ICE

Nashville Neighbors Send ICE Packing. Let's See More of That for All Sorts of Law Enforcement.

It's not always safe, but it's certainly justifiable to sabotage unjust laws and malicious government.

|

What if, when government agents showed up to hassle people for engaging in some activity that didn't harm anybody but was officially disapproved, friends and neighbors turned out to send the agents packing? That's what happened in the Hermitage neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee, on Monday morning, where residents chased away Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who attempted to take custody of a long-term resident. It's a frankly heroic model that bears emulation in a variety of circumstances involving enforcers of unjust laws, malicious officials, and the people over whom they claim to exercise authority.

"Neighbors say the man and his son were in a van parked in their driveway, with a white pickup truck driven by an ICE agent parked behind them, blocking them in. Soon more than a dozen neighbors were gathered outside the home, along with immigrant rights advocates, as the man and his son sat in their van, beginning a standoff that lasted several hours," the Nashville Scene reports. "As the hours passed, witnesses say, neighbors brought food and water to the man and his son and also put more gas in the van so they could keep it running."

Ultimately, the neighbors formed a human chain through which the man and his son walked from their van to their house. They've since relocated to a new home. The incident was captured on video and posted to Facebook.

To an extent, the success of this particular confrontation between good people and federal enforcers hinged on the fact that the ICE agents, as is usually the case, relied on the warrant version of Confederate money.

"An 'ICE warrant' is not a real warrant," notes the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. "It is not reviewed by a judge or any neutral party to determine if it is based on probable cause. Because it is not issued by a judge, an ICE warrant does not give the immigration enforcement officer the authority to demand entry to a home or private space in order to make the arrest."

ICE's self-issued documents allege civil immigration violations and so also don't authorize local authorities to make arrests in the absence of separate criminal violations. That's a big part of why Metro Nashville Police was on the scene but only observed the confrontation and did nothing to intervene.

Which is to say, obstructing ICE comes with minimal risks.

There can sometimes be greater dangers involved in interfering with government enforcers of other unjust laws—restrictions on drugs, guns, consensual sexual activity, intrusive regulations, and confiscatory taxes, for instance. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get in the way when the opportunity arises to help ourselves or others without assuming excessive risk.

"Political authority is an illusion," writes the philosopher Michael Huemer in The Problem of Political Authority. "No one has the right to rule, and no one is obliged to obey a command merely because it comes from their government." To the contrary, he continues, the same moral rules apply to governments as apply to everybody else, and government employees have no more right to roust people for behavior that annoys their bosses than does the prickly guy who lives on your street.

"The government and its agents do not have any kind of special immunity against defensive action," adds Jason Brennan in When All Else Fails, building on Huemer's argument. "When government agents commit injustice, they are liable to be deceived, sabotaged, injured, or even attacked, in the same way civilians would be."

Examples of such active resistance abound, from the Whiskey Rebellion, to the Underground Railroad, through Prohibition, and the Stonewall uprising. In all instances, people actively obstructed law enforcement in ways great and small to protect their liberty and that of other people subject to unjust laws.

That such push-back against government enforcers remains effective is obvious not just from the ejection of ICE agents from a Nashville neighborhood, but from the buckets-full soaking of police officers in Harlem and Brooklyn this past weekend. To be clear, it's not obvious what laws, good or bad, the police were enforcing—"officers were responding to an unruly crowd," according to one report—and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) has yet to respond to my inquiries. But police meekly retreated in both cases without further action.

And pushback can have a larger impact beyond the immediate incident. Police departments across the country, as well as the Internal Revenue Service and the FBI, are facing recruitment shortfalls amidst complaints about low morale and resistance from the public at large.

"The American policing profession may be facing the most fundamental questioning of its legitimacy in decades," wrote Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, in a 2017 organizational newsletter.

That crisis of legitimacy has a lot to do with exposure of abusive police conduct, made much easier by modern electronics and the internet facilitating the sharing of video evidence. Such incidents include the brutal and unjustified killing of Daniel Shaver by a Mesa, Arizona, police officer, the equally contemptible killing of Philando Castile by a Minnesota police officer, and litany of similar incidents nationwide.

On a larger scale, systematic problems worsen perceptions of government enforcers.

"Militarized policing is ineffective in decreasing crime and protecting police, and may actually weaken the public's image of the police," researchers found last year.

"Racial profiling and other types of biased policing undermine the public's confidence and trust in law enforcement," warned a recent report about the NYPD's failure to deal with allegations of biased enforcement.

As the cherry on top, we have growing concerns about the law being used not to address perceived social problems, real or imaginary, but to punish political enemies who support the "wrong" policies and candidates, or who just won't submit to the will of those in government office. Fighting for control of that government and its enforcers are dominant political factions that despise each other to the point of seeing each other as "evil" and wishing each other's members "just died", in the words of a paper published earlier this year.

Under the circumstances, it's not hard to justify throwing some hurdles in the way of the government's enforcement apparatus.

That doesn't mean it's safe to stand between government enforcers and their intended victims. In many instances it will get you arrested if not subject to violent assault. The good neighbors in Nashville were fortunate that ICE operates under constraints that don't universally apply to law enforcement. But if the opportunity arises to protect your friends, neighbors, loved ones, or yourself from malicious officials and enforcers of unjust laws, you're certainly justified if you do so.

Advertisement

NEXT: "A Poster Boy for the Long-Sentenced, Non-Violent Drug Offender?"

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. Remember kids reason doesn’t support open borders. That is just a strawman. They just don’t think anyone should ever be deported for any reason. And that is difference because reasons.

    1. Yup. They are for a better immigration policy. Indeed.

      How that policy differs from “no borders at all” will EVENTUALLY be explained.

      “We need tighten up on visa overstays…and if we do that, we will then demand the people fight the police over it”

      1. Why should there even be visas in the first place?

        1. Didn’t used to be, not even passports. People crossed borders at will. World survived.

          Closed borders “paperz pleaze” people are just scared to death of differences. Not racists, particularly; just afraid of anything different.

          1. Partly. I think it is also partly a failure to think of anything bigger than “that’s the way it’s always been”.

          2. We’re Americans, so the genocide and ethnic cleansing worked out pretty well for most of us living here today.

          3. We used to have slavery too, but the world survived.

            In any case, immigration is different now than in the past. We have a welfare state now that has to take care of everyone. The numbers of people arriving are greater, and transportation is far more accessible. We have asylum laws now that people can use the game the system. Finally, when this nation was young we had plenty of unexplored and unoccupied territory. That’s not the case anymore.

          4. ” People crossed borders at will. World survived.”

            Yeah, tell that to 12th century Europeans.

            “Closed borders “paperz pleaze” people are just scared to death of differences created by opportunistic invaders that results in catastrophic societal regression, including a loss of rights and resources.” FTFY

            Gotta go. Just heard the the crosstown call to prayer. Remember to avoid the no-go zones, infidel, I mean, my friend, my friend.

            If you cannot live without a falaffel or taco that is to die for, I insist you take a trip to the countries of origin for an authentic taste. It may just genuinely end up being a falafel or taco to die for.

