MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Philadelphia Cancels Cinco de Mayo Parade Over ICE Raid Fears

But ICE insists it does not conduct raids that "target alien indiscriminately."

R. Kennedy for Visit Philadelphia™R. Kennedy for Visit Philadelphia™Organizers of the largest Cinco de Mayo-related annual event held in Philadelphia, El Carneval de Puebla, have canceled the parade over fears it could be targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. "Everyone is offended by the actions of ICE. They did not feel comfortable holding the event," organizer Edgar Ramirez told the local NBC affiliate of his co-organizers.

ICE recently announced that over a two-week period it had made nearly 250 arrests of illegal immigrants in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Delaware that it said had previous records, as ICE noted in its press release. But such enforcement actions are not new. A week-long operation in the three states last May yielded 84 arrests, and a similar ICE press release highlighting the prior arrest and criminal records of some of those individuals apprehended. A spokesperson at the ICE Philly office, Khaalid Walls, told NBC that ICE "enforcement actions are targeted and lead driven" and that the agency did not "conduct sweeps or raids that target aliens indiscriminately." Organizers did not say they had a specific warning that their event would be targeted.

While President Trump has described recent immigration enforcement actions as unprecedented, and even as a "military operation," Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has resisted such characterizations, insisting recent raids were not different than raids conducted regularly in previous years, and that there would be "no—repeat—no mass deportations" and "no—repeat—no use of military force in immigration operations."

The Trump administration has relied on hyping up and amplifying news of its raids in order to push other immigrants to self-deport and to discourage migrants from trying to cross the border. The administration says there has been a 40 percent drop in Southern border crossings. As Dara Lind noted at Vox.com, nothing ICE did in raids in early February was unprecedented, but it "feels different with President Trump in the White House." Lind pointed out that the truth of the raids, which did include practices not used during the Obama administration, like arresting other illegal immigrants found while targeting someone with a deportation order, was nevertheless "sometimes been overshadowed by rumors that sound much worse than anything that's been documented."

Arguably, those kinds of rumors, and reporting on immigration raids that conflates increased attention due to the political atmosphere with a marked increase in enforcement, are a powerful tool for the Trump administration. Any effort to deport millions of illegal immigrants will rely in part on self-deportations. Trump, through his rhetoric, has helped to create a climate of fear where that's more likely to happen. Organizers like Ramirez are doing their part to signal boost that climate instead of resisting it.

Photo Credit: R. Kennedy for Visit Philadelphia™

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    In Philadelphia, the only fruit such a raid would bear is a bunch of white a-holes.

  • NoVaNick||

    But cancelling it might annoy just enough white college kids to flip the state for Democrats if they now can blame Trump for having one less excuse for getting drunk.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Life finds a way.

  • Sevo||

    Not that it will affect a lot of votes in SF, but the TDS is alive and well:

    "M&R: SF Girls Chorus cancels big trip, blames Trump"
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/bay.....012040.php

  • Rhywun||

    Sometime I doubt their commitment to Sparkle Motion.

    Many of the roughly 40 teenage girls who make up the group's elite Chorissima ensemble were said to be in tears after program leaders recently notified them that the long-anticipated trip to the Aberdeen International Youth Festival in late July was being scratched.

    Nice. Make the kids suffer for your virtue signaling. I hope they're proud of themselves.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So the organizers shit their pants?

    Are we now treating paranoia as legitimate now or only for illegal aliens?

  • Rhywun||

    but it "feels different with President Trump in the White House."

    'nuff said

  • buybuydandavis||

    The administration says there has been a 40 percent drop in Southern border crossings.

    "Feels different" has its uses.

  • Rhywun||

    Maybe the crowd at USA-Mexico soccer matches - always scheduled in places like LA or Houston - will be a little a little less lopsided against the US.

  • DrZaius||

    I've always wondered why they don't schedule these games in Anchorage or Fairbanks. Or hell, Vancouver. All the loser soccer fans in Seattle would have no problem making the border crossing, and I assume the there isn't a large Mexican population anywhere in Canada.

  • SomeGuy||

    I don't know...its quite telling for them to cancel it....sounds like they expect a ton of illegals :/

  • american socialist||

    See this is what I have found interesting about liberals....what matters to them is talk/intentions and don't really bother to look at the actual actions going on. While rhetoric/intent is important, action/results is ultimately what matters and should be the primary focus.

