MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Mollie Tibbetts' Relatives: Stop Using Her Death as 'Political Propaganda'

After police said Tibbetts' killer is an illegal immigrant, conservatives started using her death to argue for stricter immigration enforcement.

Poweshiek County Emergency Management Agency/FacebookPoweshiek County Emergency Management Agency/Facebook

An entire family is in mourning after the body of Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts was finally found Tuesday following a month-long search. But while many conservatives seized on police claims that her suspected killer is an illegal immigrant, some of Tibbetts' family members are speaking out against the politicization of her death.

The revelation that Tibbetts' killer may have been in the country illegally (though his lawyer says otherwise) quickly became a an anti-immigrant talking point. There were multiple op-eds and countless social media posts from prominent conservatives eager to point out that if the suspected killer hadn't been in the U.S., Tibbetts would still be alive. President Donald Trump weighed in on Twitter and in a Fox News interview, using the killing to argue for tougher immigration laws.

Some of Tibbetts' relatives think politicizing her death is wrong. "I don't want Mollie's memory to get lost amongst politics," Tibbetts' aunt, Billie Jo Calderwood, tells CNN. In a Facebook post, Calderwood noted that "Evil comes in EVERY color."

Tibbett's cousin, Samantha Lucas, went viral with her response to a tweet from conservative commentator Candace Owens. The right-wing provocateur had tied Tibbetts' death to the debate over the Trump administration's family separation policy:

Lucas wasn't having it. "[W]e are not so fucking small-minded that we generalize a whole population based on some bad individuals," she wrote at Owens. "[N]ow stop being a fucking snake and using my cousins death as political propaganda."

Lucas admitted to CNN she didn't know Tibbetts all that well. But she still thinks her cousin "would not want this to be used as fuel against undocumented immigrants."

Breck Goodman, who says he was friends with Tibbetts, agrees. "I also know what Mollie stood for ... and she would not approve," Goodman tells CNN. "So I don't want her death to be used as propaganda. I don't want her death to be used for more prejudice and for more discrimination, and I don't think she would want that, either."

While it's easy to take tragedies like these and argue they're part of a larger problem, the narrative isn't backed up by facts. As Reason's Ronald Bailey has pointed out on several occasions, research shows that immigrants, including those in the country illegally, are actually less prone to commit crimes than American citizens.

Tibbett's death was horrible, and her killer should be punished. But in general, the benefits of both legal and illegal immigration far outweigh the costs.

Photo Credit: Poweshiek County Emergency Management Agency/Facebook

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.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We need to ignore crimes that actual illegal immigrants commit and focus on TRUMP!

    The media would have you believe that zero illegals commit crimes. Therefore they should stay.

    All illegal immigrants are criminals. Its a minor crimes but a crime nonetheless. Follow the rules for immigration and then maybe, just maybe Americans will let you come to the USA.

  • Tony||

    The media would have you believe that zero illegals commit crimes.

    Citation needed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Here's your citation:

    Tony|8.23.18 @ 12:01PM
    "Citation needed."

  • Oli||

    Haven't you heard? There are no such things as "truth", or "facts". We don't need "citations" or "statistics". You just believe what fits your talking points best. Duh.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties dont provide facts. Its more like state propaganda.

  • Tony||

    You know that fat guy you have a shrine to in your closet? He is the head of state right now.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trudeau?

    I wouldnt call him fat per se. Just a circulatory system full of poutine.

  • Moo Cow||

    Her family should sue the pants offa that farmer who employed him all of those years. For every penny he has!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That lawsuit would be laughed out of court.

  • Juice||

    All illegal immigrants are criminals. Its a minor crimes but a crime nonetheless.

    It appears that you're using the word "crime" in the non-libertarian sense, meaning the breaking of any law. You've committed a "minor crime," haven't you? That makes you an illegal, doesn't it?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    You've committed a "minor crime," haven't you?

    3 felonies a day.

  • Oli||

    Jerking off is a crime now?

  • Microaggressor||

    Just work in politics so you get your free pass to be a criminal like everybody else.

  • Frank White||

    Is it libertarian to say that we have so many laws on the books that everyone breaks one every day of their life? Regardless, libertarians do believe in SOME laws unless the "libertarians are just anarchists with money" memes are true.

  • Mithrandir||

    Is it libertarian to say that we have so many laws on the books that everyone breaks one every day of their life? Regardless, libertarians do believe in SOME laws unless the "libertarians are just anarchists with money" memes are true.

    Of course. The guiding principle for many (not all) libertarians is the non-aggression principle. You can do whatever you want as long as you don't use force or coercion and respect private property rights.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Though trespassing and immigration laws are different only in degree.

    So while I think it should be much easier to enter the US and current immigration policy is crap...breaking immigration laws is breaking trespassing laws which libertarians used to believe in.

  • Texasmotiv||

    You can only trespass when you are an unwanted guest on private property.

    You can't trespass on public property, and you aren't trespassing when you are invited to work somewhere, and when you live in an apartment that you pay the rent for.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Try not leaving a government building when the office hours say closed.

    If you are not legally allowed to be on private or public property, you are tresspassing.

  • retiredfire||

    I've always thought of libertarians as cheapskate progressives - they want all the social programs, just don't want to pay for them, but anarchists with money works, too.

  • BillyG||

    It appears that you're using the word "crime" in the non-libertarian sense, meaning the breaking of any law. You've committed a "minor crime," haven't you? That makes you an illegal, doesn't it?

    Ah, the false argument that A->B always means B->A. Would you care to try again?

  • fdog50||

    It makes him a minor criminal, but no "an illegal", which is a term used to refer for an "illegal immigrant", that is someone who is in the country illegally. But many of the people who are in the country illegally are not criminals because they entered legally (as with a tourist, work or student visa) and then overstayed. If they are discovered they are to be deported by civil or administrative action. If they work, then they are committing a crime, and if they use false identity or social security numbers to get work or get government benefits, then they are committing more crimes. If they are deported, entering or attempting to enter again is a crime. Also entering or attempting to enter the country illegally is a crime. From what I have read about this case, this defendant has been deported at least once and the question is now raised as to whether he used false identification in order to get a job.

  • Kivlor||

    Wasn't there a court case recently that determined illegal immigrants aren't criminals for using someone else's social security number?

  • JFree||

    Perhaps you and other members of your church should protest at Tibbetts funeral.

    God hates illegals.

    Tibbets was murdered because America is weak on illegals

    Tibbets family loves illegals. Therefore, God hates Tibbets family.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That illegal sure hated Tibbets.

  • JFree||

    Wave the bloody shirt even if he's not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Haters gotta hate....

  • UncleSam13||

    Rain would also have you believe no illegal Aliens commit crimes.

  • damikesc||

    As Reason's Ronald Bailey has pointed out on several occasions, research shows that immigrants, including those in the country illegally, are actually less prone to commit crimes than American citizens.

    Narrative is all that matters.

    How DARE you notice that one of those noble, honorable illegals murdered somebody!

    And no issue with Sam Lucas using his cousin's death for politics, huh?

  • Cathy L||

    Guess you didn't read enough of the post to find out that Sam's first name is Samantha.

