Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Sanctuary Churches Take in Immigrants and Take on Trump

With deportations on the rise, hundreds of houses of worship are joining the resistance.

At first blush, Rev. Ken Heintzelman and Pastor James Pennington don't look like they have much in common. Heintzelman is the straight and straight-laced head of the Shadow Rock United Church of Christ, located in a tony northern part of Phoenix. He presides over an elegant, contemporary stone structure with a slanted roof and floor-to-ceiling windows, wearing khakis and a crisply pressed dress shirt. His church is surrounded by a large manicured estate hemmed in by parched hills, all of which seems designed to reflect the taste of the church's well-heeled congregation.

Rev. Ken Heintzelman. Illustraton by augustrats.Rev. Ken Heintzelman. Illustraton by augustrats.Pennington is the gay pastor of the First Congregational United Church of Christ, located smack in the middle of downtown Phoenix. His silver earring, bead bracelet, and gelled hair give the impression he's about to dart off to jam with a garage band. His church's impressive white steeple rises sharply from its street, but the church itself is a modest structure. Inside it has the feel of a repurposed middle school, which seems fitting for the happy-go-lucky spirit of its ethnically diverse and mostly low-income congregation. If Shadow Rock is a country club, First Congregational is a summer camp.

But both are sanctuary churches. Each offers shelter to undocumented immigrants facing deportation.

Just as law enforcement officers in sanctuary cities refuse to obey Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) orders commanding them to detain unauthorized aliens without a warrant, sanctuary churches refuse to heed anti-harboring laws that make it a criminal offense to knowingly shield or transport an "alien who has entered the United States in violation of the law."

There is a big difference between the two forms of sanctuary, though. Despite all the outrage, nothing prevents Uncle Sam from hauling immigrants—even legal ones—away from any city in America for deportation. Indeed, the term sanctuary city is a bit of a misnomer, given that the federal government has near-complete discretion over how and where to enforce immigration laws. The only issue is how much cooperation it can expect from the local authorities.

Pastor James Pennington. Illustration by augustrats.Pastor James Pennington. Illustration by augustrats.But when it comes to sanctuary churches, ICE's own internal administrative guidance, along with age-old custom, bars the government from engaging in confrontational enforcement activities on the premises of houses of worship. In the sanctuary church movement's seven-decade-long existence, authorities have never gone into a church to arrest undocumented aliens, even though churches are technically considered public spaces, which officers don't require a warrant to enter.

That internal policy gives churches some power to shield aliens from being snagged, something sanctuary cities can't and don't do. A few other "sensitive locations," including medical facilities, schools, and to a lesser extent courts, are also off-limits to intrusive policing—not just in America, but in virtually every culture and every country that hasn't collapsed into mayhem.

So how is the current presidential administration dealing with these obstacles to the kind of zealous "interior enforcement" it wants to use to cleanse the country of undocumented aliens? Regarding so-called sanctuary cities, the answer is well-known: Donald Trump has declared open season. He is going after state and local governments aggressively by threatening to cut off federal funding streams if they don't back down. He's also ordering more ICE raids.

But when it comes to sanctuary churches and other sensitive locations, Trump has quietly embraced a less open but no less troubling strategy that is eviscerating the longstanding norms preserving a sphere of independence for these institutions. If the administration continues on its draconian course, it will vastly expand the federal government's reach and radically shrink the space where American humanitarianism can find full expression: civil society.

The Federal Hammer Falls

Every time a foreigner is accused in a violent incident in a sanctuary city—for example, when an illegal immigrant in San Francisco allegedly killed a young woman named Kate Steinle (he was later acquitted of the murder charges), or when an Uzbek Muslim immigrant in Manhattan mowed down six pedestrians—Trump dials up the hysteria level and vows to cut the city's federal funding. One of the first things he did after assuming office was sign a sweeping executive order that would have slashed all Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice grants to cities that flout demands from immigration enforcement.

A California federal court in November declared that the executive order was unconstitutional because it was "coercing" local authorities to do the feds' bidding, something five conservative (and two liberal) Supreme Court justices declared a no-no in 2012. That ruling came in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius—i.e., the case challenging the Obama administration's efforts to cut off all Medicaid funding for states that refused to expand the program as required by the Affordable Care Act.

Citing the high court's decision in the Obamacare case, Judge William Orrick said that cities are not obligated to honor Washington's requests that they hold undocumented aliens without a warrant till ICE can whisk them away for deportation. Compliance, he pointed out, is "voluntary and local governments are not required to honor them." Furthermore, "federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves." In other words, at most the administration can cut off "germane" funds that actually have something to do with immigration enforcement.

Expecting the ruling, the Justice Department tried to issue new rules in the fall tying existing law-enforcement grants to cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Federal courts around the country have blocked that attempt too, pending a final ruling.

But while judges can hem in Uncle Sam from financially penalizing uncooperative cities, they can't stop ICE from going into those cities and hauling out undocumented aliens itself—and that's exactly what the Trump administration has been doing. It has targeted sanctuary cities with enforcement actions, partly to try to show their leaders who's boss and partly to signal to undocumented aliens that they aren't safe anywhere. The broader strategy is to make immigrants' lives so miserable that they'll "self-deport," as Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney infamously put it during the 2012 campaign. At the time, Trump called the idea "crazy" and "maniacal."

In late September, the Department of Homeland Security launched a highly publicized four-day sting dubbed Operation Safe City. Hitting multiple sanctuary jurisdictions around the country, officials rounded up about 500 undocumented aliens. Apparently, they had to abort a more ambitious plan to haul away about 8,500 immigrants because Hurricanes Irma and Harvey forced them to divert some personnel and resources. But more raids are surely in the works.

No Safe Place for Medical Care

The Trump administration hasn't been quite as gung ho when it comes to sensitive locations, but it has still made unprecedented assaults on their independence.

Historically, governments in functional polities have maintained a hands-off posture toward such civil society institutions. There are two excellent reasons for this.

First, these entities are engaged in vital relief activity that transcends political considerations. They require and deserve the widest possible space in which to carry out their missions. Doctors and hospitals are supposed to save lives, soup kitchens are supposed to feed the hungry, schools are supposed to educate children, courts are supposed to uphold the rights even of lawbreakers, and churches are supposed to minister to people without regard to the station—or legal status—of those they're serving. They have an ethos of no-holds-barred, no-questions-asked universal service. Humanitarian groups go where the need is the greatest, and aggressive policing would prevent them from doing so.