    Stated vs revealed preferences. Revealed is more enlightening imo

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No. What matters to them is 'are we doing this, or is it done by our enemies'. They will accept or denounce rhetoric and actions almost solely based on that criterion. If Obama had advocated the roasting of children, they would have happily advocated his Modest Proposal. If Trump raises the dead by saying on of hands, they will denounce him.

    Trump could carefully duplicate every policy Obama pursued, and the Progressive Left would denounce him as a bigot and an enemy of the poor. Anyone who iodinated out that Obama had done the same things would be attacked as a white supremacist.

    Which doesn't make Trump's ideas good. But it DOES make it massively less likely that the Democrat party will manage to mount an effective challenge in 2020. They may not think the voters notice this crap, but the one that don't were going to vote Democrat no matter who they nominate.

  • wareagle||

    so basically principals > principles.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Someone had suggested that Trump's speechwriters for the SOTU next year should just cobble together lines from Clinton and Obama into a new speech. Watch the lefties pitch a bitch, and then leak that the whole thing was clipped from their heroes.

  • Spartacus||

    Plagiarism!!!

  • Ken Shultz||

    It is about signaling.

    It's basically like a gay pride parade.

    And to progressives, signaling is often more important than policy. What people say in public is far more important to them than what people actually do.

  • NoVaNick||

    Yep-and pretty much everything Trump has called for are beefed-up versions of Clintonian policies, including the border wall.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    There are actually two kinds of Gay Pride parades/days/what-have-you. The commonest type is an exercide in playing Shock The Squares. Like most such exercises, it is massively counterproductive, if acceptance is a goal.

    The other sort I see far more rarely, but the regular event in New Hope PA is a fine example; a celebration of community, in a community that accepts its Gay population. I really wish I knew of more of those.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Everyone is offended by the actions of ICE. They did not feel comfortable holding the event."

    Not everyone is offended.

    Some people have long been offended by the inaction of ICE.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Couldn't even make it to the end of the sentence, huh?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Huh?

    Okay, . . .

    Not everyone feels "uncomfortable".

    Some people feel uncomfortable about illegal aliens flouting the law with impunity.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I know it's a struggle to see your screen with all the illegal Mexicans in your way Ken, but you should really give that sentence another read before making your third illiterate comment about it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So his organizers are offended by ICE's actions, and that means other people aren't offended by ICE's inaction?

    You can be too literal, Hugh. Are you going to tell me what I really meant now?

    This is Tulpa level trolling. Maybe you and Tulpa should go bowling, play miniature golf, dinner and a movie, see what happens.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That sentence is very clearly about the organizers of the event, and you ignored the context in order to feign offense. Whether you did so purposely is unclear, so the eternal question of whether Ken Schultz is mendacious or merely retarded remains unanswered.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Meanwhile, when I was talking about how not everyone is offended by ICE's actions, I wasn't talking about the organizers--and that should have been obvious.

    Did you really think my point was that the organizers are split on how they feel about ICE?

    You're the one being mendacious. And you're being a troll.

    Oh, and not everyone is offended by ICE's actions. Some people are offended by ICE's inaction.

  • BorisRoberts||

    I'm offended when my legal businessmen friends, botherwise native born and immigrants, can't stay in business, because an illegal alien will do the job that would cost $30/hour, plus medical, workers comp, retirement, vacation pay, Journeyman wage, etc., for $12/hour. (The erfect employee, really , no comp, medical, etc. And before someone trots out the "They do the jobs Americans won't...", according to WIKI, 3-4% of illegals are in AG. The rest are doing construction, landscaping, maid work, etc., and not paying income taxes, not paying for their medical (having a baby would cost you or I $10,000- $20,000. Illegal aliens have them FOR FREE ) , not paying for auto insurance (so I have to pay more for uninsured coverage, since I live in the highest concentration of illegals in the country, Santa Barbara County, except for Phoenix, Ariz), but they sure seem to have plenty of money to keep sending home, or paying for cell phones or more cars. Meanwhile, American businesses are going under, for doing the right thing, hiring legal workers vs under the table illegals. What is the excuse for that?

