier or provide worse care.

                    4. The broader point is, is that if JW gets his way (not saying you support his/her POV, just stating that as a supposition), and if government ID cards are required for banking, medical care, education, etc., that the markets for those services won’t go away, they will just get seedier.

                      It’s not an “if”; they are already required in most such interactions.

                      And, just like with payday lenders, they will charge a premium for the extra risk, and/or have questionable business practices which take advantage of vulnerable populations.

                      So you are saying that government regulation makes banking, medical care, housing, etc. cheaper and safer? And you pretend to be a libertarian?

                      And when this inevitability happens, JW and friends will then demand that the state start cracking down on the “unlicensed clinics” and “unlicensed schools” where “they’re harboring illegals”. Is that what we really want?

                      I believe that current identification and reporting requirements should be enforced as written and people who violate them prosecuted, against everybody. If people don’t like the consequences, they will hopefully abolish many of those bad laws.

                      Your idea, namely that we should selectively enforce bad laws only against Americans while giving illegals a free pass, is unjust to Americans and unacceptable.

                    5. You also need to present all sorts of ID and fill out nasty paperwork that asks if you are a citizen among a dozen or so other very invasive questions (mental health? convicted felon?) just to be allowed to buy a gun. A right that is protected by the Constitution with “shall not be infringed”.

                2. “papieren bitte”

                  That is the situation for US citizens already; it’s what Americans face every single day, in baking, in education, in housing, in medical care, etc. Americans have no choice but to submit to these draconian rules, and if we fail to, the US government will destroy our lives.

                  You’re advocating policies under which Americans are subjected to draconian government intrusions into their liberties, while illegal migrants can flaunt them.

                  1. Progress, bro!
                    Don’t you even white man’s burden?

                3. “papieren bitte”

                  And let me add: you apparently don’t understand how bad the situation is for Americans.

                  As an American (or legal resident), I have to report my worldwide income, financial transactions, and bank accounts to the US government. I can’t even open a European bank account without the European bank being required to report my financial transactions to the US government. If I violate those rules, the US government can (and likely will) seize my worldwide assets and bankrupt me.

                  You advocate a two-tier system in which illegal migrants are not only exempt from all those rules while enjoying the benefits of US residency, but on top of that want to give them license to lie about their identity and to legally shield their assets in their home countries.

                  And that’s what the “radical individualist libertarian” Chemjeff advocates: laissez-faire for illegal migrants while continuing “papieren bitte” and draconian control for Americans.

                  1. So, you’re a “libertarian” who is motivated more by resentfulness than by liberty. Got it.

                    If Americans are getting screwed, then by golly, foreigners should get screwed just as badly! It’s only fair!

  21. “with some cities and companies resisting federal enforcement efforts”

    http://bit.ly/2ErBBNQ

    8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
    (a) Criminal penalties
    (1)
    (A) Any person who—
    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place,

    1. Hence I am signed up for the upcoming Area 51 raid in Nevada.

  22. So they’ve had their day in court (which many didn’t even bother to show up for) and we’re ordered to leave. Now we are supposed to feel compassion for them because they didn’t leave and are being arrested for it. And of course you have ChemJeff, Echospinner, Mtrueman and the Rev to defend the fact that they are still here despite having orders to leave. When did we cross the line from a Libertarian leaning magazine to an outright anarchist or progressive one? When do we admit that what the true aim is is the total elimination of all immigrant laws? Hey, if you ignore you court ordered notice to leave, that’s okay, because orange man bad.

  23. “When do we admit that what the true aim is is the total elimination of all immigrant laws?”

    Yup. However given that this is not libertopia and a welfare state exists I will settle for less.

    1. So what is less? Where do you draw the line? And how would you screen for foreign agents, terrorist, criminals, those with contagious disease etc without some form of immigration laws?

