Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump's Increasingly Lawless Quest to Enforce a Bogus Rule of Law on Immigration

He is trashing the First Amendment to stifle the immigrant rights movement.

The Trump administration has opened a whole new front in its War on Immigration. In a bid to stifle the backlash against itsICE ArrestLucy Nicholson/REUTERS/Newscom harsh enforcement policies, it is targeting high-profile immigration activists and citizens in addition to immigrants themselves. This is an affront to the First Amendment that shows that in a bogus quest to uphold the "rule of law," the administration is itself degenerating into lawlessness.

Soon after President Trump entered the White House, the Department of Homeland Security scrapped the Obama-era policy that prioritized enforcement action against undocumented aliens who had committed serious crimes while leaving others alone. In the name of bringing undocumented "lawbreakers" to book, Trump made everyone fair game—including those who have lived and worked peacefully in this country for decades while paying taxes and building lives with American spouses and children.

Still, few foresaw that this administration would actually go after activists just for trying to raise public awareness about their plight. In the last 14 months, the American Civil Liberties Union along with various immigration groups has documented about two-dozen instances around the country where Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have detained immigrant activists.

The agency arrested six leaders of Migrant Justice, a Vermont-based non-profit outfit that seeks not just better government policies but also less exploitative working conditions for vulnerable undocumented workers, particularly in the state's dairy industry where many of them are employed. Its "Milk with Dignity" campaign, for example, shamed Ben & Jerry's, the ice cream company that bills itself the paragon of progressive virtue, into offering better living conditions, shorter shifts, and higher wages for late-night milking.

Undercover ICE agents recently arrested two of Migrant Justice's most prominent leaders, Zully Palacios Rodriguez and Enrique Balcazar Sanchez, as they were driving away from the group's Burlington headquarters. They are both outspoken advocates of immigrant rights, and Balcazar serves on the Vermont attorney general's immigration task force that was formed specifically in response to Trump's harsh enforcement policies.

Palacios and Balcazar both had clean records, so ICE specifically interrogated one of their detained colleagues for dirt. After learning that Palacios had overstayed a student visa and Balcazar had entered the country illegally, ICE had pretext to apprehend them. It even held Palacios without bail—a highly unusual step for someone who has never committed a criminal offense, her lawyer noted.

ICE allowed its true intentions to slip on the rap sheet of at least one Migrant Justice detainee, noting that he was a part of the "local immigrant advocate group."

This is not the only instance when ICE has officially alluded to the advocacy record of those it has targeted. In December, the agency detained and started deportation proceedings against Maru Mora-Villalpando, a 47-year-old Mexican who came to the U.S. on a student visa 25 years ago and lives near Seattle. The agency targeted her, it said, because "she has extensive involvement with anti-ICE protests and Latino advocacy programs." Mora-Villalpando's arrest is so egregious that it compelled the United Nations Office of Human Rights to beseech ICE to "guarantee that no action, including detention and deportation, as a means of retaliation" would be taken against her.

At the same time as Mora-Villalpando was apprehended, The Intercept reports, Baltazar Aburto Gutierrez, a 35-year-old clam harvester also in Washington, was detained after he commented on his girlfriend's deportation to a local paper. "You're the one from the newspaper," the ICE agent who hauled him in reportedly commented. "My supervisor asked me to come find you because of what appeared in the newspaper."

But the most ominous of all might be ICE's actions against two leaders of the New York-based New Sanctuary Coalition, neither of whom has lived in the country illegally. New Sanctuary Coalition, which helps asylum-seekers file petitions and accompanies undocumented aliens to their ICE hearings or check-ins, is an outspoken critic of ICE policies.

The agency first detained and deported 48-year-old Jean Montrevil in January and then a few days later went after his colleague, Ravi Ragbir. Montrevil is a native of Haiti who came to America in 1986 with a green card, and Ragbir, who hails from Trinidad, acquired a green card after arriving two decades ago.

Montrevil was convicted of drug possession charges at the age of 17 and served a five-year term, after which Montrevil says a judge erroneously ordered his deportation. He's been trying to correct the error ever since—while also getting married, having children, starting a business, and in many ways becoming a model citizen. He has also been religiously checking in with ICE as required. Ragbir, who is married to an American lawyer, served time after being convicted of processing a fraudulent mortgage application while working for a real estate broker, and was ordered deported.

Although both are challenging their deportation orders, neither has ever been in the country illegally. Yet without any notice or cause — and months before his next check-in—ICE accosted Montrevil outside his house and deported him to Haiti before his lawyers even had a chance to obtain a cease-and-desist order. Ragbir, meanwhile, was detained at his regularly scheduled check-in a few days later, although his lawyers have managed with great difficulty to halt his deportation.

What has made ICE's actions against the duo so spooky is that they both had pending appeals challenging their deportation orders. The agency typically does not target immigrants whose appeals process is still playing out, especially when they are in the country legally.

The difference in this case, of course, is that Montrevil and Ragbir are both outspoken activists who command huge influence with New York City politicos. ICE vehemently denies targeting any immigrant simply because of their advocacy, but that strains credulity given the lack of other cause, which is why the New Sanctuary Coalition has retained a reputable law firm to sue ICE for violating its First Amendment rights.

As if all this is not bad enough, the administration is going after not just immigrants, but Americans sticking up for immigrants as well.

Last December, it fined volunteers of No More Deaths, a humanitarian group in Tucson, Arizona, for leaving water bowls in the Sonora desert to reduce dehydration deaths of migrants. Providing such relief is not illegal, so the government slapped them with charges of entering a wildlife refuge without a permit and operating a motor vehicle in a wilderness area.

The administration's campaign of harassment and intimidation to stifle the immigrants' rights movement shows that it is prepared to trash the First Amendment, do an end run around the courts, and manufacture charges against anyone — immigrant and citizen alike — in the name of catching lawbreakers. As Ragbir's attorney noted, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can't silence immigrant-activists ... by deporting them."

To enforce the law, the Trump administration is refusing the play by the rules, becoming lawless itself. This is the essence of tyranny.

This column originally appeared in The Week

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.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    The undocumented problem in this country is entirely a function of restrictive immigration policies that offer few legal avenues to willing American employers to hire willing low-skilled immigrants

    Seems to me that that problem is well documented.

  • DJF||

    It can't be that restrictive to low skilled immigrants since it let in Shikha Dalmia.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    True, she has no discernible skills whatsoever.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    And so another meeting of "Self-Described Libertarians For Big, Bigoted, Authoritarian Walls" is called to order in the comments section.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Quixote||

    Might I propose trashing the First Amendment altogether? Clearly this foolish text is a mere relic of an unsavory past, and has done nothing but harm where the important interests of our wealthier citizens are concerned. As a result, after we build a beautiful physical wall to block the criminal immigrants from pouring into our nation, we will also need to build another sort of wall to put a full stop, once and for all, to any unwanted elements lurking around the Internet, especially when their words and actions have the potential to injure the reputations of certain respectable members of the community. An excellent foundation has, during the past decade, been laid down in New York, on which we can build to expand the necessary restrictions. Surely no one here would dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in America's leading criminal "satire" case? See the documentation at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • buybuydandavis||

    The problem of illegal immigration is entirely a function of having immigration laws. Away with all laws! Anarchy now!