  • Not a True MJG||

    He said EV-ERY-ONE

  • Not a True MJG||

    Some people have long been offended by the inaction of ICE.

    Do you count yourself among them?

  • wareagle||

    if we're going to have immigration laws, then enforcing them is not too much to ask. People are welcome to lobby for changes and to push for them through the legislative process. Anyhow, I recall the last president bragging endlessly about how his crew had deported more illegals than anyone since illegal came to town, and I recall his supporters cheering the sentiment.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Not too much to ask!

  • Not a True MJG||

    Well, at least your response was only minimally evasive.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm for expanding legal immigration as broadly as security concerns will allow. I think if there were an ID system so that we could independently verify that Mexican citizens aren't convicted felons, have certain immunizations, etc. that they should be free to come and go across the border without a visa--per a new treaty with Mexico, specifically.

    I think having a system like that ultimately depends on keeping people who are convicted felons, etc out and deporting people who come across the border illegally. I think a path to citizenship should be made available to people who have been here for more than x number of years and/or who were brought across by their parents as minors--but then those people would become legal residents.

    And I'd still oppose illegal immigration.

    The rules of naturalization are an enumerated power of Congress, like the power to declare war, and should be subject to the democratic process. Immigration isn't like the First Amendment.

    Our First Amendment right aren't and shouldn't be subject to popularity contests, but immigration policy isn't like that and shouldn't be like that. The government has no business violating the First Amendment rights of illegal immigrants, but imposing an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like imposing an unpopular war.

  • wareagle||

    I would settle for viewing immigration law and policy through the eyes of citizens - how is this step or that going to impact them. This can apply to illegals, to H1-B visas, to green cards, to everything. Instead, these laws seem guided by an appeal external audiences.

    's not unreasonable to say that an expanded H1-B program, for instance, will impact domestic STEM or IT professionals, and it's not unreasonable to suggest that unfettered immigration from global hotspots might have a security implication.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Certainly, whether Congress should set an expansive immigration policy and whether Congress should be allowed to set immigration policy are two separate questions.

    Reasonable and honest libertarians can disagree about how expansive our immigration policy should be. Whether the separation of powers as enumerated in the Constitution gives the power to set naturalization rules to Congress, however, isn't like that.

    Whether immigration law should be expansive and whether the law should be enforced are two separate questions, too.

    People can support an expansive immigration policy and also believe in the rule of law. There is a proper role for democracy, and setting immigration policy is one proper place for it--so long as we're not talking about the government violating anybody's rights.

  • wareagle||

    Your last phrase speaks to my point exactly - how about we put the rights of actual citizens at the front of the line. We've long since figured out that open borders and a welfare state don't mix, that among those coming in are bad actors and leeches, that there is an impact on law-abiding citizens, and that immigration law is not confined to the US.

    The logistics can be determined and you raise valid points. I daresay the US has as liberal an immigration as exists in the free world but like any policy, it should first serve the citizen.

  • BorisRoberts||

    You know, Ken, I have no issue with immigrants, my mother is one, my wife is one. But we have people that have been here 30 years, that have never attempted to get legal, have no intention of ever getting legal, take all they can from Social Services, 73% of illegals use Social Services, have never filed income taxes, and just kept having babies (that baby is eligible for Food Stamps, section 8 housing, Welfare, general aid, all social services, as soon at it is born), until to ole pooter wouldn't kick any more out. Can you say, $8000 Earned Income Crédit? I know you can.

    That said, I know some illegal aliens, my neighbors. Every one I've met, IS going after The American Dream, and going to get it, through hard work, and not sniveling. I know plenty of legal Amercans, that have given up on that American Dream. But there are many that are just taking advantage of everything here

  • balff||

    ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A RACIST, KEN SHULTZ

  • Not a True MJG||

    I am curious as to who comes to a libertarian website while also thinking that one of the worst federal police agencies isn't doing enough! and should be out there rounding up more people to imprison them in overcrowded penitentiaries for their non-violent crimes.

  • SomeGuy||

    agreed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "A spokesperson at the ICE Philly office, Khaalid Walls, told NBC that ICE "enforcement actions are targeted and lead driven" and that the agency did not "conduct sweeps or raids that target aliens indiscriminately."

    Try to keep that in mind during the next budget battle, folks.