  • ||

    Shh. There's a narrative to maintain.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Did you just assume xer gender?

  • CE||

    Her Twitter post says sam.

  • Tony||

    You apparently have an issue with her family member having an opinion but not talking heads on FOX News trying to distract from Trump's criminality by exploiting a girl's death. Is deplorable the right word? It's close enough.

  • Just Say'n||

    One could say that you're distracting from the girl's death by fixated on an unrelated story.

    You can't be dumb enough to not realize how you refute your own logic within your statements

  • Tony||

    Um, no. Not at all. Because people die every day. People are murdered every day. It's not every day that the president is implicated in felonies.

  • Just Say'n||

    They shouldn't have reported on Trevon Martin?

  • Tony||

    Was he murdered on a day when Barack Obama was implicated in felonies?

  • Just Say'n||

    It did occur around the time of the IRS scandal

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Silly rabbit, Obama is black so nobody would dare accuse him of conspiracy to commit murder of a US citizen.

  • Toranth||

    Anwar Al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and Jude Mohammed would like to agree with you...

    But since Obama droned their asses, they can't. There are a bunch that call that a murder, since it was done without due process.

  • NashTiger||

    The Obama Campaign paid record fines for breaking election laws

  • damikesc||

    I have an identical issue of a talking head and somebody who barely knows the victim doing much of anything.

    Only one was criticized.

  • ||

    And no issue with Sam Lucas using his cousin's death for politics, huh?

    I did. I have a cousin on one side that wears 'plastic bags suck' around in public (or used to) and another on the other side that's certain vaccines are responsible for her kids' ADD. I wouldn't want to see either/any of them murdered but I sure as hell hope they'd keep their mouth shut if I were.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Haha for real. I hope my family would have enough sense to not say anything to anyone about anything if we ever got some media circus surrounding us.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some people cannot help themselves to get their thirty seconds of fame.

    This lefty juror in the manafort case hitting the media circuit is an example. She is running around saying that she knows the mueller investigation is a witch hunt but she knew manafort was guilty.

    This lady is trying explain away the fact that one juror stood up to the other jurors so manafort was only convicted of 8/18 charges.

    It all smells like bullshit.

    Turns out a juror informed the judge that multiple jurors voiced their opinions that there was no possible defense. Before the case went to the jury. This is a violation of the rules, of course. Possible jurors lied that they were impartial to sit on a jury an make sure someone was convicted.

  • ||

    How DARE you notice that one of those noble, honorable illegals murdered somebody!

    It's a good thing native-born white people never commit crimes, or we'd have to lock all of them up, too!

  • damikesc||

    So, our legal system applies to all people, citizens or otherwise?

  • ||

    So, our legal system applies to all people, citizens or otherwise?

    Actually, yes it does, being predicated on the notion of inalienable human rights. Which includes not holding groups accountable for the crimes of individuals.

  • damikesc||

    So, when we do start to sentence Palestinians who murder Israelis?

  • ||

    When Palestinians in this country murder Israelis in this country, regardless of their citizenship status.

    If the 9/11 perpetrators had been caught, would you have favored extraditing them to Saudi Arabia?

  • damikesc||

    When Palestinians in this country murder Israelis in this country, regardless of their citizenship status.

    Why should LOCATION matter if these rights are "unalienable"?

    If citizenship is immaterial, location seems even moreso.

  • retiredfire||

    No one is holding a group accountable.
    The point is that, had this individual, who was no supposed to be here, been kept out, or removed, the crime wouldn't have happened.
    Thus it was more of a tragedy that this was preventable.
    What the family is doing is being fine with their relative being sacrificed on the altar of open borders.
    I wonder if Molly's opinion would change if she knew that one of the people, she wanted to be able to stay, illegally, would be one who murdered her.
    The family says: MEH!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one is holding a group accountable.

    The proposed solution is to keep out millions of people who are not murderers, in order to stop the relatively few who are murderers, just because they share the same group characteristics. That's the guilt by association part.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    The proposed solution is to keep out millions who have no legal right to be here, which would ALSO stop the relatively few who are murderers.

    See, fucking Einstein, you lock your house doors to keep EVERYBODY out, whether or not they're going to steal your shit and murder you. Because by leaving the door open for EVERYBODY, you have FEWER WAYS to prevent those who'd steal your shit and murder you.

    And guilt by association, you fucking simpleton, would be if we put them ALL on death row for his crimes. But insisting that the lawbreaking fucks who skipped the fucking line ain't "guilt by association," idiot. Who taught you ANYTHING?

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Even if the group committed the crime of illegally crossing the border? Apparently not for that, huh? You fucking moron.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Narrative is all that matters.

    Yes, to you it's all that matters, as you are dismissing reality for your own narrative.

    If US corporations need immigrant labor, say 3 million, but we allow only 250k in, what happens?

    Additionally, logically, an illegal here to work (as most are) doesn't want to interact with anyone in US government, much less law enforcement, so it stands to reason they're not doing a lot to ensure that will happen (they so tend to be crime victims as criminals know they won't call the police).

    Of course some come here to violate our laws - that's not why most come.

  • retiredfire||

    Their very first act, and it doesn't happen without them knowing, is breaking our laws.
    If they see themselves getting away with that crime, and the others they must break, to be able to work - mostly identity theft - then why would they be concerned about breaking other laws?
    They all come to break our laws, if they enter illegally, or intend to overstay a visa.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "If US corporations need immigrant labor, say 3 million, but we allow only 250k in, what happens?"

    I seriously could give one single crap what subsidy sucking farmers paying below minimum wage to illegals want or care about.

  • Tony||

    I don't like to generalize whole populations either, but the FOX News sheep need to all be led into a volcano before they make the species even stupider than it already is.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, YOU walk into the volcano and we "will follow".

    *Everyone wait for that dumbass Tony to walk into a volcano all by himself and then laugh.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    the FOX News sheep need to all be led into a volcano before they make the species even stupider than it already is.

    I'll agree to that on one condition: include the MSNBC/ democratic underground/ daily KOS sheep too. I think that's a fair compromise.

  • Ecoli||

    Fox sheeple would still greatly outnumber them.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    lol - it would be easier for you to just admit you're a totalitarian progressive and that's why you're sooooo sure violations by one group is vastly different from similar violations from other groups.

    At least then your inconsistency and hypocrisy will be easily understood.

  • Freelancelot||

    Nah.

  • DesigNate||

    You generalize whole populations all the time, because you are a collectivist.

  • Tony||

    Everyone's a collectivist. Libertarians simply invented a form of collectivism that is heavy on delusion.

  • DesigNate||

    Yep, treating people as individuals is totes collectivist.

  • ||

    Saying that all people are individuals is a collectivist generalization.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    lol - if that's true, then everyone is a collectivist.

    Just like everyone being special, if true, it has no meaning.

  • ||

    Brian: "You are all individuals!"

    Crowd (in unison): "Yes! Yes! We are all individuals!"

    Lone Dissenter: "I'm not."

  • Freelancelot||

    Nah.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    And you need to be shot in the fucking head until all that's left above your neck is something resembling a bowl of red oatmeal.