  • retiredfire||

    Are you trying to steal the "reverend's" thunder?

  • Just Say'n||

    "As Ragbir's attorney noted, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can't silence immigrant-activists ... by deporting them.""

    So once you are an activist your deportation proceedings should immediately cease? This article is such a far stretch that I doubt even Shikha was buying her logic as she wrote this up

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Just Sayin'

    So once you are an activist your deportation proceedings should immediately cease?


    You managed to get that one exactly backwards, Trumpista. The argument is that just because you become an activist, that is NOT a valid cause to deport you.

  • DJF||

    But the justification was that they were here illegally.

    Its just easier to arrest an illegal who is yelling into a bullhorn then arrest one working in a warehouse

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, your logic doesn't make much sense here, Sandernista. They weren't activists before violating immigration law. I thought the executive has discretion in how he enforces immigration law? Isn't that the justification for DACA not having to be passed through Congress?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Just Sayn',

    Yeah, your logic doesn't make much sense here, Sandernista.


    "Sandernista"! Ha ha ha!

    Idiot. By double account. Sanders is: against immigration, and not an AnCap, Trumpista.

    I thought the executive has discretion in how he enforces immigration law?


    And? So? What of it? Do you fancy the president is a king? That he can use immigration law to circumvent people's constitutionally-protected rights?

  • Just Say'n||

    You sound incredibly stupid accusing me of being a "Tumpista". The open border crowd really really needs to work on winning friends and influencing people.

  • Headache||

    Open borders leads to globalism, which in turn will lead to corporate tyranny or Islamic tyranny or anarchy. All of which must certainly support libertarian principles NOT!.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    This argument is terrible and I am for more relaxation of immigration and at the least status quo was fine; not good but not the end of the world either. But the 1st amendment doesn't give you some kind of immunity from your crimes. You have the right to speak or to remain silent. They probably should have exercised the later.

  • E. Kline||

    Well, it kind of lets us know who and where you are. Don't want to get deported? Keep your fucking head down.

  • damikesc||

    Using Dalmia logic, if I shoot a dude and say "Hey, I shot this guy", the police cannot arrest me becayse it'd violate my First Amendment rights.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    You're a gun control advocate! Yeah that's the ticket!

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Undercover ICE agents recently arrested two of Migrant Justice's most prominent leaders, Zully Palacios Rodriguez and Enrique Balcazar Sanchez, as they were driving away from the group's Burlington headquarters.

    The lesson here: don't fuck with Ben and Jerry.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Do not eat their crappy ice cream anyway, because it tastes like shit!

  • Tony||

    Some people really don't like having to press 2 for English.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Why is English even an option?

  • Tony||

    I know, it's a ridiculously complicated language.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Because money knows no single language. Which is why I love money and I don't like nationalistic assholes such as Ttumpistas.

  • Azathoth!!||

    So go to Mexico--where you don't have to deal with them. Or any other country on the planet--your choice is manifold and you claim to hate this place and it's policies--so go someplace that doesn't have them and let the people who want them stay here.

    Why does everyone have to do what YOU want?

    Mexico is such a fucked up place that people literally risk their lives trying to escape it. And a whole fuckton of the 'countries south of it are as bad or worse, with folks risking their lives to get the fuck out of THEM.

    Why?

    Because they WANT what the Trumpistas have built. They WANT the USA,USA. USA-- the prosperous western nation. NOT the land, they want the jobs Americans provide, and the security being an American gives one.

    They want 'Murica, the America that Northern Europeans built--not the Spain or Portugal screwed cesspools they're fleeing.

  • Tony||

    And it's totally fair for your ancestors to have been able to achieve that dream and then pull up the ladder behind them.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    As fair as any other inequity in the world.

  • Tony||

    If people feel that the unfairness should be actively bolstered then it's not something they consider improper. There are many points to be made in a debate on immigration policy by all sides, but libertarians don't get to be among the most militant if they claim to believe in their principles. I don't know why this isn't trivially obvious.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    Well, because you don't understand the principles and continue to insist that you do, that's why you seem to be having trouble.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Birthright citizenship is important, because it ensures that no person is stateless. Someone born in another country already has a state. The ability to immigrate to another country is a good thing, but it requires the consent of the people already in that country.

  • Tony||

    A reasonable argument, but not a libertarian one.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    "If people feel that the unfairness should be actively bolstered then it's not something they consider improper"

    Well, the election was a referendum on that exact point, and you lost.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Nope. Birthright citizenship must go bye bye.

  • Headache||

    Or have more people with guns. German immigrants not welcomed in France May 10, 1940.

  • Tionico||

    Not true. WE do not have "birthright citizenship", it is a figment of some follks' imaginatioins. READ that 14th Article of Ammendment. It says that people born here, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THEIR STATE OF RESIDENCE AND THE UNITED STATES, are citizens. Mamacita from El Salvador, already pregnant with her child when she dodges the digs and enters here cannot birth her baby here and claim that baby is a US CItizen. No sir.. SHE nor the child are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the United STates.. but the are, and remain citizens of El Salvador.
    And yes, immigration DOES require the permission of the people in the country into which one desires to immigrate. Ever looked into what it takes to emigrate from the US into countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Costa Rica, Brasil, Ecuador, Chile, Paraguay, and I'd mention Venezuela, but I KNOW you don't wanna go THERE.

  • tommhan||

    You are right that no person should be stateless, they should be designated a citizen of the country of their parent's origin.

  • Tionico||

    EVERY ONE OF MY ANCESTORS who came here did so in full compliance with all the laws in place at the time. Further, they learned the language, worked hard, built up their families teaching THEM how to work hard, too.

    None went on welfare, expected their neighbours to support them through taxes, got food stamps, murdered people,, or demanded their imaginary rights.... nope. They came here fair and square, starting back in 1610 or so, and made this place what it is. NONE would say no one else can come in... just come in by the rules.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The ladder is there for the whole world
    We do our best to advertise

    Free Speech
    Representative Government
    Rule of Law
    Individual Rights
    Private Property
    Free Markets

    The US does not have magic dirt

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Azathoth,

    So go to Mexico


    ROADZ! Somalia!

    Mexico is such a fucked up place that people literally risk their lives trying to escape it.


    You have a very seriously distorted idea about Mexico. Your ignorance is so sticky it rivals cyanoacrylate glues.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I'll tell you what, nothing will endear you more to the locals than sneaking in, telling them how much the place they live sucks, and demanding more rights.

    Good call, latino rights activists.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    sneaking in


    Who the fuck is 'sneaking in', Trumpista? Not into my yard, as I am not as big an asshole as you to the point I fancy my property lines extend over the whole gawddamned country.

    Fuck you, Trumpista. Immigrants are invited in. They're not sneaking in anywhere.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Trumpista

    Proof number one that you're retarded.

    Not into my yard, as I am not as big an asshole as you to the point I fancy my property lines extend over the whole gawddamned country.

    Proof number two that you're a retard.

    Fuck you, Trumpista

    Proof number three that you're a retard.