    The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency may get paid to target illegal aliens, but it's important for everyone to understand that they aren't really doing their jobs.

  • Radioactive||

    I think they should be funded by piece work, a bounty on every illegal sent packing is the only way to fund their efforts...

  • colorblindkid||

    These idiots are just feeding into Trump's narrative. This will not draw sympathy. It will cause the opposite.

    It's like the Washington Post's article titled "Immigrants are cancelling their food stamps for fear Trump will deport them." which just signals to everybody that, yes, illegal immigrants are in fact taking all our welfare benefits. Idiots.
    There are a few examples given of legal immigrants fearing, but those people are retarded and it is the anti-Trumpsters' fear-mongering responsible for that.

  • american socialist||

    I saw somewhere that they changed that headline

  • colorblindkid||

    And made it even worse:

    "Immigrants are going hungry so Trump won't deport them."

    For fuck's sake.

  • Sevo||

    "Immigrants are going hungry so Trump won't deport them."

    Uh, give me a minute...
    "Better skinny than scattered"?
    "Better starved than sent"?
    "Better dead than deported"?
    I know it's in there somewhere...

  • Rhywun||

    I guess that means more jobs for Americans collecting the corpses piling up in the streets.

  • NoVaNick||

    What a joke! Cancel a fake, or at least culturally-appropriated, Mexican holiday created to market Corona in a city that is not known for its Latino or Mexican community. I get that you are still pissed off that Trump won, but this is retarded.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Marching under Mexican flags certainly isn't a good look for people who don't want to be deported.

  • NoVaNick||

    And in Philly, most of those marching will not even be Mexican/Latino-just a bunch of drunk white kids.

  • Not a True MJG||

    You Can't Have a Party Without ICE

  • Radioactive||

    unless you like warm margaritas and pina coladas

  • DOOMco||

    "I'm going to throw on a skirt, take off my underwear, and make your pop-pop proud!"

  • John||

    I would think ICE would have a hard time showing up at a parade and rounding people up. Unless someone marches as "the undocumented aliens of Buck's County", it would be pretty difficult for ICE to accomplish much.

    Besides, ICE doesn't need to show up at parades. Obama gave them the name and contact information of millions of illegals. You really can't overstate how big of a Putz Obama is. Obama comes up with this "Dreamer" program whereby illegal aliens receive a fake green card signifying nothing except big daddy promises not to deport them. In return, the illegal aliens provided their names and contact information making things very easy should the government ever decide to deport them. So in return for a sham legal status, illegal aliens self-identified for future deportation.

    Remember, Obama did that, and I am not being sarcastic here, he really wanted to help illegal aliens. Whatever your opinion of the immigration issue, you have to laugh at Obama's incompetence. Obama really was the Wiley E. Coyote of Presidents. We have had lots of Presidents who have done bad things and made mistakes over our history. But we have never had a President who managed to achieve the exact opposite of what he intended the way Obama did.

  • wareagle||

    But we have never had a President who managed to achieve the exact opposite of what he intended the way Obama did.

    I continue to believe this is ass backwards. Obama's results were ALWAYS the opposite of his stated intentions and they were meant to be.

  • John||

    To some degree but not really. Obama really thought he was going to usher in an era of Democratic rule the way FDR did. Everything he did was intended to achieve that. And he left office with the Democrats in worse shape than at any time since Reconstruction.

    I honestly think Obama did the dreamer program because he wanted to help illegals. We see how that is working out. He lied about the nature of Obamacare, but he intended it to improve the health care system and honestly thought it would make the Democrats popular. I think he thought supporting the Arab spring would reduce Islamic radicalism. I think he thought working with Iran would make them less powerful and easier to deal with. Nearly everything he did turned out the opposite of what he intended.

  • wareagle||

    Obama has no interest in the Democratic Party. Obama has interest in Obama. The man's contempt for the country and the system on which it was founded seeped through at every turn. His dogwashers envisioned a Dem generation; James Carville wrote a book on it. But Obama was no FDR or LBJ or Clinton or anything else.