        2. t. Mohammad Atta

          1. Who *had a valid visa*, by the way.

    2. Do you think a long term resident and his son deserve to be taken from their Nashville house by the Feds because they were born too far South? Your comment is the definition of a strawman.

      1. Most of the Trumpalos here do believe that, yes.

        1. It’s depressing.

      2. “Do you think a long term resident and his son deserve to be taken from their Nashville house by the Feds because they were born too far South?”

        Should an illegal alien be deported?

        Answer is yes.

        1. Seems as though non aggression principles have become sparse among Libertarians

          1. Trespasser initiated aggression.

            1. It’s not trespassing, though.

              1. There is something to be said for sponsored citizenship.
                But is it different from going into Fenway without a ticket?

              2. “It’s not trespassing, though.”

                Damn right! #Squatter’sRightsMatter

          2. I doubt they are Libertarians (capital “L”). They may think they are libertarians (small “l”), but they really aren’t that either.

        2. Superman hardest hit.

        3. A Nashville house is not a port so it is impossible to be de-port-ed from a residential neighborhood in Nashville

      3. ““Do you think a long term resident and his son deserve to be taken from their Nashville house by the Feds because they were born too far South?”

        No, because they broke into the country.

        The video should provide good evidence of criminal conspiracy to aid a fugitive. RICO.
        Would love to see those folks in jail.

        1. The savages broke into the holy land. You’re a piece of shit.

      4. “Born too far South”.

        Pure genius.

        I’ll keep watching your posts to see your other euphemistic rationalizations for crimes. Please keep this going.

        Do “rape” next.

        1. “America was asking for it – just look at how short that Texas skirt is in the rear!”

        2. so you think “rape” is a bureaucratic category? my illegal fence is an armed robbery of the township and driving 10 over the limit is like murdering the highway.

          this is why you will disappear soon and make all our dreams come true

          1. “this is why you will disappear soon”

            Is that a threat? Are you going to take him for a helicopter ride?

      5. Do you think a long term resident and his son deserve to have their bank accounts emptied just because it all came from a bank robbery?

        It’s a basic principle of the law that you don’t get to keep things you obtained illegally. Including residence in the US.

      6. If a man and his son are squatting in your house, do you think they deserve to be taken away just because, through no fault of their own, they were born in a different house with a different family?

      7. Would it have killed the long term resident to apply for citizenship? Maybe he would have avoided the issue.

      8. I think that real warrants signed by a judge often fall short of protecting the rights of the accused, but they should still be the minimum requirement to comply with the Fourth Amendment.

        Having law enforcement agents sign their own warrants is clearly a conflict of interest.

    3. “They just don’t think anyone should ever be deported for any reason.”

      Well done… quite literally the definition of a strawman.

      1. It’s… literally the entire topic of the article. It’s plenty obvious that you’re stupid you don’t need to bend over backwards to prove it by demonstrating your illiteracy too.

        1. Yeah… literally the entire article is about how no immigrant should ever be deported for any reason.

          That should come as no surprise because that’s Tucille’s normal beat. And that explains why JD wrote paragraph after paragraph explaining how borders are bad and even the most evil, depraved criminals should not be deported regardless of what they do.

          Anyone who somehow interpreted the article as support for fighting against political authority and unjust laws clearly has problems with reading comprehension and has never truly understood Tucille.

    4. Exactly John. This is just more evidence that reason staff, like the Lefties, use people.

      Democrats use people for slavery.
      Democrats use people to gain government power.
      Democrats use people to scare them into cheap labor.
      Democrats use people to buy votes.
      Democrats use people to be Useful Idiots.
      Democrats use people to start the revolution.

      1. Fuck off, Republican troll.

        Take your Democrap/Republicrap tribalism and shove it up your ass!

        Oh wait, you’d enjoy that too much.

  2. Just five years ago reason had a different view of those who resist the Feds

    It can be tricky, because the type of person who lets conflicts with the state get this far is apt to be, temperamentally, the type to do and say lots of things even a normally sympathetic person in principle might want to shy away from. Similarly, one need not believe in Bundy’s eccentric political science vision of where legitimate American authority lies—to him, counties and states, not the federal government—to feel he’s been ill-treated by the feds.

    Those, then, are two of the (at least) three Americas. The third probably thinks that Bundy should have probably just given up somewhere along the line, but Christ leave him alone now, and also probably that at a certain point essentially sending in an army on such a mild form of disobedience might be overkill. But alas, that’s what it all has to come down to, when dealing with a man who thinks he’s in the right, and has friends who agree with him.

    https://reason.com/2014/04/18/the-bundy-ranch-standoff-and-attitudes-t/

    Reason was so much more circumspect back then. Why could that be?

    1. I bet they TOTALLY supported Kim Davis of KY. 100% support for fighting against an overarching law she found unjust.

      1. Are you missing the point that Kim Davis was refusing to obey her employer, the state, which puts her in a very different category, or are you just using her as a bad example?

        I would have been 100% in favor of her stepping down from her government job and fighting for what she thought was right, and I’d agree with her right to dissent, even though I’d disagree with her on what she was dissenting about.

    2. Who is this “Reason” guy you speak of? This article is from Tucille. Your linked article is from Doherty.

      Is it possible that two different authors have different opinions? Is it possible that neither of those can be definitively called the “Reason” opinion?

      At least your comment below relates to Tucille. And while he calls the people goofballs, he’s also very clear that he supports their goals.

      1. Forget it, it’s John-town.

        1. John exposes reason staff circle-jerking each other.

      2. In John’s world its not possible for two different authors to have two different opinions. All authors at this website must be forced to speak in one collective voice. It is the only way for Johnny.

        1. We know what color the sky is on John’s planet. It’s black and white.

          1. Mostly white, and black only against his wishes.

            1. Haha. Yeah……. white people are terrible.

              I think Imma head on down to mehico and set up shop. Not tell nobody. Get a job and a house. Tens of millions of us should do the same.

              What do you think would happen to Mexico?

              It would become much less of a shithole.

              Ok, now let’s flip the script and……. haha. Better not.

              1. you should actually, and many do.

        2. I’ve been explaining this to John for years. His only reply is that Reason has an editorial board that approves all articles. Even if that were true (dubious, and there is no way a single editor could read all the shit they post), this does imply all editors have identical criteria or that they require all writers to express an identical set of views. That’s preposterous and clearly not true. Compare Doherty to Chapman, for example.

          1. Reason has an editorial board

            LOL they don’t even proofread these blog posts.

          2. They don’t approve all articles, but they do hire the writers.

          3. You’re really carrying water for the editorial board now, aren’t you.

            1. Eunuch virtue signals to the writers all the time.
              He’s pathetically desperate for friends.

          4. *i* read all the shit they post, and the comments too…

      3. Its not even two different opinions.

        The author of the John-linked piece is openly supporting those who came to help Bundy.

        He’s just saying Bundy isn’t the most sympathetic of cases.

        1. Yeah he just had his livelihood taken away and spent half a decade in prison, it’s not like he sneaked across a border and worked under the table like the truly sympathetic cases.

          1. His livelihood of grazing cattle on federal land? He didn’t homestead that land or obtain legitimate ownership.

            1. He was white, had a pickup truck and a cowboy hat, and declared himself a sovereign citizen patriot.

              That land was Bundy land by operation of natural law, supplemented by the will of God.