  • Daniel||

    "we are not so fucking small-minded that we generalize a whole population based on some bad individuals."

    We only do that to criticize gun ownership.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "Bitter clingers...to guns and religion."

  • EscherEnigma||

    Do you actually have statements from her family criticizing gun ownership, or are you just generalizing that based on them not wanting people to politicize their family member's death?

  • ||

    There are more than two options.

  • Cathy L||

    Is the third option "generalizing that based on them disagreeing with daddy"?

  • Just Say'n||

    You'd be surprised by how much of an equally silly parody you are in comparison to those you mock

  • EscherEnigma||

    Sure.

    But "I have more information not presented here" and "I'm a hypocrite that doesn't know how to disguise my hypocrisy with sophistry" do remain the most likely options.

  • ||

    Considering there are at least three workable definitions of "we" between the speakers, do you have some evidence to clearly show that it's conserved across speakers and topics or are you yourself just poorly disguising your hypocrisy with sophistry?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Seriously? Before I can ask for someone to clarify what they meant with a statement, I must first have proof of what they meant?

    That's a little unreasonable.

  • ||

    You didn't ask for clarification, you asked for verification. Your shitty false dichotomy is as bad as any ham-fisted hypocrisy from him and the funny thing is that the ongoing smug aloofness makes you look like a bigger douchebag in comparison.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    No. He has statements from your former presidential piece of shit. Can you not fucking read, moron?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    We only do that to criticize gun ownership.

    And smokers, and males and...

    First they came for the....

  • Dillinger||

    the last two sentences politicize the "don't politicize it" message.

  • MasterThief||

    Exactly. If the message here is "stop putting me in the middle of your fight" it is just juvenile to agree and then throw out barbs from behind that truce line

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Leftists boycotted, screamed, and cried when illegal immigrants were temporarily separated from from their parents.

    What will they do for Mollie Tibbetts?
    What did they do for Kate Steinle?

    They will NEVER see their parents again.
    — Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) August 21, 2018

    Owens got her answer pretty quickly.

    Look, we're way past an honest debate ON BOTH SIDES so you might as well give up trying to control any narratives here.

  • Tony||

    People are murdered every day. This one was the top story on FOX News the day the Cohen and Manafort news hit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    People are convicted every day.

  • Tony||

    Not close associates of the president of the united states.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not to illegal immigrants.

  • Oli||

    So you're saying illegal immigrants committing murder is so rare that it's breaking news if it happens?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So you're saying that Illegals dont kill every day but very often to be news?

  • Just Say'n||

    Seems strange that a lone news channel that is not in sync with it's competitors is a problem. Logic would dictate that news channels who never dissent from prevailing attitudes is a more significant problem.

    Way to rage in favor of conformity

  • Tony||

    They know what they were doing. You know what they were doing. Why are we talking like we're all idiots?

    Apparently because everyone in the White House is required to watch FOX News, the Cohen and Manafort stuff actually came as a surprise to the president and his staff.

    FOX News makes people dumber. It's been proven with science.

  • ||

    FOX News makes people dumber. It's been proven with science.

    You are the most tedious person alive.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Square's science > Tony's science

  • DesigNate||

    Everyone's science > Tony's science.

  • Just Say'n||

    Most be the same concrete "science" that identifies 72 different genders

  • perlchpr||

    Why are we talking like we're all idiots?

    That's just you, Tony.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    FOX News makes people dumber. It's been proven with science.

    Then link to the peer reviewed scientific study that proves it. Or is this "proven with science" in the faux intellectual "I fucking love science" meaning of the term?

  • Tony||

  • Just Say'n||

    Poll data is not "science". That's the kind of drivel that Popper and Hayek warned us about in the early 20th Century

  • ||

    Poll data is not "science".

    Yes it is - see "Climate Science."

  • Tony||

    Polling is largely scientific. Stop trying to make the world dumber because your favorite political party is terrible. Please, just stop. For humanity.

  • The world is upside down||

    "Polling is largely scientific"

    It may be in some cases, but what it isn't is proof that Fox makes anyone dumber.

  • Tony||

    I suppose a helpful poll in this context would require a set of indisputable facts that FOX News viewers are ignorant of (and get increasingly ignorant of) relative to consumers of other news outlets.

    But they are working hard on making sure that facts aren't things we can all agree on. They've achieved more than all the postmodern relativists they used to bitch about could have ever dreamed. But that's standard for fascists.

  • Freelancelot||

    I bet you're a good li'l Communist News Network devotee, aren't ya?....

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/.....-a-banana/

  • Just Say'n||

    "Science" is math and the physical sciences. Nothing else is science. My apologies to psychology and sociology majors

  • The world is upside down||

    Well, polling is statistics, and that is a sub-branch of math, so there you go.

    As to the rest, operant conditioning works. Hard to call it not science.

  • Just Say'n||

    Polling is a branch of statistics when it behaves like a statistic. As in, what percentage of people shop at a given store. When you add subjective variables to the question the results become subjective, such as what percentage of white people shop at a given store. Self-reporting errors occur then. They literally teach you this in statistics courses

  • The world is upside down||

    Yes, I know, I learned it literally in the four statisitical methods courses I took in college.

    But nothing you said there makes it not science, or not math. A degree of measured uncertainty doesn't disqualify it. I'm not sure what you think does.

  • Just Say'n||

    Ok, then. A poll that purports to demonstrate intelligence is totally legitimate. Let's just ignore what qualifies as "intelligence" or the subjective method that they are using to determine it.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Polling is largely scientific.

    Uh, no, not really. Science, by definition is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It involves the use of the scientific method (note that the link is written for children, so hopefully even you will understand it) to prove or disprove hypotheses.

    The problem with polls, and many areas of social science in general, is that polls are:

    1) quite often not repeatable, the results can be changed by either asking a different random sample of people, or asking the same sample similar questions that have had their wording changed in subtle ways
    2) the "hypothesis" that they're designed to "test" are often based on the pollster's own opinion/ biases, which results in the results often being skewed even if unintentionally.

    They're not "science" in the hypothesize -> perform repeatable test -> reach conclusions sense. More often than not they're more like questionnaires designed to reinforce the questioner's preconceived conclusions.

    Please, just stop. For humanity.

    You should take your own advice.

  • The world is upside down||

    "Uh, no, not really"

    Uh, yes really.

    " Science, by definition"

    You can stop right there, I read your defintion, and it isn't mine and I don't agree that it's accurate.

    "You should take your own advice."

    Uh, that's not my advice. I didn't say that.

  • The world is upside down||

    Sorry that was my mistake , I don't know why I thought you were responding to me.

  • Tony||

    Polls fit the definition of science even as you limited computer geeks understand it: they are predictive. Nothing predicts elections better that polls (please don't insult your intelligence by bringing up 2016).

    Please, again, I beg of you, stop trying to destroy what's left of rational thought just because you like Republicans. They're not worth it. When you grow up you'll figure that out.

  • ||

    Polls fit the definition of science even as you limited computer geeks understand it: they are predictive.

    That's . . . not the definition of science.

    The theory that Apollo drags the sun around the earth with a horse-drawn chariot was also "predictive." But it wasn't science.