    He lied because it served his purposes, because he could count on the useful idiots in his ranks who wanted those things but never raised obvious questions about how the results would be reached, and no, he knew damn well that the Arab Spring would be a disaster. Hells bells, John, we had just toppled Saddam and created a power vacuum; how is doing the same thing in, say, Libya and expecting different results going to work? And Iran is on a firmer nuclear path because he's okay with that.

  • John||

    He is only interested in Obama, but being the ass clown under whose watch the party fell off a cliff definitely effects Obama. So he does care about the party albeit indirectly.

  • ||

    I'm curious as to how you think they were supposed to get "fake" legal status without providing their names and addresses.

    The thing is that this is exactly why many dreamers and parents of US citizens never bothered to apply for DACA/DAPA status. Because they feared that exactly this would happen.

    I'm also curious as to whether you're okay with that. Millions of people living in fear. Millions of people whose "crime" consists of working without permission slips.

  • John||

    I'm curious as to how you think they were supposed to get "fake" legal status without providing their names and addresses.

    They couldn't. That is why you don't give them fake legal status. That is what made the program so comical and cruel. Obama didn't' have the power to give them status. But rather than admit that, he dreamed up this pretend status that did nothing except make him feel good and set the people who signed up for it up for easy deportation. Only an idiot would have signed on to such a plan.

    The thing is that this is exactly why many dreamers and parents of US citizens never bothered to apply for DACA/DAPA status. Because they feared that exactly this would happen.

    Yes, A lot of people are smarter than Obama. I said at the time this was going to happen and that any person who signed up for this nonsense was a rube.

    I'm also curious as to whether you're okay with that. Millions of people living in fear. Millions of people whose "crime" consists of working without permission slips.

    They are living in fear by choice. They only are living in fear because they broke the law. They can always go home. The fact that they don't says that they must not mind living in fear or think it is worth it to stay here. That is their choice. I can't say they are wrong, so why should it bother me? You are just rephrasing the same question; "doesn't it bother you that not everyone can just show up and live here?" And no, Hazel is doesn't.

  • american socialist||

    Yea this is a good point. The whole living in fear for working is a play on one's emotions

    I think legal immigration should perhaps be streamlined and simplified. And the peaceful illegals should be given permanent legal status provided border is taken care of otherwise you just incentivize illegal immigration as opposed to legal since former would be easier. and perhaps citizenship but they would be lower priority

    That said they took the risk to sneak in and stay so "living in fear" is on them. Though i doubt if peaceful most arent living in fear

  • ||

    What counts as the border being taken care of? The total illegal immigrant population is not growing and hasn't been for almost a decade. You want to wait until there are absolutely zero illegal immigrants?

    Also, when we're talking about human rights, I would think pointing out the actual effects on actual human beings is worth pointing out. Should human beings live in fear for committing a victimless crime? Do human lives matter?

  • wareagle||

    What human right is there that allows for one person to wander into another's property and demand that the other person provide the first with food, housing, a job, and health care? The impact of illegals is real. California is a good example of letting your viewpoint rule the day. There is nothing "victimless" about forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for any number of things that are not his/her responsibility.

  • american socialist||

    If true which seems dubious then they should institute reform.

    Do you have a right to ignore the rules of an establishment based on your own personal preference?

  • wareagle||

    I'm curious with why you're okay with millions of Americans footing the bill for these folks, with millions of American IT workers being undercut by foreign-born professionals who are not filling a market demand, why it's okay to let in people from global hotspots and pretend they're all wonderful.

    If you can't be "bothered" by following the system, then I have no sympathy for you. Once more, the inability of a welfare state to mix with open borders is demonstrated, with the illegals making a show of foregoing food stamps because "that'll show Trump." Illegals. On food stamps.

  • John||

    Because Hazel doesn't care. If someone loses their job or gets murdered by some lunatic who came over from Somali, well that is just too fucking bad in Hazel's view. Your job and my job and everyone's job is to suffer whatever is necessary for Hazel to feel good about herself. We are not human beings to her. We are just cardboard cutouts in the morality play going on in her head.

  • ||

    Yes, because some white guy loses his job because his employer preferred to hire a Hispanic, you're damn right I don't give a shit.

  • wareagle||

    No, the employer didn't prefer "to hire a Hispanic," he preferred to hire an illegal at two-thirds the cost - if that - and force the rest of us to foot the bill for the Hispanic's family that came along. It's this sort of disingenuous bullshit mode of argument that does not wash. If the employer hired some second- or third-generation guy who happened to be of Hispanic descent, I don't give a shit, either. But please stop conflating the two.

