Immigration

Jury Confirms That Providing Humanitarian Aid to Migrants Is Not a Crime

Scott Warren of No More Deaths was acquitted on two charges of harboring illegal immigrants.

|

A jury last week acquitted a humanitarian aid worker of harboring undocumented immigrants, ending a courtroom saga that sparked debate over the legal intricacies of being a good Samaritan. 

"The verdict is a clear sign that the work that we do should be and is in fact legal," Jeff Reinhardt, a spokesperson for No More Deaths, tells Reason. "It affirms our right to give aid to people who need it, and for those people in need of aid to receive it, knowing that it is not a criminal act."

Scott Warren, a volunteer with the group No Más Muertes/No More Deaths, maintained that he broke no laws when he helped Kristian Perez-Villanueva and Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Goday, two migrants from Central America who were suffering from dehydration after their long trek across the U.S.-Mexico border. Warren gave the two men food and water, and allowed them to spend three nights at "the Barn"—a communal meeting place used by various aid groups in Ajo, Arizona. Reinhardt notes that, in such circumstances, there is no legal obligation to call Border Patrol.

The case hinged on intent: Did Warren set out to violate the law, or was he merely trying to alleviate the men's suffering? Prosecutors argued the former, but the jury settled on the latter.

Warren would have faced 10 years in prison if convicted. He was previously tried in June, but that jury deadlocked.

Groups like No More Deaths seek to end the steady stream of lives lost across the U.S.-Mexico border, where treacherous terrain and extreme temperatures make the trip across the desert a potentially fatal one. "Since the year 2000, there's been over 3,000 [human] remains recovered," says Reinhardt, but that only "represents a small percentage of the actual number of people who have perished." Those making the trek are subject to intense heat and sunlight, leading to cases of hyperthermia when the body temperature skyrockets above normal levels. Nighttime sees plunging lows, especially during the winter, where people in sweaty clothing are particularly vulnerable to hypothermia.

Efforts to criminalize acts of human kindness have become more commonplace in recent years, blurring the line between illegally crossing the border and helping someone who is suffering severely. In February, a Texas city attorney was arrested and detained for stopping on the side of the road to talk to three young migrants who flagged her down as she drove by, one of whom was gravely ill. Days later, on March 1, four volunteers from No More Deaths were sentenced to 15 months probation and a fine after they left food and water in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.

It's a high price to pay for attempting to extend care to people who may be dying of starvation and dehydration. But the absurdity of their sentence is even more apparent when considering the punishment given last week to Michael Bowen, a Border Patrol agent who mowed a migrant down with his truck in 2017. He received three years of probation.

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time Border Patrol has employed violent tactics to track down a fleeing migrant. As I wrote in March, the group's "chase and scatter" techniques are well-documented: Migrants have been beaten with guns, chased and bitten by dogs, and pursued by low-flying helicopters. These strategies often serve to separate groups and disorient them, increasing the chance that they will get lost and die in the desert.

But when it comes to future prosecutions for humanitarian aid workers, Michael Bailey, the U.S. attorney for Arizona, showed no signs of softening.

"Although we're disappointed in the verdict, it won't deter use from continuing to prosecute all the entry and reentry cases that we have, as well as all the harboring and smuggling cases and trafficking that we have," he said in a statement. "We won't distinguish between whether someone is harboring or trafficking for money or whether they're doing it out of a misguided sense of social justice or belief in open borders." But one need not believe in open borders to believe that basic human kindness shouldn't be a crime.

NEXT: Dublin Wants Scooter Riders to Wear Helmets, Reflective Vests, Pass Driving Test

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. Jury nullification proves that the underlying crime doesn’t exist?

    Jesus fuck. No wonder you still go by Billy, you write a fucking 5 year old.

    1. It is evidence that the crime’s existence doesn’t have broad enough support from the people.

      1. Hi Jeff.

    2. The headline is such a fucking pile of spin.

      You could still argue that the verdict was right and that justice was served without completely creating your own narrative.

    3. Binion is just a dumber Shikha. I have absolutely no idea why this site needs both — it’s not like Shikha isn’t capable of crapping out stupidity at twice her current volume.

      1. And as we all know, Freddy the Jerk-Off is capable of spewing his stupid and his hatred onto his keyboard regularly. You ever clean that thing off? I bet it schemells just horrible!

        1. Someone who loves to eat shit probably shouldn’t be snarking about how bad someone’s possessions smell.

  2. “The verdict is a clear sign that the work that we do should be and is in fact legal,” Jeff Reinhardt,

    That is debatable if by undocumented you mean illegal
    Aren’t there laws against aiding people who have violated the law ?

    1. Accessory after the fact … of entering USA illegally.

      Give them aid, but turn them in. Not turning them in should be a crime, however. Maybe $25k fine or somesuch.

      1. My best friend just got busted the other day, for pressing an elevator button for a young man, w/o asking for “papers please”, first. As luck would have it, the young man was an illegal sub-human, and an ICE agent was watching from behind the security camera. So now my best friend is in jail till he can cough up $25 grand!

        Ain’t America GREAT?!?! THE MORE PUNISHMENT, THE MORE JUSTICE!!!!

        1. Do you really expect anyone to believe this?

        2. Intent – is getting more and more lost in today’s justice system.. That’s really not an excuse to dismiss it altogether.

        3. Two things to know about the law: “knowing” that someone is here illegally, and whether you are deliberately and knowingly hiding or hindering enforcement agents. The law reads:

          8 U.S. Code § 1324 (a)(1)(A) – “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, including any building or any means of transportation.”

          Pushing an elevator button for a stranger is NOT going to get you arrested. Helping someone in who is sick or in distress is okay, but failing to report that person to federal enforcement is NOT okay.