  • DesigNate||

    So when I took a poll a couple of weeks ago asking who I would vote for in the upcoming election, they only gave me two choices and balked when I mentioned the third candidate by name, and you think that is scientific?

    If you're skewing the poll by ignoring a data point, you're not performing an experiment or doing any kind of fucking science.

  • The_Hoser||

    Polling is largely scientific.

    Christ, don't tell Hillary that or she'll fall down the stairs.

  • JesseAz||

    Yoyr poll treats subjective material as objective fact. You know you're a fucking idiot right Tony?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    STUDY: Watching FOX News Makes You Stupid

    You didn't even read your own link did you?

    A new study shows that viewers who get their news from Fox News are the most misinformed in the country.

    Misinformed is not synonymous with stupid. Learn what words mean.

    It should be noted that the cablesphere did not do terribly well in general: "CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it."

    So other news channels weren't much better, and depending on the questions asked in the survey (the link to the survey question and the link to the full report are both broken) the results can easily be skewed to match the survey taker's biases. This is a common problem with surveys, and social "science" in general. But surely someone like yourself, who "fucking loves science" knew that, right?

    Also, was this study peer reviewed? Since the link to the study is broken, and I can't find a working link to it on worldpublicopinion.org's own website, we'll probably never know since they've apparently memory holed it, which doesn't exactly bode well.

    I suspect that pretty much anyone who gets their news opinions spoon fed to them from a single source is going to be misinformed because all sources are biased in some way.

  • Tony||

    But I got you to defend FOX News, didn't I?

  • ||

    But I got you to defend FOX News, didn't I?

    ^ Tony thinking that he's showing he's not a binary thinker.
  • The_Hoser||

    Tony's bi now?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony thinking he's NOT the biggest FOX watcher on Reason.

  • JesseAz||

    CA, I remember the poll quite well. It was a bunch of opinion based questions that were treated as binary true false to the researchers. The poll was taken during a time when there was slow growth and low income growth. The poll asked if the economy was improving. If you answered no you were considered misinformed based purely on the metric that the stockarket was increasing. It was an idiotic pool. Which is why Tony embraced it.

  • ||

    STUDY: Watching FOX News Makes You Stupid

    ...Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed...

    As was stated above Tony Clifton, polls are not "studies". Also, while the people who play you are both stupid and misinformed there is a difference.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    I think most people are a lot more concerned about possible threats to their children's lives than they are about technical infractions of campaign finance laws. Ya think?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    This one was the top story on FOX News the day the Cohen and Manafort news hit.

    Doesn't it just suck when the media isn't parroting your narrative?

    /sarc

  • retiredfire||

    When Mollie disappeared, it was a top story on many networks.
    That any of them ignored the discovery of her body, plus a suspect as much as confessing, to cover something else, shows a lack of human concern for her plight.
    That it was done for politics is even more despicable.

  • perlchpr||

    Owens got her answer pretty quickly.

    Apparently the answer is "throw their own family members under the bus".

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    We're talking about a second cousin here. Given that most of us wouldn't know our second cousins from Adam, "family" is doing some pretty heavy lifting in this context.

    I wouldn't know my second cousins if they dropped dead in front of me. I'd be al little bent out of shape if one of them presumed to speak on my behalf.

  • perlchpr||

    I'm not sure I'd recognize most of my first cousins at this point.

    We're not a tight knit family.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Meanwhile, Senator Elizabeth Warren says she is "sorry that Molly is dead" but encouraged her friends and family to focus on the "real problem," that parents [who attempt to illegally enter the US] are being TEMPORARILY separated from their children at the border.

  • MasterThief||

    I don't want to believe that she is that tone deaf, but the left has been beyond parody for a while now. I had an argument recently where someone asserted that the family separation policy and border retention is worse than abortion for the children involved. When your argument is that not death is worse than death, it might be time to check your moral compass

  • Benitacanova||

    These are the same people who cream over foreign adoptions, even though many of those kids were stolen from their mothers. WE say when separation is okay...

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    I hope they get what they want, but I think it's unlikely.

  • Brian||

    I guess they took a lesson from the gun control crowd: murder is the best time to discuss preventative regulations.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    When the story is "The family says stop politicizing this" it seems a tad provocative that the conclusion smacks of, "And anyway, my side is right."

    Just... the family would like this not to be political and maybe leave it at that. Pretty please?

  • Tony||

    How about people can say whatever the fuck they want to say? The FOX News breast brigade certainly does.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Sure, they *can*. Just look at how you can't stop me. People be out there everywhere, thinking and saying and doing all sorts of things. Whether we *can* is a popular topic of interest on most any subject, and seems to be both illogical and the wrong question.

  • MasterThief||

    The family doesn't want this to be politicized? I'm ok with that. Keep her individual story out of the politics even if her story is part of a statistic.
    While Seyton might be pushing the same politics as her and her family; he is still playing politics with her death here. As with school shootings, anyone politically grandstanding on the tragedy should apologize even if their goal is to see justice and a change to prevent it in the future. So, the conservatives out there should probably apologize and leave her name out of their activism

  • ThomasD||

    He's cherry picking which family members get a voice in the matter.

    No mention if he researched or sought comment from any other family members.

    Nothing politicizing about that.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Maybe other family members haven't weighed in Shitter or Facecrap yet. Maybe they have no comment at this time because they'd rather properly mourn instead of getting pulled into another idiotic political shitshow.

  • ThomasD||

    Maybe lazy ass Setyon never bothered to do anything other than quote the people his open borders/leftist buddies spoon fed him.

    But either way, he's not saying.

  • MasterThief||

    Also a consideration. Still, in the interest of being considerate I'd lean more towards hands off if the only message from the victim's family is to back off.

  • Bearded Spock||

    This is an embarrassing article Seyton.

    Illegal immigration is indeed a boon to the wealthy. They get cheap nannies, pool boys, yard workers, and unskilled labor for their factories and plants.

    Plus, because they are here illegally they are not going to form a union or complain about working conditions.

    However, it has been a disaster for working class Americans, especially blacks, who see depressed wages and deteriorating neighborhoods caused by the influx of illegals.

    Trump is president because more and more Americans are rejecting the open borders fantasy. Even the Democrats are distancing themselves from amnesty and "abolish ICE".

  • Bearded Spock||

    Oh, and if you're going to assert that illegal immigration is a net positive, don't cite biased Reason articles to support your argument.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That Reason tactic always cracks me up.

    Like we're convinced about an issue on Reason by some other Reason propagandist.

  • Qsl||

    Fair enough, but I thought one of the tenets of libertarianism was no laws against what is essentially a victimless crime (being here illegally, not murder).

    I mean it's hard to take libertarians getting choked up about adverse affects on the poor seriously when a large segment supports the right to starve or denies even mundane worker's rights.

    How do you square that circle?

    For the record, I really have no opinion on illegal immigration (except border checkpoints are BS, which libertarians also seem to be in contradiction with themselves).

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Trespassing is not a victimless crime.

  • Nardz||

    Thank you.
    Correct, trespassing is not a victimless crime.

  • Qsl||

    *shakes fist*

    Get off my lawn!