              1. it was more his land than the federal government. it was especially his cows land, who were entitled to graze in peace, and not be slaughtered by federal mercenaries.

            2. Chipper point 1: “Bundy was illegally misusing Federal land”
              Chipper point 2: “The article above is right, it’s certainly justifiable to sabotage laws and malicious government'”

              Hypocrite.

              1. Those two statements are not in conflict. Think about it. Where is the flaw in your logic?

    3. I’m having a real tough time fishing out Doherty’s actual personal opinion on the matter from this article, but I don’t read anything but sympathy for Bundy either.

  3. Then there is this

    The only people sillier than the goofballs occupying a shack in the middle of nowhere in Oregon are the bigger loons freaking out over the situation and demanding federal action—even lethal force—in response to this intolerable act of lèse-majesté.

    https://reason.com/2016/01/12/the-oregon-standoff-is-only-a-glimpse-at/

    Note the difference in language and the dripping contempt Tuccilli has for the people in Oregon. But these people doing much the same thing are like the underground railroad. We need more of this, unless you are a goofball in Tuccilli’s eyes.

    1. Tuccille’s contempt is clearly for the calls for the intervention of federal law enforcement and for the actions of the BLM. Your only legitimate beef would be with the use of the word goofballs. But the situation was absurd, even if the reason for it was not.

    2. Nice job cherry picking John. The whole point of Tucille’s argument there is that Western Americans actually have legitimate grievances. While he thought that specific act was a sideshow, he did emphasize that it gives people not from Western America a glimpse into why they are so angry. Jesus christ, do you even read things anymore?

  4. Nashville Neighbors Send ICE Packing. Let’s See More of That for All Sorts of Law Enforcement.

    Sure thing. And as long as we’re gonna be taking the law into our own hands, every time an illegal immigrant causes someone else harm, we get a neighborhood gathering together to go string up the nearest libertarian?

    1. Is an immigrant committing a crime worse than an American committing a crime? Or are you just bigoted?

      1. I’m just bigoted. Now, kindly fuck off.

      2. Is an immigrant committing a crime worse than an American committing a crime?

        Objectively yes, for an illegal committing a crime shouldn’t even have the opportunity to commit said crime, as they shouldn’t be here in the first place.
        Americans committing crimes is bad enough, now we gotta let the rest of the world in to commit crimes here too?

        1. Well, that’s kinda like saying dying from overdosing on heroin is worse than dying from overdosing on alcohol, because heroin is illegal and “shouldn’t be here in the first place”. But a person is still just as dead either way.

          1. Shorter Jeff “yes, it is worse, but admitting that makes me uncomfortable in my open borders”

          2. Wow, you’re terrible with analogies, Chemleft. It’s not remotely like that at all.
            Someone overdosing on different drugs is nothing like a foreign invader versus a national practicing criminality.

      3. If my kid eats the last poptart and a stranger who’s entered the house without permission eats the last poptart — yeah, there’s a difference.

        1. Because the stranger has *stolen* the poptart from you, but the kid presumably has not.

        2. What if that illegal/illegal works for a living, has a residency and just bought the last box of pop tarts from the supermarket that you were totally going to buy. Should they be deported for taking your god given right to pop tarts?

          Breaking and entering is one thing, crossing the border illegally is an entirely different crime.

          1. They should be deported for entering and residing in the country contrary to the permission of its citizens.
            But “fuck sovereignty!” eh?

        3. Poptarts? Where the hell did you get that from the article?

          1. Well, poptarts are quite tasty.

        4. The problem with the pop tart analogy is that your house is your property and the stranger has violated the NAP. The US however is not your property and the stranger in this case is just walking down the street eating their own pop tart.

          This man was not accused of any crime other than not having the required paperwork. I fail to see how that violates the NAP.

          1. It’s nice to see the “true libertarian” position finally admit its complete rejection of the founding principle of the US: government of, by, and for the people.
            Yall make a great vanguard for internationalist communism.
            The US people have never voted for or pushed open borders. Indeed, the American people seem to reject the idea by overwhelming margins.
            But “fuck the people!” eh?
            Libertarians simultaneously carrying water for the progs while embodying the stereotype attitude attributed to them.

            1. Demanding or forcing entry into an area one is expressly prohibited from entering, intentionally avoiding the prescribed procedure for entering an area, and claiming right of entry to an area through the use of fraud are all acts of aggression.
              Showing up with a giant mob of people to do all these things is also aggressive.
              Showing up unannounced and uninvited is aggressive.
              If you disagree, please post your address.
              I’ll round up a couple dozen people – don’t worry about who, since that would be against your principles – and at some point in the future we’ll come to your home to take advantage of the hospitality you’ve so generously offered up on behalf of the entire country.

              1. And I wonder what the libertarian position on cutting in line is?
                How about building occupancy limits and fire codes?
                After those questions are answered, maybe explain what the libertarian position on having ticketed events is?
                How dare that theater/stadium/university/airplane stop people who aren’t violating the NAP from getting in!

                1. Thank you for defining your Progressive viewpoint and your statist convictions.

                  1. Duncan, you’ve never posted anything intelligent in your life.
                    All you do is show up late to threads to bitch like the impotent little-minded NPC you are. Talking shit when you have nothing to say just proves you’re a bitch.
                    Dismissed.

          2. The US however is not your property

            But the US is a non-libertarian nation-state. As part of that, I have certain obligations and I have certain rights. It’s not my preferred arrangement, but it’s better than most, and it’s the arrangement we live under.

            This man was not accused of any crime other than not having the required paperwork. I fail to see how that violates the NAP.

            Under our current system of government, American citizens constantly are at risk of being thrown in jail for “not having the required paperwork”, and we abide by these rules; it’s how our society functions.

            Yet, you want illegals to live in this country not just without visas, but also permit them to violate other US laws with impunity (because they can’t stay in the US otherwise). And on top of that, since they are not US citizens, they are not subject to the obligations that we have and can simply return to their home countries whenever they like.

            In summary, you’re arguing that people entering the US should have more substantially more liberty and more privacy than Americans. I’m sorry to break it to you, but as an American citizen, I’m going to fight that politically because it’s absurd.

      4. If an immigrant is going to commit a crime, I’d prefer he do it in his own country. We have enough domestic criminals.

    2. So you think The Law is always to be obeyed? Slavery was fine and dandy, Jim Crow segregation was fine and dandy, jailing gays was fine and dandy?

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. fUCk oFf SlAVeR!11!!1!one!!!

      2. Yup, borders are JUST like slavery.

      3. Yeah, remember when all those Africans were illegally sneaking into the US to be enslaved.

        IT WAS THE EXACT SAME THING PEOPLE.

      4. How the hell do I pronounce your user name?

    3. how did you flip around from resisting an illegal arrest to stringing anybody up? you should be careful with your words they have a way of coming back to haunt the owner.

  5. Huh. I wasn’t aware Nashville was full of so many anti-American communists.

    Furthermore, there was this dramatic affair in Kansas City:

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-arrest-kansas-city-agents-break-car-window-florencio-millan-vazquez-arrest-caught-live-facebook/

    The reason why ICE can’t just bust into people’s houses and arrest foreigners willy-nilly is because of that pesky Fourth Amendment. You’d think that a car would also fall under the protections of the Fourth Amendment as well. But I suppose not.