Second, the government—including, in this case, ICE—relies heavily on these entities to relieve its own burden for providing critical social services to needy people who fall into its lap. Over time, therefore, a natural quid pro quo has evolved, where law enforcement leaves groups to do their work, and they step in when the authorities need their help. This is especially true for medical camps and churches, and in particular for Pennington's and Heintzelman's churches, which ICE regularly enlists to take care of asylum seekers when it can't. But more on that later.

The Trump administration seems indifferent to such considerations, apparently willing to turn cooperative—even symbiotic—relationships into confrontational ones.

Five-year-old Ian Paz's father, Sixto, takes sanctuary at the Shadow Rock United Church in Phoenix. Photo by Shikha Dalmia.Five-year-old Ian Paz's father, Sixto, takes sanctuary at the Shadow Rock United Church in Phoenix. Photo by Shikha Dalmia.Previous presidential administrations, for example, maintained an informal policy of leaving courts alone. The Obama administration drew up an official list of "sensitive locations," but for reasons that are not entirely clear did not include courts among them. However, except for a few minor instances, it refrained from enforcement actions there. Now Trump is fully exploiting his predecessor's oversight.

The Immigrant Defense Project, an advocacy group based in New York City, says it received reports of 84 arrests or attempted arrests by ICE in courthouses around the country during the first eight months of Trump's presidency. This represents a 600 percent increase from last year. In some heartbreaking instances, ICE agents in plain clothes swoop into courtrooms and arrest unsuspecting undocumented aliens who are there for hearings in child custody cases or even for redress from domestic abuse.

The administration blames sanctuary cities for these moves. It maintains that its officers have to go into the courts because some cities won't honor ICE directives to let agents make immigration arrests in local jails, where it says people with "criminal histories" can safely be taken into custody. "Because courthouse visitors are typically screened upon entry to search for weapons and other contraband, the safety risks for the arresting officers, the arrestee, and members of the community are substantially diminished," it explains.

That explanation would be more convincing if the authorities weren't also arresting people in courthouses in Tucson, Arizona—which doesn't consider itself a sanctuary city. Indeed, Arizona authorities support tough federal enforcement, and S.B. 1070—the state's notorious "Your Papers, Please" law—requires officers to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of suspected illegals and then hold them until ICE can take them away.

This hasn't stopped Trump. One Arizona county judge expressed "great consternation" when ICE agents showed up in his courtroom in March to arrest Jose Salome Zazueta Medina, an undocumented alien being tried for drug possession. Public defender Margo Cowan fumed that the agency's actions were "not acceptable" because they "interrupted the judicial process."

ICE doesn't consider courts to be "sensitive locations." Yet agents are also going after places it does classify that way. The agency carried out a raid on the No More Deaths humanitarian camp in Arivaca, Arizona, a mere three months after affirming it would honor its longstanding policy—and the Red Cross protocol—of treating the place as a medical facility and thus refraining from enforcement activity in its vicinity. The camp was explicitly formed to address the spike in deaths that followed the feds' post-9/11 crackdown along the California border, which pushed more migrants into the harsh Arizona desert. The number of fatalities among border crossers had shot up from 14 per year in the 1990s to more than 150 per year in the 2000s.

Following the raid, the clinic—which used to provide basic first aid to migrants suffering from heat stroke and dehydration—shut down. Workers became afraid they'd be arrested for violating anti-harboring laws, and migrants became afraid they'd be picked up if they stopped for assistance.

This was not just cruel on the part of the federal government; it was also obtuse. If ICE were to catch these migrants, it would have to offer them the same medical assistance the camp was already giving them.

The Trump administration has been pushing the limits in other "safe zones," too. In September, ICE agents (most likely tipped off by a nurse) showed up at a Harlingen, Texas, hospital in the Rio Grande Valley where an undocumented couple, Oscar and Irma Sanchez, were seeking care for their 2-month-old American-born infant.

The child was suffering from pyloric stenosis, a condition that causes vomiting, dehydration, and weight loss. But the hospital wasn't equipped to treat that illness, and the baby needed to be transported to a facility in Corpus Christi.

ICE agents consented to let the couple accompany their child there on one condition: Once they arrived, they would be arrested and required to face deportation proceedings. The couple, who had no previous criminal record, agreed. An ICE van followed the ambulance transporting the baby all the way to the Corpus Christi hospital. Once there, agents promptly took the parents into the station to be fingerprinted and booked, delaying surgery on the child.

After the parents returned to the hospital, ICE shadowed their every move, including watching when Irma breastfed the baby. At the time of this writing, deportation proceedings against them were underway.

On another occasion, ICE agents stalked an undocumented worker at the Legacy Emanuel Health Center in Portland, Oregon, then arrested him at a bus stop just outside the hospital—a clear violation of the agency's "sensitive locations" policy, according to the medical facility. Its administrators worry that such actions will turn hospitals into traps and deter undocumented aliens from seeking care, compromising the center's mission.

The feds also arrested a father after he dropped off his daughter at school in Los Angeles, signaling that undocumented parents can't expect to perform normal, daily activities unmolested.

All of this represents a dramatic departure from Obama's enforcement policies, and he was no slouch himself when it came to deportations. That administration expanded what counted as a deportable crime, but it also issued clear guidance instructing ICE only to target aliens with a criminal record. Trump has declared that while criminal immigrants will be especially targeted, everyone is fair game.

It is unclear whether courts and hospitals can do anything to protect themselves from overzealous federal immigration enforcement. But when it comes to churches, Heintzelman and Pennington, the two Phoenix clergymen, are determined to try. Their state's religious community already has a noble tradition of resisting the government when it comes to protecting vulnerable foreigners.

A Legacy of Faith-Based Resistance

In the 1980s, after the U.S. began turning away refugees fleeing the repressive right-wing regimes the Reagan administration was backing in Guatemala and El Salvador, Arizona churches mounted a massive sanctuary movement. The Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson declared a policy of open defiance that was quickly embraced by religious institutions across the state and in California, Texas, and Illinois. In all, 150 national congregations and 1,000 local Jewish and Christian houses of worship joined in, working with activists in Mexico to smuggle hundreds of Salvadorans and Guatemalans over the border and then housing them in rectories and pews—a modern version of the Underground Railroad.

