MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

'We As Legislators Can’t Keep ICE From Lying' About Being Local Cops

ICE agents undermine public safety when they pretend to be local police to gain entry to immigrants' homes.

Orit Ben-Ezzer/ZUMA Press/NewscomOrit Ben-Ezzer/ZUMA Press/NewscomWhy would a family of undocumented immigrants allow federal agents without a warrant to search their house? Because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents misidentify themselves as local police.

"We have repeatedly seen ICE go to people's homes and coerce people to authorize entry under the mistaken belief that [the agents] are police," Michael Kaufman, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, tells Governing magazine.

The practice doesn't just threaten those in the U.S. illegally. "It undermines public safety in these communities if people feel like they might be getting tricked," Kaufman says.

Los Angeles authorities worry ICE will undermine decades of work the city has done to convince undocumented immigrants that cooperating with police on criminal matters won't lead to their detention and deportation.

California recently passed a law (AB 1440) to try to thwart this practice, stipulating that ICE agents in California are "not allowed to refer to themselves as a police officer." But it's a toothless endeavor—states and municipalities don't have the authority to dictate what federal law enforcement officers can and cannot do. (Kaufman says the new legislation was meant to send "a message" to the feds.)

California isn't the only place upset about ICE's tactices. From Governing:

In March, city officials in Hartford, Conn., sharply rebuked ICE agents for wearing uniforms that only said 'POLICE' while trying to lure a woman to a public safety building so they could detain her. The Southern Poverty Law Center accused ICE of deceiving Atlanta residents by stating they were police officers searching for a criminal and for sometimes even showing them photos of a random black man they said was their suspect.

While it is legal for ICE agents to identify themselves as police, the practice becomes illegal once it leads to an unlawful search of a person's home or car. In Texas, lawyers successfully argued that ICE agents violated a woman's constitutional protections when they identified themselves as police and showed her photos of a stranger to coerce her into letting them into her home.

ICE has defended the practice by saying that "police" is a general term for law enforcement agents and that it is necessary to convey ICE agents' status to non-English speakers.

It's a weak defense. If ICE agents' real concern was simply to convey their authority, why not identify themselves as "immigration police"? Why identify as police when talking to people who clearly understand English? Why the pretense of chasing a criminal suspect?

Alas, there's little anyone outside the federal government can do about the subterfuge. As California Assemblymember Ash Kalra told Governing: "It's unfortunate, but we as legislators can't keep ICE from lying. If they want to misrepresent themselves, they can do that."

U.S. Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D–N.Y.) has proposed federal legislation "to prohibit immigration officers or agents of the Department of Homeland Security, including officers and agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, from wearing clothing, accessories, or other items bearing the word 'police' while performing duties under the immigration laws." The bill has attracted 19 co-sponsors (all Democrats), but it has gone nowhere since it was introduced in April.

Photo Credit: Orit Ben-Ezzer/ZUMA Press/Newscom

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.

  • damikesc||

    Sorry...still unable to give a shit.

    Don't want these issues? Don't be here illegally.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ True libertarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. He respects property rights and national sovereignty.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Obviously.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Evidently you don't want to see it.

  • Calidissident||

    Are you saying the government owns the whole country? Immigration restrictions necessarily restrict property rights, as they control who you can do business and associate with. Contrary to what people perceive of me, I'm actually not insistent on 100% pure open borders, but let's not pretend immigration restrictions are a pro-property rights policy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. The United States has sovereignty over all US territory and territorial waters.

    Inside that sovereignty, states agreed to defer some of their sovereignty to the federal government and then the states have sovereignty over the rest. Local government and counties then manage local property.

    Then you have Joe and Jane American who "own" their property within the scope of state and federal sovereignty and protected by the US Constitution.

  • Juice||

    The United States has sovereignty over

    you house, your land, your job, your business dealings, your personal associations, etc.

    True libertarianism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The USA has sovereignty over "your" property but that doe not mean they own it.

    The states banded together to give some state sovereignty to a federal government to provide for the common defense, regulating trade between states, etc. Basically to keep states on a level playing field.

    You're right, that is Libertarianism.

  • Juice||

    The USA has sovereignty over "your" property but that doe not mean they own it.

    ouch, that facepalm hurt

    If you own yourself, would you say you are sovereign over yourself? Or does someone else have sovereignty (supreme authority) over you? Would you say you have sovereignty over your property or does someone else?

    You're right, that is Libertarianism.

    So libertarianism is about sovereignty of the United States over you and your property.

  • techgump||

    Nicely said.

  • Calidissident||

    So say sovereignty. That isn't property rights.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Clearly, you just are way out of your depth.

    Let me know when you read a bit about sovereignty and property rights and their roles in the USA.

  • Juice||

    Clearly.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Juice:
    That was for Calidissident.

    To reply to your comment, I am not sure how to explain to you about how private property ownership fits into a sovereign nation's border more than I have.

    You don't have absolute rights over your property in the USA. Just like the states and federal government do not have absolute rights to property you own either. This is why government eminent domain was spelled out in the Constitution and receiving just compensation for property taken under that clause.

  • Juice||

    You don't have absolute rights over your property in the USA.

    Just how any true libertarian likes it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Because one thing Libertarianism is all about is absolute rights.

    My right to walk from point A to B is absolute, fuck your property rights.

    My right to talk is absolute, so here comes my imminent verbal threat to cause you harm.

    My right to talk is absolute, so here comes my lies to get you to give me money. Its not fraud after all because my right is absolute.

    Libertarianism: Absolute Liberty not maximum Liberty and rule of law.

  • techgump||

    Um, huh? Rights are absolute... that's why they are called Rights, not permissions. No libertarian has argued any act a person can commit is a Right, and is absolute. WTF are you talking about?

  • agricola||

    no that's completely wrong. US territory is Washington DC, federal property, and maybe actual territories like a few outlying pacific islands. you have the fat ass social studies suburban clusterfuck mentality that comes from endless years mouth dribbling at school.

    "immigration" is a power that was delegated to the United States along with control over "importation". it has something to do with commerce and ports, hence "deportation": removing out of a port.

    nobody is "here" illegally. these are 50 large States (some smaller) and only those powers control the question of foreign nationals residing or visiting their territory. nearly every prosecution under the INA is itself a fraud, just like the illegal drug war that pretends people on the street are pharmacists.

  • Phos||

    And the constitution does not grant general power of immigration to the federal government. They have two (2) specific powers in regard to slaves.

    1. They can charge a tax or fee of up to $10.
    2. They can abolish the importation of slaves after a certain date. (1808 I think.)

    Section 9 - The Text
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

  • Tionico||

    this is concerning the "importation" of new people up until the year 1808. The Constitution clearly assigns to Congress the job of developing a "uniform" pathway to naturalisation, and I believe it assigns dealing with entry, visas, etc, to the President. In any case, a law enacted by Congress a few years back puts entry issues onto the shoulders of the Executive Branch. and recent law drops that squarely onto the president's shoulders......

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That Clause addresses slaves and migration of persons. Slaves don't migrate- immigrants do.

  • BYODB||

    You can't have open borders and a country. You would be assimilated by someone else, and all of those so-called 'Libertarian' ideals of a one-world government would evaporate.

    A lot of people around here are retarded and don't understand that borders are dividing lines between rules of law. Without borders, you have no rule of law that isn't imposed on you by any faction who cares to walk onto your non-enforced 'private property' and claim it as their own en masse.

    It's you and your family versus, say, the entire Mexican army. Ask those who fought at the Alamo how that worked out for them.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Without borders, you have no rule of law that isn't imposed on you by any faction who cares to walk onto your non-enforced 'private property' and claim it as their own en masse.

    It's you and your family versus, say, the entire Mexican army. Ask those who fought at the Alamo how that worked out for them.

    What kind of retard would find this unpersuasive?