    1. Well, to be fair, it wasn’t really neighbors, it was a couple of neighbors and an immigrants rights group, who showed up in matching tshirts.
      Obviously, they knew this was coming

    2. Castle doctrine varies by state

  6. Uh, sure.

    So when down-trodden people steal books from the public library (no crime, since the books “belong to everyone”, right?), or hell, when bums–I mean people “experiencing homelessness–and also experiencing showerlessness and smellingness–camp out at the library all day, that’s OK too. And we should rally against any officials who attempt to preserve the library for the evil 99%.

    1. Stealing someone else’s property is theft. And yes, books in the public library are the property of the state, not the personal property of each individual citizen.

      What did this particular immigrant steal?

      1. “Stealing someone else’s property is theft.”

        The infrastructure and benefits paid for by citizens are property.

        Now watch him go.

        1. Please elaborate on the nature of the theft that you believe has occurred here.

          1. Did I say that? I merely pointed out something that made your position not make any sense. Stop trying to distract from that.

            1. Why don’t you elaborate on why you think your statement causes my position to not make sense.

              1. Are infrastructure and benefits paid for by citizens are property?

                1. I’m not going to play your Socratic games.

                  Just clearly state your argument instead of relying on these coy games.

                  1. It’s a simple question. My reply depends on your answer.

                    By the way, you can see how uncomfortable this makes him. That should tell you something.

                    1. Just clearly state your argument.

                      Oh wait, you don’t have an argument, you’re just here to troll and play gotcha games. As usual.

                    2. No, really, my reply depends on your answer.

                      That you don’t WANT to answer says a lot. A LOT.

                    3. I’m gonna let you off the hook and say have a great day.

                      Your reluctance to answer proved my point well enough.

                    4. That you don’t WANT to answer says a lot. A LOT.

                      Yup. It says that I’m not going to put up with your games.

                      I gave you a chance to actually make an argument, and you refuse. So, you get nothing more from me on this topic.

                    5. “Books in libraries are public property, they don’t belong to the people”

                      “Borders can’t exist because public property is a fiction and no individual person owns the border”

                      There you go. That’s the argument you’ve been trying to evade. Now spin.

                    6. I did not say “public property is a fiction”. I claimed that what is normally regarded as “public property” is actually property owned by the state. So stealing property owned by the state is a type of theft just like it would be if it were a case of stealing property owned by a private person.

                      Once again, if you believe this immigrant has committed an act of theft, then why don’t you please elaborate on the nature of this theft that you believe has occurred.

                    7. I did not say “public property is a fiction”.

                      Yes, you have. Over and over again. Repeatedly. Every single time you shit up a discussion about the border wherein someone invokes an appeal to borders as a form of property rights. You can’t reconcile these two positions. And my opinion on whether this particular immigrant has stolen any public or private property is irrelevant to that fact. Your idiotic self contradiction was being called out. No accusation against this particular dude was being made. Keep trying to red herring your way out of the fact that you just shoved your foot in your mouth up to the knee though.

                    8. Huh. So you believe the following two positions are irreconcilable and inconsistent?

                      “Books in libraries are public property, they don’t belong to the people”

                      “Borders can’t exist because public property is a fiction and no individual person owns the border”

                      Why is that?

                      (By the way, claim #2 is a strawman. But, you be you.)

                  2. I’m not going to play your Socratic games.”

                    Fuck you’re dishonest, Chemleft. You ask him to elaborate, then when he does you accuse him of being “Socratic” (???). You’re a real piece of disingenuous work.

                    Also, I think you meant sophistic as in sophistry, not “Socratic” (lol).

      2. “Stealing someone else’s property is theft. And yes, books in the public library are the property of the state”

        But what if I choose to let the criminal have the book? Who are you tell me what I can and cannot do with my property? You certainly do not control communal property.

        1. But what if I choose to let the criminal have the book? Who are you tell me what I can and cannot do with my property?

          With a book from your own private library? Go right ahead. I’m not about to stop you. At that point though there is no crime.

          You certainly do not control communal property.

          But this is my point – books in *public* libraries shouldn’t be regarded as “communal property”, they should be regarded as property that is owned by *the state*, which is a separate and distinct entity from “the people”. So the officers of the state are the ones who decide what happens to so-called “communal property”.

          So, you don’t own books at public libraries, so you don’t *directly* get to decide what happens to them by virtue of invoking property rights. Just like, you don’t own public roads, so you don’t *directly* get to decide who belongs on public roads by virtue of invoking property rights.

          Now, the state is (theoretically) accountable to the people, so we the people DO have the ability to influence’s the state’s decision to enact rules on how its property will be used. But that is only via the mechanisms of voting and democracy, not based on any inherent private property right.

      3. he is occupying space rent-free in many minds with nothing else to occupy them

        1. What would Trump supporters have to talk about if the immigrants stopped coming?

      4. What did this particular immigrant steal?

        He didn’t “steal” anything, he violated US law, and he has to face the consequences of that, just like anybody else does.

        You apparently want a world in which non-citizens have wide latitude in disobeying US laws while American citizens are forced at gunpoint to continue to pay for the upkeep of the country. That’s simply not going to be a functioning society long term.

        Libertarianism can work. Even social welfare states can kind of work. But the kind of selective lawlessness you advocate is simply not going to result in a functioning society.

    2. Remind me why people are paying for libraries still?

      1. Because assholes like you and your butt buddy cytotoxic-cum-chemjeff think it’s vitally important to steal money from a municipality’s citizenry for the benefit of cross dressing pedophiles.

        1. Oh, you’re the guy who thinks I’m Cytotoxic.

          1. I’m the guy who knows for a fact you are cytotoxic. The transition was never subtle. You can’t shake your verbal and rhetorical tics. It’s hilarious that you think you’re crafty, like Hihn with his 12 socks. Or shreek.

          2. No, it’s Tulpa, Jeff. He always gives his sockpuppets away by accusing others of being sockpuppets of other commenters when it clearly makes no sense. Cytotoxic was a teenage Objectivist from Canada that kept talking about how smart he was. Totally the same as Jeff, lol. Tulpa is a total psycho nutjob craving attention. Ignore him.

            1. Well, I’m partial to Objectivism but I’m not a rigid follower or anything. And I’m not one of those dirty Canucks. Hockey and poutine, yuck!

              1. >>>Hockey … yuck!

                no.

      2. ’cause they’re more popular then libertarians.

  7. I grew up as a “law and order” conservative, but as I grew older I realized that most laws aren’t worth upholding. “Law and order” is just a buzz phrase to justify “respect mah authoritah” bullies. Doesn’t matter if it’s Boss Hogg or Boss Trump.

    Righties will whine that these people were breaking the law, but notice the police weren’t doing the arresting as no law was being broken. People without valid warrants were trying to do the arresting. It was purely a civil matter under the color of law enforcement.