    Pretty ballsy to claim jurisdiction of the entire US, not to mention the "papers please" aspect to determine trespass.

    General trespass without any physical damage is at best a misdemeanor. All this for enforcement of essentially "no loitering" across the US.

    Bravo! You just ended free travel across the US in the name of no trespassing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You can be mad all you want but the Constitution enumerates the power of the federal government to regulate naturalization, borders, and after 1807 immigrants.

  • Qsl||

    Which address absolutely no aspect of my points, not to mention "it's the law!" is among the weakest of arguments.

    But fair enough, as long as we are agreed that the government is always correct in how it administers its powers.

    Do you really want to take that deal?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Rule of law under the constitution.

    The examples you cite are government agents violating the constitution, so they ar enot eben doing their jobs correctly.

  • Qsl||

    And as the constitution doesn't define methods nor even the definition of naturalization, that leaves the interpretation at will and subject to political whim.

    So be it.

  • JesseAz||

    Increased welfare costs are not victimless.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Plus, because they are here illegally they are not going to form a union or complain about working conditions.

    So the solution evidently is, let them have crappy working conditions *over there*, instead of *right here*.

    The closed border crowd really doesn't care if the undocumented immigrants are treated poorly. They just want them treated poorly somewhere else.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    If I have to have government, I'm not sure what's wrong with making them prioritize my needs with their limited resources.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The closed border crowd really doesn't care if the undocumented immigrants are treated poorly. They just want them treated poorly somewhere else

    No, it shouldn't be our responsibility to devote an increasing amount of resources for another country's citizens.

  • Nardz||

    Today's episode of virtue signalling collectivist thought, brought to you by the usual suspect - chemjeff

  • damikesc||

    So the solution evidently is, let them have crappy working conditions *over there*, instead of *right here*.

    Barring military conquest, how would you improve their working conditions "over there"? It is not OUR job to fix THEIR working conditions.

    The closed border crowd really doesn't care if the undocumented immigrants are treated poorly

    I do not. I have only so many shits to give in life. The entire world is not my concern.

    They just want them treated poorly somewhere else.
  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Barring military conquest, how would you improve their working conditions "over there"? It is not OUR job to fix THEIR working conditions.

    I actually agree with you there.

    But if someone wishes to leave, in search of better conditions for them and their family, I would not stop that person on that basis alone from doing so. In so doing, while it doesn't fix the shitty working conditions *over there*, it does make someone's life a little bit better nonetheless.

  • Nardz||

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Umm where exactly did I advocate for that?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Every one of your comments.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Chemjeff

  • damikesc||

    But if someone wishes to leave, in search of better conditions for them and their family, I would not stop that person on that basis alone from doing so. In so doing, while it doesn't fix the shitty working conditions *over there*, it does make someone's life a little bit better nonetheless.

    How is it our job to give everybody on Earth a better life? Again, I am trying to EXTRICATE us from fixing everybody's problem. You seem to want to double down on it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm not asking you to DO anything. Just refrain from stopping. That's all.

    Let people come here to make better lives for themselves with no help at all from you. That's all.

  • damikesc||

    And, again, why is it OUR job to provide them a better life?

    How about this --- until every citizen has a spectacular life, we don't take in any more illegals?

    Once we have OUR folks fixed up, we can deal with others.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "In so doing, while it doesn't fix the shitty working conditions *over there*, it does make someone's life a little bit better nonetheless."

    We owe those people nothing. Zero. Nothing. If you want to help them you are welcome to give charity to them or go over there and do something. Do not suppose everyone else is supposed to care to do anything or is shedding tears about the plight of Yemenis or Sudanese.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "The closed border crowd really doesn't care if the undocumented immigrants are treated poorly. They just want them treated poorly somewhere else."

    ... seriously is this a surprise to you I and many others give zero craps what is happening in Guatemala or Syria if it does not affect me or my relatives or my nation?

    I suppose you care?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So you are not actually interested in protecting human liberty, only American liberty. Got it.

  • JesseAz||

    You just equated liberty to being taken care of by others. My god you're an idiot Jeff.

  • JesseAz||

    You just equated liberty to being taken care of by others. My god you're an idiot Jeff.

  • JesseAz||

    It's not a job of a libertarian to take care of the world Jeff. You should know this. There is allowed to be failures by people in liberal ideas. You seem to ignore this fact. You refuse to admit the welfare state is not congruent to open borders.

  • John||

    The immigration system failed and allowed a person to enter the country illegally and use another identity to get a job and that person ended up committing murder. Using this case as an example of how we need to do a better job screening who gets into the country is no more "using a murder for propaganda" than Reason using the case of a dirty cop shooting someone to show the need for more accountability for police is "using murder for propaganda". If using individual cases to illustrate a larger problem is wrong, then reason has a lot to answer for in other areas.

    While it's easy to take tragedies like these and argue they're part of a larger problem, the narrative isn't backed up by facts. As Reason's Ronald Bailey has pointed out on several occasions, research shows that immigrants, including those in the country illegally, are actually less prone to commit crimes than American citizens.

    That is both a lie and beside the point. Reason constantly mixes the total crime of legal and illegal immigrants and then argues that the lower number means illegals are not criminal. Moreover, even if it were true, it is still beside the point. The point of immigration control is to keep criminals out. Even if it does do so such that immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives, that still doesn't excuse the times when they do or make trying to ensure that the system lets in even fewer criminals a worthy goal.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its okay for Reason to base whole policy on anecdotes (Trump tariffs cause US company to not expand) but other people cannot anecdotes to counterpoint.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Good point about the cops: Reason can't politicize police shootings fast enough, even if the cop is 100% justified.

  • ||

    Except that you're ignoring the part where the cop is given cover by the government. Is this guy going to get paid administrative leave because he's an illegal alien?

  • Just Say'n||

    No. But, the federal government would not have been informed of his arrest and legal status had he been arrested in some municipalities. A luxury not provided to legal immigrants

  • Just Say'n||

    So there is a degree of disparate treatment by the government. Nonetheless you're right that the analogy is not equal

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, John.

    What did this guy do before he entered the country that would cause you to deny him permission to come to this country?

  • Just Say'n||

    Would anyone know that since he did not go through the standard immigration process?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't know. Perhaps John or someone else knows something about this person's past now that we know who he is.

    But my larger point is, presuming that he didn't have a criminal record before this crime, he likely would have been a person who would have passed whatever vetting procedure that the border restrictionists insist be in place before allowing someone in, at least in terms of his personal conduct.

    So would it have been better if this person had been allowed to come to the country legally, and THEN he killed Mollie? No.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    he likely would have been a person who would have passed whatever vetting procedure

    The guy committed identity theft in order to procure the job he had. But then that sort of thing is kosher with the open borders crowd as long as they have a variety of ethnic restaurants to visit outside their whiteopias.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    His identity theft occurred after he had entered the country.

    What did he do before entering the country that would have caused you to reject him from entering?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    ZZZIIIIINNNGGG go the goalposts!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, those were the goalposts that YOU moved.

    I asked originally what he did before entering the country that would cause you to reject him. You then proceeded to list a bunch of things he did after he entered the country.