  • Juice||

    It's you and your family versus, say, the entire Mexican army.

    Well, I'm convinced because you can't possibly organize a defense force without strict enforcement of strict immigration laws.

  • BYODB||


    Well, I'm convinced because you can't possibly organize a defense force without strict enforcement of strict immigration laws.

    Doesn't address any particular point, but loose organizations of disparate people defending their homes have historically been overwhelmed and assimilated by more organized hostile forces throughout all of history. Occasionally, such as in the U.S., we won due to primitive logistics not being up to the task for waging war on the other side of the planet and the indigenous people's being A) wiped out by plague and B) having primitive weapons not up to the task of fighting 'modern' technology.

    No offense, but this is one of the biggest and most glaring weak spots in Libertarian philosophy. It makes libertarians look just as childishly naïve as Marxists to walk around bleating about 'open borders'. It's to misunderstand not only all of history, but also base human nature itself.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The retards that find open border policy, not being harmful to US interests, persuasive.

  • Juice||

    What if US interests are in conflict with a private person's interests? Tough shit because the US is your sovereign?

  • BYODB||

    More or less, yes. That is the nature of a Democratic Republic. If one person's interest is against that of the many their interest is normally subordinate. The key is to limit the area's where the state has any interest so that the fewest possible people find themselves on the receiving end of the statist stick.

    The state itself is a necessarily evil, which is why it is a beast that must remain chained.

  • BYODB||

    Just so I can make it clear that I also disagree with you, an open border policy for immigration is not necessarily harmful to U.S. interests. It's only harmful to U.S. interests in that the U.S. has a lot of domestic policy that makes a more open border a bad idea RE: an expansive welfare state.

    Our current immigration system favors skilled labor we need in America over, say, migrant fruit pickers with no education. Why is this a bad thing? I'm not sure. We don't need migrant fruit pickers with no education, so why should we let them in when the most likely result is they go on the public dole?

    Remove the public dole option for everyone and I would be much more receptive to the idea. I have no problem holding open borders immigration hostage for that result.

  • BYODB||

    Fortunately, since Libertarianism is a tiny minority persuasion doesn't enter the picture because as a rule we have absolutely no political power whatsoever so there is no particular pressing need to persuade.

    Ergo 'convincing' you that all of history happened isn't a priority over pointing out how laughably absurd this position is.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Still, you did convince me. Your understanding of the 'open borders' argument is without equal, and your refutation is nuanced and exhaustive. I'm already printing up the t-shirts:

    I Was Open Borders Until I Remembered The Alamo

  • ||

    You can have borders delineating areas under different sets of laws without restricting motion across those borders - like the states within the US, or the countries within the EU.

    Ask those who fought at the Alamo how that worked out for them.

    Wouldn't that be more accurately described as a civil war rather than a foreign invasion?

  • BYODB||


    You can have borders delineating areas under different sets of laws without restricting motion across those borders - like the states within the US, or the countries within the EU.

    Exactly, which is why the Libertarians who are 'for' open borders are in reality for a one-world government a la the United Nations makes the rules for everyone.

    Wouldn't that be more accurately described as a civil war rather than a foreign invasion?

    It would, although ironically it was because the Mexican government invited in a whole lot of immigrants with open borders.

    Oops.

  • ||

    Exactly, which is why the Libertarians who are 'for' open borders are in reality for a one-world government a la the United Nations makes the rules for everyone.

    I don't think that's necessarily true. We have an essentially open border with Canada, but that doesn't mean we, in any sense, share a government with Canada.

    It would, although ironically it was because the Mexican government invited in a whole lot of immigrants with open borders.

    Had the Mexican government decided to "close" whatever "border" may have existing at some place in Texas in, say, 1810, how would that have changed history? Would they have built a wall from Santa Fe to the Gulf Coast?

    Weren't "Mexicans" and "Americans" settling Texas essentially simultaneously, anyway?

  • BYODB||


    I don't think that's necessarily true. We have an essentially open border with Canada, but that doesn't mean we, in any sense, share a government with Canada.

    False. We don't have an 'open border' with Canada, 'essentially' or otherwise. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have more free immigration or more free trade or what have you, I'm referring specifically to the recurring theme around here that the Government does not have the authority to control immigration or set law to differentiate itself through borders from neighboring states.


    Weren't "Mexicans" and "Americans" settling Texas essentially simultaneously, anyway?

    Not sure what your point is, but the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of Americans moved into Texas and the south in general as a direct result of Mexico opening those borders and inviting them in. Their ideals clashed, the Mexican government tried to tamp down on it, and ultimately war was the result.

    The better question is why we think it would be any different today. Culturally the war was an inevitability regardless of the direct consequences that led to it.

  • ||

    False. We don't have an 'open border' with Canada, 'essentially' or otherwise.

    We may talking apples to oranges here. One of my central issues with "closed border" types, to be reductive and simplistic, is this belief that this imaginary line actually stops people and goods from moving across borders.

    I've known quite a number of permanent illegal residents, and roughly half came across the Canadian border. Because you can pretty much just walk across the Canadian border, no questions asked, and then overstay your visa. It happens literally all the time, and our society has not yet collapsed.

    Which plays into my second point. In the period 1800-1840, what difference did Mexico's attitude toward the border between Texas and not-Texas make to anything at all?

  • ||

    Which plays into my second point. In the period 1800-1840, what difference did Mexico's attitude toward the border between Texas and not-Texas make to anything at all?

    In other words, just to be clear about what I'm saying, let's say that Mexico had a closed border policy. What difference would that have made? Would the war not have happened?

  • BYODB||

    If Mexico had never invited open immigration into Texas we would have delayed or completely avoided the Mexican-American war (which was a joke) and the Civil War itself might have even been put off for at least another decade. So yeah, it was a pretty big deal.

    It turns out that Texans didn't much care for the idea of being a human-shield to protect Mexico from Indian raids, which was of course the impetus behind inviting the open immigration in the first place. Well, that and the promise of tax revenue I'm sure.

  • ||

    If Mexico had never invited open immigration into Texas we would have delayed or completely avoided the Mexican-American war (which was a joke) and the Civil War itself might have even been put off for at least another decade.

    Were immigrants to Texas really just waiting for an invitation from Mexico? I know some Texas history, but obviously I know California history better.

    The immigrants who were travelling the Oregon trail as far as I know gave not two shits about the Mexican government's opinion, and the governing powers in California (the Mariano Vallejo crowd) had very little interest as well (Vallejo went on to serve in the state legislature after the war).

    They welcomed settlers with open arms, unless, like John Fremont, they showed up as representatives of the US military in a hostile bearing, in which case they weren't particularly welcomed and were advised to leave.

    In the case of CA, the scales tipped towards the English-speaking immigrants with the Gold Rush, and that was the simple math of geography - the US had open routes to CA, Mexico didn't. Mexico could have declared a closed-border policy, but it would have meant exactly jack shit.

    And I don't get the impression that John Tyler and James K. Polk much cared, either.

  • BYODB||


    Were immigrants to Texas really just waiting for an invitation from Mexico?

    Yes, absolutely, at least by-and-large although obviously not 100% as you yourself point out. Would there have been immigration anyway, legal or otherwise? Absolutely, and there was as a point of fact.

    Would it have been to the same scale that caused two separate civil wars and a third war between nations? No, or at least 'probably not' on the balance of things.
    The General Colonization Law of 1824 was pretty close to open borders?

    By 1823, approximately 3,000 Americans from the United States were living illegally in Texas. The roughly 200 Mexican troops garrisoned in the province were unable to effectively patrol the borders to keep out additional squatters, nor were they powerful enough to evict the squatters already there. Proponents of immigration reform argued that legalizing these settlers would help to turn their loyalty towards Mexico.

    Haha, that sure worked out!

  • ||

    Haha, that sure worked out!

    What was the other option?