      2. Not turning them in should be a crime, however.

        Wtf, hell no. Our government has no right to deputize citizens as it pleases. Fuck that.

        This could easily be spun into a whole host of other bullshit. Know one of your family members has a drug problem but didn’t report it? Here’s your $25k fine and a mark on your criminal record.

        Get outta here with that bullshit.

        1. I had the same issue with E-Verify. I’m an employer not a federal agent. It’s bad enough with a withholding tax. Enforce your own fucking laws. You spend enough of our money on it.

        2. Well ya — When your “family member” is running drugs in your home (i.e. harboring the crime) what makes you think adding the assistance to the crime (your home) makes you except from any responsibility of it?

      3. “Give them aid, but turn them in. Not turning them in should be a crime” — Perfectly stated.

    2. Immigration Law is Civil Not Criminal. You can check if you like. They are deported and deportation is not a punishment. Therefore anyone that aids or abets is only violating civil law not criminal.

      1. Mark, you are wrong. 8 U.S. Code § 1324 “Bringing in and harboring certain aliens” starts out right off the bat with “Criminal Penalties” and goes into detail on the penalties.

  3. Yeah, this is completely a spin/fluff piece. There’s absolutely zero attempt to point out that some of these issues might have some additional complexity to them. Border Patrol is evil and wants more dead immigrants. This man was pure as the anointed snow, a saintly man who did nothing wrong and saved countless lives.

    Can we get an actual fucking grown-up to try writing something about this? I have no strong feelings about this acquittal. Perhaps the jury is doing the right thing. But this shit reads like fucking propaganda.

    1. To be fair, actual fucking grown-ups usually aren’t libertarians.

      1. And if Jesus Christ was alive today, he’d be in jail for feeding the 5,000 with “loaves and fishes”, w/o VERY thoroughly checking 5,000 “papers please”, to make DAMNED SURE that NONE of the 5,000 were illegal sub-humans!

        1. Heaven has a wall and there’s strict requirements to enter. Hell is open borders.

          1. And if Republicans were controlling entrance to Heaven, Jesus Christ would be denied entry, for having fed the 5,000 w/o asking for “papers please”.

            1. Well ya — If one’s papers say they belong in “Hell” what makes you think access to “Heaven” would be granted. Out of some sort of sympathy clause.

              All devils allowed in heaven due to the “sympathy” clause.

          2. It is difficult to understand why Jesus didn’t wait for the chance to have you as his wingman, White Privilege. Or why God did not write the Bible through you.

            Unless being a bigoted, cruel, authoritarian, disaffected right-winger was somehow considered a disqualifier.

          3. only one way, like the ussr

  4. From a legal perspective, are doctors able to treat people with gunshot wounds who, for the sake of argument, got them in the course of committing crimes? Because I feel like that’s comparable. Logically, I think doctors would be exempt because they can’t guarantee that a crime is being committed, but in this case we know that a bunch of Central Americans aren’t dying in the desert for the fun of it.

    1. How can you tell if they are actually illegal? Should there be a requirement to run e-verify before someone privately helps another?

      More importantly, why should the law so blatantly contravene basic morality (helping fellow humans in need)?

      1. Because they aren’t taking the easy route and declaring asylum. Can you tell someone was going to rob a bank when they have a map of the bank, guns in the car, a crew, masks, equipment, and so forth?

        For the sake of argument, maybe someone got lost. Alright, call the authorities. Get them official help. Funny how we’re supposed to believe this is all about humanitarianism, yet only this specific organization that won’t rat them out should assist. We can’t let anyone else know because…oh yeah it’s not about saving lives it’s about getting illegals past the border.

        1. . Can you tell someone was going to rob a bank when they have a map of the bank, guns in the car, a crew, masks, equipment, and so forth?

          Well, there’s a pretty big moral difference between malum prohibitum like illegal border crossing and malum in se like armed robbery. I would say that for the sake of assuming that someone is committing a crime, the threshold should be much higher for bureaucratic violations. But actually, the more I think about it, the more I think it’s just ridiculous. Crossing the border illegally is, obviously, a crime. But it is not immoral. The American people should not be deputized to enforce bureaucratic restrictions.

          1. Illegal immigration is debatably immoral. You’re abandoning your homeland for personal gain. You’re doing so regardless of the cost it may incur to all involved along the way. It’s certainly ungracious to your host nation(s) and is a prime example of biting the hand that feeds. Then there’s the cultural and demographic transformation that occurs. It’s mostly used for trolling, but #mybordersmychoice has a point in that a free society should be allowed to maintain its own values. The people there might love their ideals, but most of the world might not. For our context, 2A comes to mind. Is it our duty and obligation to welcome people who will one day eliminate 2A? Is mandated cultural suicide evil? I would say so.

            1. You’re abandoning your homeland for personal gain.

              Libertarians are all about enlightened self interest. Saying that they have some duty to their homeland that they’ve given up for their own personal gain, that sounds like some collectivist bullshit.

              As far as libertarians go, the issue isn’t immigration, remember. It’s free-riders. It’s the people who can get free shit from government-enforced entitlements and never having to repay any of it.

              I don’t think it’s a good reason to force civilians to report any suspected non-citizens. But I also do recognize that there’s a big issue with people who are dropping care packages and basically encouraging people to risk their lives in border crossings. “If you make it to us, we’ll help you,” is the message, and it may be costing lives.

              1. But I also do recognize that there’s a big issue with people who are dropping care packages and basically encouraging people to risk their lives in border crossings. “If you make it to us, we’ll help you,” is the message, and it may be costing lives.