First Congregational United Church of Christ. Photo by Shikha Dalmia.First Congregational United Church of Christ. Photo by Shikha Dalmia.In 1985, the Justice Department issued a 71-point criminal conspiracy indictment against the Arizona activists. The feds won in court, but the publicity they received was so damning that they opted not to push for jail time, even after the defendants told a judge they had no intention to cease and desist. The movement continued to grow following the trial, subsiding only when the country embraced more humane asylum policies, such as the 1990 law allowing the president to grant Temporary Protected Status to certain groups in need of a safe haven.

But the notion of sanctuary churches never completely went away, and the movement remobilized as deportations picked up under George W. Bush and then Obama. Those administrations neither prosecuted nor tried to shut down the sanctuary activity, for both of the reasons mentioned earlier: to give them space in which to carry out their humanitarian missions, and to maintain a cooperative relationship, since the feds needed the churches' services.

There was a third reason as well: Courts might well decide that enforcing anti-harboring laws in those cases flies in the face of the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion. A hands-off policy allowed for an uneasy equilibrium between the churches' religious liberties and the last two presidents' need to enforce the law.

Heintzelman and Pennington are not sure whether the Trump administration plans to respect that arrangement, but they may be about to find out.

Heintzelman's Shadow Rock has offered sanctuary to illegal immigrants for more than four years and is well-equipped for housing long-term guests. Pennington's First Congregational is a newcomer, joining the fray only after Trump scrapped the Obama-era policy of limiting deportations to criminal aliens.

Pennington ran his decision by the United Church of Christ's entire 34-member Southwest Conference before publicly announcing it, and he got a nearly unanimous endorsement. In fact, the conference added an addendum to its charter encouraging all its members to become sanctuary churches.

The United Church of Christ is not alone. Since Trump assumed office, the number of congregations opting to provide sanctuary has doubled from 400 to 800, according to Church World Service. These communities strongly believe that offering a safe haven to those with nowhere else to go is core to the task that the Bible has assigned churches.

The United Church of Christ thinks the lesson of Jesus' story is that we need to liberate and lift up the most marginalized, persecuted, and reviled members of society. "Jesus didn't die for our sins," Pennington says. "He died out of love for humanity."

To advance that agenda, his church doesn't just tend to the homeless—serving them meals several times a week—but also provides event space for LGBT performances and counseling services for addicts, including sex addicts and child molesters. Given these commitments, the congregation can hardly turn a blind eye to undocumented aliens facing deportation.

Heintzelman, likewise, believes Christianity contains an injunction to open the door to those whom others shun. "It is relatively easy to find homes for warm, fuzzy, homeless grandmas," he says. "It is harder to place gay men escaping persecution in Central America."

That's why progressive churches like theirs collaborate closely with the feds to help take care of asylum seekers. A couple of times a month, ICE stops by Shadow Rock and drops off people who have been granted asylum but need somewhere to stay for a few nights before catching a bus or plane to join family or friends in another part of the country. And when detention centers are full, ICE fits aspiring asylees with electronic ankle bracelets and parks them at the church, which has built a rather warm and comfortable annex for such purposes. The space has several snug bedrooms, a kitchen, and a spacious living room with leather couches, a TV, and a pool table.

The morning I visited Shadow Rock, the battery on the bracelet of a visiting detainee—one of those gay Central American men—went dead, prompting a panicked visit by federal agents worried he'd absconded. As the feds checked the guy out, they studiously ignored the other undocumented guests they knew were living in the church as well.

Given this history of service to immigrants, it makes sense that the United Church of Christ would open its doors to more immigrants as the deportation regime ramps up. But it is doing so as cautiously as possible, using strict criteria to determine whom it will admit and trying to focus on the most deserving.

Church leaders won't take in anyone with a serious criminal history—anything more than a minor misdemeanor conviction is a no-go. They also prioritize people who have relatives in America or are facing dangerous conditions in their home countries, because of the church's commitment to protecting life and opposition to breaking up families. And so far, at least, the Shadow Rock congregation has limited itself to taking in unauthorized folks who are pursuing legal options to avoid deportation orders.

Under the Obama administration, the number of people who fit this bill was relatively small, since back then the feds were leaving unauthorized migrants with families and clean records pretty much alone. But when the Trump administration announced its policy change, Pennington was approached for sanctuary by a sweet Latina grandmother who had lived in America for 20 years. She had been served removal orders and needed a safe place from which to file an asylum petition.

The church was not equipped for overnight guests. It had no rooms with full bathrooms and showers. She spent three nights in one of First Congregational's meeting rooms, sleeping on a couch, before the immigration court issued a stay to her deportation, pending a ruling, making it safe for her to return home.

Shadow Rock has offered sanctuary to a number of people over the last few years. Two—Ishmael Delgado and Sixto Paz—were staying there when I visited.

Delgado was a cook who had lived in America for 27 years with his unauthorized wife, Dreamer son—Dreamers is a moniker for people who were brought to the country illegally as minors—and American daughter. But thanks to an old DUI conviction, he received deportation orders in October 2015. He took sanctuary in the church while he filed his application for a U-Visa, an immigration document for people who assist authorities in solving a crime. (His brother had been mugged and beaten at gunpoint, and he had helped the police find the culprits.)

Since Trump assumed office, the number of congregations opting to provide sanctuary has doubled. They believe that offering a safe haven to those with nowhere else to go is core to the task that the Bible has assigned churches.

Paz came to the United States through an amnesty program 20 years ago and worked legally as a roofer; he hasn't so much as a misdemeanor on his record. During that time he's been married twice. He has two daughters and an adorable, rambunctious 5-year-old son, Ian, all of whom are Americans.

Paz applied for permanent residency years ago, but for a variety of bureaucratic reasons that were not his fault, the request didn't come through. He technically became an illegal immigrant at that time but didn't think it was a big deal—until last year, when he was caught at a Phoenix checkpoint and threatened with deportation. He has reapplied for his green card and has been awaiting an answer for months.

Abandoning Religious Liberty

Once upon a time, ICE would hold off on carrying out a deportation order when someone could show he had a visa application pending. That changed a few years ago, which is why both Delgado and Paz ended up taking sanctuary at Shadow Rock. During Obama's presidency, Congress appropriated funds for the deportation of 450,000 immigrants annually, which forced the administration to go after populations that had hitherto been left unmolested. But at least Obama's commitment to not making arrests at sensitive places made them feel safe so long as they stayed on church premises.