    No, I'm not surprised that you're retarded. I'm also not surprised that you're incapable of grasping anything beyond "WARHABFSARGLE, TRUMPISTA! MARXIAN!"

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Spark... whatever.

    No, I'm not surprised that you're retarded


    I'm not surprised you can't answer.

    Immigrants are NOT 'sneaking in'. You can't answer that, unless you - Trumpista - really believe your property lines extend all around the whole country. Yet yhey don't and so fuck you.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I'm not surprised you can't answer.

    It isn't that I can't answer.

    Trumpista

    Keep letting everyone know just how retarded you are.

    Your problem is that once Mexicans are involved, the barely there hinges that you normally possess get torn clear off your stupid, banging screen door. LOOK OUT, THERE'S TRUMPISTAS ON YOUR LAWN!!!!! You're as stupid as loveconstitution1789 and his screaming about lefties every two seconds. It's not my problem that you can't understand the intent of my comment. If you would like clarification of it, maybe you could politely ask for clarification rather than screaming at the Trumpistas in your underwear.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Spar.... blah blah,

    It isn't that I can't answer.


    Liar.

    Your problem is that once Mexicans are involved, the barely there hinges that you normally possess get torn clear off your stupid, banging screen door.


    LIAR! The same principle that applies to trade, the war on drugs, applies to immigration: The State has NO right to tell YOU or ME what I can eat, who I can date, who I can marry or who I give my business to. That includes immigrants coming from anywhere.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Ass, if there's no one with the " right to tell YOU or ME what I can eat, who I can date, who I can marry or who I give my business to" then there are no immigrants.

    Because there's no state.

    But that's not what your wetback kin want, amigo--they want AMERICA!!! writ large. They want the stability, prosperity, and security that the red, white, and blue provides. They're not risking their lives to recreate the shitholes they came from, they want Disney, and apple pie, and baseball.

    They don't want you. They want Trump.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Azathoth,

    if there's no one with the " right to tell YOU or ME what I can eat, who I can date, who I can marry or who I give my business to" then there are no immigrants.


    What? Are you fond of Non Sequiturs or something?

    Because there's no state


    Imbecile! The State does not define terms. An immigrant is a migrant who is coming IN to a region, city, or place, compared to an emigrant who is LEAVING a region, city or place. Has NOTHING to do with the State. Nothing.

    But that's not what your wetback kin want, amigo


    You read minds?

    Idiot.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    Re: Azathoth,

    if there's no one with the " right to tell YOU or ME what I can eat, who I can date, who I can marry or who I give my business to" then there are no immigrants.

    What? Are you fond of Non Sequiturs or something?

    Because there's no state

    Imbecile! The State does not define terms.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    Sorry, posted that accidentally, I was going to say It's amazing that OM doesn't realize that he totally missed the point of that reply in his rush to insult people.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    LIAR!

    So now I'm a Trumpista and a liar. Good call.

    The State has NO right to tell YOU or ME what I can eat, who I can date, who I can marry or who I give my business to.

    How does it make you feel to know that I agree with you one hundred percent? Maybe you should learn how to check your blind, raving idiocy and take a moment to think from time to time.

    That includes immigrants coming from anywhere.

    Unfortunately, a state, by virtue of being a state, does have this right. I don't like it either.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    As an outside observer, I see one person unrelentingly insulting the other person.

    Calm the fuck down OM, you're not covering yourself with glory.

  • retiredfire||

    Isn't there an anarchist site you can go comment on?
    Because this is an American libertarian one, where the U.S, Constitution is to be adhered to as the basis for what "the state" can, and can't do.
    One of those things is to decide who comes here, and the process involved. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4.
    And take the "reverend" to the anarchist site, with you. You guys belong together.

  • Tionico||

    any nation, or country, is defined by its borders. There is always INSIDE< and there is also always OUTSIDE. The imaginary line separating the two is always defined. And crossing it without the knownledge and consent of the people INSIDE the nation is called INVASION, not immigration.

  • Kivlor||

    Yeah Sparky! You're a Trumpista now!

    Seriously, is it me, or has OM become completely unhinged. I don't remember him being this loony back ~2014.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Kivlor,

    Seriously, is it me, or has OM become completely unhinged.


    It's you.
    /Looking at you with pity.

  • Kivlor||

    So you were always this unhinged, and I just wasn't paying attention. Got it.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    He certainly is acting unhinged today.

  • Just Say'n||

    ^ And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you get more Trumps

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Trumpistas have always been there. That is: economically incompetent, ignorant and envious assholes have always existed. Had it not been for the fact that Hitlery was such a lousy, corrupt and odious creature, Trump would still be tweeting imbecilities from his "Neeu Yoawk" tower and not the White House.

  • Kivlor||

    But she was. And now he is. And God does it make me chuckle.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    It's like you're a caricature of the person Sparky was talking about.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hey Mexy, you have a Trumptastic day, and don't worry. Us 'Trumpistas'are Making Americs Great Again'.

    Build the wall. No more illegals.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court started with the assumption that a person cannot keep someone in his home if the government declares him part of an invading force. That decision was over a century ago. If you want to overturn it, you'll have plenty of less popular ramifications to deal with.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It isn't just your country asshole. If you're even an American, and not just another illegal. The rest of us say no way.

  • Headache||

    By whose invitation?

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    "I'll tell you what, nothing will endear you more to the locals than sneaking in, telling them how much the place they live sucks, and demanding more rights."

    Well said.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Don't forget to call them racists!

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    As if all this is not bad enough, the administration is going after not just immigrants, but Americans sticking up for immigrants as well.


    That's because they're not being "patriotic" (read: Fascist) enough if they co-mingle with the Immigruntz.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Trump is the least fascist president in long time. It's just too bad you're so seditious and want to hurt America.

  • Tony||

    Harassment and intimidation seems to be the method of choice for law enforcement across the board in this country. I guess we're too lazy for more sophisticated and useful means of solving social problems. So the CIA tortures uselessly, cops violently assault or even murder people for jaywalking or holding a cell phone, and the immigration squad is just about giving as many people the boot as they can. Perhaps one day the United States will rejoin the enlightened community of nations it helped to found and not go in the direction of more thuggish states. We'll have to wait out Putin's best friend, of course.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Tony,

    I guess we're too lazy for more sophisticated and useful means of solving social problems.

    Perhaps it is time for you to recognize that most of these problems --police brutality, the surveillance state, tariffs, byzantine immigration rules, the war on drugs, etc.-- stem from a morbid desire to control what people do or think or use or read or mingle with, in other words: the State is too big. There are too many laws. Too many laws only serve to grow contempt for authority. Authority then seeks to increase its influence by imposing more laws, more oppression, more surveillance, more control, more dead people, more deportations of otherwise peaceful and productive individuals. It's all an effort to control you, me and the rest.

  • sarcasmic||

    Power and authority are not synonyms. Much of what we confuse for authority is power being wielded unjustly.

  • Tony||

    I think it's a result of too little control--over the cops. For any given issue I don't believe there is such thing as "no policy." We can have a laissez-fiare attitude toward immigration, but that would require a conscious choice on the part of lawmakers and the people who elect them.