                But if the real concern is saving lives, then making immigration easier is clearly morally superior to deputizing Americans into agents of the State.

                1. Agreed on this point, but we would probably need to debate what “easier” means. I would prefer we make immigration more transparent and easy to understand, but not necessarily easy to meet our standards.

              2. You might think a homeland is collectivist nonsense, but it isn’t individuality that created America’s Constitution. It’s a bunch of individualists who realized they had to team up against the infinite supply of authoritarians that seem to exist in every age.

                1. By becoming authoritarians themselves? Note that I am not even disputing immigration law, just disputing that people should be forcibly deputized into enforcing it.

                  1. There is a difference between being forcibly deputized to enforce law and aiding and abetting criminal activity

                    1. Or is there?
                      If so, what is that difference?

                    2. Morally, I would say that citizens should not have a positive obligation to report any violation of the law to authorities. I would argue that, again, morally, while it may be reasonable to require individuals to report crimes that actually directly injure others, the law should not require such for essentially victimless* crimes. I view this as a bit of a compromise position, actually, since I don’t think there should be any victimless crimes. But I think that requiring someone to not assist an illegal immigrant (or report him to authorities) is almost tantamount to requiring, say, a crisis pregnancy center to point the way to an abortion (which is evil, imo).

                      *No, society doesn’t get to be a victim, otherwise you could construe virtually any act as having a victim.

                    3. Then you would hold criminally liable anyone who provides aid to illegal immigrants if one of the immigrants they had provided aid to subsequently assaults someone?

                    4. There clearly is, and that’s where the nuance of this particular case exists, which Billy Binion is incapable of talking about like a fucking adult.

                      If the case is that, “you gave a poor man water without checking his papers first, and without calling Big Brother to tell us about him,” then basically it’s enforcing the deputization of citizens.

                      If the case is “I’m seeking out potential illegal immigrants and offering them transportation to places where they can hide out and it’s harder for law enforcement agencies to find them,” that’s aiding and abetting.

                      You can still debate the morals of the latter activity while recognizing clear distinctions between it and the former. I’m not sure exactly how far along the spectrum this particular case falls, but I know that this article is completely uninformative when it comes to the specifics.

                  2. I don’t see how you’re supposed to keep out people who don’t share your values without using force. The “they will assimilate” argument that was sold to us in the 80s never came true.

            2. You’re abandoning your homeland for personal gain.

              Maybe their homelands abandoned them. Consider a place like Cuba–do you think an intelligent minority that hates socialism should be forced to live under it because it’s where they happen to be from?

              1. Believe me I want to talent snipe as much as possible, but even I realize that Cuba will never change (without foreign intervention) when we keep taking all their would-be reformers.

                Also, snagging the best-suited immigrants for America’s well being is not the same as helping random illegals in the desert.

                1. Central planners can’t appropriately decide who the best-suited are anymore than they can appropriately decide the wages for a profession. I agree that we want the best; this is what the market is for, allocation of resources.

                  1. What market? Where is the market for kicking people out that we don’t need?

                    I don’t want America taking any more risks on the political leanings of foreigners. We already have a strong enough home grown threat of native citizens against liberty.

              2. do you think an intelligent minority that hates socialism should be forced to live under it because it’s where they happen to be from?

                Yes, if the place they’re fleeing to has not invited or welcomed them.

            3. a free society should be allowed to maintain its own values

              How does a free society maintain its own values while remaining a free society?

              1. You’re right. A free society has no business maintaining any values. If strange people show up in large enough numbers, their values should win.

                Libertarian, meet Darwin.

              2. Poor Little Jeffy never learned what mores are.

              3. By recognizing that when principles fail us, they should stop being principles.

                1. Jeffy explicitly rejects that idea. He insists that we should blindly follow our principles over a cliff, and if we don’t we’re unprincipled.

                  1. The “cliff” in your mind is an imaginary bogeyman.
                    The liberty that you would sacrifice in order to prevent jumping off the imaginary cliff, however, is real.

                    1. The billions of people living in shitholes of poverty and violence around the world who would leap at the chance to live even in relative poverty in a First World country like the US if the doors were flung open to all are not imaginary. It is your pathological lack of imagination and reasoning ability that prevents you from seeing the disaster that welcoming a tsunami of such people our country would bring.

                    2. I don’t think it’s imaginary at all that the country has become increasingly left-wing as illegal immigration has increased and amnesty has been granted.

                2. So when liberty fails to produce results that you like, the answer is to restrict liberty?

                  1. It’s called “civilization”. Read up on it.

                    1. chemjeff thinks safe, high-trust neighborhoods just appear out of nowhere and remain that way regardless of who moves there.

                  2. Liberty is not as nebulous as you make it out to be. If liberty extended to violating a nation’s borders and immigration policy because you want in on their awesome society, then liberty would be synonymous with anarchy because it means you can do anything you want, consequences be damned.

                    Part of the reason we, as a society, even afforded each other our current BoR and Constitution is because we trusted each other more than we trusted our government. It isn’t necessarily that we trusted each other perfectly, only that we all knew government was worse. That used to unite us and became a large part of the American cultural identity.

                    The people we invite today do not come from such countries. No other country distrusts and restricts government as much as America does. The only ones who come close are nations who were blessed to have us force a Constitution similar to ours upon them, such as Japan, and even they do not have many of our rights.

                    When you destroy trust in our society, you destroy society itself. We’re at the point where people do in fact trust government more than one another. We think we know what is best for others. We think “experts” should have authority. We mock and sneer people who do things we wouldn’t do ourselves. We continue surrendering power to government and the balkanization of our country will accelerate these changes. The worst thing we could possibly do right now is invite the masses who do not care for liberty in the slightest. Restricting their mobility is not restricting liberty; it is protecting liberty by restricting anarchy and mob rule.