    In fairness, I'm starting from my own historical assumptions that Mexico was deluded to try to claim sovereignty over TX and CA in the first place. They couldn't even maintain an open road to CA (the Yuma wouldn't let them), and if CA disputes had to be appealed, the closest appeals court was literally in Guadalajara.

    TX and CA represent the Spanish Empire having reached a phase of expansion-by-sheer-habit, and over-extension into CA and TX was, IMHO, a big part of why the Spanish Empire collapsed.

    When it did collapse, it seemed to me like it wasn't perfectly clear whether Mexican independence meant that the "Mexican Empire" included CA and TX or not. Mexico, obviously, decided that it did, but the residents of CA and TX were less unanimous about that.

    My views are very heavily geography-based, and I think there are certain "natural lines of sovereignty," so to speak, that Empires expand from at their peril. I also think the US will eventually lose the West Coast, again for purely geographic reasons.

  • BYODB||

    Because there is a difference between a few thousand squatters and inviting in thousands-to-hundreds-of-thousands of people, sometimes with open bribery to immigrate. They basically hired 'headhunters' to go and get tons of people, bring them to Texas, and settle. In some situations, for every 100 people (perhaps families) the headhunter would receive more property (or better property allotments).

    To pretend this would have no effect is to be pretty stupid, no offense. It's a question of incentives, as always, and in this case the incentive wasn't enough for most to move to Texas until essentially free land was offered. At least one disincentive was it was illegal, and your legal status was always in question. For all they knew, Spain (or eventually Mexico) would simply come around and shoot you and your family and burn it to the ground. Spain, luckily, didn't give shits and Mexico was incompetent.

    Things are a lot different now, I'm not claiming a perfect comparison, but in this case the end result of all that open immigration was a civil war and eventual split. History is littered with case studies, I'm still waiting for a counter-example or meaningful critique but it's late in the day so I'm pretty sure there won't be one.

  • BYODB||


    When it did collapse, it seemed to me like it wasn't perfectly clear whether Mexican independence meant that the "Mexican Empire" included CA and TX or not. Mexico, obviously, decided that it did, but the residents of CA and TX were less unanimous about that.


    This isn't actually historically accurate. The United States gave up it's claim, since it didn't really have one, which left the area to Mexico. This ended up being resolved in the Mexican-American War, which was set off primarily through Texas being annexed into the United States where obviously Mexico lost for the reasons you lay out, primarily overextension of their forces in the first place.

    They lost to just the Texas colonists at San Jacinto (admittedly a sneak attack), so it was always a given they would lose vs. the United States and the Texas colonists.

    But you seem to be saying that there would have been enough Texan colonists to do that if their status as colonists was unsure, when they could be shot on sight as law breakers. That seems inaccurate at best since they went from a few thousand at most to hundred's of thousands just a few years/decades later. It isn't coincidence this lined up with immigration law changes.

  • ||

    They basically hired 'headhunters' to go and get tons of people, bring them to Texas, and settle.

    See - I did not know this - this is very interesting. My perspective on the Mex-American War is very colored by looking at it from California's point-of-view, but of course California was only conquered as a follow-on result of a war that really started over Texas.

    But this isn't really a good example of an open borders, policy, is it - a government actively sending people out to scout out new citizens and pay them to immigrate?

    California had its big wave of immigration with the Gold Rush, which obviously was its own incentive. California was part of the US then, and as such had an open border with the rest of the US (and, in practice, Mexico, Canada, Japan, China, and Russia), and IIRC the settled population of California was still more than 50% Spanish-speakers as of December, 1848, while more than half the population was still "unsettled."

    The Gold Rush completely changed the state, and the pre-1848 populations were small (but wealthy) minorities by 1850. And there was no war.

    My only point is that ultimately whether or not you have open or closed borders doesn't really matter for the big stuff, but that open borders are a better ideal to strive towards than closed borders. But obviously one country can't just drop all its protections all at once and expect that there will be no consequences when no one else does.

  • BYODB||

    I'm not for closed or open borders, I'm critical of both positions for very similar reasons that you outline.

    What I'm for is a rational and well-defined legal framework for the immigration system to function rather than everyone ignoring those bits of the law they want to ignore and implementing things that are frankly retarded like a wall.

    Of the two positions, I find the open borders position to be the more absurd since there have never been and probably never will be truly open borders as described by most of those who advocate for them. Unless, of course, there's a one-world government and/or regulatory body that oversee's all immigration but this doesn't appear to be the end result those advocates favor even while it would be the only effective means of having them.

  • ||

    What I'm for is a rational and well-defined legal framework for the immigration system to function rather than everyone ignoring those bits of the law they want to ignore and implementing things that are frankly retarded like a wall.

    Agreed. But we are in an era in which selectively ignoring laws is necessary to function. Every government agency I have ever worked for (which is a lot) has had the attitude that it's best to keep everyone in a state of forgiveness for non-compliance. That's how you keep your leverage.

    Of the two positions, I find the open borders position to be the more absurd since there have never been and probably never will be truly open borders as described by most of those who advocate for them.

    And there have never been completely closed borders, but I would argue that those countries that have tried have damaged themselves far more than countries that haven't.

  • BYODB||

    The nations who have had more open borders in terms of immigration have actually been destroyed far more often and more frequently than those with more closed borders too, but hey as long as we're revising history why not. Being murdered if caught crossing a border tends to have a kind of chilling effect in that regard, RE: North Korea.

    Trade does not equal immigration and immigration does not equal trade.

    Again, I would say more immigration is a fine thing but it's not even one of my top ten main interests since it primarily affects non-U.S. citizens and there is no human right to enter the United States. I might feel bad that someone lives in, say, an Islamic Sharia state but that is none of my business. They are welcome to revolt in their home country and make things better, but the more open U.S. immigration is the less incentive there is for anyone to reform their home nations.

    Me feeling bad for someone doesn't necessarily translate into some new human right being woven out of whole cloth.

  • ||

    The nations who have had more open borders in terms of immigration have actually been destroyed far more often and more frequently than those with more closed borders too

    Examples?

    The Roman Empire, for example, was arguably torn down by German barbarians because the Romans wouldn't let them cross the border and settle within the Empire. If you set up a barrier against a force that is continually increasing in pressure, eventually your barrier breaks.

    The Romans would have done a lot better accepting the offer of the Visigoths to fight the Huns on behalf of the Romans rather than saying "we've had enough of you foreign immigrants,
    confine yourself to this reservation in the Carpathians."

    Being murdered if caught crossing a border tends to have a kind of chilling effect in that regard, RE: North Korea.

    Do people often get murdered sneaking into North Korea?

    But I do agree with your overall point that we can't just snap our fingers and have an open border right now. As you say, there are tens of millions of unfortunate refugees who are facing closed borders left and right such that if we suddenly opened ours, it's not hard to see where they'll go. And yes, it's a bad situation for them, but we can't take every suffering soul in the world and let them wander indigently around our country instead of their own - that just makes no sense at all.

  • BYODB||


    The Roman Empire, for example, was arguably torn down by German barbarians because the Romans wouldn't let them cross the border and settle within the Empire. If you set up a barrier against a force that is continually increasing in pressure, eventually your barrier breaks.

    Well, no, because 'settle' in this case meant loot, pillage, rape, and steal so probably not a super great example. Especially since they involved protracted military campagins, so 'war' might actually be a far better comparison in that one rather than some kind of immigration. Roman immigration meant conquest, though, so perhaps just an all around bad example since 'war' was essentially their immigration platform.

    As for North Korea, I don't know, try sneaking in? I'm pretty sure you'd be shot though, in either direction.


    And yes, it's a bad situation for them, but we can't take every suffering soul in the world and let them wander indigently around our country instead of their own - that just makes no sense at all.