    I'm not sure I understand the mechanics of a regime falling from the sky with "fewer laws" and suddenly people becoming more constrained in their behavior toward others.

  • sarcasmic||

    For any given issue I don't believe there is such thing as "no policy."

    Yes, we know you are hostile to the concept of liberty.

  • Tony||

    A laissez-faire approach is a choice with consequences. And even you believe there can, in certain circumstances, be such a thing as too much liberty.

  • sarcasmic||

    And even you believe there can, in certain circumstances, be such a thing as too much liberty.

    As long as someone is not harming the life, liberty, or property of others, they can do whatever the fuck they want as far as I am concerned. That's my definition of liberty. And no, there cannot be too much of it. So long as it sticks to the above definition.

  • Tony||

    Exactly. You've already qualified your maximal liberty position. It can't extend to harming another person. Just that one caveat alone can be interpreted into a thousand different policy choices. Pollution harms people, does it not? So why are you against forcefully responding to it? Isn't the core problem here your lack of an imagination?

  • sarcasmic||

    Pollution harms people, does it not? So why are you against forcefully responding to it?

    If by "pollution" you mean CO2, I don't consider that to be pollution. If you mean putting poison into rivers, I absolutely support government action because that is harming the life, liberty, and property of others. However I don't support proactive government solutions. I support people taking polluters to court.

  • Tony||

    Well that's just inefficient.

  • Tony||

    And also not smaller government. Not at all. Not by any stretch of logic. Courts are government. An inspection and a fine on a business is less government than going through a legal process. Though the latter does have the virtue of always favoring wealthy and powerful interests over the poor and powerless.

    Did you know libertarinism is and always has been a front for a movement to consolidate power in the hands of an unaccountable few--like the exact opposite of what you think it's about?

  • sarcasmic||

    Courts are government.

    And? I don't think you'll ever meet a libertarian who opposes courts. That's a means for people to settle disputes without resorting to violence. It is a legitimate role of government.

    Did you know libertarinism is and always has been a front for a movement to consolidate power in the hands of an unaccountable few--like the exact opposite of what you think it's about?

    Nope. I never knew that. Libertarianism is a movement to limit government to legitimate uses of force. National defense, justice, and courts. That's about it. Not charity. Not equality. Nope. Because charity and equality do not justify the initiation of violence.

  • Tony||

    Keep telling me what legitimate functions of government are and I'll respond with my list. Who decides what actually is legitimate? The taxman comes to pay the salaries of judges, whose number you obviously want to increase exponentially in order to deal with the torts that simple regulations once handled.

  • Tony||

    I mean it honestly baffles me that you can't see the circular reasoning at the heart of your entire worldview.

    Government violence is bad, except for things I want to use it for, and only those things are legitimate because I say so!

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    "Government violence is bad, except for things I want to use it for,"

    That's not what he said.

    "and only those things are legitimate because I say so!"

    That's not what he said either.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who decides what actually is legitimate?

    Ask if this be a legitimate use of force by an individual. If the answer is yes, such as to defend one's life, liberty or property, or seek justice (in absence of government) for violations of one's life, liberty or property, then it is legitimate. If the answer is no, such as to force others to pay for your favorite charity (this is not legitimate because it creates a situation where the ones you are taking from now have a legitimate claim for justice) then it's not.

    It's really not that hard if you are capable of being logically consistent.

  • Azathoth!!||

    That's just it, Tony, sarcasmics list IS your list. It's everybody's list.

    You get to do whatever you want so long as you don't hurt anyone against their will.

    Whatever you could want is covered with that.

    This--

    "Who decides what actually is legitimate? " is just your expressed desire to hurt others against their will.

  • Tony||

    By hurt you mean tax.

    But you can't be totally against taxation, because you need it to pay for those services you deem legitimate.

    So taxation cannot be inherently harmful.

    You are just a pedestrian political thinker who got convinced that social welfare programs that help alleviate poverty are evil for some bullshit moralistic reason.

  • sarcasmic||

    You are just a pedestrian political thinker who got convinced that social welfare programs that help alleviate poverty are evil for some bullshit moralistic reason.

    Like I said, it's not that hard if you are capable of being logically consistent. You are not capable.

  • sarcasmic||

    But you can't be totally against taxation, because you need it to pay for those services you deem legitimate.

    I accept that taxes are unavoidable. There will always be gangs of men with the last word in violence who use this power to rob people. Unlike you, I do not want to use them as proxies to plunder people on my behalf.

  • Tony||

    Unlike you, I do not want to use them as proxies to plunder people on my behalf.

    Yes you do! Jesus Christ. Because you aren't willing to go full anarchy, the premise of your beliefs is completely self-contradictory.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    "And also not smaller government"

    This is where your allowing the issue to cloud your thinking. I can think if several ways that it is smaller governemnt.

  • Tony||

    It's practical effect is less accountability for doers of harm, if that's what you mean. But moving every problem to insude a courthouse is assuredly not less government.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    It is when you do away with the EPA and associated beauracracy.

    And that is just one example, as I said, these things are obvious, you're just too emotional and bigoted to realize it with your hate of Trump supporters.

  • sarcasmic||

    But moving every problem to insude a courthouse is assuredly not less government.

    Replacing bureaucratic behemoths like EPA and OSHA with courts would indeed be less government.

  • Tony||

    How? Because fewer people would be able to seek redress, as a practical matter?

    Do you not realize that's the entire point of your plan? Why don't you understand the motives behind the very arguments you parrot?

    "Small government" is a bullshit slogan that means nothing. It exists to get morons to support policies that favor the interests of people and entities wealthier than they ever will be.

  • sarcasmic||

    How?

    Tort law. Look it up.

    "Small government" is a bullshit slogan that means nothing.

    For politicians it indeed means absolutely nothing. Everyone wants less government, just don't cut the part that benefits them. Since any cuts in government will result in someone losing their job or their benefit, nothing is ever cut. To do so is political suicide.

    But as a principled matter it has a clear an concrete meaning. It's not my fault you lack the intelligence to understand it.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    "Small government" is a bullshit slogan that means nothing.

    And here we have the reason you keep getting things wrong.

    You obviously don't understand what you're discussing, you just proved it right there.

  • sarcasmic||

    You obviously don't understand what you're discussing, you just proved it right there.

    No, he does not. He proves it over and over again. Even when I break it down into terms a child could understand, he still never gets it.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    "How? Because fewer people would be able to seek redress, as a practical matter?"

    That seems to be just another of your unsupported assertions.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony's view of libertarianism: Because taxation is theft, and government funds itself with taxes, libertarians really don't support justice. They really have no principles at all. It's all bullshit. They're just mean people with bad intentions who want to hurt the poor and the sick so the rich can get richer.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    How do you think regulation is enforced if not through the courts that you think do not exist today? Or has the mask finally slipped enough to reveal that you don't think anyone accused by the "right" government agencies is due their day in court?

  • Tony||

    So assuming that courts could handle all cases and the outcomes could be fair, how on earth is it actually any smaller? What's the point?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You were the moron claiming that we would have to expand courts in order to handle these cases. Now you admit that we wouldn't. That's progress.