          2. So legislation and law enforcement should be morality based, meta?
            Whose morality?

            1. In many ways laws already are morality based. That is where such concepts as the bill of rights come from. That we have disagreements about morality does not mean we can’t have a debate about what is immoral or not. At the end of the day, we are going to need a philosophical justification for law itself, even if that reason is utilitarian.

              But again, note that I’m not referring to law enforcement and what they should do. If they arrest illegals in the desert, I am not saying that is immoral. I’m saying it’s immoral to deputize Americans into law enforcement by force, and even more so when the crime at hand is clearly not evil in itself. By the way, I extend that notion to other things, such as forcing ISPs or banks to spy on their customers.

              1. “I’m saying it’s immoral to deputize Americans into law enforcement by force, and even more so when the crime at hand is clearly not evil in itself.”

                It is immoral to aid invasive entry into others’ territory, and uninvited entry is clearly evil in itself.

                1. Well, I guess we disagree there. I don’t see violating national borders as a fundamentally immoral thing. For practical reasons it may be banned or restricted, but this is practical along the lines of requiring the payment of taxes.

                  1. And how is the question of whose morals are to be dominant determined?

                    1. It looks like the current one is determined by the state at the point of a gun and not just against immigrants.

                  2. So give legal work and residency permits even if temporary and people can get payroll jobs. Hard to blame someone for not paying taxes when it is illegal to hire them at the chicken plucking plant.

                    1. But then you still must have border enforcement, because legal foreign workers will not be able to compete with illegals, who can be abused and underpayed with impunity by employers.

                  3. //I don’t see violating national borders as a fundamentally immoral thing.//

                    Literally no words to describe this level of stupid.

                2. It really doesn’t matter if you or others think it is immoral. What is proposed here is a police state. It could be anything deemed a crime. I saw Jimmie snorting cocaine and didn’t report it to the authorities.

          3. Helping someone who is in medical distress is not a crime. Not reporting someone who you’ve witnessed committing a crime is not a crime. However, once you get involved by providing them shelter from law enforcement is a crime.

            The jury got this wrong. Won’t be the first time and won’t be the last.

            Hopefully, these two guys have been deported.

        2. Exactly. Give them aid, but call the authorities. If they are illegals, that is their problem.

      2. Brown skin, pretty much.

    2. Damnit, how dare you recognize the exist of nuance!? Clearly that has no place in this story.

  5. How many more deaths are going to happen because more illegal aliens will attempt this route because they think they go in ng to get helped?

    1. Mickey, ah…. about zero. They aren’t coming here because they think they are going to get a bottle of water and a place to sleep for a couple of days.

      1. Just makes it easier.

        “Reducing barriers to entry never encourages entry!”

        1. You’re totally right! All of those needle exchange clinics totally encourages people to pick up a heroin habit! Amirite?

          1. This moron just compared voluntary immigration to involuntary chemical dependency on heroin.

            This is why nobody takes you seriously.

            1. Akshually, what I compared was two different methods of harm reduction.

              That is the argument made all the time by those who favor harm reduction – that it encourages people to engage in the harmful behavior. That is putting the cart before the horse. People are going to engage in harmful behavior anyway.

              No one is going to walk 1000 miles in the desert just to get a bottle of free water.

              No one is going to start a heroin habit just to get free needles.

              You can’t argue against this so you resort to ad-hominems. That is how I know you have no reasonable argument against it.

              1. You’re point is unbelievably idiotic.
                No, people don’t come to the desert for the water – they come to the desert to sneak into the country.
                An activity that is far less daunting when they know supplies will be provided for them along the route.
                Risk vs reward.
                The reward is not the bottle of water. The reward is the opportunity to better one’s economic prospects by breaking the law and avoiding the screening/selection process others face.
                The bottle of water lowers the risk of cheating.
                You’re either breathtakingly stupid or fundamentally dishonest

                1. It’s breathtakingly stupid. We’ve heard enough from him to make the call.

                  1. I shouldn’t have made it an either/or proposition.
                    Both are obviously true

        2. How bout we just let them come in by airplane or Greyhound Bus and let the free market figure things out.

          1. And if it turns out that their services are not needed, how does the “free market” expel them? In the region where I live, there is high unemployment among immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. The number of them who have returned to Africa because they can’t find employment is approximately zero. The “free market” doesn’t seem to be putting them back on the plane.

      2. I am talking about choosing this especially hazardous route.

  6. >>”We won’t distinguish between whether someone is harboring or trafficking for money or whether they’re doing it out of a misguided sense of social justice or belief in open borders.”

    tyrants gotta tyrant.

  7. Credible accusations.

    Ilhan Omar is a ‘Qatari asset,’ witness confirms Jerusalem Post report
    The Democratic Congresswoman is said to have passed information to Qatar, which was subsequently handed along to Iran.

    1. anybody w/i six planets of here surprised if true?

    2. But when I tell people Kushner is hopelessly compromised by Qatar and others I get called a democrat. Now you add Illhan Omar to the list and everything is kosher.

      1. That’s because no one takes your fan fiction seriously.

  8. Happy it turned out this way. It was the right decision by the jury.

  9. “Providing Humanitarian Aid” and calling Border Patrol are two different activities. You know, like walking and chewing gum. (Duh)

  10. Mostly I’m stunned that a Federal case actually went to a jury trial.

  11. “Migrants have been beaten with guns, chased and bitten by dogs, and pursued by low-flying helicopters. These strategies often serve to separate groups and disorient them, increasing the chance that they will get lost and die in the desert.”