    Indeed. The idea that we can fix the world through immigration is bullshit and it's being sold by bullshit artists that prey on people's conscience. Fuck those people.

  • ||

    Well, no, because 'settle' in this case meant loot, pillage, rape, and steal so probably not a super great example.

    This is not really an accurate picture. The Germanic peoples came into Northern Europe largely fleeing the Huns.

    The Romans had successfully absorbed a number of Germanic tribes - they just started not wanting to anymore round about the end of the fourth century. A hundred years later some pretty fucking foul tempered barbarians finally broke through and did some real damage.

  • Tionico||

    Uhhh.. we USED to have an essentially open boundary with Canade. but no more. And THAT change is at the insistence of OUR gummit, wanting a record of and control over which is US bother to cross ove. I've ridden my bicycle across that border both ways with no more than a not of the head in my direction. Lately I can't even ride into Canada without my valid US passport. And trying to reenter this silly country without that would REALLY create a scene.. HOW did you get into Canada? WHEN did you enter, and WHERE. And WHERE did you go when you were there, WHOM did you see...... that sort of thing. Nosey bizibodies, anyway. What's it to THEM all that. What is at issue is whether I can lawfully enter the US.

  • Chuckles_the_Snarky_Piggy||

    "You can't have open borders and a country. You would be assimilated by someone else, and all of those so-called 'Libertarian' ideals of a one-world government would evaporate."

    LOL, false equivocation there, buddy. If the US had 30,000 citizens, you have a point. But we are a nation of 330,000,000.

    Your premise is flawed because what you are describing is not immigration, which entails some degree of emigree wanting to assimilate in their new home. What you ARE describing is colonization, which is how the US came to exist in the first place.

    I am confident that we are not in danger of colonization.

  • BYODB||

    But we're only a nation of 330,000,000 because it's considered one nation which is what people are specifically arguing it should not be.

    It assumes now, and current events, as the starting point and only after some magical change everything becomes groovy through completely open borders, but that assumption in and of itself is massively flawed since Civil War and external war would be the immediate and predictable result.

    Are you so blind to history that you seriously can not see the inherent utopianism of this theory?

  • Calidissident||

    I just said I'm not insisting on 100% open borders, so what is your point? I'm just saying it isn't a binary situation where if you're not totally pro-open borders you must support every immigration law and method of enforcement.

    Your hypothetical is dumb as people have pointed out. Open borders doesn't mean you have to let the Mexican army invade. The US had open borders for about a century, and almost totally open borders for a few decades after that. I'm pretty sure we didn't just let armies invade at will in those days. The EU today has open borders internally, but that doesn't mean any of those countries would let a neighboring state invade. The US has open borders internally, but that doesn't mean a state would have to sit by if it was invaded by an army from a neighboring state.

  • BYODB||

    If you're not '100% open borders' than what makes you think I'm talking about you?

  • BYODB||

    Also, what era are you talking about with this bit here:

    The US had open borders for about a century, and almost totally open borders for a few decades after that. I'm pretty sure we didn't just let armies invade at will in those days.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Without borders, you have no rule of law that isn't imposed on you by any faction who cares to walk onto your non-enforced 'private property' and claim it as their own en masse."'

    Some people's idea of no borders comes with the idea that there will be one government and we are all under those rules.

  • BYODB||


    Some people's idea of no borders comes with the idea that there will be one government and we are all under those rules.

    I don't think this is what they actually mean, but it's the only way it could ever be achieved. They are actually so naïve as to think otherwise. It's the libertarian version of 'it's not true socialism'.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    There is no borders (what I was referencing), and open borders. With the latter, you would still be subject to the laws of the country you enter, but you could do so freely.

    I could be for open borders as long as there is reciprocity. That's one of the things that annoy me about people that have an issue with the concept of enforcing immigration laws. They are demanding an open border scenario which is one side. It reeks of giving immigrants more rights than citizens.

  • agricola||

    how is it European countries have open borders with each other yet maintain their laws and sovereignty?

  • damikesc||

    Are you saying the government owns the whole country? Immigration restrictions necessarily restrict property rights, as they control who you can do business and associate with. Contrary to what people perceive of me, I'm actually not insistent on 100% pure open borders, but let's not pretend immigration restrictions are a pro-property rights policy.

    That I am required to pay property taxes else I lose my property and freedom indicates that I do not have total control over my land.

  • agricola||

    well it's fucked up is the point

  • Tionico||

    Not quite so...... imigration restrictions (when applied per existing law) WILL keep certian people out of this country, or remove them if found here contra the law. But in almost every case, YOU can go to where THEY are and conduct whatever business you care to conduct... subject, of course, to any laws binding in that other country.

    Since the illegal invaders should not even BE here, yes in that sense you are "restricted" from doing business with them here. You are practically restricted in your business dealings with others in many other foreign country, as they simply will never come here.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He also apparently supports the legal rights of federal agents to lie to you and enter your home under false pretenses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It SHOULD be illegal for police to lie but it isn't.

    !!!!Vote to make lying illegal by government officials!!!!

    If you are stupid enough to not know your rights and enforce those rights that's on you when allow a consensual search by police.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    But you are going beyond that.

    Here you are defending it by saying something like, "Of course the government is going to lie. Know your rights to fight against them."

    But elsewhere you seem to be actively cheering on the dishonest representation of government officials to attack a group you dislike. That is, their lying is not just inevitable but good.

    Also, you have the cute repetition throughout that nothing can happen to you because you know your rights.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Be prepared for lying government scumbags.

    I am prepared against lying government and non-government scumbags.

    You open border types have to articulate an illegal activity by government agents here.

    Lying by agents is not illegal but it may be douchey. Lying to government agents IS illegal and douchey.

  • Phos||

    The United States is a sovereign nation in respect to foreign nations. However internally the federal government is NOT sovereign, by design. Sovereignty is accepted as absolute uncontested authority. But our constitutional republic has multiple divisions of power. Executive, Legislative, Judicial. Also Federal, State, County, City, etc.

    In some areas the Federal Government is sovereign, in some areas the States are sovereign, and in some areas the people are sovereign. Since sovereignty by definition is an absolutist concept and not one of degrees, either something is sovereign or it is not. In the United States there is no one legitimate source or center of sovereignty.

    In fact "Sovereign" is not in the constitution. Quite the contrary, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States." Sovereign is a title of nobility. When the Supreme Court bestowed "sovereign immunity" on the federal government, it was traitorous BS, violating this clause of Article 1 Section 9, the right to petition for a redress of wrongs (what do you think a law suit is?) clause of the First Amendment, and their own oath the defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic all in one fell swoop.

    Bunch of black robed traitorous cucks.

    And if that was not enough, I was assured by Schoolhouse Rock that the point of the American Revolution was "NO MORE KINGS!"

  • damikesc||

    So, allowing anybody who wants to be here in is required to be a libertarian?

    Well, I'm happily not one then.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    LINOs are sprinkled throughout.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unfortunately for you, enforcing border sovereignty is not authoritarianism.

    Ignoring rule of law is not Libertarian though and that seems to apply to you.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    There's at least some strain of authoritarianism in lying to people to enter their home without a warrant.

    The inability to get a warrant indicates that they already don't have enough evidence to get a warrant for the place. Which certainly makes it sound like they are doing somewhat random searches on people with the hopes of finding someone. Which is also insanely suspicious.

  • BYODB||

    You're both right, and you're both wrong.

    So congrats.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I probably agree with you that police should not be trying to trick people into waiving their rights.

    People can voluntarily waive their constitutional rights, so where do you draw the line? The courts draw it at police asking for consensual searching authorization if they don't have a warrant.

    As I said, police would not be doing this if people stood up for their rights and "no searching without a warrant".

    It is unreasonable, I think, to prohibit police from asking for permission in a Constitutionally permissible manner.

  • damikesc||

    Yes. My having a lock on my front door is also hella authoritarian.