      1. We have the technology right now to do instant background checks and instant testing for the most common diseases. So that is what we should be working on implementing for migrants wanting to cross at the border. But the point is, you make the LEGAL system so easy, so risk-free, and so accommodating, that there is no reason to try to sneak across the border. There would still be a border patrol, for the unsavory few who will still try to sneak across, but you wouldn’t need any stupid wall and you wouldn’t need the virtual police state on the border that we have now, because the number of crossings would be way reduced. You wouldn’t need a separate whole federal agency like ICE devoted to track down and arresting peaceful people who haven’t violated anyone’s rights. Most people crossing the border just want to come here to work and have a better life.

        1. Instant checking for most diseases, really? Cultures generally take 24-72 hours to return results, most blood work, especially for immunology, requires hours and specialized equipment. And as we have pointed out ad nauseum to you, what do you do about those who refuse to do your “instant” background check? How do you do an instant background check for someone from a country with a hostile government or adversarial or non-existent? How do you verify any information from an adversarial government? Hell, even from a friendly government, given even allies spy on each other from time to time?

          1. Well, let me ask you this.

            If these technical details could be worked out to your satisfaction, would you support the *idea* that I presented – of having a more relaxed and more accommodating migration system?

            1. If we are speaking purely hypothetically, if you can actually ever give real answers rather than avoiding the questions, then I would be willing to consider it. These technicalities as you like to call them are extremely difficult and in some cases nearing impossible.

              1. Fair enough. I agree that the technical issues are not trivial, but they are just technical, not philosophical. Without philosophical agreement, whatever technical issues that may arise become insurmountable instead.

                1. Aw but there is the rub. How do you achieve philosophical agreement when you seem so willing to demonize any who disagree with you? Or at least assume the worse of their disagreement?

                  1. Well, let’s see. Back in 2014-15 or so, the argument from the right was, “We just want to do something about illegal immigration, it’s getting out of hand, there’s too many people breaking the law and we want to put a stop to that”. Okay, fine.

                    But NOW that argument has morphed into “We want to reduce or eliminate ALL immigration because we think ‘those people’ are incompatible with America and we don’t want that kind of riff-raff here”. Which is quite different from ‘we just want to enforce the law’.

                    1. Bullshit. Some advocate for reduced immigration for a variety of reasons, usually protecting American workers. But you love to misrepresent anyone who suffers from you. You talk about the need for philosophical agreement and then two post later you launch into a gross generalization and demonization of those who opposed your prescribed policy. I call complete and utter bullshit on your post. It is the worst kind of partisanship there is (and yes you are a partisan).

            2. This AND a complete elimination of the welfare state? Sure, have said it several times. Eliminate the welfare state, provide a rational border control that allows people to enter the country with minimal fuss but with some recourse for persona non grata (I’d just as soon exclude known MS-13 killers thanks), require ID proving citizenship for voting, and eliminate jus soli in favor of jus sanguinis birthright citizenship and I’m down with opening the border pretty darn wide open.

          2. Have you ever travelled to another country? How is that possible?

            How does anybody with a tourist visa ever travel from Mexico or Nigeria?

            You only need to screen where there is high risk for endemic disease. TB is one in some cases so if there is high risk for that you may require that they get a TB test which takes a couple days.

            1. How is it possible, because I have a passport that my government issued me. That passport took weeks and money to receive. It included my country fingerprinting me and conducting a background check. Additionally, the country I am entering has to honor that passport. Your example proves my point about how difficult it would be to deal with non-functional, adversarial or non-existent governments. In fact, your question makes my argument even stronger, as it is my country that has done this work. However, when I enter another country they can, and do question my intentions, and I can also be detained if they dislike my answers, despite having a passport.
              Additionally, a tourist visa again has been issued only after going through a process similar to my passport issuance. They are not issued for those just showing up at the border, they have been prescreened. How does this answer the questions I asked?

              1. I am talking about the disease issue. You do not have to be screened for every disease known to man to travel. In fact very few and only in certain cases.

                I worked in a clinic where we did travel medicine and immunizations.

                1. That is because, for the most part, the US has pretty well eliminated or controlled most of our contagious diseases.

                  1. Not to belabor the point but these folks have been coming over for years without any checks and I am not aware of any disease issues. We are not talking about things like influenza which we have anyway and is unstoppable.

                    TB is often an issue but is very low in north and South America with parts of Southeast Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe being higher.

                    I don’t see it as much of an issue.