    And of course government would be smaller because we would not have the regulatory agencies, or they would be far smaller. Do you have to work this hard to be this stupid, or is it a natural talent?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, you have all kinds of justifications for selling your progtarded tyranny, but no one is buying.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Tony,

    I think it's a result of too little control--over the cops.


    No, Tony. You're confusing control with restraint. Cops are 100% controlled by the authority that enables them. Police acts according to their wishes. They're simply not **restraining** them because they need the police to PROJECT their power without getting their own hands dirty.

    For any given issue I don't believe there is such thing as "no policy."


    Laissez-Faire IS a policy. There's ALWAYS a policy.

    I'm not sure I understand the mechanics of a regime falling from the sky with "fewer laws" and suddenly people becoming more constrained in their behavior toward others.


    What's so difficult to understand? The required rules are naturally understood by most: Don't take people's stuff, don't hurt them, you want to treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you worry is that there's evil people out there, then you worry is universally shared by most, which is why each of us has the option and the right to shun bad people from our business.

  • Tony||

    But a not-insignificant portion of this country thinks of Latin Americans as the "evil people."

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Tony,

    But a not-insignificant portion of this country thinks of Latin Americans as the "evil people."


    Perhaps but alone cannot do much damage; but with the help of an authoritarian and bloated State, their xenophobia can be turned into the most damaging of political power.

    You may want to believe that only the State can make people virtuous, but the fact is that the worst in people can be focused and amplified through State power in the most unvirtuous way possible.

  • Tony||

    I'd argue that the less sophisticated a government is, the more prone to brute force it is. Government power vis a vis individual liberty is restrained by strong checks and balances within government and society. Arguably that means more government rather than less. We would have a decidedly smaller government if we got rid of the legislative and judicial branches, would we not?

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    Yeah, Democrats and leftists are pretty ignorant, in that I agree with you.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Democrats and leftists are pretty ignorant.

    Republicans and conservatives are half-educated, economically inadequate, superstitious, disaffected, gullible bigots residing in parasitic, shambling backwaters.

    Where is the hope for America?

  • retiredfire||

    Then go to where you think you will get the anarchy you desire.
    I hear Mogadishu is pretty lawless - but make sure you have plenty of ammo.
    And take Old Mexican and Tony with you.
    You all seem to want the same anarchy.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, when the laws are changed, you will likely be executed for the practice of Marxism. Best you just get it over with joe and go drink some Drano. As you are completely worthless and loathsome.

  • Tony||

    Yes between us I'm definitely the loathsome one. I don't tell people to kill themselves regularly, but I do have... liberal political beliefs. Oh the horror!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No, you have totalitarian beliefs. Yours killed over a hundred million people in the 20th century. Mine have uplifted over a billion people out of poverty.

    That is why you should commit suicide. You're evil and make the world a worse place to live.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Funny thing, but the Liberal Progressives who love all you immigrants so much, even the ones that enter illegally, are responsible for much of the Govt. tyranny & litany of laws you mention above that you despise, especially the desire to control what people do or think...Yet, you love them because they want you here, but why do they want you here?....THEY DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU!....They want you here because they want your vote to keep them in power longer so they can put in more of these tyrannical liberty-crushing laws!

  • sarcasmic||

    Government is force. That's it. Its tools include harassment, intimidation, coercion, and violence. That's what the cops and other government agents do because that's what government does. When you want government to do something (and you seem to want government to do everything) its not going to go about it by being nice. No. In the end everything government does comes down to someone wielding a club or a gun.

    You have some serious cognitive dissonance going on. You want government to do all kinds of stuff for you, but then complain when they employ assholes who use violence to get their way. You can't have it both ways, because violence is the only way government accomplishes anything.

  • Tony||

    I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the things you want government to do are the most overtly violent. The things you bitch most about are just, like, spending money on social programs.

    I say give government workers something to do besides harass people.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is because I understand that government is violence. Yes, I want government to use violence in response to violence. It's called justice.

    Spending money on social programs requires acquiring the money first. Don't want to cough up some dough for involuntary charity? Here comes the goon squad. That's injustice.

  • Tony||

    So tax collectors are the "goon squad," but actual goons (paid with taxes, of course) committing actual acts of violence is the legit function of government.

    You can't see where someone might be confused here?

  • sarcasmic||

    Only if that someone is obtuse.

  • Azathoth!!||

    So tax collectors are the "goon squad," but actual goons (paid with taxes, of course) committing actual acts of violence is the legit function of government.

    Not exactly.

    Tax collectors are the goon squad. They come to steal.

    The people stopping those hurting others against their will are paid by the people who are being hurt and those that care for them.

    There are no 'public works' projects. There are only projects, funded by those who want to profit by them. The 'tax collectors' in this scenario are salesmen, trying to garner people's interest in a project. They can ask, they cannot take.

  • Tony||

    But there are public works projects. That's what we call them. You're just arguing with language now.

    If taxation is stealing then we can't pay for cops to protect your property or judges to oversee disputes about your property. Stop trying to sell something that just can't work.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony you're stupid and weak. Now we're all very busy here. So go away and commit suicide.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Govt. is THEFT too!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Harassment and intimidation seems to be the method of choice for law enforcement across the board in this country."'

    I guess you've never been out of the country. This statement is largely true of most countries.

    It's the reason some people leave their country to come to the US.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "After learning that Palacios had overstayed a student visa and Balcazar had entered the country illegally, ICE had pretext to apprehend them.

    I don't think "pretext" is the legal term for that. The legal term is "probable cause".

    "Mora-Villalpando's arrest is so egregious that it compelled the United Nations Office of Human Rights to beseech ICE to "guarantee that no action, including detention and deportation, as a means of retaliation" would be taken against her.

    The power to set the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of the U.S. Congress--not the United Nations.

  • damikesc||

    The power to set the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of the U.S. Congress--not the United Nations.

    I love her pretending that the UN has any moral ground to demand anything. Aren't they too busy raping starving children?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""I love her pretending that the UN has any moral ground to demand anything."'

    Moral ground or capability.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ^^ immigration lawyer

  • Headache||

    LOL

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Mora-Villalpando's arrest is so egregious that it compelled the United Nations Office of Human Rights to beseech ICE to "guarantee that no action, including detention and deportation, as a means of retaliation" would be taken against her."

    Is Mueller investigating this to see if there was any Russian involvement?

  • JWatts||

    Ok, Shikha is back to her normal appeals to emotion and obfuscation.

    So, I read the headline: "Trump's Increasingly Lawless Quest to Enforce a Bogus Rule of Law on Immigration"

    And I assumed that the Federal government was breaking the law. Then I read a bunch of examples where ICE arresting people on probable cause. Apparently Shikha is outraged that ICE is actually enforcing the law. Yeah whatever.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There was a legitimate issue in there.

    "But the most ominous of all might be ICE's actions against two leaders of the New York-based New Sanctuary Coalition, neither of whom has lived in the country illegally.

    But after all the cries of wolf, over the years, you can hardly be blamed for not noticing.