    1. I’m sure you applaud the NYC residents dousing the NYPD officers and hitting them in the head with buckets.

      I’m sure Reason is writing up the story on that, but had to get the more important Tom Brady on Vacation story out of the way first

      1. Because of course anyone who agrees with Civil Disobedience also agrees with assault and violence.

        1. Tuccille literally endorsed violent civil disobedience in this piece and has done so many times in the past as well. Just not when it involves anybody whose political opinions with which he disagrees. They can go fuck themselves and eat federal lead. In other words he’s the perfect embodiment of neo-Reason.

          1. You are literally incorrect. Quote?

            1. It’s not always safe, but it’s certainly justifiable to sabotage unjust laws and malicious government.

              Christ bro. I know you only read the headlines, but it’s literally the subhead. Not that tough to spend the extra 3 seconds.

              For your edification:

              sab·o·tage (săb′ə-täzh′)
              n.
              1. The deliberate destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians or enemy agents in a time of war.
              2. The deliberate attempt to damage, destroy, or hinder a cause or activity.

              1. Oh look, you can copy & paste.

                Now tell me how Obstruction/Hinder = Violence.

                1. Are you really that fucking stupid, MP?
                  If object X is moving from point A to point B, and object Y positions itself in front of point B (obstructs) before object X arrives, there will be a collision unless object X diverts course away from point B.
                  Y is either using violence (forcing collision) or the threat of violence to prevent X from reaching B.

          2. Just not when it involves anybody whose political opinions with which he disagrees.

            … and?

            I think Martin Luther King’s acts of civil disobedience were commendable. That doesn’t mean I have to similarly nod and approve at George Wallace’s “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door”.

            Saying “civil disobedience can be good” doesn’t mean “all civil disobedience is good”.

            1. Thus you arbitrarily decide when civil disobedience should be tolerated/successful and when it shouldn’t be.
              Not saying you’re wrong to do so, just that that is exactly what you’re doing.

              Also, perhaps the key aspect to civil disobedience is that those practicing it face consequences for doing so.
              That they utilize the practice knowing they will face the consequences stands as testament to their conviction of their righteousness.
              But Reason, like all obedient progressives, advocates that there should be no consequences.
              A libertine position if there ever was one, but not libertarian, as it’s a rejection of the idea of personal responsibility.
              Civil disobedience without the suffering of consequences is intrinsically worthless – and as unprincipled as possible.

              1. Thus you arbitrarily decide when civil disobedience should be tolerated/successful and when it shouldn’t be.

                “Informed by a value system I don’t understand” isn’t the same as “arbitrary”.

                And what makes you think the folks in Nashville weren’t willing to be arrested for what they did? They aren’t responsible for the cops failing to see a crime worth acting on.

                1. “Informed by a value system”

                  Absolutely is arbitrary.
                  People have different, even conflicting, value systems.
                  You’re deciding that your value system should dominate both the codified (legal) value system as well as contrary (but not necessarily legal) value systems.
                  This makes sense, but so does other people, even those with values contrary to yours, taking the same position.

                  And we’ll never know if the activists in Nashville were willing to be arrested, because it didn’t, and now more often than not, doesn’t happen.
                  It’s easy to virtue signal, which is exactly what civil disobedience without consequences is.

                  1. You’re deciding that your value system should dominate both the codified (legal) value system as well as contrary (but not necessarily legal) value systems.

                    No, I’m using my personal value system to inform whether I personally approve or disapprove of a given action. Same as everyone else.

                    This isn’t complicated.

                    And we’ll never know […]
                    But you didn’t let that stop you from acting as though it was known.

                    1. From an objective perspective, “using my personal value system to inform whether I personally approve or disapprove of a given action. Same as everyone else.” is arbitrary.
                      You’re right that it’s not complicated, but you seem to be emotionally resistant to admitting the truth.

                      As far as me knowing the willingness of the activists to bear consequences, I never claimed to.
                      I commented on a general trend.
                      Since the activists in Nashville faced no consequences, though, it fits more in line with pist modern virtue signaling than anything Civil Rights and MLK related.

    2. I grew up

      Assumes facts not in evidence.

    3. That’s funny, cuz I grew up as a hate the cops punk. But as a young adult living in low rent neighborhoods, and working night shift in a machine shop a half a block away from a red light district, I’ve seen the kinds of nonsense that cops have to deal with.

      You ever had a gun pulled on you? I’d guess virtue signaling is more important than reality to you.

      Haha

    4. People without valid warrants were trying to do the arresting. It was purely a civil matter under the color of law enforcement.

      Immigration enforcement doesn’t require valid warrants because it is not law enforcement and because removal from the country is not a punishment. Immigration enforcement also isn’t a “civil matter”.

      I grew up as a “law and order” conservative, but as I grew older I realized that most laws aren’t worth upholding.

      Most laws are bad, but what is even worse is arbitrary selective enforcement, because that leads to a police state.

      You don’t like the laws? Go through the democratic process to abolish them or face the consequences.

      1. You don’t like the laws? Go through the democratic process to abolish them or face the consequences.

        We can do that too.

        But we shouldn’t blithely nod along and enforce unjust laws just because that process isn’t finished yet. That’s tyranny, and abdication of personal responsibility and morality to the state.

        1. But we shouldn’t blithely nod along and enforce unjust laws just because that process isn’t finished yet.

          Who is this “we” you are talking about? And what “unjust” laws are you talking about? The majority of Americans want illegal aliens removed, the laws to do so were passed by vast majorities in Congress, and they conform to international law. On what possible basis are those laws “unjust”?

          That’s tyranny, and abdication of personal responsibility and morality to the state.

          You’re a propaganda victim. People who are now standing up for “immigrant rights” (=presence of illegal aliens) used to strongly oppose it when they thought it served their political agenda. And, let me tell you as an immigrant: they don’t give a fuck about immigrants, not now and not then. And they don’t give a fuck about having a functioning country; all they care about is getting power. And moron like you are handing it to them.

          1. You seem to think I’m talking about any individual case.

            I’m not. I’m talking about the general case, in favor of civil disobedience, law enforcement looking the other way and not enforcing unjust laws, jury nullification, and so-on.

            This isn’t complicated.

  8. I’m no open borders guy but frankly my contempt for a bloated and overbearing federal government trumps all that. We allow them to criminalize everything and then cheer them on when they start mobilizing armed bureaucrats disproportionate to the offense. Here no one got hurt, federal agents got a taste of their limits, and a victimless crime went unpunished. I’m more than okay with this.

    1. The Right went from “We’re not against immigration, just illegal immigration”, to “send them back!” aimed at actual US citizens. The Right went from “Just enforce the laws on the books”, to “OMG! Not enough laws!”

      And now they got their panties all in a twist because some people came out to protect their neighbors from a warrant-less arrest.

      The Right is no longer conservative.

      1. The Right went from “We’re not against immigration, just illegal immigration”, to “send them back!” aimed at actual US citizens.

        And you could see this happening in real time too, because – at least in my experience – asking why illegal immigration was regarded as such a pressing issue for them, they tended to give answers which suggested that *immigration itself* was the *real* problem that they were concerned with.

        1. “And you could see this happening in real time”

          What, you mean the media grinning up yet ANOTHER fake race controversy, by misconstruing what the President said?

          Yeah, that’s gotten tiresome. They should try real journalism.