                    1. It isn’t an issue yet, though there is some evidence it may be growing as an issue. But to say it isn’t a potential issue is Pollyandish. And it isn’t only related to human diseases. Hoof, foot and mouth disease is a major issue south of the border. The US is free of this disease. Contaminated meat, leather etc brought into the US could result in billions of dollars worth of losses and millions of animal destroyed (this isn’t a hypothetical, it actually happened in England a couple of decades ago). Antibiotic resistant bacteria, which we have plenty of our own, parasites, more virulent STDs etc have been brought in, though luckily none have yet become an epidemic. Though any epidemiologist would tell you the more people travelling, especially from poorer countries the greater chance of an epidemic occurs. In fact it goes up exponentially. Remember, malaria and yellow fever were not native to the Americas, nor were small pox, cholera etc. How well did it go when European and African immigrants (though the later were often brought here against their will) came to the Americas with these diseases? Estimates are that losses to the native populations probably exceeded 90%. Whole civilizations, advanced and well populated civilizations, ceased to exist in a matter of decades. It is always a possibility. And as fast as bacteria and virus mutate, it is a real possibility. Especially as poorer countries have more susceptible hosts, poverty weakens immune systems and poor public sanitation creates breeding grounds for contagions, thus increasing the probability of mutation and epidemics.

                    2. It is an interesting subject but you can’t just wall off the world because of disease. I leave it to the infectious disease folks to make recommendations and go with that.

                      The CDC and WHO are some of the few things useful in government when it comes to actual diseases such as those you mentioned.

                      My small government libertarianism does include public safety and health.

              2. Also to many places you do not need a tourist visa in advance. You can just fill one out on the plane and then you go through customs.

                1. Please list these places, so we may judge if we want to emulate them. I don’t disbelieve you, I just want to judge if they have a system that is worth emulating.

                  1. Well haven’t been to a lot of places but our neighbors to the north and south, Israel, some of the islands like Bahama, DR, Jamaica, are examples in my experience. I guess you could look up travel requirements on google and find out what each country requires.

                    1. To travel to Canada I have to have a valid US passport (the same with the other countries you listed). The reason I can easily get a travel visa (and their citizens can get a US Visa) is because they trust the US passport system. For the most part, for people from other countries, the travel requirements are generally more difficult.

                    2. “To travel to Canada I have to have a valid US passport”

                      Not if you travel by land or water. You need a passport to FLY to Canada, but you can drive there with a secureID driver’s license.

        2. And if you truly think that a reduced border patrol, no internal enforcement and no penalty for avoiding checkpoints will reduce the flow you are Pollyandish to the extreme.

          1. I mean here you are protesting the government deporting those who the courts have ruled should be deported. Many of them have criminal records.

            1. I have no problem with deporting people convicted of violent crime.

              1. To deport them requires some form of internal enforcement right?

                1. Sure when did I say otherwise.

                  1. So, you are not opposed to ICE conducting these raids then?

                    1. I do if they are deporting people who are not violent criminals.

                    2. What about people who came here by crossing the border illegally, or claiming assylum, where caught and given a court date and then refused to show up to that court date and thus we’re ordered deported? For your temporary permit to work you would also have to have this style of deportation as well

                  2. I suppose if they did not accept the amnesty with a permit you would need to decide what to do about that. Deportation is a very harsh measure.

                    1. Sooner or later you will need to report some who are not guilty of crimes other than being here illegally. Some will never comply. The question is how, when and how many do we deport.

                    2. Well with 18 million or so you will never be able to deport them all or even a significant portion for the supposed crime of being illegal with all that cost and legal issues involved.

                      You are never going to get 100% compliance but if they could live openly, work and pay taxes I think you will find they are just like anyone else. In a generation or two we would not even be thinking about it.

                    3. The problem is we don’t even know if it is 18 million. The second problem is that no matter what the number is, some will need to be deported. Either that or we give up on the idea of borders. And then I wonder how long we will remain a nation. The problem has gotten so bad you are saying we should simply give up? Or do we work on making sure the problem doesn’t occur again and then try and deal with what we have? And there will always be need to deal with those who are non-compliantm

                    4. “Well with 18 million or so you will never be able to deport them all or even a significant portion for the supposed crime of being illegal with all that cost and legal issues involved.”