  • Kivlor||

    The only 2 that can be described as "neither of whom has lived in the country illegally" are apparently facing deportation for criminal activity. One for wire fraud and the other for a DUI.

  • damikesc||

    Still, few foresaw that this administration would actually go after activists just for trying to raise public awareness about their plight.

    Using totally unforced confessions of crimes is tyranny, it seems.

    Perhaps loudly proclaiming "I COMMITTED A CRIME, YO!!" is a really stupid idea.

  • Kivlor||

    "And I'm going to devote my time and resources to help others who want to commit the same crime! And if you arrest me for doing this then you've violated my First Amendment Right to say what I want with who I want."

  • Kivlor||

    If you're going to break the law, and don't want to be caught, it is generally considered a good idea to not announce to the entire world "I'm breaking the law and I'm proud of it!"

  • Tony||

    The hardscrabble principles and sentiments of libertarianism really go out the window when Mexicans get involved, don't they?

  • Kivlor||

    Since I'm not a libertarian, I can't really answer that for ya buddy.

    All I can say is my values don't go out the window simply because "Mexicans make great food" or "If you don't let all the brown people into America then you're racist."

  • Tony||

    If your immigration policy is "kick 'em all out" no matter what the economic reality is, you're probably a racist.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Call him a clinger!

    Come on. We know you want to.

  • Kivlor||

    Since my immigration policy is "Kick 'em all out, regardless of what nation they're from" I think it's probably not race related.

  • Tony||

    It is also not related to small government or individual liberty. At least I believe in the latter, so why are you here? To give the place the dash of authoritarianism it needed to spice things up?

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    "individual liberty"

    Says the guy that thinks people should be enslaved for his benefit.

  • Tony||

    No I don't. Or let me guess, it's slavery if it's a government function you don't approve of. Cops and judges aren't slaves, because they're performing "legitimate" functions of government. As if that changes the way they're paid.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    Thanks for proving my point.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's slavery if it's a government function that can be legitimately performed by private individuals. While private police and courts are a hypothetical possibility, I think it is nearly impossible for them to be as impartial as possible. Dispute resolution needs to be made on the merits of the case and not on who's bigger, stronger, or richer (and don't play strawman stupidity about how existing justice system isn't perfect--an unrealistic standard).

    Coordinating national defense requires a central coordinating authority to be effective and history has demonstrated that mercenaries are unreliable at best.

    Eminent domain for real public use (transmission lines and transportation corridors) seems inescapable as well.

    That's really about it. Everything that you value in government amounts to punishing those you hate and to a lesser extent rewarding those you like, but honestly it's 99% about the former and 1% about the latter.

  • Tony||

    Slavery is forced servitude without pay.

    Stop acting hysterical. It doesn't do your argument any good.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Well government is taking 40+% of what I make and providing virtually no services for that. That is forced servitude without pay since I'm not allowed to keep what I make.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I see the Hihntard is emboldened by another week with a successful bowel movement. Congrats, Mikey.

  • Kivlor||

    Sure it is. I'd argue I'm much more pro-liberty than most folks around here. I'm just not a libertine, Tony.

    As to why I come here, there are several reasons. Suffice it to say that echo-chambers are bad. So I don't go sit in a place where everyone agrees with me. This gives people like you the opportunity to convince me I'm wrong, and for me to do the same.

    Incidentally, find it interesting that the generic response on this website not only from you, but from a lot of the libertarians here is "WHY DON'T YOU GO TO AN ECHO CHAMBER". As if they don't really believe all their talk about how their ideas are the best, and in the free market of ideas they can win out.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Actually, having less of these people to keep track of allows for smaller government.

  • Kivlor||

    More like he was noting that the presence of a lot of these people leads to bigger government...

  • Kivlor||

    Mikey, we all know you're not laughing, you're screaming. Meanwhile, I am laughing while ICE sends these people packing. It gives me a chuckle in the morning when I wake up, and it sends me to sleep with a smile on my face.

  • Kivlor||

    I'm still laughing as they deport these folks little Mikey. You can sneer and glare, but my smile will only widen, and my laugh deepen.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Fake Hihn is confused about words.

  • Widhalm19||

    Why does the far-Left nut-job keep getting published here on Reason? She is an enemy of Liberty. WTF?

  • Just Say'n||

    Again, the only people who seem to think that this is still a libertarian publication are the commentators.

  • Tony||

    A reasonable person might expect libertarianism not to be defined by giant government-funded walls and armies of goons forcing people to go where they don't want to.

  • Widhalm19||

    MH ~ You are without doubt, the stupidest and most inane commenter her at Reason. Congratulations!

  • Kivlor||

    The recent competition for "Worst Reason Troll" would indicate that the commentariat thinks there are in fact worse trolls. But Hihn made it pretty far if I remember right.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Windhalm,

    Why does the far-Left nut-job keep getting published here on Reason? She is an enemy of Liberty [???]. WTF?


    What in carnations are you talking about?

  • Headache||

    Queef

  • SimonP||

    As near as I can tell, Shikha opposes heavy-handed applications of government power in order to enforce regulations that exist primarily to protect the welfare state and prop up wages.

    How is she an "enemy of Liberty," exactly?

  • Just Say'n||

    Bill Kristol is the best! Neoliberalism now- because smaller government and liberty are icky! I love neoconservatives!

  • Tony||

    Kristol's complaint is not that Trump is going too far in the direction of liberty and small government.

    It is totally fascinating watching people who claim to value those things be won over by not just a wannabe tinpot authoritarian, but such a ridiculous one with such dumb, heavy-handed methods.

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    Aren't you the one that constantly insults people and saturates threads with posts that read like a fever dream?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    You mean infantile bullying?

    Michael Hihn|4.2.18 @ 11:19PM|#

    Infantile bullying.

    ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

    Verbal Aggressiveness ...A personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication ... Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

    Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

    Retarded
    A word used to describe someone who is profoundly stupid. A type of stupidity that is an insult to intelligence itself.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""(as you'll learn in high school)""

    Infantile bullying.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You sold him for personal insults the proceed to call him a 'Trumptard'...............

  • Kivlor||

    It's okay to use ad hominems when Hihn does it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining""

    Aka appeal to personal attack

  • Headache||

    (snort) Is that a nasal problem? Or are you ingesting a South American export?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No, it's completely true. Amd you're not Michael Hihn.

  • Kivlor||

    So, if you insult an individual, it's an act of aggression, but if you insult an entire category of people it's totes fine?

  • Kivlor||

    I've not changed my argument. I was asking you about your comments here Hihn. You constantly screech that when someone else calls you names they are committing an act of aggression against you. (I would argue they are engaging in ad hominem attacks)

  • Headache||

    800mg/day of Quercetin may help that nasal problem.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You're still not Michael Hihn.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""WHICH YOU-COCKSUCKER CONVERTED TO SINGULAR TO JUSTIFY YOUR PATHETIC AGGRESSION"'

    Infantile bullying

  • retiredfire||

    Isn't it homophobic to use "cocksucker" as a pejorative?
    Proof that Hihn is a homophobe.