    So I ask again, what did he do before entering the country that would have caused you to reject him from entering?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Chemjeff has an excellent goal post moving machine that he uses regularly.

  • Nardz||

    "Perhaps John or someone else knows something about this person's past now that we know who he is."

    I do.
    That entry into this country and ability to sustain his presence here allowed him the means and opportunity to kill this woman.

  • Just Say'n||

    "presuming that he didn't have a criminal record before this crime, he likely would have been a person who would have passed whatever vetting procedure that the border restrictionists insist be in place before allowing someone in, at least in terms of his personal conduct."

    But, you are presuming that he had no criminal record. I don't understand how your assumption is any more valid

  • ||

    you are presuming that he had no criminal record. I don't understand how your assumption is any more valid

    Because we assume people aren't criminals unless we know that they are. There are important reasons for that.

  • Just Say'n||

    The presumption of innocence is for the courts. We don't know whether or not he would have been eligible for a visa, because we do not know if he had a criminal background. That's what I'm saying.

  • ||

    We don't know whether or not he would have been eligible for a visa, because we do not know if he had a criminal background.

    That's an accurate statement.

    I understand the presumption of innocence is for the courts, but there are a few folks in this thread who are quite prone to making up elaborate stories about people's hypothetical criminal pasts when it suits their purposes.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Not only that, there's quite a few people who will immediately jump to the conclusion that "a person is an illegal immigrant" ---> "this person is of low moral character and is probably a murderer"

  • Nardz||

    chemjeff: collectivist slayer of strawmen

  • The_Hoser||

    Is it really a huge leap to think a guy who commits murder might just have a criminal record?

  • damikesc||

    What did this guy do before he entered the country that would cause you to deny him permission to come to this country?

    We are REQUIRED to take in everybody?

    The question should be WHY should we take this person in to begin with? What do they bring to the table?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    On what basis would you have rejected him?

  • damikesc||

    We do not need him here. He doesn't bring anything useful to us.

  • JoeBlow123||

    False. He is fantastic at identity theft.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, THAT'S not true. He worked on a farm in Iowa. Surely he did something useful there.

    Maybe the decision on who should come and go shouldn't be left up to a collective, which is of a divided opinion on the matter?

  • ||

    We are REQUIRED to take in everybody?

    You are required to take in nobody. You also don't have a right to tell other people who they can and can't "take in."

  • damikesc||

    You are required to take in nobody. You also don't have a right to tell other people who they can and can't "take in."

    Unless they live solely on your property and never leave your property...yeah, we do.

  • ||

    Then why am I allowed to leave my property without your permission?

  • JoeBlow123||

    You are aware of this concept called citizenship, yes?

  • Benitacanova||

    If I were illegal I'd keep out of trouble too, considering I'm already a criminal on the lam. I think that makes me smart, not admirable.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Which means that every time an undocumented immigrant runs the risk of encountering the authorities, even for totally benign reasons, that makes him/her desperate to avoid such an encounter.

    That doesn't justify murder, but it does change the incentives.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is perhaps the weakest argument being made.

  • CE||

    I fail to see how "tougher immigration laws" would have prevented the murder. The guy already broke the existing immigration laws to be here, and then broke the existing murder laws. Do we need tougher murder laws too?

    If anything this gives Trump more political support for building the border wall, although I'm sure it won't be 100 percent effective either.

  • General_Tso||

    People shouldn't use this girl's murder as political capital, says the article using it as capital.

  • ||

    An article from Reason legitimately highlighting CNN coverage of two people on Twitter and their reaction to tragedy. Reason is beyond self-parody.

  • Just Say'n||

    The logical fallacy that the opinions of relatives should have any bearing on policy enacted as a result of a crime committed against someone in their family would suggest that we should take the opinions of those whose family member was killed by an illegal immigrant and want stricter border enforcement as a result in equal regards.

    This article seems desperate and very Buzzfeed-y

  • ||

    The logical fallacy that the opinions of relatives should have any bearing on policy enacted as a result of a crime committed against someone in their family would suggest that we should take the opinions of those whose family member was killed by an illegal immigrant and want stricter border enforcement as a result in equal regards.

    Except that's not what they're arguing. The relatives are saying "don't use her as a political prop," not "enact my views as law because my cousin was killed."

  • Just Say'n||

    Right, but their response is using her death as a political narrative.

  • ||

    Do you mean Reason's response? Because, yeah. But not the relatives.

  • Just Say'n||

    Could it not be both Reason and the relative? The cousin didn't simply state "don't politicize our tragedy". She went out of her way to voice opposition to a policy response with regards to the tragedy.

    Is that not a political statement too?

    And it's even more curious considering that her cousin admitted that she didn't know the victim that well which makes her statement seem more political than a request of a grieving family.

  • ||

    The cousin didn't simply state "don't politicize our tragedy". She went out of her way to voice opposition to a policy response with regards to the tragedy.

    Is that not a political statement too?

    I suppose - she does seem unable to not interject an "and those people are on the wrong side of this issue, anyway!"

    I have to confess some of my own class-based prejudices in that I knew since this girl has been in the headlines she must be rich (poor women go missing all the time, it's not news), and these just seem like bourgie "real housewives" types who like the opportunity for national attention.

    But I can be heartless and cranky sometimes.

  • Just Say'n||

    You're right about a class-based bias in reporting news. I'd also concede that there's a racial bias in reporting news too.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Is that not a political statement too?

    Yes. Just like when certain comedians make obviously political statements, then hide behind 'I'm a comedian'.

    Same in this case, they want to be political while refusing to answer detractors.

    Like most - they want to have their cake and eat it and it's appropriate to tell them no.

  • Microaggressor||

    Here's my working theory. But I've only read one story so the facts might not be perfectly straight.

    1. Rivera tries to jog beside Tibbetts for some fucking reason.
    2. Tibbetts freaks out and threatens to call the police.
    3. Rivera, who is undocumented, knows that any encounter with the police can result in his deportation.
    4. Rivera blacks out in a blind rage and murders her for his own benefit.
    5. Eventually overcome with guilt he confesses.

    For all the people saying this doesn't involve politics, it probably does. The threat of deportation may have been the prime motivation. Both TEAMS can easily seize on this for their own positions, e.g. amnesty would have solved this problem, but so would rounding up all the illegals. Either way, it points to a glaring problem with the status quo.

  • Just Say'n||

    I like the fact that your working narrative isn't constrained by any facts of the case

  • Microaggressor||

    If you have a correction to issue, please do.

  • Just Say'n||

    According to the police he was stalking her for some time

  • Microaggressor||

    Ok, but I wasn't defending his behavior. Just pointing out incentives.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    With no basis in reality.

    Your example is pure speculation.

    Furthermore, you're trying to say that Americans demanding that our immigration laws be followed are in some way responsible for this lady getting murdered.

    Americans are sick of these crazy accusations for wanting American law decided by Americans.

  • Microaggressor||

    you're trying to say

    Cathy Newman, please.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    :)

  • ||

    I think Microaggressor is just pointing out that you can conceive of situations where both "round them up" and "grant them amnesty" are the "obvious" political solutions.