That's no longer the case. Trump has maintained strategic ambiguity about whether or not he plans to honor the policy of not raiding houses of worship. Even if the administration does affirm it, notes Heintzelman, the promise isn't worth much. After all, it raided the No More Deaths camp after assuring its operators they were safe. Agents similarly detained six men after they left a church-run homeless shelter in Virginia in February.

So Delgado and Paz were shaking when ICE showed up to check their fellow guest's ankle bracelet. Paz hasn't set foot outside the church in a year and a half, even missing his dad's funeral in Mexico. But his family visits him, and 5-year-old Ian actually moved in over the summer break.

Delgado, on the other hand, would sneak out occasionally to visit his kids or do gigs as a chef to help support his family. Unfortunately, a few weeks after I met him, ICE—which had apparently been stalking him—caught Delgado during one of these outings. He was deported.

Many restrictionists—such as anti-immigration hawk Roy Beck of the group Numbers USA—have the president's ear, and they see nothing wrong with this departure from existing norms. In fact, they want the administration to crack down harder. "The sanctuary churches are undermining the rule of law, which is the cornerstone of a just society," Beck said last winter in an interview with PBS.

Heintzelman vehemently disagrees. An unjust rule of law can't be the basis of a just society, he insists. If an ICE raid comes, the United Church of Christ is fully prepared to sue the Trump administration on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the government shouldn't be enforcing laws that interfere with what a church believes is its religiously ordained duty.

That argument should, in theory, appeal to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who supported the craft store Hobby Lobby's fight against the Obamacare mandate that it pay for abortifacient coverage for its workers. Indeed, if Hobby Lobby, a for-profit business, has religious liberties that need to be respected by the state, surely houses of worship do also.

That's the catch-22 facing the Trump administration: By adopting this expansive view of religious organizations' First Amendment rights, it opens more space for churches to undermine its designs on mass deportation. But if it moves against the sanctuary churches, it undermines its alleged commitment to maximizing private organizations' religious liberty—setting a precedent that will almost certainly come back to haunt people of faith the next time a Democrat is in the White House.

Furthermore, raiding churches could drive the sanctuary movement underground. To date, Pennington and Heintzelman have diligently kept ICE informed when they offer someone safe haven. They also send the agency regular updates about the progress of their guests' visa applications. But according to various news reports, California's faith leaders are building a secret network of houses where undocumented and mixed-status families could go into hiding in the event of a full-blown crackdown.

Trump's merciless enforcement of the country's unjust, unrealistic, and inhumane immigration laws is breeding a civil disobedience campaign. And the more aggressive the administration's behavior—the more it pits the demands of law enforcement against the dictates of Americans' consciences—the more resistance it will encounter.

This is not a clash that Pennington and Heintzelman are seeking. But it's also not one they're willing to shrink from. "If ICE agents show up at our doorstep to take away our guests," maintains Heintzelman, "I will personally stand in the way."

Photo Credit: Joanna Andreasson

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.

  • Lawn Darts||

    "when an illegal immigrant in San Francisco allegedly killed a young woman named Kate Steinle (he was later acquitted of the murder charges)"

    You know what? When you want us to seriously consider your point of view on an incredibly complex issue like immigration, do not start your article with a lie. When you are holding a gun, and a bullet comes out and kills someone, you have not "allegedly" killed them. You have, in fact, killed them. Your statement to the contrary is an insult.

  • BigT||

    It's Shikha, what did you expect, journalism?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Shikha, when the walls fell

  • BambiB||

    Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

    The US has been invaded. Station the military at the border and shoot the criminal invaders as they try to enter. Round up the invaders already here, throw them in prison for two years (bread and water, tent prison) then pitch them over the border. Make it clear what's coming - and give the invaders 6 months to leave peaceably. After that... IT'S ON! No reprieve. No quarter. Offer bounties. Prosecute anyone who employs or rents property to a criminal alien. If they resist - kill them.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Those are all excellent ideas. However, we first must dispose of the progressive population, to eliminate their treasonous interference.

  • BigT||

    It's Shikha, what did you expect, journalism?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All that donation money and Reason cannot fix the squirrels that live among us.

  • Longtobefree||

    Squirrels have rights too, you know.

  • buybuydandavis||

    #SquirrelLivesMatter

  • buybuydandavis||

    #SquirrelLivesMatter

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Squirrels are all powerful.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Lawn Darts,

    She used the word "killed" instead of "murdered". Jose Zarate didn't murder Kate Steinle.

  • JoeBlow123||

    It implies in that sentence she was not killed/murdered by him.

  • Kivlor||

    Note that Lawn Darts didn't use the word "murder" either.

  • Mark22||

    She used the word "killed" instead of "murdered". Jose Zarate didn't murder Kate Steinle.

    Correct. Hence it is dishonest to say that he "allegedly killed her", since it has actually been established as a fact that he killed her. Even you recognize that fact.

  • Rebel Scum||

    I noticed this as well. She is usually disingenuous. But this is a bald-faced lie on her part.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I get what she was saying, but what was written is factually innacurate. It was written very clumsily, in an attempt to obfuscate what happened. Someone really needs to edit her writing, it is too emotional, hyperbolic, and dishonest.

    Good catch.

  • Brandybuck||

    What part of "he was later acquitted" do you not understand?

  • Kivlor||

    He still killed her. That is undisputed.

    The jury said he didn't "murder" her on account of being brown and that means he can't be expected to know that pulling the trigger of a gun causes it to fire.

  • Longtobefree||

    OJ did not murder either.

  • Rogers1234||

    He was acquitted because murder is an intentional act and he didn't intend to kill anybody. At most, he's guilty of reckless homicide, but the prosecutors wouldn't allow the jury to consider that.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hopefully her family has him killed later on.

  • Tionico||

    The jury rightly distinguished between manslaughter and murder, It seems the prosecutor dleiberately brought the much more severe and limited charge of First Degree Murder against the illegal foreign invader. Murder always dmands prior intent, or at least a wilful act performed knowing the victim is likely to die. His intention to take Kate Steinle's live was not proven before the jury, and THAT is why they acquitted. Had the charge been homicide, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, the jury would have most likely convicted. In those charges, intent to kill is not a requirement. The simple fact of the death is sufficient grounds to carry the charge.