    Oh, dear, there really ought to be a way to deter illegal migrants from running around the southwestern deserts and dying.

    Maybe some kind of barrier at the border would make it less likely for them to be illegally in the desert in the first place?

    1. A barrier currently patrolled by drones, low flying helicopters, dogs, and people with guns. Walls by themselves don’t really do much except slow people down.

      It has already been shown that those bollards can easily be breached with a power saw and steel cutting blades. Also modified ladders.

      The answer to a failed policy like the war on drugs is not to double down but to change policy.

      1. Change immigration policy to what?

        1. I have shared my ideas on that many times.

          Basically the answer to illegal immigration is legal immigration.

          All you need to do issue temporary work and residency permits at the crossing stations. Those would need to be reviewed after some period of time. If not the individual could face deportation.

          There would be a background check and so on. Should not be any more difficult than a drivers license. We need to streamline and simplify the arcane immigration system. This is madness.

          If you do something that it would be far less costly. Workers could get regular payroll jobs. Very few would do this risky border hopping. Border patrol is overwhelmed and this is failing miserably and has been for decades.

          1. “Very few would do this risky border hopping.”

            Hmm…I suppose that’s possible if they can get a temporary work permit with less risk. But what happens if they overstay the permit, they still have to be chased down and deported. And meanwhile they could get married and if to an American I wouldn’t support deporting them, because marriage is a right prior to government itself and therefore government policy should bow to marriage, not vice versa.

            So we’d probably still end up with new voting citizens and, given that we already have native citizens who vote for unconstitutional policies, adding new citizens who vote for these unconstitutional policies would tip the political balance in a bad direction, like with the Western Roman Empire’s immigration policy (though with voting instead of Vandal pillaging).

            1. Yeah that’s what they said about the Irish. Still fixated on big intrusive government as a tool of social engineering to your political preferences. Political engineering by race or national origin so nobody votes for something you don’t like. Really you and I have no idea what would happen

              1. If the arguments in favor of liberty aren’t persuasive to new immigrants, then why would they be persuasive to new native-born citizens either?

                1. They are not and I don’t think immigration has anything to do with it. Might as well just ask why libertarians have been the losing team forever. Even attempts to create libertopia have all failed. We are the fringe weirdos. We can’t even agree with each other.

                  Mostly my life, the opportunities available, the community and society around me through how many administrations and economic ups and downs has been a very good one actually.

                  We are not here to design the future and yet we do without knowing it. Just in the normal things in life. That is enough I think.

                  1. Libertarians have as good a winning record as the opposition–mystical prohibitionist fascism and looter communism. Fabian socialism got 9% of the vote once and that sufficed to inject the Manifesto income tax into the Constitution. Cross-burning hatchet-wielding prohibitionism got sth like 1.4% of the vote in 11 presidential campaigns and won by adding an economy-crushing prohibition Amendment. That was winning, just as LP repeal of Comstock laws against birth control and weed are winning today. Winning is getting the looters to repeal cruel laws.

                2. If the arguments in favor of liberty aren’t persuasive to new immigrants, then why would they be persuasive to new native-born citizens either?

                  They’re babies, Jeff. Babies. They can’t talk. They don’t know anything. It takes lots of time for them to learn.

              2. “Yeah that’s what they said about the Irish.”

                I’ve done a bit of study on that, and I agree with Ann Coulter: “they” were right about the Irish.

                Not all of them, but many of them, doing such things as rioting and voting Democratic. It took some time, and the ministrations of a Church which in those days actually had the self-confidence to do such things, to mold them into good citizens. It wasn’t a smooth process which can be wrapped up in a little bow.

                Today’s Church certainly cannot be relied on to mold good citizens – they can’t even be relied on to keep their hands to themselves.

                1. Well she didn’t talk about my group, the Jews. Some of us were pretty bad and still are. There was a Jewish mafia and a number of well known crooks and other bad folks to this day. Sanders the socialist is Jewish. And most still vote democrat.

                  So I should just keep my head down in case Ann Coulter shines the spotlight in this direction.

                  1. Those are two examples which worked out OK, but not without some careful efforts by people who would now be condemned as “assimilationists.”

                    People both outside and inside these communities took note of the problems, and there was lots of pressure to adopt to what were then mainstream norms.

                    Then as now there were separatist pressures, but the balance was more skewed in the assimilationist direction. Similar struggles were enacted in other immigrant groups.

                    Is the situation really the same today? Paradoxically enough, the mainstream norms to which immigrants are asked to assimilate nowadays includes a lot of divisive SJW stuff.

                    Since I’m talking about predicting the future, then I suppose I must concede the possibility that I’m wrong. “It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future,” as Yogi Berra may or may not have said – whoever said it was on to something.

                    1. “there was lots of pressure to adopt to what were then mainstream norms.”
                      “the mainstream norms to which immigrants are asked to assimilate nowadays includes a lot of divisive SJW stuff.”

                      You beat me to it.
                      No longer is respect, independence, responsiblity, etc the norm – now it’s outrage, indignation, victimhood.
                      The norm people, in this case immigrants, are expected to assimilate to is a mass-produced, shallow corporate collectivism idolizing attention seeking and victimhood – with ever more demands made upon other people.
                      “That which is special is everything non-traditional and non-American. Segregate – but conform.”

                      The Long March through the Institutions began during a time immigration had been largely shut down, towards the end of those 1920s-1960s restrictions.
                      Prior to that system ending and the Culture War beginning, the US won World War II. Lots of time, and a massive galvanizing event, for immigrants – Irish, Italians, Jews – to assimilate.