  • ||

    There's nothing stopping a working class white guy from working for below minimum wage. Being an illegal alien isn't an advantage in the job market. And nobody's "footing the bill" for anything they wouldn't be footing the bill for for any working class US citizen. (Actually considerably less).

  • wareagle||

    Being an illegal alien isn't an advantage in the job market.
    Really? So an employer can pay anyone a flat hourly/daily fee and no one will care, right? Those corners where illegals congregate in hopes of picking work are not real, right?

    And nobody's "footing the bill" for anything they wouldn't be footing the bill for for any working class US citizen.
    So the parents of anchor babies are paying the tab, right? And they're contributing to school funding and all the rest. And so what if some of them are on welfare.

  • american socialist||

    What about hire a hispanic to get around labor laws?

  • ||

    Because I don't think not having to compete with foreigners is a human right.
    Because I think the right to engage in voluntary contracts with willing others IS.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's so much better when you leave out the crap about "white guys".

  • ||

    Because then you don't have to think about the racist implications of what Trump and his supporters are advocating?

    You think it's just an irrelevant coincidence that the people who benefit are white and the people who suffer are brown?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Because then you don't have to think about the racist implications of what Trump and his supporters are advocating?"

    At some point that word stops become an effective deterrent and starts becoming a badge of honor.

    Find a better argument.

    McDonalds doesn't sell hamburgers by calling its customers racists. If you want a girl to like you, maybe you take her out to a nice restaurant. Complement her. Tell her she's pretty.

    If you want her to kiss you, denouncing her as a racist is probably ineffective.

  • ||

    No, it doesn't. Racism is racism, and it must be called by it's name.

    I have no tolerance for kissing up to racist butts in the hopes they'll like me and maybe throw me a bone from the statist authoritarian table.

    You think this works for you but it will NOT. Those people have nothing but the deepest distain for libertarians. The trade protectionists HATE libertarians. They are NOT our friends. They are an old enemy and they know it, even if you don't. They are anti-free-market in the deepest most structural way.

  • John Titor||

    You think it's just an irrelevant coincidence that the people who benefit are white and the people who suffer are brown?

    When poor blacks are actually the number one group who benefit from restrictions on illegal immigration (and also support deportations rather loudly): Yes, you need to find a better argument that snide and childish rants about 'white males'.

  • ||

    Poor blacks aren't voting for these policies. They aren't the ones demanding the government protect them from economic competition.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Millions of people whose "crime" consists of working without permission slips."

    Are you arguing for a change in policy or that the government shouldn't enforce the law?

    Imagine if Congress declared a war that you opposed. Would you then be against Congress' power to declare war?

    Or would you simply oppose the policy?

    Immigration policy is like that. Saying that the law should be different is one thing. Saying that Congress' laws on immigration should be ignored or that setting the rules of naturalization should be taken away from Congress and given to the courts, etc. is like saying that Congress isn't the right vehicle for declaring war because they declared a war that you oppose.

  • ||

    The law is inhumane and immoral.

    There are millions of people who are otherwise eligible for legal status - people who are married to Americans and have US citizen children. People who have lived here 20 years, since they were babies. Human beings with lives and dreams and families. Who are forbidden from pursuing those lives and dreams because they don't have the right pieces of paper.

    Are you okay with that? Is that what you consider a "free society"?
    Do you think the preservation of a "free society" demands consigning million of people who are indistinguishable from your fellow citizens in every respect but the paperwork, to a rights-less condition?
    Are human rights only for people with the right paperwork?

  • ||

    So what do you do when confronted with a law that is inhumane? Demand that it be enforced because the law is the law? If your fellow citizens vote for inhumane laws do you support the enforcement of those inhumane laws nevertheless?

    I don't think so.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The other week, Dalmia argued that deportation was like enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

    I don't buy that.

    I know there is injustice in the world. If I were sitting on a jury, I know I'd stick to my conscience.

    But saying that neither the government nor Congress has a proper role in determining who can and can't come within our borders is going too far. If Congress has a proper role in determining who can and cannot come across our borders, then there will be deportations.