                      Well, it’s like killing a lawyer. It’s a good start.

          2. Nope people don’t pay smugglers and risk their lives if all you need is a bus ride to an entry port and an effective simple system for entry.

            As with drugs, you don’t see people smuggling avocados.

            1. You seem to be under the assumption that everyone who comes here does so with innocent intentions. And smuggling has always gone on. Yes, even avocado smuggling. In fact, smuggling of fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as meat actually is a huge threat to public health and our agriculture industry.

              1. Yeah people were smuggling toilets from Canada here a little while back when they had the low flush laws but cmon.

                It doesn’t have to be this hard, this expensive and a huge national crisis.

                1. Until you can control it and define the scope of it, you can’t really fix it. We simply don’t know how many people are here illegally and why they are here and who they are. We estimate. We guess. We assert our own bias and belief but we don’t know for sure.

                  1. That is our fault.

                    It is like the old saying. If I owe the bank $1000 I have a problem. If I owe the bank $10000000 dollars the bank has a problem.

                    1. It is undoubtedly because we have refused to enforce our laws while also refusing to change or alter them. That still doesn’t change the fact that we need to first figure out how bad the problem is. This requires stronger border enforcement and some means to count and screen those already here. And deport those who shouldn’t be here.

                    2. I think it is like drug prohibition. It is not that we have not enforced the laws it is that they are not enforceable.
                      Because these people have been deemed illegal and face deportation you are never going to get accurate data. We have estimates but that is it.

                      The laws need to change.

                      Personally I would just have an amnesty for all but the violent criminals and start over. Give a legal residency with work permits and eventual path to citizenship. They are already here, many for decades and I don’t see the country falling apart, far from it.

                    3. Most people would have been perfectly happy with that solution in 1985, but then we tried it without first improving border enforcement and the problem only got worse. Even as late as 2008 I think many would have signed off on the idea of amnesty after we improved the border situation. Even most conservatives, who also supported work/guest visas. However, we were told repeatedly that we only wanted border control because we are racist. And rather than offering anything in return, the opposition is growing even more open to the idea of no border enforcement. At the same time we are told there are 11 million, or 30 million or 6 million, nobody knows, illegals in the country. We have municipalities actively hiding criminal illegals from the government. I think, even today, most would be agreeable to some form of (not amnesty) but forgiveness if they felt the other side was honest. However, when we see kids being expelled from school for flying the American flag or wearing a flag t-shirt, we tend to start siding with the most extremist. When we are constantly told any border enforcement or any deportation is racist we tend to be less open to compromise. When we are constantly told that bringing up the problem of crime that accompanied huge illegal populations, not that most illegal aliens are criminal other than breaking our immigration laws, makes us racist or bigots or uneducated. When we are told that immigration laws themselves should not even exist, we tend to get pushed into extremism ourselves. When the government can’t even agree upon how many illegals, where they come from, and why they are here, we tend to be less open to compromise. This is human nature. Until we have an adequate fix for dealing with those who want to come to our country and how we process them and what rules they have to follow, many are no longer open to compromise. Because, until this are fixed, it isn’t compromise but capitulation they are asking for.

                    4. And also, in the scheme of things, the US actually is fairly liberal in it’s immigration system. There will always be some need for some form of enforcement and some who should not be allowed in, for any number of reasons. Pragmatism is not a dirty word.

                  2. I think the uptick after the Reagan amnesty was because of an economic problem which is resolving. Most of those migrants came from Mexico which was collapsing economically and you had these people desperate for any kind of work.

                    That has stabilized and now we have this surge from Central America which is horrible because of extreme violence and government corruption and inefficiency. They are applying for amnesty and coming more as family groups.

                    So it is like trying to control bleeding by sopping up the blood instead of repairing the artery. But what are we going to do about a situation like that? I don’t know but that is where we should be focusing efforts. Locking people in detention centers is just wrong in my book.