  • agricola||

    your house is just like a huge continent

  • Juice||

    Well, I'm happily not one then.

    Thanks for the honesty.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Also, don't look like you're here illegally. Also, if you are here legally, make sure you carry all your documents on you at all times and have the number of an influential lawyer or two.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah, that's how these things go down.

    Brown people gotta go, ammirite?

  • BambiB||

    Los Angeles authorities worry ICE will undermine decades of work the city has done to convince undocumented immigrants that cooperating with police on criminal matters won't lead to their detention and deportation.

    Well, that's a start. The next step is for them to believe that every knock at the door is going to lead to them spending 5 years in prison and losing all their property. Maybe when they start to think that way they'll leave. Personally, since their very presence in America is a violation of law, I think we should strip all PROTECTIONS of law from them. If they get robbed, raped, beaten, killed - too fucking bad. Your very presence is a crime.

  • Hugh Akston||

    This is the police state that border clenchers want.

  • Calidissident||

    Amply demonstrated by the first comment.

  • damikesc||

    A desire to not be bankrupted by massive influxes of people we are required to financially support is borderline fascist, clearly.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To these lefty fascist non-Libertarians it is.

  • Lester224||

    RIghty-facist, lefty-facist who cares? If you're mainly facist than it doesn't matter which way you lean. RIghty facists tend to be authoritarian, love the idea of a police state and hate brown people. A lefty-facist tendency is to think "hate speech" should be illegal or promotion of centralized power as long as the centralized power professes progressive tendencies.

  • damikesc||

    And a Libertarian seems awfully adept at slaughtering straw men. Kudos on that.

    If saying "People shouldn't be able to enter a country illegally" makes me an authoritarian, you've just managed to neuter the word to sheer irrelevancy.

    Opposing people driving while drunk, I'd have to assume, is also the first step towards prohibition, right?

  • Calidissident||

    An unfounded desire, but regardless, I'm talking about the complete disregard for the police state just because you agree with it's goals. It's the same reasoning behind why supporters of the Drug War excuse or rationalize its worst abuses. But of course in this case only illegals have to worry about ICE, so who cares what they do?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its really simple:

    Drug war bad and needs drugs laws repealed.
    Immigration enforcement good.

  • Calidissident||

    Holy shit, you pretty much make my point. Pure "ends justify the means" thinking.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Ends" of law do justify the "means" of constitutional policing.

    In this case, enforcing current immigration law authorized by the constitution.

  • Calidissident||

    Apparently entering homes under false pretenses are ok. And of course, ICE would never enter the home of anyone here legally, so we don't have to worry about that either.

    If we're taking a true original text approach to the Constitution, I do wonder about that authorization. Because "naturalization" does not mean immigration and we had pretty much totally open borders for 80+ years.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9:
    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    After 1808, the federal government has enumerated power to regulate immigration and slavery.

    Art. I, Section 8 sets out Congress' enumerated duty power to set uniform naturalization rules.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You're not even referencing the counterargument anymore. You just keep repeating that immigration is a legal role of federal agents.

    The point is that the means by which they are doing it are incredibly skeezy, and seem illegal. Also, the lowest form of argumentation is repeatedly saying "It's a law, just accept it."

  • MWG||

    it's also pretty clear from a plane 3rd grade level reading of the text that it's referring to slaves and not immigrants. The founders were kicking the can down the road regarding the question of SLAVERY. I shouldn't have to explain this as anyone with a basic level of understanding of the constitution would understand this.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""it's also pretty clear from a plane 3rd grade level reading..""

    Would that be a single engine or twin engine plane?

    Sorry, couldn't resist. (aviation nerd)

  • MWG||

    Dammit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    it's also pretty clear from a plane 3rd grade level reading of the text that it's referring to slaves and not immigrants. The founders were kicking the can down the road regarding the question of SLAVERY. I shouldn't have to explain this as anyone with a basic level of understanding of the constitution would understand this.


    The you need to go back to third grade dumb dumb.

    Of course, there are no clauses in the Constitution were multiple things are discussed. Oh wait!
    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; Art. I, Sec 8.
    What does naturalization and bankruptcy have in common? Hmm...

    That clause discusses regulation of slavery and migration of persons not being an enumerated power of Congress until 1808. Hence the can kicking.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The point is that the means by which they are doing it are incredibly skeezy, and seem illegal


    Its not illegal. If it is, kindly provide a citation.

    Since I know its not illegal for police to ask for permission to search, you won't find one.

    BTW: the absolute lowest form of argument is ignoring reality and keep saying things that are not true.

    Libertarians are for rule of law. If you don't like it, change the law or fight it in court. Since you won't do those things, we have a point where you are lying that what ICE agents are doing is illegal.

  • Juice||

    After 1808, the federal government has enumerated power to regulate immigration and slavery.

    Art. I, Section 8 sets out Congress' enumerated duty power to set uniform naturalization rules.

    Naturalization is not immigration. No, immigration is not a part of the process of naturalization because someone can be naturalized without immigrating and someone can immigrate without being naturalized.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Juice|8.25.17 @ 1:47PM|#
    After 1808, the federal government has enumerated power to regulate immigration and slavery.
    Art. I, Section 8 sets out Congress' enumerated duty power to set uniform naturalization rules.
    Naturalization is not immigration. No, immigration is not a part of the process of naturalization because someone can be naturalized without immigrating and someone can immigrate without being naturalized.


    That is why there was an Art.I, sec 9 which enumerated Congress' power to regulate slaves and migrants in 1808.

  • Calidissident||

    The first clause was specifically about the slave trade.

    As I said, naturalization isn't the same as immigration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Calidissident|8.25.17 @ 1:55PM|#
    The first clause was specifically about the slave trade.
    As I said, naturalization isn't the same as immigration.


    So slaves migrate? I would think their owners would not want to lose property.

    Its says migration and a form of migration is immigration.

    I know you open border types do not like that Clause of the Constitution but it does give Congress powers over slavery and migration after 1808.

  • Juice||

    I know you open border types do not like that Clause of the Constitution but it does give Congress powers over slavery and migration after 1808.

    It doesn't say that Congress has those powers after 1808. Are you saying they are implied powers, but not enumerated?

  • BYODB||

    My god Juice, this is a literal enumerated power you dunce.

    If you want to argue against Federalism do so, but at least show your true colors.

  • Juice||

    And this is just an argument about what the constitution says, which is separate from discussion of whether limiting immigration is anti-freedom or not.

  • Phos||

    NO GENERAL POWER OF IMMIGRATION FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
    After 1808, the federal government has enumerated power to PROHIBIT immigration/IMPORTATION OF slaveS. ADDITIONALLY THEY CAN CHARGE A FEE OF UP TO $10 PER SLAVE.

    There fixed it for you. The constitutional circumlocution for slaves, "such persons" is the subject of this whole clause. It is one sentence.
    Who can they prohibit migration/importation to after 1808? Answer "such persons"= slaves.
    NOT FREE MEN.
    Who can they charge a tax or duty of up to $10? Answer "such persons"= slaves. NOT FREE MEN.

    Otherwise you imply that "such persons" means slaves before 1808, but the meaning changes to every immigrant after 1808. That is ahistorical nonsense. It was common knowledge that is well documented at that time that the 1808 prohibition referred to the importation of slaves.

    That the first clause of Article 1 Section 9 is not about granting another power for Congress is also logical based on the wider constitution. Article 8 is the enumerated list of powers granted to Congress. Article 9 is a list of limitations on the powers of Congress.

  • Phos||

    As John Jay – the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and coauthor of the Federalist Papers – pointed out in an 1819 letter discussing the Clause:

    It will, I presume, be admitted that slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of the existing toleration of slavery and of its discordance with the principles of the Revolution, and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to the following positions in the Declaration of Independence, viz.: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'"

    In Federalist 42, James Madison decried "[a]ttempts [that] have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it…as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America."