                      One thing that comes through in the stories of previous immigration (and still found in immigrants without large ethnic communities already in the US): the desire, the dream, to become American.
                      Today, we don’t see this among members of the mass immigration movements. We hear stories of people who want to escape oppression, who want to have more opportunities, who want to live in America – great – but… not who want to become American.

                      This is a dangerous dynamic, and unlike any previous situation we’ve had.

                    2. “Give me liberty, or give me death!”
                      – Patrick Henry

                      “Give me healthcare/education/living wage, and pay your fair share!”
                      – the Left

                    3. The Long March through the Institutions began during a time immigration had been largely shut down, towards the end of those 1920s-1960s restrictions.
                      Prior to that system ending and the Culture War beginning, the US won World War II. Lots of time…for immigrants…to assimilate.

                      The Immigration Act of 1924 saved this country.

                    4. It is truly astounding to see how much the alt-right version of “demography is destiny” has seeped into mainstream conservative discourse.

                      You all really believe that people are programmed by their place of origin to act and vote in a specific way, don’t you? If Irish come here, they will remain Irish forever and ever, and will act and vote Irish, and are impervious to arguments that will change their minds, right?

                      Ethnic stereotypes are a valid way to view other cultures and peoples, is that it?

                    5. but… not who want to become American.

                      What does it even mean to “become American”?

                      Are there a specific set of traits that every American must adopt in order to “become American”?

                    6. And along comes jeff to prove the point.
                      It’s like he doesn’t even read the discussion.

                      There can be no liberty without responsibility and respect.

                  2. And I think there was a bit of an apparent paradox, as with the previous waves, there were more ethnically-specific groups providing social services to their members (fraternal associations, mutual insurance societies, etc.) plus a healthy dose of Americanization.

                    Now not only does govt provide many of these social service functions, I’m not even sure how many of these mutual-benefit organizations would even be legal in the form they used to be in.

                    So the paradox was you’d be more dependent on your group, but this often entailed pressure to succeed in America be taking up the best American values. So the “exclusive, denominational” parochial schools turned out many Catholic patriots, certain fraternal groups insisted on English in their meetings, and the like.

                    1. Good observations

            2. adding new citizens who vote for these unconstitutional policies would tip the political balance in a bad direction

              Only if you fail to convince them otherwise.

              1. So, instead of inviting trusted friends over for dinner who show up with a nice bottle of wine, we should instead try convincing the crackheads that broke in through the window that they should maybe consider washing the dishes after ransacking your refrigerator and helping themselves to your possessions. Calling the cops, or even having the temerity to insist that the crackheads leave, is beyond the pale.

                1. Are you thoroughly finished with your emotional outburst?

                  So legal immigrants are “trusted friends” while illegal immigrants are “crackheads”. Is that it? Wow you really have bought into the Trumpian narrative of “they’re rapists, they’re criminals” haven’t you?

                  Legal immigrants are, mostly, just people who have the resources and the connections to wade through the byzantine legal immigration system.

                  Illegal immigrants are, mostly, just people who don’t have the resources and the connections to wade through the byzantine legal immigration system.

                  Neither one is inherently inferior to the other. They are both just people. Sure some might be crackheads, but some might be “trusted friends” as well. Who are you to judge without ever knowing them on an individual basis?

                  1. Rape is fundamentally uninvited and prohibited forcible invasion into another’s body.

                    The legal migrant is screened and their entry is approved.
                    The illegal alien is unknown, and enters without invitation contrary to such entry being prohibited.

          2. //Basically the answer to illegal immigration is legal immigration.//

            So, basically, open borders. Brilliant suggestion.

          3. I have shared my ideas on that many times.

            Basically the answer to illegal immigration is legal immigration.

            And I’ve shared the rebuttal to that many times: even with easy legal entry for foreign workers, you still must use force to control border crossing and immigration, because legal foreign workers will not be able to compete with illegals, who can be abused and underpayed with impunity by employers. Legal immigration is not a substitute for controlling illegal immigration. You have to do both for generous legal entry to work.

            1. Sure there would have to be some minimal level of border security. But if immigration was as simple as “show up at a port of entry, perform a quick background check, get a work permit, be on your way” that took maybe 10 minutes, then there would be no need for the intrusive immigration behemoth that we have today.

              1. Have you ever actually read one of my posts before responding to it?

            2. “…legal foreign workers will not be able to compete with illegals, who can be abused and underpayed with impunity by employers. ”

              Well duh… WHY might that be? Simply because the way that draconian anti-illegal-subhuman laws are structured today, underpaid (or totally ripped-off, totally unpaid) illegal sub-humans are afraid to go to law enforcement to try to get paid an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work!

              Have you ever heard of “circular reasoning”? If not, go look in a mental mirror!

              1. And why do you think we have these “anti-illegal-subhuman laws”? It’s because the businesses and elites who hire low-skilled foreign workers want a supply of illegal workers! That preference will not disappear because we’ve made it easier to get legal work permits. The legal workers will be at a disadvantage to the illegals in competing for work unless we have good border control and immigration enforcement to minimize the the number of illegals.

                Do you know what a circle looks like? If not, ask your kindergarten teacher.

                1. “It’s because the businesses and elites who hire low-skilled foreign workers want a supply of illegal workers!”

                  So we are then FORCED to humor the businesses and elites, and PUNISH illegal sub-humans for reporting to the law, that they are being ripped off of their pay? Because that’s what we have today! And WHY do we have that today? Because of knuckle-draggers who hate people who were born on the wrong side of the border, AND who do not have their “magic papers”! And the “magic papers” are often close to impossible to get… Because of the same knuckle-draggers!