  • Tionico||

    Of course, the coppers SHOULD have also charged him with unlawful possession of a firearm (felony conviction disqualifies, non-resident status does too), possession of a stolen firearm (taken from Fed agent's car four days previous, does not matter WHO took it, it had been stolen and our illegal invader had it in his possession), concealed carrying of a handgun in California without the requisite Mother May I Card, discharging a firearm within city limits, and likely a few more. But no, SF's dirty coppers didn't give a hoot.....

  • John Chittick||

    I suspect that the same allegedly libertarian pundits opposed to state control and enforcement of immigration laws would be equally if not more so opposed to private immigration initiatives within a freely discriminating, non welfare state environment.

  • Mark22||

    I suspect that the same allegedly libertarian pundits opposed to state control and enforcement of immigration laws would be equally if not more so opposed to private immigration initiatives within a freely discriminating, non welfare state environment.

    You suppose incorrectly. In fact, I have no problem with anybody coming to the US provided they pay taxes corresponding to the per capita government spending (around $25k/person/year). And that's pretty much how immigration systems in developed nations work, except for the ludicrous US system.

  • Number 2||

    Please. These churches are free to privately think whatever they want about immigration, but they cannot be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others! Next thing you know, they will be refusing to bake wedding cakes for ICE agents! I'm surprised the ACLU hasn't gotten an injunction yet; surely they won't let this stand, seeing how they insist that the faithful keep their faith to themselves and never, ever let their personal faith offend others!

    Hey wait a minute...

  • operagost||

    This.

  • operagost||

    This.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Trump dials up the hysteria level and vows to cut the city's federal funding."
    Because its hysteria when Trump wants to do the Libertarian thing and cut federal spending.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Trump dials up the hysteria level and vows to cut the city's federal funding."
    Because its hysteria when Trump wants to do the Libertarian thing and cut federal spending.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its was so bad, I said it twice.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Furthermore, raiding churches could drive the sanctuary movement underground. "
    Stop trying to make aiding and abetting federal criminals like they are running the Underground Railroad for slaves.

  • Juice||

    Runaway slaves were federal criminals.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Juice, they were property. Slaves could not ask for jury trials or Due Process.

    Federal law demanded the return of property back to the owners. The penalty was for officials who refused to return the slaves.

  • Nuwanda||

    "Runaway slaves were federal criminals."

    So are people who blow up buildings. Are you suggesting churches should be congratulated for offering them sanctuary?

  • Tionico||

    and the laws regarding "return" of "property" in the form of slaves were unconsitutional. Thus null, void, and of no effect.

    Constitution places ALL responsibility for immigration and citizen naturalisation solely in the lap of Congress. Once THEY establish the laws relating to those categories of persons, their law rules. Until it is changed, it binds. And since Congress are assigned this area of responsibility, whatever they say goes. Back in the learly 19th Century, the Congress enacted laws relating to the status of slaves and slavery. Those areas are NOT assigned FedGov. thus those federal laws were nul, void, no effect, etc.

  • Tionico||

    No, the fugitive slave laws were STATE level laws. Feds had NO place interfering or enforcing them, nor any authority to enact protections along those lines. Not assigned FedGov.

  • Mark22||

    Runaway slaves were federal criminals.

    Slavery was inherently unjust and in violation of universal human rights.

    Enforcing national borders is not inherently unjust and not in violation of human rights.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Actually no. I am a Rule of Law kind of Libertarian. If drugs are against the law, then enforce the law until you repeal the law.

    The more shitty laws (drug laws) that are strictly enforced on everyone, the quicker those shitty laws will be repealed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Notice how drug courts and various leniency on drug offenses over the last decades didn't get the USA closer to ending marijuana prohibition?

    Changing state law to make marijuana legal again is the best way to end prohibition once and for all.

  • Rockabilly||

    TDS - seek help!!!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Freedom of religion is a dog whistle for racism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Caninist!

  • sharmota4zeb||

    We should open the Diversity Visa Lottery to people from all countries and issue half a million or a million of these visas each year. That being said, the left would have a completely different take on this issue if the people in question were Jews living in a synagogue in Bethlehem. In that case, the left would label them religious extremists who refuse to trade land for peace.

  • Mark22||

    We should open the Diversity Visa Lottery to people from all countries and issue half a million or a million of these visas each year.

    If you're willing to pay for it, you can already sponsor whoever you want. You can even run your own visa lottery.

  • John Rohan||

    So on the one hand, we should respect the separation of Church and State. On the other hand, Reason wants us to respect Churches as special sanctuaries to shield people from the law. Which should it be?

  • Zeb||

    I'm not sure if that's as much of a contradiction as you say it is.

  • Brandybuck||

    Church granted sanctuary has been a traditional bulwark against State power for more than a millenia. Technically the State could just raid the church and shoot it's dog just like they do with private residences. But if the spectre of raiding a church causes the State to hesitate, that is a Good Thing(tm);.

  • Kivlor||

    Church granted sanctuary has been a traditional bulwark against State power for more than a millenia.

    True. But when we take the insane levels of separation of church and state of recent decades--which is usually supported by Reason--it seems like a contradiction to presume the sanctity of the Church supersedes the power of the state. Even more so because libertarians tend to hate tradition, and that is the only reason to allow it at this point.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of the tradition of sanctuary. But Reason would oppose it for any other reason except their bread and butter of Mexicans--Ass Sex--Pot.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Whatever gets us open borders no matter what. Consistency, principles, and disastrous outcomes are of no consequence as long as those borders stay open.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Despite all the outrage, nothing prevents Uncle Sam from hauling immigrants—even legal ones—away from any city in America for deportation.

    Um...ok. I'm pretty sure that is defineably illegal.

    signaling that undocumented parents can't expect to perform normal, daily activities unmolested.

    I can't expect to go through the day unmolested if I rob a bank either. And I believe the legal term is "illegal alien".

    deportable crime

    Otherwise known as the crime of illegally entering a country...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The churches are violating the law. They can do that but there are consequences. That is the Rule of Law.

    Rule of Men involves people doing whatever they want whenever they want because they law can be corrupted.

    If most Americans don't like harsh immigration laws then change them.

    Unfortunately for open-border types, the majority of Americans want secure borders.