          1. Oh, here we go now. Unable to successfully troll me in one discussion, you’re now going to respond to every comment in every discussion in an irritating attempt to try to goad me into engaging with you. Seriously, go away for a while, and get some help.

            1. *respond to MY every comment in every discussion

              1. Movie theaters project less than you do. You should really consider killing yourself. I mean that truly. You are a subhuman disgrace to humanity and the human race would be better off in every measurable regard if you killed yourself. Please do it. Kill yourself.

                1. Charming, as always.

                  1. Pathetic, as always. Try an exit bag, it’s completely painless.

            2. It wasn’t what he said. What the fuck do you want me to do?

      2. The Right went from “We’re not against immigration, just illegal immigration”, to “send them back!” aimed at actual US citizens.

        It’s funny because the first thing is something that people actually said while the second this is something that no one has said.

      3. Brandybuck went from “I hate pedophiles, they should be punished for abusing children” to “I sure love assraping 11 year old boys named Norman!”

        Wow Brandybuck. Quite a transformation there dude. Stark. Telling.

      4. to “send them back!”

        Trump didn’t even talk of stripping anybody of their citizenship, he said “send them back temporarily” so they can experience the culture and socialism they are so proud of first hand.

        (However, immigration does require a commitment to the US form of government and does not permit immigration of people who were part of totalitarian regimes; and Omar’s family arguably violated that, potentially making their naturalization invalid.)

        1. Turns out the one we call Ilhan Omar wasn’t a member of the Omar family, at all.
          Her real name is Ilhan Emli, the same as the brother she married”.

    2. Your “victimless crime” grows bloated and overbearing federal government

    3. Here no one got hurt, federal agents got a taste of their limits, and a victimless crime went unpunished.

      Illegal migration is not a victimless crime.

  9. “Political authority is an illusion,” writes the philosopher Michael Huemer in The Problem of Political Authority.

    Too bad Mr. Huemer and Scottsdale’s biggest badass weren’t around to let Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in on this little secret.

    1. I think he would have approved of the actions of the citizens in this case.

      He also wrote this:

      if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

      The Gulag Archipelago

      1. The difference is, of course, that those comrades were citizens being removed from their legally owned and long occupied homes. Not even remotely relevant.

        1. The citizens in this instance protected a longstanding neighbor from an unjust action by the authorities. There were no criminal charges against him and no warrant for arrest which is why the police did nothing. Had he been in his home there would have been nothing they could have done.

          A remarkable act of civil disobedience against an oppressive state action.

          Stalin’s henchmen were acting legally and with full authority of the state. There are unjust laws and this is one of them. It seems some people believe that the law is the law and citizens have no right to disobey. The point of the quote is fuck that.

          1. Post your address, echo.
            It is unjust for you to refrain from doing so.

          2. Wow. Enforcing a border is an “oppressive state action” akin to Stalin?

            Better tell Mexico and many other countries about this.

            1. There is a border around Nashville Tennessee?

              1. There is a border around Nashville.
                There is a border around Davidson County.
                There is a border around the State of Tennessee.
                And there is a border around the United States of America.
                Withing each border there are a range of laws, but the ones in the bigger jurisdiction generally override the ones of the smaller.
                The biggest has the legal authority to decide who may, or may not be within those borders.
                To label those laws “unjust” is sophistry.

                1. Let’s see…

                  When the state of Oregon dcreed that black people couldn’t settle in the territory, that was just?

                  When the United States decreed that Native Americans had to go further west, that was just?

                  When Nazi Germany decreed that Jews weren’t welcome, that was just?

                  You excuse a lot of very bad behavior, very blithely. There is more to justice the “because I can”.

                  1. People like you shouldn’t be employed.

          3. A remarkable act of civil disobedience against an oppressive state action.

            Immigration enforcement is not “oppressive state action” under US law, under international law, or even under most forms of libertarianism.

        2. So if they were removed from a rented apartment they moved into a week ago that would be ok? I don’t really understand the point. Why is it relevant and why do you think his home was not legally owned and long occupied?

  10. The funny thing is, Tuccille thinks this incident will actually have the political effect he wishes.

    In reality most Americans are going read this story and see US immigration laws flouted yet again, and will respond next November by pulling the lever for the only candidate who actually pretends to do something about illegal immigration: Trump.

    But hey, they sure stuck it to the Man this time!

    If you ever wanted a good example of why the Libertarian Party struggles to break 1% in nationwide elections, this is it.

    1. Here’s the thing, though. Trump, and the Right generally, has done a good job of trying to portray undocumented immigrants as menaces to society, horrible people, violent criminals, MS-13 gangbangers, etc. Basically scaring people. And so when demagogues like Trump say “I’m going to do something about illegal immigrants”, what a lot of people hear, is “I’m going to banish the bad people”. So what happens when reality bites you in the ass, and the people *actually* being deported are, mostly, NOT the horrible sociopathic people that Trump depicts them to be?

      1. eh…I don’t buy that it’s the inflamed rhetoric that’s the driving factor. The vast majority of the closed border folks are in the “dey tok ur jobs” and the “they leech welfare” camp. The “menace to society” angle is just for show.

        1. The funny part is those same folks then boast about a booming economy and record low unemployment.

          1. What’s funniest is that the three of you have your heads stuck so far up each other’s asses that you can use each other’s rib cages as facemasks.
            You speak like progressives, with no experience of either other people’s actual beliefs, merely faith in your own bigoted projection, or the issue at hand, just your idealization.
            Illegal aliens are individuals. Opponents of illegal immigration are individuals. With the good and bad that comes with it.
            Some of us have extensive relationships, even friendships, with illegal aliens. Some of us can see, unlike open border proponents, that individual illegal aliens can be good people that we enjoy having in our lives – while also knowing that illegal immigration en masse is not good for the country we live in.
            Amnesty would be the preference for a majority of Americans if we could simultaneously halt, at least severely reduce, further illegal immigration.
            And no, that doesn’t mean “just legalize it and let everyone in” – it means effectively stemming the flow of illegal alien entries from millions per year to tens of thousands per year at most.
            But that tricks already been pulled, and the American people were betrayed by our government.
            The more you avoid dealing with, or actively encourage, a problem, the harder and more painful it is to deal with.
            Now you assholes demand we capitulate to your desires while you make bad faith arguments and denigrate our values.
            Well… fuck that, and fuck you.
            It’s not the illegal aliens who I wish to see dead.
            It’s you.

            1. that individual illegal aliens can be good people that we enjoy having in our lives – while also knowing that illegal immigration en masse is not good for the country we live in.

              Okay you’ll have to explain that one.

              1. “Only 5 out of these 100 chocolate candies contain cyanide! Here, have as many as you like!”

            2. “It’s not the illegal aliens who I wish to see dead.
              It’s you.”

              Then you ask for my home address.

              I am not a therapist but chill dude.

              This is just an internets forum. Nobody is getting harmed here.

              It is a place for free expression of ideas. Nothing more.

              1. Incorrect.
                I demanded that you post your address in response to you asserting border control as unjust and oppressive, while equating it with Stalinist tyranny.
                THEN, in a separate response, I expressed a desire to see those that self righteously promote invasion of our country dead.
                But interesting you’d make that connection.
                Are you concerned that granting anonymous strangers unmitigated access to your home might be dangerous?
                Reasonable, if so.