                    1. Some are coming as family groups, though there is evidence, as in the European refugee crisis, that a fair number are not family units. Many are unaccompanied young males. Whatever the cause of the uptick after Reagan’s amnesty, the fact remains that Congress reneged on its promise of more border enforcement and rather than stopping illegal immigration, the problem o my got worse. Do we every generation or so, grant another round of amnesty? There are always sad stories out there.

                    2. Fighting a war that does not need to be fought.

                      It is a human story soldiermedic. The so called illegals are not protesting against the flag or whatever. They actually would like to be a part of what you and I take for granted for the most part.

                      We agree about some things. That is rare on these pages.

                    3. Some want to be part of it. Some are also protesting the flag. And some even want to conquer (or reconquer) parts of the American Southwest. Look up the reconquista movement. Not all of those coming here are model citizens yearning for freedom and liberty.

        3. [Chemjeff:] We have the technology right now to do instant background checks and instant testing for the most common diseases.

          Sorry, that’s out of touch with reality. Background checks and medical checks for immigration take weeks even for Europeans, and much longer for less developed nations. Even visitor visas usually take weeks if not months.

          Most people crossing the border just want to come here to work and have a better life.

          I agree: we should have open borders for people who “just want to come here to work and have a better life”. But we shouldn’t have open borders for people who want to come here and benefit from US government redistribution schemes. What that means in practice is that we should have open borders for anyone paying about $20000/year in taxes or making an income somewhere upwards of $100000.

      2. We have data banks. Every time you buy a plane ticket it goes through one. Takes minutes. If I get pulled over for speeding the cop has my criminal record and if I have a carry permit in a minute or two right from his car.

        We already have policies for infectious disease screening based on endemic areas. As do other countries. If someone is at risk you screen for those.

        I have no problem with a registration process but it should not be much harder than getting your drivers license renewed. I already suggested that a simple process for a temporary work permit would be a good idea. It would decrease dependence of migrants on government handouts and increase tax revenue.

        1. I am not totally opposed to the idea of temporary permits, but I think it is far more difficult than you believe. And before any of that happens we have to first figure out who is here that belongs here and how many people don’t. Additionally, we have to have a system in place that is strong enough to insure that the majority coming into the country are undergoing the processes you agree we need. That requires enforcement. Rather we like it or not, otherwise, we might as well do away with the border.

          1. I could live with that.

  24. Illegal Immigrant New Yorkers:
    YOU HAVE RIGHTS
    Gun owning, law abiding, US citizens who live in New York:
    YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS

    1. +100

  25. Who needs a citizenship question on the 2020 census?

  26. There has been breathless, concerend reporting ’round the clock on this in the media. Hand wringing over the plight of people holed up in their apartments, waiting out the ICE thugs as they raid their neighbors.

    I couldn’t help but wonder…what if it was the IRS instead of ICE? What if it was the IRS going after people that had not paid their taxes in 20+ years? People that had gone through due process but just kept avoiding paying for years? Would NBC send out a reporter to interview a woman in her home cowering in fear from the coming raids?

    In other words…why is this a big story other than to push a narrative?

    1. Was watching WSOP last night and norman Chad told the story of the IRS coming over to a table and taking $43,000 worth of chips from a guy right there

      1. As in, straight off the table

  27. They aren’t undocumented immigrants.

    They are illegal aliens. They have by definition broken the law.

  28. I check back here every few months to see if the TDS has abated, but y’all keep on reminding me why my attention is better spent elsewhere nowadays. If I want globalist propaganda I can just turn on the network news.

  29. > Families who are arrested will be held together in family detention centers.

    So the goal is not to deport them. What exactly is the goal here? Just fill up cages?

  30. About time! Go ICE!

  31. “According to The New York Times, the agency is zeroing in on 2,000 migrant families in 10 major cities who received final orders to leave the country, some of them because they failed to attend their immigration hearings.”

    We should feel bad for these people?

  32. […] sur l’immigration avec les images de la caravane de migrants tournant en boucle sur Fox News. Les raids récents organisés par l’ICE et les remarques du président sur les démocrates à la couleur de peau trop foncée semblent […]

  33. Turn up the heat!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.