  • Mary Stack||

    "who-says-a-direct- quote-of-Bill-Kristol-is-a-fever-dream. "

    That's not an insult, fuckhole

  • Kivlor||

    Whatever dude. Plenty of us who voted for him have lots of criticism for the guy. It's just not your kind of criticism, so you blind yourself to it.

    But I must say that I love your "Any nation asserting control over it's own borders is a Nazi country and their leader must be LITERALLY HITLER"

  • Kivlor||

    What am I attacking, Hihn? How am I a liar?

  • Kivlor||

    The implication made by Kristol, and supported by your posting it all over as some Gospel, is that what Trump said is Nazism. That's why he mentions German. My comment about "LITERALLY HITLER" still stands. You can't disagree with people and argue in good faith, you have to imply they are Nazis and shouldn't be listened to.

    I've lied about nothing. At best, Hihn, I have misinterpreted your intent. You're welcome to defend your point, and that of Kristol, by explaining how this isn't some implication of "There be Nazis there" thus showing me to be incorrect.

  • Kivlor||

    I'm pretty sure that most people here understand that "Literally Hitler" is hyperbole mocking the endless arguments ad Nazism that are rampant on the internet. I understand if that flew right past you, being old and suffering from dementia and all that. I'll forgive it.

    So, to break it down:
    Kristol implies that Trump is making Nazi arguments.
    Hihn posts Kristol unironically, and goes on to add in terms like "Fuhrer" to allude to Trump being like Hitler.
    Kivlor mocks Hihn, Kristol, et al for screeching about how Trump is "Literally Hitler"
    Hihn freaks out because word "literally" can't be true, since we all know that Hitler died surrounded by his Arian harem in Brazil in the 1980's.

  • Kivlor||

    It's a meme yo. And a pretty widely understood one.

  • Mary Stack||

    I love how you are getting more unhinged as he refutes everything you say.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The word literal is part of the meme. But you don't understand that.

  • Kivlor||

    NOW it changes to a MEME!

    Memes aren't literal either, chump.

    Despite having it explained in the most simple terms, it goes right over little Mikey's head.

    "Literally Hitler" is the name of the meme. It is "a hyperbolic expression that can be used to denounce an individual or group as being comparable to the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. On the social networking site Reddit, the phrase is also used to mock circle jerk discussions that ultimately manifest into examples of Godwin's Law."

    In other words, yes, the word "literally" is in the name, and it is used ironically.

    (Boldface in defense of non-stop aggressions by a stalking bully)

    How is responding to your comments stalking you? Is conversation equivalent to stalking?

  • SimonP||

    I mean, Hitler didn't start with the extermination camps, either. The original plan was to deport the Jews. Turned out that was too expensive.

  • damikesc||

    Fuhrer? Am I a progtard? Is Bill Kristol? (smirk)

    So, quoting the man who advocated the action that has killed how many Iraqis?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No, he's a nevertrumper. Definitely not libertarian.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Funny how you would choose Bill Kristol as your champion, the guy who loathes the White Working Class and wants them replaced
    https://youtu.be/mWJSKhEwjy8

  • Mickey Rat||

    How in the world is a 25 year old appeal of a deportation order still "pending"?!

    Whatever else you wsnt to say, our immigration jurisprudence is sclerotic.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Because we don't enforce immigration law

  • Douchebag McEvil||

    ICE allowed its true intentions to slip on the rap sheet of at least one Migrant Justice detainee, noting that he was a part of the "local immigrant advocate group."

    Ok, so I read the article, and she didn't in any way demonstrate that this was "letting their true intentions slip" any more than it was ancillary information.

  • Kivlor||

    You don't get it because you're a Fascist Trumpista who hates the browns

    /sarc

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Trump supporters hate Cleveland's NFL team?

  • Kivlor||

    To be fair, no one likes the Browns. But they are to be hated less since dropping Johnny Manziel.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The agency arrested six leaders of Migrant Justice, a Vermont-based non-profit outfit that seeks not just better government policies but also less exploitative working conditions for vulnerable undocumented workers, particularly in the state's dairy industry where many of them are employed. Its "Milk with Dignity" campaign, for example, shamed Ben & Jerry's, the ice cream company that bills itself the paragon of progressive virtue, into offering better living conditions, shorter shifts, and higher wages for late-night milking.


    So the state that sent Bernie Sanders to DC has businesses that abuse undocumented immigrants in the workplace.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Well, they sold out to a multnational corp, so.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The hysterics of the left over immigration every time a Republican is in the White House combined with their inaction whenever they control DC have turned me away from the immigration cause. I would be happy if the USA streamlined and shortened the immigration process and issued many more immigration visas, but I won't fight for that to happen.


    If every nation gave immigration visas equal to 0.1% of its population each year, we could maintain the current global levels of immigration. The left fails to call out nations, like Mexico, that have hardly any foreign born residents due to less welcoming immigration policies. If the US grants at least 330,000 immigration visas per year, it is doing it's fare share as far as I am concerned.


    The UN Migration Report Highlights for 2017 is worth skimming for facts. It turns out that Europe and Asia have been more popular destinations for immigrants than North America is during this century. American politicians are still fighting the Spanish Armada when global immigration today looks more like people moving to destinations in Europe and Asia from relatively nearby countries.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Page 11 of that report has a great graphic showing the flow of migrants from one region to another. It turns out that North America hosts 26 million migrants from Latin America, 20 million migrants from Asia, and 8 million from Europe. Relatively few migrants from Africa and Oceania live in North America. The largest flow is the 63 million moving from one Asian country to another Asian country. The second larges flow is the 41 million moving from one European country to another European country.

  • My Dog Bites Better Than Yours||

    WTF is wrong the the anti-immigration libertarians?

    "War On Drugs" failed because the government can't stop people from getting what they want.
    "War On Poverty" failed because the government can't stop people from sitting on their asses if they want to.
    "War On Crime" failed because there will always be people who want to steal shit.
    "War On Cancer" failed because people will always smoke.

    This is a "War On Immigration" in all but name. And it's "illegal" only by fiat, not because it's harming anyone.
    "But, we will get it right this time" used to be punchline, now it's mantra.

  • Kivlor||

    Declaring Theft illegal is a bad idea because we can't stop people from getting what they want and some will do it anyways.
    Declaring Trespassing illegal is a bad idea because we can't stop people from getting what they want and some will do it anyways.
    Declaring Assault illegal is a bad idea is a bad idea because we can't stop people from getting what they want and some will do it anyways.
    Declaring Murder illegal is a bad idea because we can't stop people from getting what they want and some will do it anyways.

    We should just live and let live man. There shouldn't be any laws prohibiting anything, because there's always going to be people who break those laws, and we can't stop them all, and that means that prohibition of anything is bad.

  • Tony||

    What is the "problem" you associate with immigration in the US? Be specific.

  • Kivlor||

    Increased crime (from some demographics)? Granting voting rights to an entire people who are opposed to the liberties we are founded on? More people on welfare? Higher welfare rates than the native population? Depressing wages? Increased balkanization?

    There's a myriad reasons to take issue with it.

    We can sum it up with: I don't think it is our burden to tame the savage and bring civilization to the uncivilized in their own lands. And it's even less our burden to bring them here so we can do it, let alone so we can experience their ways firsthand.