    "Why the Migration or Importation Clause of the Constitution does not imply any general federal power to restrict immigration"
    By Ilya Somin, Washington post April 19, 2016

  • damikesc||

    Apparently entering homes under false pretenses are ok. And of course, ICE would never enter the home of anyone here legally, so we don't have to worry about that either.

    If somebody says that they are with the blowjob patrol and they want to blow me inside my house --- if I let them in, that is kinda on me there. Sure, they lied, but I was also a fucking idiot.

    I don't allow searches of anything of mine. I have nothing to hide, but I am not fond of just giving up my rights for no reason.

    If we're taking a true original text approach to the Constitution, I do wonder about that authorization. Because "naturalization" does not mean immigration and we had pretty much totally open borders for 80+ years.

    Also had prayer in schools. Hell, the Founders had religious services on government property. I don't think what we "used to do" really holds much water.

  • Careless||

    We never had open borders. We went straight from whites only to restricting immigration

  • BambiB||

    We should put a bounty on criminal invaders. Dead or alive.

  • BYODB||

    Cops are like vampires, they can only come in if you invite them or if they have a legal warrant.

    Entering the home as either an ICE agent OR AS A LOCAL OFFICER is illegal in both instances. There is no differentiation.

    "We have repeatedly seen ICE go to people's homes and coerce people to authorize entry under the mistaken belief that [the agents] are police,"

    They invited the vampires inside, but why would they do that for either an ICE Officer or a local officer when they are knowingly violating the law? Or is the excuse here that these individuals did not know they had accidentally crossed into the United States?

    It makes no difference if ICE misrepresents themselves as the local PD, these individuals could have been arrested by both and they shouldn't have trusted the police as a person who is actively breaking the law.

    Argue about the laws, sure, but saying they're doing something 'wrong' in enforcing the rule of law is to place your own head into your anus.

  • Calidissident||

    Local PD isn't responsible for enforcing immigration law, and in a lot of these cities explicitly tell people they aren't going to people's homes to arrest them for immigration offenses. A pretty important reason why they'd be more willing to let local police into their homes.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Local police can enforce all laws from local/state laws up to federal laws.

    Federal agents can only enforce federal law and cannot enforce local/state laws.

    Its the way our system works. You might want to brush up on things like this before saying what you do.

  • BYODB||

    So the real crime here is that local police officers have lulled law breakers into a false sense of security by not arresting them when they are fully within their rights to arrest them if they so chose.

    "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    BYODB: Exactly.

    If police would do their jobs and enforce the shit-ton of laws on the books, there would be less illegals and people would be pissed at how many laws apply to them too.

  • BYODB||

    And for the record this is the exact same story with Mary Jane legalization in the United States. It's discretionary if they bust you for it depending on where you are, but it's technically illegal everywhere so you're being retarded if you tell any portion of law enforcement or register in any way, shape, or form with the government at any level telling them that you do it.

    Why? Because it gives them a list to go after when they inevitably change their minds. It's the law and as such they should always enforce it unless you don't believe in the rule of law.

    Needless to say, laws can be bad laws but in those cases the redress is repeal not non-enforcement in a civil society that respects the rule of law.

  • BYODB||


    If police would do their jobs and enforce the shit-ton of laws on the books, there would be less illegals and people would be pissed at how many laws apply to them too.

    If every law were enforced, we would all be in jail. This is exactly how our overlords want it, so that we must always come to them hat in hand to beg forgiveness in every interaction lest we be thrown in jail.

    It's the tyranny of selectively enforced law and the illegalization of virtually everything while enforcing very little. It amounts to the rule of man over the rule of law, all the while wearing the guise of justice.

  • damikesc||

    "Don't worry, we're going to ignore SOME violations of law. Trust us, for realz, yo!"

  • BambiB||

    So ICE is undermining the "trust" criminals have that local "law enforcement" won't enforce the law?

    That's GREAT! Let all criminals live in quaking fear of the law.

  • Phos||

    Enforcing an unconstitutional law or enforcing a law using unconstitutional means is not "enforcing the rule of law", but an abomination to the rule of law.

    In a constitutional framework, law enforcers have legitimacy because they are both commissioned by a constitutional authority, and are personally oath bound to obey and defend that constitution.

    Using tricks to deny someone there constitutionally protected rights, is not "Rule of Law", but "Ruefully Awful."

  • BambiB||

    They're criminal invaders.

    Has any country ever ruled that it's okay to invade another country? Or that such may not be met with deadly force?

    I say, shoot them at the border and leave their corpses to rot in the sun and be picked over by vultures as a warning to those who would come after.

  • damikesc||

    Mind you, this site's writers are on board with bankrupting bakers and florists for not wanting to work for events they oppose.

    Because FORCING somebody to work for others is the new definition of the LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!!!

  • Hugh Akston||

    So you object to the welfare state and your solution is...to round up immigrants?

    Makes perfect sense.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I DO object to a welfare state for individuals and companies.

    I also support rounding up illegal immigrant criminals and deporting them.

    I know you lefties are all about shooting people against walls but we just deport illegals.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    My guess is that he doesn't dislike the welfare state. But only for hand-outs to people he considers undeserving.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Well, you're wrong. But hey keep saying stuff that is shown to be a lie. It makes you very believable.

  • BYODB||

    Lets dissolve the welfare state and find out...or wait...you want to open the flood gates of immigration before doing that. So no, lets not.

  • Calidissident||

    You do realize that it doesn't work that way right? You can't just hop on over and get all the benefits you want.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why don't you enlighten use on how it works?

    Taxifornia is the most generous with their welfare benefit eligibility, so give us the skinny.

  • ||

    Taxifornia is the most generous with their welfare benefit eligibility, so give us the skinny.

    There's two things to consider.

    1) Generally you have to show citizenship to get benefits.

    2) In my experience, your more settled permanent illegal residents have social security numbers and pay taxes just like everyone else. The ones who don't also often don't have cars and houses and such, and live in camps in the desert and avoid contacting anyone "official" for fear of deportation. And that only applies to income taxes, anyway - most state services are funded by sales and property taxes that are paid by everyone, illegal or not.

  • BYODB||

    Sure you can, as long as you have a kid or a stolen social security number.

    Or...wait...we're assuming all these pure-as-driven-snow illegal immigrants aren't using stolen social security numbers to get work in the United States? Hmm...

    Of course, that means they're paying into the system but it absolutely is a shitty and illegal way of doing it.

    Should the law be better? Absolutely. Is a completely open border the first step towards that goal? Abso-fucking-lutely not.

  • ||

    Of course, that means they're paying into the system but it absolutely is a shitty and illegal way of doing it.

    Why, when the only complaint about them so far is that they're using state services without paying for them?

    Should the law be better? Absolutely. Is a completely open border the first step towards that goal?

    Of course it's not the first step. But it should be the end goal.

  • BYODB||

    It's an impossible end goal, so I can't say I care one way or the other. Honestly, I would be curious what nation has an open border and absolutely free immigration. Is there one to point at? Not that I know of.

    That said, what's interesting to me is that you don't appear to bat an eye at how an illegal alien might have a social security number in the first place. Generally this is known as fraud or identify theft, a true crime with an actual victim, yet we're taking it as a given that there's 'no harm no foul' here.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Illegals who violate federal laws just by coming into the USA have not actually broken any real laws, so why would they need to break more laws to stay here.

    These open border people live in fantasy land and will never admit there are any negative impacts for America with unsecure borders.

  • ||

    These open border people live in fantasy land and will never admit there are any negative impacts for America with unsecure borders.

    Thank you for your deep thoughts. I will now revise my worldview.