    I think the individual mandate is immoral. I think the income tax is immoral. At least the government has a proper, constitutionally enumerated role in setting naturalization policy. That can't be said for the individual mandate or taking a percentage of people's incomes because they earned it.

    How far do you want to go with this? Give me liberty or give me death?

    How 'bout "Give me an expansive immigration policy, or I'll whine and moan about it until you do"?

  • ||

    Which is worse:

    A) Forcing someone to purchase health insurance?
    B) Forbidding someone from having a job?

    Which one of those thing do you think harms a human being more?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The choice isn't between lesser or greater evils.

    It's what you're willing to do to change them.

    If you want to completely abandon the rule of law over immigration, realize you're doing it over something that is completely constitutional and properly within the purview of Congress.

    At some point, people will start to suspect your problem is with legitimately libertarian government.

    That doesn't help the cause of libertarianism--or immigration. It puts you out in left field somewhere--in left field on Planet X.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm all for having a more expansive legal immigration policy. I've outlined it above. I even want Mexican citizens (with a security check via ID) to be able to come back and forth across our border without a visa!

    I outlined it above here:

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6799714

    The question is whether you think Congress is rightly in control of immigration policy.

    The question is whether you think the rule of law should be damned insofar as it deports people for breaking immigration law.

    The question is whether you think Congress has a proper role in determining who can and can't be within our borders.

  • ||

    I think there are limits on the restrictions that a society may morally impose on who may enter it.
    To be specific, I think those limits are restricted to national security concerns. They may not include restrictions on peaceful non-violent exchange, and may not be used to protect select domestic demographic groups from economic competition.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I have a dream of living in Monte Carlo. Unfortunately, I don't have a piece of paper giving me leased space or proof of property ownership. Does the Prince owe me a house or an apartment with a nice view of the port?

  • ||

    If you have the money to purchase a house in Monte Carlo and a willing buyer who wants to sell you one, do you think it just that the government of Monte Carlo passes a law saying it's illegal to sell you one because they don't want any of that low-brow American yokel culture invading their nice European city?

  • ||

    If you have the money to purchase a house in Monte Carlo and a willing buyer who wants to sell you one, do you think it just that the government of Monte Carlo passes a law saying it's illegal to sell you one because they don't want any of that low-brow American yokel culture invading their nice European city?

  • Sevo||

    Gee, DanO, how original on your part!
    Fuck off.

  • Sevo||

    DanO.|3.20.17 @ 11:44AM|#
    "Nah, you fuck off, turd."

    Nah, YOU fuck off, turd.

  • John||

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCjJ80hz1JI

    I keep trying to help you. But you just won't listen.

  • John||

    I know you don't because if you did, you would understand how easily you could improve the quality of your comments on here. As for anyone else, I wouldn't expect them to click. They are not the one who needs the help.

  • Sevo||

    No wonder Brady and Trump are such buddies:

    "Tom Brady's Super Bowl jersey has been found after FBI help"
    [...]
    "Investigators with the Houston Police Department's Major Offenders Division traced the jersey to Mexico, Chief Art Acevedo tweeted Monday morning, adding that it was recovered with help from the FBI as well as Mexican authorities.
    [...]
    The 2017 jersey was found along with Brady's jersey from the team's 2015 Super Bowl victory "in the possession of a credentialed member of the international media," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement."
    http://www.sfgate.com/sports/t.....014038.php

  • american socialist||

    Another thing i find interesting is that republicans having congress is a relatively new thing at least since the 1930s.

  • ||

    The fear of illegal immigration is a false one being whipped up by demagogues.
    The illegal immigrant population leveled off around 8 years ago.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fac.....-a-decade/

    ... unauthorized immigrants are less likely than those in the past to be recent arrivals. The share of unauthorized-immigrant adults who have lived in the U.S. for a decade or more has risen, from 41% in 2005 to 66% in 2014, according to the Center's new estimates.

    http://www.migrationpolicy.org.....ipated-new

    In total, MPI estimates the anticipated new deferred action program and expanded DACA initiative could benefit as many as 5.2 million people — nearly half of the 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States (see table below for national and top state breakdowns).