      2. the people *actually* being deported are, mostly, NOT the horrible sociopathic people that Trump depicts them to be

        They are mostly not. But they are mostly poor, uneducated, and generally incapable of earning a median US wage. A disproportionate percentage of them are sick and/or criminals. And they all violate not just US immigration laws, but numerous other laws almost daily. Any one of those is reason enough not to let them into the country.

        1. “Identity theft is real theft!”

          1. *”Isn’t”

            Damn it

    2. Libertarians could do much better in the elections if they simply abandoned principle and picked policy based on what would likely gather the most votes the way democrats, trumpists, and republicans do.

      1. Libertarians could do much better in elections if they put in the hardwork of building a local base, starting with local elections and slowly working their way up to state offices, rather then jumping in at national elections and wondering why they have no base.

        1. I think it would be great around election time to have a series of ads just promoting the ideas and principles of libertarianism rather than focusing on just an individual candidate.

          Or a series of ads throughout the year focusing on particular issues like government spending, individual rights cases or whatever promoting the libertarian “brand”.

          Of course you would need some big money donors for that.

      2. Libertarians could do much better in elections if they had any respect for people other than themselves, and maybe listened to them instead of wallowing in their own smug yet insecure sense of superiority.

      3. Libertarians could do much better in the elections if they simply abandoned principle

        I don’t see any consistent adherence to principle among libertarian institutions, whether it is the LP or Reason.

        In practice, libertarianism seems to come down for many people to “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” and the more policies agree with that objective, the better. That’s not a position rooted in principles.

      4. Libertarians could do much better in elections if they started by organizing ballot initiatives to change the rules in their favor. Like using ranked-choice voting for instance.

        1. Or proportional multi-seat districts.

    3. This stuff backfires.

      Trump is an example of that.

      Trump will get re-elected because of it too.

    4. As the anarchists and Lefties hiding as LINOs get the boot from the LP, watch the numbers to up.

  11. This is a good argument for why all immigration violations should be criminal offenses – as should assisting in any immigration violations.

    1. Yes what we need in this country are more laws with criminal penalties. Most libertarians would agree that we don’t have enough of those already.

      1. Please: appeal to true scotsman authority more.
        It’s super convincing

        1. The true Scotsman is a weak fallacy.

          Libertarians generally agree about certain things.

          One is smaller government. Focus on individual liberty. To put that forth as a principle is not a fallacy.

          Others are not. Ok then we are in different camps.

          1. Libertarians generally agree about certain things. One is smaller government.

            Yes, libertarians want a particular kind of small government, rooted in individual liberties, personal responsibility, and free markets.

            That doesn’t mean that if you take the current government and willy-nilly start ignoring laws you don’t like, you end up with a more libertarian government, even if it is “smaller” on some dimension.

            Ok then we are in different camps.

            Oh, we most certainly are! You’re not a principled libertarian, for starters.

            1. “That doesn’t mean that if you take the current government and willy-nilly start ignoring laws you don’t like, you end up with a more libertarian government, even if it is “smaller” on some dimension.”

              Willie-nilly is a start for libertarian political thought. So is ignoring laws you don’t like.

              Which dimension do you like?

              So far as current government. I don’t like it. Let us begin there.

              1. Willie-nilly is a start for libertarian political thought. So is ignoring laws you don’t like.

                Ah, you’re simply a selfish prick and a fool, not a libertarian. Thanks for clearing that up!

          2. Libertarians generally agree about certain things.

            … and other hilarious jokes Libertarians tell themselves.

    2. Many of these are already illegal. They are just not enforced.

      Staff at reason are super desperate with their propaganda which is why they post articles like this.

      They think they are winning, even with all the evidence to the contrary.

    3. […] as should assisting in any immigration violations.

      I can agree to this on one condition.

      Make it go all the way up the chain. If your company hires illegal immigrants, then the hiring manager gets the punishment, their boss gets the punishment, their boss gets the punishment, all the way up to the CEO. And make it mandatory jail time (1 year) so the rich buggers at the top of the ladder can’t squirm out of it.

      Simply put, so long as it is profitable for illegal immigrants to do so, they’ll find a way. And so long as it is profitable for companies to hire illegal immigrants over people who have a legal right to work, it’ll be profitable for the illegal immigrants.

  12. Three cheers for the neighbors! Stories like this make me smile!

  13. Three cheers for ICE. Stories like these illegal alien roundups make me smile.

    That reminds me. I need to direct line ICE about my neighbor farm using illegals again.

    Bye bye illegals.

    1. We have people like you in our neighborhood as well LC. I won’t tell you what we call them.

      1. Who cares what you think. Youre a piece of shit who hates America.

        You could not afford to live where I live.

        Oh, more illegals picked up today by ICE. I almost had one run onto my property this time. I just wait on my property with one of my refurbished military vehicles and Stars and Stripes flying high. It always catches their attention as they get close to my property line.

        1. You have no idea.
          Can you share photos of your refurbished military vehicles? With flags which is interesting. Why would anyone place flags on a vehicle?
          Do what you want. Spying and reporting on the neighbors who are doing you no harm like the Stasi would not be something I would not boast about but your choice.

          1. Spying and reporting on the neighbors who are doing you no harm

            I pay for a lot of their services and benefits; I’d say that “does me harm”.

              1. Which percentile bears the burden of the federal personal income tax? In places like California, the state income tax is even more skewed.

                Median household income for illegal migrants is about 30% below the US median; on top of that, high paying occupations are difficult for illegal migrants to get into in principle.

                Put those two together, you see that illegal migrants are a massive drain on US tax payers.

                1. So is Georgia. Can we deport that too?

                  1. You wouldn’t survive in Georgia.
                    Please visit

              2. You pay for it, too.
                You’re just an idiot for letting people freeload.

  14. This post is nothing but sophomoric, Tucille. I’ll bet you’ve got a Che poster in your garage.

  15. Thanks to these dum-dums in the neighborhood, (1) ICE know now they have the correct person and (2) this neighborhood interacts with other illegals. Follow these neighbors around and see what they lead you to.

  16. In about a week ICE has detained 35 people. Let’s see at this rate if none of them reproduce and the borders are sealed they should get all of the so called illegals in…roughly 10,000 years.

    This is just a farce. It is a political stunt to rouse up the Trump base. I see it is working.

    1. Yet the ICE detention facilities are full.

      Maybe the MSm is not lying about how many illegals are being rounded up and deported.

      I alone have seen hundreds of illegals rounded up at my neighbor’s farms over the years.

      1. I think I might have identified the actual problem: no one is punishing your neighbor for hiring illegal immigrants.

        Punish the folks giving jobs to illegal immigrants, and you’re likely to see fewer illegal immigrants. Mitt Romney wasn’t entirely wrong with his “self-deport” idea.

    2. Fly that Mexican flag over US federal property proud, echo!

  17. It’s not always safe, but it’s certainly justifiable to sabotage unjust laws and malicious government.

    Libertarians for mob rule and selective enforcement!

    1. Or, conversely, they are protecting their neighbors and defending their neighborhood from an oppressive government action. Perspective?

      1. “oppressive government action”

        “Having a sovereign nation is just like Nazis and Stalin!”