  • ||

    Eternal life is not an achievable goal, either, but we strive towards it nonetheless. A world of small nations each enclosed within its own little Berlin Wall is no more achievable than a world of completely open borders, but I would argue it's far less desirable - i.e. the goal we should be moving away from even if the opposite extreme is not achievable.

    what's interesting to me is that you don't appear to bat an eye at how an illegal alien might have a social security number in the first place

    Because you can't have two people use the same social security number. Illegals don't tend to use "someone else's" social security number - they obtain one under false pretenses, or use a dead person's. It is, in fact, pretty victimless as crimes go. And wouldn't be necessary if we obsessed over citizenship cards and citizen ID numbers less.

    Pot dealers break the law, too. Sometimes you're choosing between harms.

  • BYODB||

    I can agree with parts, but I disagree in the order of operations here. Domestic reform before immigration reform, because if we can't achieve domestic reform before immigration there is no chance immigration reform will work either, and in fact it would be counter-productive at best and suicidal at worst.

  • ||

    Domestic reform before immigration reform

    I don't think that's an unreasonable position, but I do think it's a moot point (while recognizing that that's a matter of opinion and not settled fact).

  • damikesc||

    When a wound is bleeding out, your first job is not to chastise the bleeder for having a bad diet. Your first job is to stop the bleeding.

    You get rid of the welfare state and we can then discuss immigration being more open. Until the first happens, it is suicidal to do the second.

  • BYODB||

    This. Exactly this.

  • ||

    When a wound is bleeding out, you address the wound that is most immediately life-threatening, rather than putting bandaids on the scrapes on your heels while your jugular is pumping out a quart a minute.

  • BYODB||

    I believe the bleeding was spending, in this instance.

  • ||

    I believe the bleeding was spending, in this instance.

    I understand that. I'm just not convinced that "benefits for illegals" is the biggest spending problem we have going right now.

  • BambiB||

    My solution is much simpler: Give them 12 months to get out. Let them know there will be NO exceptions - that any caught after 12 months will be sent to a tent prison in Arizona where they will bake in the summer and freeze in the winter for two years, eating the same food every single day. Oatmeal and water. At the end of two years, they'll be deported and if they ever return, they will be executed. Pass legislation making it a felony to negligently house, rent property to or employ a criminal alien. The "negligence" standard shall be doing any of those acts without running an E-Verify check. Mandatory minimum punishment would be $1000/day and 1 year in prison. Announce that any criminal aliens detected crossing the border into America will be shot. Then start shooting them.

    Offer free bus service to the border for 12 months. Help the criminals fill out applications to immigrate LEGALLY. Then expel them.

    At the end of 12 months, offer bounties to anyone who turns in a criminal alien. Pay the bounties out of the confiscated property of the criminal aliens.

    Note that most of the costs of the program would be paid for by confiscated property. Under Arpaio, the cost for inmate food was under $1 per day. Security could be limited to perimeter security only - that is, the inmates would be free to do whatever they wanted to each other, but cross the dead line and they get a bullet.

    Alternatively, just make criminal invasion a capital offense.

  • agricola||

    you'd have to have some finances in the first place. how is it people with nothing to contribute are worried about paying a contribution?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is the police state that lefties want to have huge police forces to boss people around rather than limit them to enumerated duties, like national defense and immigration.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Do you believe that there should be unlimited powers in the enforcement of national defense and immigration?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why would I advocate unlimited powers of a federal government. The Constitution sets out enumerated powers for Congress with regard to national defense, naturalization, and immigration.

    Those powers are further restricted by the People's protections of the Constitution.

  • Juice||

    The Constitution sets out enumerated powers for Congress with regard to national defense,

    Yep

    naturalization,

    Yep

    and immigration.

    Nope

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Article I, section 9:
    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    immigration
    yup.

  • Juice||

    "The migration...shall not be prohibited by Congress...prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight"

    Ok. And where is the part that says Congress has the power to prohibit it, limit it, or regulate it after 1808?

  • BYODB||

    Oh, Juice, you are sadly very stupid.

    The fact that it says they can't do it before 1808 necessarily implies they can after 1808.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Art. I, Sec 9:
    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
    So Congress "can" prohibit said migration and importation after 1808 because before 1808, Congress was prohibited from regulating migration and importation.

    Why would the Founders add in Congressional prohibitions if Congress could never regulate migrations and slavery in the first place?

    At least you admit that this Clause applies to immigrants.

  • agricola||

    now define "immigration". explain how it can take 38 years to immigrate and decades after, the federal government still magically has powers over an entry that happened before you were born?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yes, because POLICE has no similarity to other nation's police force names:

    Policia
    Polizei
    Police
    Polis
    Politsei
    Politi
    Polizia
    Politsiya

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Just more proof jackbooted agents of the state are scumbags. It's like every playground bully eventually grows up and discovers his calling in life is a law enforcement career where he gets to push people around and take their lunch money just like in the good old days.

    The main difference is that bullies who can't read so good end up as local cops and the ones who manage to pass high school English sign on to enforce the edicts of one federal alphabet agency or another.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If police (ICE included) are violating people's constitutional rights, then I am right there with you. People assuming ICE agents are police and allowing sensual searches, that is on those knuckleheads.

    Police don't search anything of mine without a warrant because I never consent to searches without warrants.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I don't know about "sensual" searches. I think that's more the TSA's line of work. But I wouldn't put it past any of these clowns to cop on occasion.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah, consensual.

    Sensual searches happen with my asian lady masseuse.

  • Cy||

    Have you been through one of their "Checkpoints" lately? So much for freedom of movement and rights to privacy. These guys wipe their asses with the Constitution on a regular basis. While I agree that our government has every right to regulate who may enter our country, they have no right to mass searches of any kind.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    At the border? Yes. Seems reasonable to require people to show they are legally allowed in the USA.

    Roving checkpoints or checkpoints within 100 miles of the border should be deemed unconstitutional terminated. If police have probable cause to stop a vehicle then they can inquire about legal status.

  • Calidissident||

    Your kind of thinking is exactly why those 100 mile checkpoints exist, yet you don't realize it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Do they exist? I have never been stopped without probable cause.

    You must be on the front lines fighting those off-border checkpoints in your head.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes. They do. Jesus, you tried to call me out for stating proven falsehoods, but you're now trying to deny that border patrol checkpoints exist. Drive from Tucson to the Border, you'll got through 2 I think currently.

  • ||

    Yeah - San Diego area, too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Where in San Diego? At the Tijuana/USA border crossing?

  • ||

    No - about 50 miles north.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "I think" is right. Are there or aren't there?

    If there are then why is reason not discussing those little gem of violations of the 4th & 5th Amendments?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    See? This is why I say he's a performance artist.

  • MWG||

    "If there are then why is reason not discussing those little gem of violations of the 4th & 5th Amendments?"

    They have. At length.

    http://reason.com/search?q=imm....._relevance

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are so right...back in 2015.

    Internal checkpoints ended after that year.

  • MWG||

    So you concede the checkpoints do exist and Reason has covered them?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have never been through an internal checkpoint in the USA.

    In 2015 Reason covered internal checkpoints. Since my question was why is Reason not currently covering the topic, no you were wrong. But for 2015 you were right. Unfortunately, I was not asking about past coverage 2 years ago when Obummer was prez.

    "discussing" is present tense of discuss. This requires current discussing. In the present.

    Jesus, you are trying and trying but really just need English lessons.

  • ||

    Internal checkpoints ended after that year.

    Hey! Didja see the new H&R post about TX interior checkpoints not closing due to the hurricane?

  • BYODB||

    Interior checkpoints, for immigration purposes or otherwise, are unconstitutional or at least should be regardless of how you feel about immigration. No search or seizure without probable cause, period.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The article about how "Border Patrol Will Keep Checkpoints Open During Hurricane Harvey"

    I read that article. Its almost discusses all the points about internal checkpoints and where they are in the USA, but then doesn't.