  • Just Say'n||

    My mistake then. I misunderstood

  • Benitacanova||

    Really? I read he "circled around her a couple of times" . In a tiny town, he may have had his eye on her, but not enough is known yet.

    I think microA has a good theory, and if no evidence of rapey rape shows up, an even better one.

  • Just Say'n||

    His "theory" is no more factual than anyone else's. It's weird how people will accept whatever theory protects their political view

  • Tony||

    Just so I have this straight.. it's the freedom people who want to round them all up and put them in cages to solve the alleged problem, yes?

  • Just Say'n||

    Call it "The Obama doctrine"

  • Microaggressor||

    I don't know, garden variety Republicans aren't what I consider "freedom people". But to their credit, they are less likely to be socialist, making them less authoritarian on net than your garden variety Democrat.

    Tony, after reading Reason for so long I'd expect you to have at least some understanding of this libertarian dilemma, but in your impotent rage all you can see is TEAM.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    they are less likely to be socialist, making them less authoritarian on net than your garden variety Democrat.

    Why is it just implicitly assumed that socialism is the only form of authoritarianism that matters?

    Yes, socialists tend to be authoritarian. But there's a whole lot of other forms of authoritarianism that are not based in socialism. See Pinochet, for instance.

    So no, I do not grant that simply being "not socialist" means one is less likely to be authoritarian.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Why is it just implicitly assumed that socialism is the only form of authoritarianism that matters?

    The body count.

  • Nardz||

    "So no, I do not grant that simply being "not socialist" means one is less likely to be authoritarian."

    All socialists are authoritarian.
    Some non-socialists are authoritarian.
    All is more likely than some.
    It's simple fucking logic

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Actually, it's not true that all socialists are authoritarian. Some are of the anarchist variety.

    The point here, however, is that simply saying someone is "not a socialist" is not enough to declare that person free from authoritarian tendencies.

  • Just Say'n||

    Sure. But, all socialists who attain power are authoritarians. That is factual. The argument that some socialists are anarchists is about as factual as when Marx argued that the dictatorship of the proletariat will inevitably give way to the withering away of the state. Bakunin didn't buy it and neither should you.

  • ||

    Some Socialists believe themselves to be anarchists. They are naive and ignorant, but they exist.

    Some fascists believe themselves to be libertarians. People are like that.

    I tend to agree with Jeff that "not-Democrat" =/= "not-Authoritarian." In fact, it was the overweening authoritarianism of Republicans in the 80s that drove me away from political conservatism pretty determinedly for a pretty long time.

  • Nardz||

    Except we're not discussing certainty, we're discussing probability.

    "So no, I do not grant that simply being "not socialist" means one is less likely to be authoritarian."

    Not Democrat/Socialist does not = not authoritarian, but is more likely to be not authoritarian than a socialist is, as all socialists are indeed authoritarian.
    There is a 0% possibility of finding non-authoritarian+socialist
    There is a 0%< possibility of finding non-authoritarian+non-socialist

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Tony, after reading Reason for so long I'd expect you to have at least some understanding of this libertarian dilemma, but in your impotent rage all you can see is TEAM.

    If it weren't for impotent rage he'd have no emotions at all.

    He's also too thick to draw distinctions other than "disagrees with me = RethugliKKKan." He's the walking definition of "binary thinking."

  • Tony||

    If you can't see the even more feverish than usual Republican apologetics going on here in the last few days then you have the far more serious problem with your mental state.

    Republicans are committing major crimes a lot, there's a crisis in the presidency as a result, and Democrats have no power, but the real problem is Barack Obama of course.

  • ein esel||

    To be clear, the ecomony is Obama's, but nothing else is.

  • Tony||

    I'm fine putting blame and praise where it belongs. Are you?

  • ein esel||

    Sure. As soon as you explain what makes the economy different from everything else.

  • Tony||

    Not sure what the question is but I don't typically put all of the success and failures of the economy on the president. Indicators lag and presidents play a limited policy role.

    What I do think is historically substantiated fact is that Democrats are better than Republicans at managing the economy.

  • ein esel||

    All things influenced at the federal level lag. Why does Obama own the economy and not, say, the deterioration in the Middle East?

  • ||

    Ah, today's most recent example of Tony attempting to demonstrate that he's not a binary thinker, and failing spectacularly.

  • Tony||

    I'm not a binary thinker in that I believe that things are either all good or all evil (illegal immigrants, just to pick an example out of my ass). It does however remain a fact that American politics is a binary, zero-sum situation.

  • ||

    "I'm not a binary thinker, I just recognize the reality that all the world's problems are caused by Republicans and solved by Democrats."

  • Tony||

    The world works out in funny ways sometimes.

  • ||

    I always love how glibly you acknowledge that you're wrong before you merrily skip away, having learned nothing.

  • Nardz||

    This is actually one of Tony's most charming traits, []=O

  • Tony||

    When you have an organization, the Republican party, that is the single biggest threat to humanity on planet earth, it's likely--nay, certain--that any alternative will be an improvement.

  • ||

    When you have an organization, the Republican party, that is the single biggest threat to humanity on planet earth, it's likely--nay, certain--that any alternative will be an improvement.

    It's hilarious that you think you're proving anything other than what I just said about you.

    Keep going, please. Tell me you're not a binary thinker, you're just better than other people at recognizing who the Evil Group is.

  • Tony||

    I never wanted them to be as evil as they are. But, like, have you been in a coma for 40 years? It's only been getting worse since Nixon.

  • NashTiger||

    Okay, this troll is over

  • JoeBlow123||

    "When you have an organization, the Republican party, that is the single biggest threat to humanity on planet earth, it's likely--nay, certain--that any alternative will be an improvement."

    This is pretty funny. I have read some hyperbole before, but man, this is some impressive stuff here.

  • Sam Haysom||

    To bad it didn't work out for you. Imagine if you had anything else going in life. You life revolves around bitchy angry posts on a fifth tier political site that probably won't even exist in ten years.

  • Tony||

    The only authoritarian-like behavior I see going on is at those shitshow Trump rallies. We're only lucky that Trump is too ridiculous even as dictators go. Until we're not of course.

    But no the real problem are the two socialists in the country. You definitely have this figured out.

  • ||

    The only authoritarian-like behavior I see going on is at those shitshow Trump rallies.

    We know, Tony, we know.

  • perlchpr||

    *applause*

  • DesigNate||

    Willful ignorance is no way to go through life Tony.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Call it "FDR Doctrine".

  • Michael S. Langston||

    If 100 people decided to.live in your dwelling breaking trespassing laws, what would you have done with them?

    Disclaimer: current immigration policy is idiotic and we should be more open, but more open should never become open without even simple restrictions.

    And since the US is a representational government...illegals are trespassing on US property.

  • wreckinball||

    "After police said Tibbetts' killer is an illegal immigrant, conservatives started using her death to argue for stricter immigration enforcement.'

    Wow just wow Joe. I mean yea that's horrible. I mean its not like the open borders folks don;t constantly say that all illegals are just law abiding Mr Rogers clones. So pointing out how this guy was definitely not Mr Rogers is awful and political.