  • Nuwanda||

    "Can you at least agree that the freedom of people to move and travel is a natural right?"

    You don't have a right to enter a country contrary to the laws of that country. Claims to the contrary are mere assertions claimed as a "natural" as a way to get past the necessity of defining their actual basis.

  • Trollificus||

    You're basically saying nations are somehow "illegal". That their defined borders are invalid, and that any restriction on anybody going anywhere any time they please is a violation of some sacred libertarian principle??

    What about the people who want to live in a country defined by secure borders? You seem to be privileging one right over another without any real explanation. And ALL laws are ultimately backed by the state monopoly on legal violence, so that point is meaningless.

    Tell ya what. Why doesn't the USA just emulate the enlightened policies of our neighbors to the south regarding THEIR borders? They seem to heartily approve of harshly-enforced borders when it comes to their Central American neighbors.

  • Brandybuck||

    The first rule of Rule of Law is that the law must be valid. Seriously. Look it up.

  • Tionico||

    if you really advocate open borders, I'd suggest moving to Somalia or Venezuela.

  • Tionico||

    Please note well: IMIGRATION, by its very definition, IS legal as it involves treading down the pathway established by the government of the piece of dirt to which one wishes to emigrate the required steps and qualifications laid out to immigrate... LEGALLY;. Years back I applied and complied with all the requirements laid down by the government of The Dominion of Canada, and, over the course of more than a year, lawfully emigrated to that country. I was officially granted ""landed immigrant" status, the equivaent of the US Green Card. I was fully legally resident in that country.

    Now, I also knew some folks avoiding certain conscription into the US military who also crossed the imaginary line into Canada (where the long arm of the army could not reach them) and were there illegally. What would be YOUR stand on whether the Government of Canada could/should have detained and deported any of these folks they happened to identify? On what grounds? How is that different than our detaining/deporting illegelly present people we find south of the 49th Parallel? I knew one man my age up there who lived rurally, rented houses, did menial or labourer type work, always dealt in cash, never got his driving license...... and had been doing that for 20 years. Never was caught, but lived on the edge constantly.

  • Mark22||

    Surely, on a libertarian site, you can figure out the difference between violating someone's property rights (robbing a bank) and the act of trying to improve your family's lives (immigrating).

    Well, and when people illegally immigrate into the US, they are violating my property rights.

  • action physical man||

    "The resistance" is a pretty melodramatic name for what is just normal partisan activity. I hardly think these progressive should be equated to the brave and big risk taking "resistance" to German occupation in WWII.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous. We aren't being occupied by an enemy army. Someone got elected that a lot of people don't like.

  • Tionico||

    yes we are invaded by foreigh operatives who are NOT out for our good at all. Along with the truly needy and at risk, we are getting jihadis, drug gang members, fugitives from justice in the countries from whence they came,......

    Which is WHY our Chief Executive signed orders to restrict entry from certain high risk nations, identified by his immediate predecessor. But a handful of rogue federal judges took up lawsuits that were prohibited their hearing, and "opined" that Mr. Trump could NOT act as the president is charged to act...... funny how that worked.

  • action physical man||

    Why not call them "store fronts of superstition mixed with politics" rather than the much more generous "houses of worship". Shikha is really pushing hard on the feelz buttons today.

  • Rhywun||

    If the open-borders crowd were serious about ending the Orange One's reign of terror on those here illegally, why aren't they advocating serious solutions? Say, a consitutional amendment abandoning the government's control over its borders. Anything else is a perpetuation of the current status quo which is basically a giving-up on the idea of "rule of law" that is normally considered a wise practice.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    ?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Keep reading the Constitution there Leo.

    Section 9.
    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.

    Congress is authorized to regulate migration of persons into the USA after 1808. Slavery too.

  • Mark22||

    Migration is not immigration. Section 9 Clause 1 is related to the slave trade.

    Yes, and what it says is that the federal power to prohibit admission into the US is limited in certain ways until 1808, at which point that limitation disappears. That means that the Constitution implicitly recognizes and assumes that Congress has the power to regulate and limit immigration (for example, under Article 4 Section 4).

  • Trollificus||

    Jesus, Leo, the Constitution doesn't specifically say the government has to respect the right of people to continue living from day-to-day. It is nowhere stated that the government may make no law prohibiting urination. It nowhere says that I am not allowed to possess nuclear weapons, nor does it guarantee the civil rights of zombies and werewolves. It is also NOWHERE STATED that water must flow downhill.

    And there's a reason for that. You might call it the "Assumption of Sanity", and it's why those things are not spelled out in fine detail in the founding document. That the new country would have borders and the right to determine who entered the country falls into the same category as "We won't need clauses forbidding unicorn racing or elf abuse, will we?".

    Yes, it was an oversight to make that "Assumption of Sanity". Apparently.

  • Kivlor||

    Migration is not immigration. Section 9 Clause 1 is related to the slave trade.

    Autism much? Migration--the crossing of borders by foreign people entering the states--or importation (slaves) shall not be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed. The Constitution expressly states that Congress can regulate and even tax people wanting to enter the United States.

    The Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to determine who can migrate to (move into) the US, and who can be citizens and how citizenship will be granted/attained.

    Also, from your own source: it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

  • John Rohan||

    It's true that the word "border" doesn't appear in the Constitution, but that's only because the Constitution refers to the limits of the United States in other ways. For example, Article XIII: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist WITHIN THE UNITED STATES". "Within the United States" clearly refers to the geographical area that the United States covers, and for every nation throughout history that area has commonly been defined by its borders.

    And the US is absolutely allowed to regulate that border, as the Constitution explicitly mentions the responsibility to "provide for the common defence". You aren't defending the country if you allow lawless behavior inside it or invasions from outside it.

  • Tionico||

    Unless you are speaking of Canada, who do NOT have "borders". However, they DO most certainly have "boundaries". Both of these terms mean the outer limits of the geographical territory "within" the United States (or other nation so being considered".

    Ya wanna pick nits, more than one can play that game.....

  • JoeBlow123||

    If immigration is not regulated, extremist politics will only increase. People will not just come to the conclusion "Ohh yeah all these Washington types know better, they have super rational arguments about how different language, different looking people are good and deserve to be here." They will become more radical.