        1. Even the best governments “blow it” from time to time. And the USA is no exception. I don’t have a problem with using civil disobedience as a form resistance and protest. It’s an age-old American tradition.

          1. It’s your funeral… Literally, if you challenge the regular cops.

      2. Or, conversely, they are protecting their neighbors and defending their neighborhood from an oppressive government action. Perspective?

        And what kind of “perspective” is that? I don’t see anything “oppressive” about enforcing US laws that are valid both under the US Constitution and international human rights.

        Furthermore, that same neighborhood forces me to subsidize their food stamps, education, and other government services, because they sure as hell aren’t paying for it themselves.

        1. The welfare state. I object to that on principle.

          Yet you have no evidence that this individual or people in the neighborhood was not paying or producing.

          You still think the law is the law. If the law says you get 20 years for a reefer marijuana joint so be it. It is a joke but has happened.

          Why bother with a libertarian site?

          1. There seems to be a fair number of people around here who just come to this site to mock and complain and to publicly lick Trump’s balls. They are about as “libertarian” as Tucker Carlson.

            1. So I am not the only one who has noticed this, eh?

        2. Even the best governments “blow it” from time to time. And the USA is no exception. I don’t have a problem with using civil disobedience as a form resistance and protest. It’s an age-old American tradition.

  18. I sure am glad to see I’m not the only one here who supports child pornography.

    What’s your Skype, J.D.? We should exchange our most explicit photographs.

  19. Is this not obstruction of justice?

    How is it different when President Trump does it?

    1. It’s actually happening here?

  20. Stupid statists and their dumb laws especially “age of consent laws.” You’re all a bunch of fascists if I can’t date your 9 year old daughter.
    /sarc

  21. If you’re going to advocate anarchism, at least have the honestly to own up to it and use the “A” word. If you do that much, fine, consistent libertarianism is anarchism anyway.

    And if you’re going to practice sedition, (Tuccille’s essay above is a dictionary example of sedition.) own up to that, too, and honestly face up to what you’re doing.

    Fine, sedition is legal, as long as you keep it to just talk, but Tuccille better remember he’s counseling people to commit criminal acts, and at some point if his advice is followed, some of them are going to be seeing jail time.

    1. Civil disobedience often results in jail time. And, for the most part, that jail time is brief. Not all that long ago, in some jurisdictions, it could, and did, land one in jail for sitting in the wrong seat on a municipal bus. Or, for helping escaped slaves. Or protesting the Vietnam war. Or dumping a bunch of tea in the Boston harbor. Civil disobedience has a long and almost sacred place in American politics.

      1. Then you must be very supportive of people, blocking the entrances to abortion mills, or ABSOLUTELY back the bakers, florists, photographers and clerks, who won’t participate in the abomination of homosexuals pretending to be married.
        Long and almost sacred, amirite?

        1. Good morning, retiredfire:

          Actually. I DO support the right of people who choose to use civil disobedience to raise awareness or protest what they perceive to be an injustice. Even the rabid “earth-firsters.” It has little to do with whether I agree with them or not. Depending on their “cause,” I might even yell at them, calling them “fools,” “racists,” or “homophobes,” or whatever, as I drive by, which is also my right.

          1. Or, I might give them a “high-five.”

          2. Not me. I distinguish between Ghandian civil disobedience, where you protest a law by violating that law, and modern civil disobedience, where you violate some unrelated law to draw attention to your protest. Unless you’re blocking a street to protest using the street being legal, I’ve got little sympathy for you, you’re just being deliberately annoying to get attention.

            Mind, what Tuccille is advocating here is more Ghandian than most of what we see today.

            1. So demonstrating in the streets to protest the Vietnam War was not legitimate?

              1. You can argue it was “legitimate” to protest the Viet Nam war, but it wasn’t the sort of Ghandian civil disobedience that the term “civil disobedience” derives most of it’s positive connotation from.

                It’s not like protesting Jim Crow by refusing to sit at the back of the bus, for instance, or eating at the segregated lunch counter. These cases of protesting an unjust law by violating it, in order to force the government to visibly commit an injustice, carry huge moral power, but that power derived from the public really thinking the laws were unjust, and being offended by their enforcement.

                There’s a huge gulf between that sort of protest, and the sort that just does something obnoxious so that people can’t ignore your complaints, but where the obnoxious act is rightfully illegal.

                1. I see your point. However, it is not always possible to protest a law by breaking it and being willing to suffer some jail time. Otherwise, how could women have protested the military draft, since they weren’t subject to it? Or, how could an American citizen protest a law which they weren’t subject to, such as one dealing with immigration or deportation policy? Am I required to possess or use illegal drugs to protest against the drug-war? This list could go on and on, obviously.

                  The idea that one has to be subject to a law to legitimately protest against it through being “civilly disobedient” seems rather, well, restraining?

                  I think the action of these neighbors fall squarely into legitimate “civil disobedience.”

    2. thanks for the comment Brett i came here to say my piece about teh tone of this article but your covers it well. Calling for civil dissobedience to the police is not a smart move and BTW these Immigrants have had their day in court. that said i wish Reason and the left in general would get more upset about CPS which does far more damaging family separations than ICE ever has but the left loves its CPS enforcers

      1. Most of the ones bring rounded up didn’t show for their day in court… Or so I hear.

  22. How are ICE warrants not “issued” by a judge when they are warrants issued by ICE due to a JUDGE issuing a final deportation order? Someone isn’t explaining this honestly.

    1. The judges in this case aren’t Article 3 judges, and thus aren’t, arguably, really “judges”, not actually being part of the constitutional judiciary.

      This actually does matter, by the way, because they don’t have the constitutional protection afforded to “real” judges to allow them some independence from the other two branches.

      1. Is the technical term for these judges administrative judge? And why are their warrants not enforceable? How can you be permitted to issue a warrant and subsequently forbidden from enforcing it?

    2. ICE uses two types of warrants. These were likely “administrative warrants,” which need not be signed by a judge. “Judicial warrants” have to be issued by federal judge and reviewed by a State judge or court attorney prior to making an arrest. Administrative warrants do not entitle the policing agencies to enter or search private property, IIRC. There may by other limitations, as well. I am certainly not an expert at this

      1. I still don’t get why there even needs to be a distinction. Congress has authority over immigration policy and the executive enforces the laws. IANAL and this issue seems really complex, but as a matter of principle, I have no issue with the executive branch enforcing existing laws, determining through said process that someone should be deported, and then deporting them just because the “judge” that Congress delegated to is not a “judge.”

        1. Whether I agree with you or not if the distinction matters, I am pretty sure that it’s a matter of “efficiency.” Getting a “real” warrant and going through all the channels necessary might prove a lengthy and costly exercise. A few years ago, someone estimated that the average warrant issued in the US costs somewhere in the neighborhood of eighteen hundred dollars to issue and serve. And the time to have each warrant reviewed by each State could, obviously, take some time.

          And while Congress does have power over immigration laws, all such laws are subject to judicial review. The administrative warrant, in this case, seems to amount to little more than an “arrest” warrant, and therefore, by not giving ICE the power to enforce it on private property or to search such property, avoids most constitutional challenges. Just a guess on my part.

Please to post comments