  • Tony||

    Literally none of that is actually going on. So phew looks like you can put this one aside. Not to mention that any increases in net immigration over the past decades was reversed by the great recession. If you really want to keep the Mexicans out but have trouble with the jackbooted methods you might have to employ, just ensure that we're in recession.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Keep Mexicans out? We let a massive amount of them in legally, not even including the lawbreakers. So stop with that bullshit. Also, your cries of racism are so frequent and nonsensical that they no longer have any value.

    Tony, you have no argument, and no integrity. You are also stupid. Best you just learn to obey your conservative amd libertarian betters.

  • Kivlor||

    Crime rates in non-white / non-east asian groups are well documented.
    We are indeed granting voting rights to millions of people who are opposed to the liberties we are founded on.
    Immigrant usage of welfare is drastically higher than native populations. This is well evidenced.
    This means not only a higher instance of welfare, but more welfare recipients by sheer raw numbers.
    Wages are not immune to supply and demand. Constantly importing millions of serfs does in fact depress wages.
    Balkanization is easily evidenced. Since you're so focused on Mexicans, let's look at them: La Raza and myriad other movements that are based on identity politics openly show the balkanizing effects of mass immigration from cultures that have little to nothing in common.

    Just screaming "NUH UH! THATS NOT TRUE BECAUSE IT WOULD MEAN MY IDEAS ARE BAD" doesn't magically change reality my dude.

  • Headache||

    Balkanization (i.e. California)

  • XM||

    Most immigrants, even Latinos, don't work in farms or dairy plants. Less than 1% of immigration population work in the fields. Raise your hand right now if any of your non white friends work at a farm.

    ICE (at the top of my head) doesn't usually raid retail or fast food joints, even though that's where many immigrants typically find employment. Some of those places use E-verify, or most of the immigrants there are already legal. Even if someone used a fake SS number to get a job, these companies have incentive not to mistreat workers who they believe to be illegal.

    I suspect we're being a bit naive here. Some illegals get treated like crap by workplaces that hire them. I'd say that's probably the norm. I used to work in Koreatown and the things I saw would never make the MSM. Koreans are notorious for turning a blind eye to workers who steal or come to work drunk.

    If I bought a CD from a street vendor with no license, that's arguably a victimless crime. If society turns a blind eye to shadow activity that could endanger lives, then it's a problem. Some of these farm workers don't have access to bathrooms and pass out working on the field. ICE should be enforcing the law. Passing amnesty and giving these people legal status is a separate issue.

  • Tionico||

    since when is entering the country illegally not doing anything illegal?
    Ever try and enter Mexico ir Canada illegally? How aobut Switzerland? WHY is it ur immigratioin laws are amongst the easiest in North America, or even the Western Hemispher, yet WE get all the stink eye and nastygrams for enforcing our duly enacted laws? Remember that Marine a year or so back who got confused in the traffic mess near Tijuana Mexico and unintentionally entered the sacred soil of Méjico? He got tossed into prison for a long time. Can't remember who, but someone Important managed to talk the Mexican governmentinto springing him loose after he had gotten real sick. But, bottom line they would not let him stay.... the deported him back to the country of his birth. Imagine that. Mexico did that. To a guy who had harmed no one, and did not burden the taxpayers in Mexico for years.

  • Tionico||

    Many have been demanding of govt to make some sensible pathways for those married to American citizens to at least gain residency instead of living in constant fear of deportation, jail, family shattered, but no, they never could bother. So now Trump is being blamed for all that. WHOSE job is it to enact laws regarding immigration, naturalisation, citizenship, etc? NOT TRUMP'S. Blame COngress for their inaction. Now thousands of evil intentioned persons from all over, including from some of the terror countries, are entering freely, many over our southern border, and they ARE responsible for quite a few serious crimes (could I mention Kate Steinle without getting flamed?) security has become a serious issue. One of the few named tasks assigned FedGov is to repel foreign invaders. That means folks who have no legal right to be here but come anyway.

  • Headache||

    They supported German immigration during the 30s and 40s.

  • SF Pete||

    If you rob a Bank and get away with it for 10 years, then get caught, does it make a difference that you used the money for a good cause, and lived peaceably at a decent job paying taxes?

    Our Legal system says unequivocally, NO.

    for 240 years it has said no.

    I want to know why a columnist, in a supposedly Libertarian publication does not believe in the rule of law?

    what part of Illegal Criminal conduct does Shikha not understand?

    The USA admits more "Legal" Immigrants every year than any country in the world.

    it is not an ""Immigrants rights movement", it's an "Illegal immigrants movement."

    When you legally become a citizen then you can enjoy the rights and responsibilities of same, not before.

    Shikha, what country in the world has Porous borders, and does not control them? and has loose laws as to citizenship?

  • buybuydandavis||

    " supposedly Libertarian publication"

    Check your premises

  • The gouch||

    Your black GOD" started this!!

  • buybuydandavis||

    " In the name of bringing undocumented "lawbreakers" to book, Trump made everyone fair game"

    Heavens! We'd actually apply the law equally to everyone?

    "the American Civil Liberties Union along with various immigration groups has documented about two-dozen instances around the country where Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have detained immigrant activists."

    Heavens no! Not our buddies at the cocktail parties! It's one thing to go after my gardener, but enforcing the law against the international ruling class is simply not done! Rules are for the peasants, not their rulers!

    I can't be the only one who finds this completely hilarious, given all the hysteria over "Russian interference" in our elections.

  • the_strickler||

    I have been told that the United States is a racist country. Moreover, I've been told that foriegn countries and people are better than us and very virtuous.
    .
    So given all of that, I have to assume that anyone who would want to migrate from a virtuous country to the United States must be an uncle Tom racist type. That in itself is reason enough to send all of them back. We have enough hate in this country.
    /Sarc.

  • inoyu||

    I often argue from a point of reason against a point of compassion. In the current climate I loose the argument. Sadly, over time reason without compassion can still solve problems. Compassion without reason cannot.

  • tommhan||

    Sorry but my heart does not bleed for any of these people.

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    I am getting sick of "Reason's" open borders bull shit. For the last time, open borders aren't libertarian. Letting people violate property rights and the laws that protect them isn't libertarian. Sorry, these immigrants that you think are so great aren't going to be a voting bloc for libertarianism and small government, every poll taken of this group of people supports bigger government and they always vote big government Democrat, they also have no fucking respect for Western culture, you know, the culture that spawned freedom, reason and libertarian ideals, most of them want to change this into the totalitarian shit holes they fled. Call me "anti immigrant" or "racist" but that doesn't change the facts. Now not every immigrant holds those views and those are the ones that we need to let into the country, the ones that want a change in their life and not in Western culture.

  • QuodVerumTutum||

    This kind of article is problematic.
    Sources ? none whatsoever. We're supposed to take the author's word for it.
    Furthermore the lawlessness conclusion doesn't follow. It is Leftist rhetoric. Look up Type I and Type II errors.
    Let's see the evidence that the 'advocacy' groups are following the laws in each and every instance.
    Also a few alleged cases do not extrapolate to the whole ( Fallacy of Composition).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online