    So how about do something that will satisfy them in a way that also does not fuck over the people who came here when Americans cared less about illegal immigration? Break the backs of he extremists with a moderate compromise before people become fed up and abandon any semblance of moderation?

    This continual screech of open borders, no immigrants getting fucked over, America must let people stay, will 100% backfire and radicalize the people here into single issue voters, single issue voters against immigration.

    How many elections do we need to observe in Europe and the USA where the right threatens the moderates over this one issue before moderates respond?

  • Kivlor||

    Americans have always cared about Immigration, legal or illegal. Even when the 1965 law was passed, it was done so with the explicit promise that it would not change the demographics of our nation from white to non-white.

    Right now, Americans are afraid to speak up. You can lose your job and be made a pariah if you say something deemed "racist".

  • Tionico||

    Trump's merciless enforcement of the country's unjust, unrealistic, and inhumane immigration laws is breeding a civil disobedience campaign

    The issue of undocumented folks coming, staying, working, etc, has naught to do with "immigration laws", just/unjust, realistic or no, and humane or otherwise. IMMIGRANT by definition is a person who has gone through the channels established by the laws of whatever country they have decided to enter, and thus is present in full complaince with all laws regarding entry and abiding. These laws are not "unjust" at all... most times.

    Asylum, visitors status, student visas, guest worker status, etc are all legal pathways to a lawful presence here, and every nation on the planet has them. WHY IS IT you come down so harshly on those who despise and ignore those laws?

    If a guy has been here illegally for twenty years and finally gets caught and deported, WHAT is the issue? If I were to drive drunk daily for ten years, never getting caught, and finally Ossifer Joe Blow pulls me over for a taillamp out at night and makes me blow, will you cry for me? Please don't, I will surely deserve the felony bust. As will my fellow motorists whom I have been putting at risk those ten years.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Trump's merciless enforcement "

    Bahaha!

    Tens of millions of illegal aliens we're doing nothing about. We *entirely* lack the will to enforce immigration law.

    #BuildTheWill

  • Tionico||

    I am amused at the wholesale twisting of "religious liberty" as described in the article, as well. Yes, the bible does command, in the Old Covenant, that God's people care for the stranger within your gates, and for those sorjourning, or trevalling, amongst His people. But note well: in the context and meaning of those terms, there is no room given for those who have chosen to enter illegally. Further, God's people are enjoined from harbouring they who are in violation of the law..... and, yet again, that he who will not work shall not eat. There were also clear pathways for those visiting long term to assimilate themselves into the Jewish culture and live like they do. That means, they keep the laws of those with whom they dwell.

    If this one "minister" were so concerned about abiding by God's laws as clearly laid out in His Word, how can he justify his open sodomy? I suppose he prefers to place himself upon the supreme high throne, thus making his own decisions about what is right and wrong, never mind what the God he claims to serve might require of him.

  • tommhan||

    These pastors should be arrested for harboring fugitives.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "sanctuary churches refuse to heed anti-harboring laws that make it a criminal offense to knowingly shield or transport an "alien who has entered the United States in violation of the law."

    Religion is not a license for crime.

    Nor is being elected. The authorities responsible should be similarly prosecuted for their hand in sanctuary cities/states.

    8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

  • vek||

    OMG, this whole thing just makes me want to puke. It's so full of spin and outright lies it's not even funny. Trying to create moral equivalency with slavery, or hiding Jews from Nazis or other equally horrible things is simply ridiculous.

    "These communities strongly believe that offering a safe haven to those with nowhere else to go is core to the task that the Bible has assigned churches."

    Except NONE of these people have nowhere to go! Most of them are Mexican if we're being real here. Mexico is not up to our high standards, but Mexico is one of the wealthiest countries on earth by global standards. They're solidly second world, NOT Ethiopia or something. So to correct the statement it should read:

    "These communities strongly believe that offering A PLACE TO EVADE AUTHORITIES FOR FOREIGN CRIMINALS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO MOVE BACK TO THEIR HOME COUNTRY, ONE OF THE WEALTHIEST IN THE WORLD, is core to the task that the Bible has assigned churches, DESPITE IT BEING CLEARLY AGAINST THE LAW AND INTERESTS OF MOST NATIVE CITIZENS."

    But I guess that just isn't quite the same tear jerking line as the original lie right?

    The truth is that if the current immigration debate issues weren't all such an obvious set of leftist lies from beginning to end people wouldn't be trippin' about it. But they've lied endlessly about their true intent, ignored the law, contorted some laws to do things they were never intended to do, and on and on.

  • vek||

    TPS in its original intent is something I could get behind if everything else was straight. Offering TEMPORARY sanctuary to people when their home country is in the middle of a civil war is OKAYish to me, provided the taxpayers here aren't footing the bill and these people support themselves. Problem is many people have been here for 10-20+ years, long after their countries were totally fine to return to. That's not TEMPORARY. That's just trying to skirt the law and increase the number of immigrants contrary to existing law. I CALL BULLSHIT.

    Diversity lottery is just about allowing in the most useless human beings on earth who would never be up to snuff to be allowed to move here through the regular system, and especially not if we had a more sensible points based system like most places in the world. I CALL BULLSHIT.

    Not enforcing the law for so long you can now whine about how long people have been here, how they have kids who have never known their home country, etc to elicit tears... I CALL BULLSHIT.

    The lefts clear end game is simply to import as many people as possible to provide a voting block that doesn't understand the concept of liberty. Period. And also to specifically make the country less homogeneous so they can use divisive tactics to pit everybody against each other. If they actually only meant the things they say out loud to dupe the public their actions would be completely different, so it gives away their true intent.

  • vek||

    The bottom line is the average Mexican illegal immigrant has an 8th GRADE EDUCATION. We don't need 10-12 million more 8th grade educated people in the work force. Their kids do far more poorly than native born citizens as well, often worse than their parents in terms of crime.

    And also too many too fast screws up integration. I'm part Mexican on my mom's side, but great great grandpa moved to California when it was 90%+ Anglo, and melted right in. There weren't entire major cities where everybody speaks a foreign language like there are now. That's why my grandpa didn't speak a word of Spanish. And that's a good thing. He didn't think of himself as Mexican, he was just an American. These people now think of themselves as Mexican first still, and American if/when it suits them. NOT the way you want it to be.