                  Is there ANY law of physics or biology or chemistry that FORBIDS us from equally enforcing laws about paying workers a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? No, there is NOT!

                  So… Justifying our hatred and shabby treatment of illegal sub-humans… Because they are illegal sub-humans, and-or because we collectively refused to give them even very-temporary papers to permit them to WORK to feed themselves and their families… And we did this because we hate illegal sub-humans… Is a classical (but not very classy) case of circular logic!

                  1. Have another drink.

                  2. The circularity arises from the hidden premise that “we” owe foreigners the means of subsistence. This is the same sort of sloppiness that led the looters to suppose “we” were duty bound to send FATF, AML, DEA, CIA, TF, CFT, DNFBP, IRS-CID, INL, ICRG, GIABA, GAFISUD, FSRB, FIU, FinCEN, EAG abroad to harrass their people and eat out their substance–thereby reducing them to rightless starvelings yearning after freedom the GOP and Dems reached out and crushed.

                    1. Is that you, Dr. Bronner?

          4. So essentially unlimited immigration then.

  12. “Jury Confirms That Providing Humanitarian Aid to Migrants Is Not a Crime”

    If John Smith is acquitted of murder by a jury next week, does that mean being an accessory before the fact in a murder case isn’t a crime anymore–or does it just mean John Smith was acquitted?

  13. If we could be like (say) Kuwait and admit people simply to work, with the understanding that they and their children would never be citizens, we could have borders more or less open to just about any law-abiding, non-welfare-taking person.

    But since the American Way is to link immigration with citizenship – either for the immigrants themselves or for their descendants – then what choice do we have except considering the question of which immigrants (plus their families) are most likely to make good citizens?

    And that brings us to voting behavior. If a certain group of immigrants tends to vote for socialist, racist and generally crappy policies (in legal terms, not be attached to the principles of the Constitution), then wouldn’t it be the better part of discretion not to let them in, or to let them in in small enough groups that they can be digested and assimilated to (what remains of) American culture?

    Otherwise, if we keep creating new citizens who are socialist and racist, there would eventually be no USA for them to immigrate *to* – just another failed state.

    1. “If we could be like (say) Kuwait and admit people simply to work, with the understanding that they and their children would never be citizens, we could have borders more or less open to just about any law-abiding, non-welfare-taking person.”

      A system where people are permitted to enter but can never become citizens has been tried before–and it always ends in tears.

      As I recall, before 2001, or so, if you weren’t born of German parents, you couldn’t become a German citizen just because you were born in Germany.

      They had a bunch of people from Turkey who had come in as guest workers in the 1950s. Their grand children and great grandchildren were still not German citizens–even though they, their parents, and their grandparents had all be born in Germany.

      It creates a subculture of severely alienated people.

      If you’re ever in LA on a Saturday night, check out Westwood–around UCLA. You’re likely to find Jews, Muslims, and the LGBT community–all in the same restaurants, enjoying each other’s company, eating the same Hummus. Their communities all overlap in that area. Why do those three groups of people, who should be at each other’s throats, get along so well together there?

      I think it’s about prosperity.

      It’s easy to get along with people when no one’s on welfare and you’re all getting rich.

      1. I agree with that which is why birthright citizenship was another brilliant idea in the constitution. There should be an easier path to citizenship even for those not born here.

        1. I can think of few statements that better capture the ideology of entitlement better than yours

      2. Like I say, it’s the American Way to link immigration and citizenship, and I wouldn’t want to decouple those things in this country.

        It’s possible that we’ve reached a point of either choice being unacceptable – admitting lots of new socialists and Democrats would hurt the country, but turning into a “papier, bitte” nation with “Real ID” and the rest would hurt the country, too.

        Just because there’s a problem doesn’t mean there’s a solution.

        1. Well that is true enough but where we are never going to agree is the part about democrats and socialists being such a threat. I am neither. Nor am I a republican and no longer a conservative, a term which means something different today.

          It is our system of government and is based on political freedom within the boundaries set forth. You can be Bernie Sanders. You can vote for Bernie Sanders. You can even vote for one of those crackpot libertarians and a lot of people hate us.

          The winds shift and the ship sails to the lee or starboard. I think partisans forget that when they change the operational rules of government.

          There are few solutions in life. Still WD-40 and duct tape are handy for a lot of things.

          1. I suspect we’ll end up with some kind of compromise – mass immigration *plus* a de facto internal passport you need to get a job…and some computer glitch or careless clerk can block you from any legitimate job because you’ll have no proof of employment eligibility.

            1. …and that’s assuming the glitch is fully accidental.

            2. I suspect we’ll end up with some kind of compromise – mass immigration *plus* a de facto internal passport you need to get a job

              So the worst of both worlds then.

              1. But the best of both world’s to progressives

    2. My thoughts on citizenship is that it is not that big a deal. The person from Mexico living here. Mexico cannot revoke his citizenship.

      There is not much practical difference except for social security and voting rights. You could apply for citizenship after a period of time the same way a green card holder does, or never if you choose.

      Cmon this is a libertarian site. There are lots of socialists and racists here. We got neo nazis, we got David Duke, It is their right so long as they don’t violate the NAP. It is not the function of government to sift through the population for what it deems good citizens. Look at China right now with a million people locked in “re education” camps because they are not “good citizens”.

      1. So change the fucking Constitution. Until then fuck off slaver.

  14. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

    I.8.1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

    I.8.3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    I.8.4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States

    I.8.10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    I.8.11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

    I.8.15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

    I.8.18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

    I.9.1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    I.9.2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    I.10.1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility

    I.10.: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay

    II.3.He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States

    III.3.1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court

    IV.2.2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime

    IV.3.2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State

    IV.4.The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

    VI.2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

    1. Notice how it says the Congress is the branch empowered “I.8.11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” not the Executive.