    Its an anti-secure border piece to keep the dream alive for a specific region of the USA because a Cat 2 hurricane is coming to town.

  • Cy||

    Have you been through one of their "Checkpoints" lately? So much for freedom of movement and rights to privacy. These guys wipe their asses with the Constitution on a regular basis. While I agree that our government has every right to regulate who may enter our country, they have no right to mass searches of any kind.

  • agricola||

    al they ever do is violate everyone's rights. like the right to be free from an unwarranted jurisdiction and the predations of an inland marine force.

  • BambiB||

    Except, criminal invaders are not the "People". See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1353

    There is no Fourth Amendment protection for criminal aliens. Neither is there any First Amendment right to assemble or petition government. No Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. No Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search an seizure. No Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. No Ninth Amendment protection regarding retained rights. No Tenth Amendment reservation of rights. The Preamble does NOT include criminal aliens.

    Basically, if you're a criminal alien, you have no rights - as it should be.

  • Deep Lurker||

    "But it's a toothless endeavor—states and municipalities don't have the authority to dictate what federal law enforcement officers can and cannot do."

    This is one of the many reasons why the Founders were so paranoid about "standing armies." They were talking about armed & uniformed government agents charged with enforcing the law - and thumbing their nose at the law as they did so.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Exactly.

    Plus their experience with the Stamp Act, which allowed those government agents free access to search property and one's person -- supposedly to see if any official paperwork was missing the required tax stamp -- is what led them to create the protections of the fourth amendment.

    But idiots today want to throw all that away because those Founders were all white guys and some of them were even slave owners. Emphasis on the term "idiots." They are indeed useful idiots carrying out the will of government overlords who would just love to completely scrap that pesky constitution once and for all.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yes, useful idiots who want to flood the USA with socialist voters and undermine the Constitution.

    Your double speak about "loving" the Constitutional protections of the 4th Amendment but actually hating the Constitution, is so obvious.

  • ||

    Your double speak about "loving" the Constitutional protections of the 4th Amendment but actually hating the Constitution, is so obvious.

    Yes - IM is definitely a closet Communist.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I didn't say Communist.

  • ||

    Sorry - meant to confirm your suspicion that IM is a closet Constitution-hater who only pretends to be a libertarian in order to pied-piper the gullibles into his totalitarian nightmare.

    It is in no way the case that you yourself have gone off the rails on this topic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I guess IM would have to specify useful idiots because those historically tend to be socialist drones doing the bidding of that lefty cause.

    He seemed to reinforce Deep Lurker's that ICE asking to search property was in line with the Founder's fears of standing armies. Thereby implying that people who want border security and ICE to ask for consensual searches are useful idiots.

    So, if you consider countering that off the rails, then I would say that you are trolling a bit.

  • ||

    And if you decide that 2 is 3 and 4 is 5, then 2 + 4 = 8.

    So, yes - you've gone a bit off the rails.

  • BambiB||

    Except immigration is a FEDERAL matter. The Federales are proceeding against a class of invaders who have no rights in America

    That's right. Joe Beaner from south of the border who sneaked across the Rio Grande in the dead of night has fewer rights in America than Joe Axe-murderer. Which is just fine by me.

  • Ken Hagler||

    Never let a cop into your home without a warrant. Never talk to a cop without a lawyer present. These things are true regardless of what kind of cop it is.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Amen!

    Know your actual rights, stand up for them, and enforce government agents following them.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "Never let a cop into your home without a warrant."

    Tell that to the elderly lady who got a broken hip thanks to telling the cops who came to her door (because they had the wrong address for their drug raid) that they needed a warrant to come in.

    Don't get me wrong... In principal, I 100% agree with you. But in practice, asking for a warrant is probably an excellent way to get yourself shot or at least take a severe beating for questioning their authori-tay.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Here we go with the parade of horribles.

    if....if.... tell old lady.....

    I have been stopped by police, lets say 20 times in my life. Probably more but off the top of my head 20.

    I am very firm with what they can do and what I talk about. I don't allows warrantless searches- ever. I have been asked over 10 times and refused every time. They try and walk dogs around the car and magically the dog "hits", giving them the search they wanted. They find no contraband and I sue them. They offer cash settlements or claim immunity and I refuse or beat their immunity defenses. Some cops transfer some just get insignificant reprimands.

    Point is, I refuse to let corrupt police get away with violating the Constitution. I fight them. Every time.

    Freedom is not free and if you don't fight for your rights (not only to part-ay) government thugs will try and take them away.

  • BambiB||

    Bravo! Good for you! You're an American Citizen standing up for your rights! One of the People!

    Jose Wetback is NOT one of the "People". He's an invader and he has NO RIGHTS.

  • BYODB||

    Ok, the image of 'Police-ice' on the backs of those vests make them look like they're the retard pol-ice-ice.

  • BambiB||

    You mean "retarded-ded"?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Whether they're feds or local cops, "fuck you, get a warrant" still applies.

    -jcr

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ^ this.

  • BambiB||

    Not if you're a criminal alien.

    Criminal aliens are NOT protected by the Constitution.

  • Kevin Tyssen||

    "Why would a family of undocumented immigrants allow federal agents without a warrant to search their house? Because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents misidentify themselves as local police."

    Why would a family of undocumented immigrants allow local police without a warrant to search their house?

    Why would anyone allow local police without a warrant to search their house?

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Yeah, real cops would never have jackets/vests on that say "POLICE - ICE" on the back.....people might think they're just there to keep the drinks cold while everyone's having a do-nut.

  • BambiB||

    They are the "cool" cops.

  • ranrod||

    this writer refuses to call them what they are - THEY ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS!

    they are illegal alien invaders
    ----------------
    illegals you want to give a "Merit System" have...
    (MAIA)

    Before an illegal alien receives his/her first paycheck or cash payment, they have committed some 26 Federal, State and Local laws.

  • ranrod||

    1. They conspire to cross the border illegally. (1 count)
    2. They hire a coyote or are provided passage by a Drug Cartel in exchange for guided passage into the USA. (1 count)
    3. They cross the Border with a coyote and in many cases smuggle drugs. (1 count)
    4. They travel, illegally, to their destination or to a destination determined by their "smuggler." (1 count)
    5. They obtain fraudulent documents via identity theft, or via manufactured documents….driver license, green card, social security card, birth certificate (each count a felony). (4 counts)
    6. They look for work using these documents. (1 count)
    7. They fill out work documents falsely, i.e., Federal and State IRS forms, SSN forms, Immigration forms, Workers comp. forms (each a separate felony. (6 counts)
    8. They drive on our roads without a legal license, registration, insurance. (3 counts)
    9. They get paid via check or under the table, thus conspiring with the employer to defraud the government(s) via the use of false documents. (2 counts)
    10. They open bank accounts via the use of false documents in violation of Federal Law and the Patriot Act. (2 counts)
    11. They obtain housing via the use of false documents. (1 count)
    12. They obtain a car or truck via the use of false documents. (1 count)
    13. They obtain healthcare via the use of false documents. (1 count)
    14. They secure public service benefits via the use of false documents – food, housing, healthcare, etc. (3 + counts)

  • ranrod||

    At a minimum this list shows that they commit at least 28 crimes of identity theft, conspiracy, obtaining false documents making false statements, fraud, violation of Federal and State and Local laws, etc.

    AND THE LIST GOES ON.

    The above list correctly demonstrates that they are not simply in violation of our laws just for crossing the Border, they are in violation for multiple misdemeanor and criminal acts in just a very short period of time and they continue to compound their violations via the passage of time, via falsification of documents, false statements, perjury and the list goes on.

  • ranrod||

    8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute


    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
    Any alien who
    (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
    (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
    (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
    Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
    (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
    (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

  • ranrod||

    Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
    (c) Marriage fraud
    Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
    (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
    Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

  • BambiB||

    Ranrod: Nice summary!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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