    All these people need to be booted out, and encourage them to take their ostensibly American children with them, so as not to break up the families of course. We can then enforce the law going forward, and hopefully enact a more sane points based system to allow in people who actually have something better than a snowballs chance in hell of being self supporting and productive members of society. We're not deporting people to Auschwitz here, just to their own home countries. There is nothing cruel or evil about that.

  • vek||

    Yes the government will not manage immigration perfectly... But when there is such an obvious over supply of a commodity (no skill labor) it's not hard to realize you need to trim things back a bit.

    The thing that open borders people will never admit is that if we had true open borders the lower classes and lower middle class would be completely fucked in the USA. It might be awesome for the top 10% or even 20%, like it is in Brazil or India, but not everybody else. A flood of cheap labor would swamp the entire bottom half of the labor force, driving down wages to dick all nothing.

    A true free market internationally in labor would pull first world countries down until the hit equilibrium with unskilled labor abroad... Which is to say veeeeeery low wages. I'm all for market solutions in most cases, but shanty towns and abject poverty in America IS NOT something I am willing to accept just so I can pat myself on the back for rigidly adhering to a stupid moral argument. Not to mention all these people would vote for bigger government...

    It's just a bad idea in the world as it exists today. Either accept we'd become Brazil, or stop sticking to a strict dogma. You can't have both.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    "Sanctuary" had some bite back when there was only one "universal" church which could excommunicate an offending prince or king. But, it goes against all that a "republic" stands for; where all men are allegedly equal before the law.

  • Longtobefree||

    "United Church of Christ is fully prepared to sue the Trump administration on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the government shouldn't be enforcing laws that interfere with what a church believes is its religiously ordained duty."

    The supreme court disagrees.
    Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.
    This case went up to the supremes and back again, and covers a lot of ground, but here is the logic.

    It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.

  • Trollificus||

    And another thing...why do all these proggies (and, apparently, the entire editorial staff of REASON) think that providing a safety valve for the unfortunate consequences of the corrupt Mexican economic system is a good thing?? It is a disservice to Mexico to help sustain an abusive government-supported system that has resulted in wealth inequality that dwarfs, in comparison, the level they (the proggies) are outraged about in the US. We seem to only care about Mexican citizens when they can be converted into a Democratic Party voting bloc, at any cost to the well-being of either country.

    How is this just? How is this good? How the FUCK has this become the single most inviolable principle of libertarianism?? How long until it becomes the official REASON position that only "alt-right Nazi racists" oppose open borders? I mean, this article takes so many sleazy rhetorical tactics from the lefty playbook, it can only be a matter of time till they trot that one out.

    Needless to say, while I'm not really against immigration to the US, my contrarian impulse is strongly triggered.

  • Trollificus||

    And another thing...why do all these proggies (and, apparently, the entire editorial staff of REASON) think that providing a safety valve for the unfortunate consequences of the corrupt Mexican economic system is a good thing?? It is a disservice to Mexico to help sustain an abusive government-supported system that has resulted in wealth inequality that dwarfs, in comparison, the level they (the proggies) are outraged about in the US. We seem to only care about Mexican citizens when they can be converted into a Democratic Party voting bloc, at any cost to the well-being of either country.

    How is this just? How is this good? How the FUCK has this become the single most inviolable principle of libertarianism?? How long until it becomes the official REASON position that only "alt-right Nazi racists" oppose open borders? I mean, this article takes so many sleazy rhetorical tactics from the lefty playbook, it can only be a matter of time till they trot that one out.

    Needless to say, while I'm not really against immigration to the US, my contrarian impulse is strongly triggered.

  • Trollificus||

    And another thing...why do all these proggies (and, apparently, the entire editorial staff of REASON) think that providing a safety valve for the unfortunate consequences of the corrupt Mexican economic system is a good thing?? It is a disservice to Mexico to help sustain an abusive government-supported system that has resulted in wealth inequality that dwarfs, in comparison, the level they (the proggies) are outraged about in the US. We seem to only care about Mexican citizens when they can be converted into a Democratic Party voting bloc, at any cost to the well-being of either country.

    How is this just? How is this good? How the FUCK has this become the single most inviolable principle of libertarianism?? How long until it becomes the official REASON position that only "alt-right Nazi racists" oppose open borders? I mean, this article takes so many sleazy rhetorical tactics from the lefty playbook, it can only be a matter of time till they trot that one out.

    Needless to say, while I'm not really against immigration to the US, my contrarian impulse is strongly triggered.

  • Trollificus||

    And another thing...why do all these proggies (and, apparently, the entire editorial staff of REASON) think that providing a safety valve for the unfortunate consequences of the corrupt Mexican economic system is a good thing?? It is a disservice to Mexico to help sustain an abusive government-supported system that has resulted in wealth inequality that dwarfs, in comparison, the level they (the proggies) are outraged about in the US. We seem to only care about Mexican citizens when they can be converted into a Democratic Party voting bloc, at any cost to the well-being of either country.

    How is this just? How is this good? How the FUCK has this become the single most inviolable principle of libertarianism?? How long until it becomes the official REASON position that only "alt-right Nazi racists" oppose open borders? I mean, this article takes so many sleazy rhetorical tactics from the lefty playbook, it can only be a matter of time till they trot that one out.

    Needless to say, while I'm not really against immigration to the US, my contrarian impulse is strongly triggered.

  • Trollificus||

    And another thing...why do all these proggies (and, apparently, the entire editorial staff of REASON) think that providing a safety valve for the unfortunate consequences of the corrupt Mexican economic system is a good thing?? It is a disservice to Mexico to help sustain an abusive government-supported system that has resulted in wealth inequality that dwarfs, in comparison, the level they (the proggies) are outraged about in the US. We seem to only care about Mexican citizens when they can be converted into a Democratic Party voting bloc, at any cost to the well-being of either country.

    How is this just? How is this good? How the FUCK has this become the single most inviolable principle of libertarianism?? How long until it becomes the official REASON position that only "alt-right Nazi racists" oppose open borders? I mean, this article takes so many sleazy rhetorical tactics from the lefty playbook, it can only be a matter of time till they trot that one out.

    Needless to say, while I'm not really against immigration to the US, my contrarian impulse is strongly triggered.

  • Trollificus||

    Wow. That fucked up impressively. Sry.

  • TFred||

    For not complying with U.S. Law, these churches, at the very least, need to have their Tax-free status removed until such time as they elect to comply with the law.