      1. Yes, I noticed that, and don’t exactly approve of the legislative branch assigning its responsibilities to the executive

  15. Letter of Transmittal to the President of the Congress

    In Convention. Monday September 17th 1787.
    SIR:

    We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable.

    The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money, and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the General Government of the Union; but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident: hence results the necessity of a different organization.

    It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

    In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety—perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected; and thus, the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession, which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.

    That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not, perhaps, to be expected; but each will, doubtless, consider, that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that Country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.

    With great respect,
    we have the honor to be,
    SIR,
    your excellency’s most obedient and humble servants:
    GEORGE WASHINGTON, President.
    By the unanimous order of the convention.

    His Excellency
    the President of Congress.

    1. How thoughtful, thanks. The US Constitution weighs in at under 8000 words. Ten times as verbiose is about par for competing governments. The old saw abt many words and many lies could well be an axiom of social science.

    1. That’s a good read — Especially the part about “allegiance” being more important that birth characteristics. Its disturbing how many residents have NO “allegiance” to the Constitution or the Country at all and instead insist “socialism” is the answer.

  16. I’m pretty squarely in the border enforcement camp. I’ve also lived in the desert along the southern border. It’s unforgiving terrain. Any law that outlaws helping another human being to survive is unjust, and violates a higher law.

    1. Invite them to YOUR house and YOU feed them and YOU give them water.

      Leaving garbage in the desert is littering and the public has spoken on littering on public property.

    2. Granite — but shooting the bear for mauling the human who was insistently poking that bear endlessly really doesn’t make the “bear” the REAL problem.

    3. The law, 8 U.S. Code § 1324 (a)(1)(A), does NOT outlaw helping a human to survive; helping them avoid deportation is illegal. The law,

      1. Reading something into the law that is not there should be pointed out and appealed.

  17. Another rousing gathering of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Cruel Immigration Practices and Authoritarian, Bigoted Immigration Policies.

    Still wondering why right-wingers’ preferences have been crushed by better Americans in the culture war throughout our lifetimes?

    Open wider, clingers.

    1. Do us all a favor and go suck on a pistol.

      1. Too busy cramming progress down your compliant, whimpering, bigoted throat, you authoritarian rube.

        The liberal-libertarian mainstream will piss on your preferences, then your grave.

        1. Not before you get the full Kent State, hicklib.

          1. All-talk, vanquished bigots are among my favorite faux libertarians.

  18. Without a government-issued document based on arbitrary government-issued residency rules, you have no human rights.

    –Nonpartisan freethinking anti-state libertarians

    1. Who have lectured me for years on “natural rights.”

  19. ONLY IF THE FUNDS USED ARE FROM THOSE WHO VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTED BY THEIR OWN CONSENT AND CHOICE….BUT IF THE FUNDS USED ARE FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT CONSENTED SUCH AS TAX DOLLARS WHICH ARE STOLEN FROM THE CITIZENS AGAINST THEIR CONSENT AND WILL….THEN IT IS CONSIDERED A CRIME…..

    IN FACT THERE ARE 2 CRIMES COMMITTED THE ATTAINMENT OF FUNDS THROUGH THE VEHICLE OF TAXATION WHICH IS THEFT….AND THE DISBURSEMENT OF THOSE FUNDS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THOSE FROM WHOM THE MONEY CAME FROM….

  20. FOR CLARIFICATION….ONLY IF THE FUNDS USED ARE FROM THOSE WHO VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTED BY THEIR OWN CONSENT AND CHOICE…THEN THERE IS NO CRIME…

    BUT IF THE FUNDS USED ARE FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT CONSENTED SUCH AS TAX DOLLARS WHICH ARE STOLEN FROM THE CITIZENS AGAINST THEIR CONSENT AND WILL….THEN IT IS CONSIDERED A CRIME…..

    IN FACT THERE ARE 2 CRIMES COMMITTED THE ATTAINMENT OF FUNDS THROUGH THE VEHICLE OF TAXATION WHICH IS THEFT….AND THE DISBURSEMENT OF THOSE FUNDS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THOSE FROM WHOM THE MONEY CAME FROM….

    1. Spoken like a true Libertarian. Good luck getting rid of taxes. Even the founding fathers knew that for public projects taxes would be collected.

  21. Harboring criminals IS a crime, per 8 U.S. Code § 1324 (a)(1)(A). Whoever goes beyond giving immediate humanitarian aid that protects life and extends his acts to concealing, harboring or shielding from deportation is still criminal.

  22. Binion wrote: “The case hinged on intent: Did Warren set out to violate the law, or was he merely trying to alleviate the men’s suffering? Prosecutors argued the former, but the jury settled on the latter.”
    No one knows what the jurors settled on, unless they were in the jury room. The jury chose to acquit – good for them! But don’t think this one case changes the law or the attitude of federal prosecutors. They can convict nearly any one when they put their devious minds to it.

  23. No It’s not. Why did Tbe Feds even try to get a conviction. They should have known better. What a waste of tax payers dollars.

  24. In Christian National Socialist-occupied Holland harboring Jews was the very height of abetting race suicide–on a par with letting them have guns. What we have in Amerika is Italian fascism exporting cruel prohibition laws to neighboring States already stunted by similar brands of superstition and pseudoscience-with-service-pistols. Gestapo tactics only call attention to the disconnect between the Beatitudes prohibitionist altruism preaches and the dictatorships it is breeding by meddling in foreign economies.

    1. Can anyone translate that from Gibberish to English?

Please to post comments