    In other words, we're not getting very many illegal immigrants anymore, the ones who are here have been here a long time, and would mostly be eligible for legal status if not for the law's prohibition on former illegal aliens applying for legal status. Removing them would involve breaking up families and inflict significant harm on millions of US citizens, which would be inhumane.

    There are human values that trump whether working class white guys get low-skilled jobs or not.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I hope you appreciate what I'm trying to tell you up above.

    When people can't tell whether you're saying that we should have more immigration or whether you're saying that we should have no control over who does and doesn't come across our borders, the argument that we should have a more expansive legal immigration policy loses with the people whose support we need to make our legal immigration policy more expansive.

    I'll add to that, when you're pointlessly disdainful of low skilled "working class white guys", specifically, you lose the swing voters in every state west of Philadelphia and East of Los Angeles.

    It's hard to convince those guys that immigration helps the economy when you're denigrating them and their concerns.

  • ||

    My distain is only for working class white guys who think they are entitled to be protected from competition.
    Nobody is entitled to a job or to have other people's rights restricted so they can have first access to it.

    Moreover, let me again point out - we're not getting that many illegal immigrants anymore. So this is a false concern. The employment prospects of working class white guys ISN'T being threatened by illegal immigration.
    If they don't have jobs, it's NOT because of waves of brown people coming over the border, because that simply isn't happening

  • Ken Shultz||

    Working class white guys are especially sensitive to elitism and being denigrated for being white, blue collar, etc.

    People forgetting that is why Donald Trump is in the White House. If you don't want him or others like him in the White House in the future, you better figure out how to address their concerns rather than being dismissive.

  • ||

    I'm more into fighting Nazis than into being nice to them to try to make them like me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Don't mistake the battlefield for the enemy.

    The enemy is statist authoritarians who are anti-free markets and anti-capitalism.

    Average working Joes are the battlefield, and we need to win as much of the battlefield as possible.

  • ||

    The enemy includes statist authoritarians who believe people should be judged collectively according to their race, religion and ethnicity.

    Anti-capitalism is not the only evil form of collectivism.

    Moreover, average working Joes advocating protectionist trade policies and limited immigration are statist douchbags who are, by definition, against capitalism, because they are FOR government enforced protection of themselves from competition. They are not our friends. They are culturally conservative AND economically statist. That offers very little in the way of possible alliances to libertarians.

  • Rhywun||

    I seem to recall that there are a lot of working-class non-white guys out of work too.

  • american socialist||

    The priority is those who have committed other crimes. There is no possible way to go after all these and it won't happen which is why there is priority. Spare me the emotional claptrap. Your last sentence is telling on what you are going for...it is to make you feel superior, not that you have much of an argument cause if you did you wouldn't appeal to emotion

  • ||

    You know, if you think there's something emotionally upsetting about separating parents from their children and husbands from their wives, maybe that's because there's something morally wrong with it.

  • Longtobefree||

    "Everyone is offended by the actions of ICE."
    Not everyone.

  • creech||

    Wait, isn't Cinco de Mayo a celebration of Mexicans standing up to and defeating French imperialists? So, isn't it somewhat ironic that these jokers in Philly are surrendering and cowering in fear because they are afraid of what might happen?

  • mtrueman||

    Wait, isn't Cinco de Mayo a celebration of Mexicans standing up to and defeating French imperialists?


    No.

  • creech||

    Sorry, I should know better than to believe Wikipedia:
    "Cinco de Mayo (pronounced: [ˈsiŋko ðe ˈmaʝo]; Spanish for "Fifth of May") is a celebration held on May 5. The date is observed to commemorate the Mexican Army's unlikely victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, under the leadership of General Ignacio Zaragoza.[1][2]"

  • John||

    Wikipedia is right. That is exactly what it is. And yes, it was a victory over French Imperialists.

  • Rich||

    "Everyone is offended by the actions of ICE."

    I told you a million times: Don't exaggerate!

  • John||

    I am pretty sure the 60 million or so people who voted for Trump are not offended. They voted for Trump expecting him to ensure ICE acted like this.

  • Robert||

    Is this posturing, or is it paternalism? What would be the problem with holding the events on a participant-beware basis? So then is it paternalism, because it's bad to allow people to take a risk? Or is it posturing, because they don't really believe there even is such a risk, but if they pretend there's one they've created a valuable straw enemy?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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