    Ridiculous.

  • Tony||

    Citation needed that anyone favors "open borders" and those who do claim that all illegal immigrants are law abiding.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Citation needed that anyone favors "open borders"

    I do.

    #OpenBorders
    #NoBanNoWall
    #AbolishICE

  • Dillinger||

    what *is* a border?

  • wreckinball||

    Geez put the pipe down

  • Michael S. Langston||

    what *is* a border?

    What are your property boundaries? Can I start using your yard or residence for housing?

    I mean if borders don't exist, then neither does private property.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony demands citations but never provides them himself for his crazy conspiracy theories.

  • Tony||

    What you call crazy conspiracy theories are being played out in real time on the news. It's not a hoax, Trump was just implicated in felonies.

  • ein esel||

    By a felon. Who was being squeezed.

  • Tony||

    Then Trump should be able to clear it all up with the special counsel.

  • ein esel||

    I'm glad you agree it'll be cleared up because of the lack of credibility of the accuser.

  • Tony||

    And don't forget, Trump admitted to paying the hush money, but his credibility isn't all that great either. Maybe the more he admits to crimes the more innocent he is? Have you guys tried that one out yet?

  • ein esel||

    So two scumbags are duking it out and Tony picks one because he suits Tony's narrative.

    Sounds about right.

  • ||

    So two scumbags are duking it out and Tony picks one because he suits Tony's narrative.

    It's because Tony's not a binary thinker.

  • wreckinball||

    I just asked the drug dealer on the corner and he says Tony is a criminal.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Trump was just implicated in felonies.

    Citation needed as the vast majority of campaign finance violations are not felonies.

  • Microaggressor||

    This very article made the assertion that illegals are less likely to commit crime than citizens, which is the same argument without as much exaggeration.

    Now, I don't know whether that's true or if the statistics are tainted by the strong incentive for illegals to avoid the police. This whole discussion is just everybody asserting their own beliefs to score political points, Reason included.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    This whole discussion is just everybody asserting their own beliefs to score political points, Reason included.

    ^This^

    It's really fucking tiresome.

  • Tony||

    Wouldn't it be nice if we all started from the same facts?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    We have - it's the idiotic conclusions where everyone differs.

  • Ron||

    So then we also shouldn't politizie school shootings as well.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm sure there's an article about that

  • loveconstitution1789||

    One or two here on Reason, IIRC :)

  • Just Say'n||

    Whispers: There are exactly zero articles from Reason calling out people for politicizing the shooting in Florida.

  • Just Say'n||

    Prevailing narratives are followed as stringently by Reason as they are by the NYT or WaPo.

  • TxJack 112||

    Because Reason supports open borders. They attack people who oppose stricter immigration enforcement every day.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And they are right. We shouldn't. Politicization of single events is often poor. Especially when they're rare events.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agreed, but rare is a relative term and in general the news focuses on the rare (for good reasons) as opposed to focusing on the normal/mundane.

    Don't get me wrong - there are lots of negative consequences to this such as heightened fear by parents of abduction.

    But in general - rare news stories is what we all want.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Though they should provide greater context... Main point was only that's a problem without a solution.

  • ||

    So then we also shouldn't politizie school shootings as well.

    True.

  • Just Say'n||

    That is a political statement in itself

  • ||

    EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL

  • Just Say'n||

    "Man is a political animal"

    - Aristotle

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The noose tightens around The Dotard's neck:


    Enquirer Publisher's CEO Given Immunity in Cohen Case
    Federal prosecutors granted immunity to David Pecker, CEO of the company that publishes the National Enquirer and a longtime friend of President Trump, in the Michael Cohen investigation. 5 minutes ago

    Wall St Journal

  • Azathoth!!||

    Somehow I think Mollie's parents would have more of a problem with distant relatives and "people who say that they were her friend" standing on Mollie's corpse to get a bit of limelight on their grubby faces.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Well, wingnuts got a lot of political mileage out of exploiting the death of Kate Steinle so why not try it again?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    David Hogg, amiright?

    Point being that political zealots politicize EVERYTHING. It's all they know to do. A bear shits in the woods and if they can find a way to politicize it, they will.

  • Tony||

    You guys pick some weird boogeymen. A kid whose schoolmates were mass murdered? I'm actually surprised you Drudge morons went all in on that one. It had to be an experiment in just how evil and stupid you guys can get.

  • Just Say'n||

    Your ad hominems are a solid rebuke to his factual point

  • ein esel||

    Your party is the one who put him out as a spokesman, don't whine because he had to deal with it.

  • Tony||

    Yeah and god forbid a kid whose schoolmates were mass murdered have a political opinion on mass murders.

    You have to realize that to normal people picking on this kid makes you guys look like scary psychopaths. And you are the ones who want more guns?

  • ||

    You have to realize that to normal people picking on this kid makes you guys look like scary psychopaths

    Almost like that's the whole point of using a kid and a bloody shirt as your message-bearers.

  • ein esel||

    God forbid your party avoid trotting out a child and exposong him as a mouthpiece for your cause.

    You're hiding behind a child while trying to take the high road, and you do it because you know your message, presented by you instead of a "victim" falls on deaf ears.

  • Tony||

    We have the high road even if our spokespeople are... uh... kids whose friends were murdered? (Still don't understand what's so terrible about this child. You'll have to explain in detail as soon as Infowars emails you the talking points). And we have the high road because we are in favor of less death while you're in favor of more. I don't tolerate ignorance as an excuse for not knowing what it is you support.

  • ein esel||

    "We have the high road even if our spokespeople are... uh... kids whose friends were murdered? "

    No, you lose it because you use him like a tool.

  • ein esel||

    " I don't tolerate ignorance as an excuse for not knowing what it is you support. "

    "As to defensives uses of guns, the CDC report said, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. ... Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

    "And we have the high road because we are in favor of less death while you're in favor of more"

    Apparently you do tolerate your own ignorance.

  • Tony||

    Ah so clearly America has a very low rate of gun death.

  • ||

    Ah so clearly America has a very low rate of gun death.

    What is your obsession with gun death (including suicides) in particular? Why don't you look at rates of, oh, I don't know, criminal homicide?

    It's almost like you don't actually care about the violence and death, and you only care about what cheap political points can be scored by standing next to crying kids.

  • Tony||

    From your article:

    "for the whole of 2017/18 New York remained at least twice as high for its homicide rate."

    And on the contrary, unlike you guys when you're trying to score cheap political points in favor of a certain industry lobby, I count suicides as among important death stats too.

  • ||

    I count suicides as among important death stats too

    Only when they're done by gun.

    Is the US plagued by murder in a way that other countries aren't? No. But you don't care about that, you only care about gun murder, and then disingenuously combine murder-by-gun with suicide-by-gun to claim some correlation between gun ownership and violence where there is none.

    And then you proudly exploit traumatized children to amplify your lies while claiming to be occupying the "moral high ground."

    Your tribalism and intellectual laziness border on despicable.

  • KevinP||

    Hogg was in a different building from the shooting. Based upon this, I have survived several building fires since I was in a nearby building. I have also several car accidents by being in the general vicinity, even if not involved in the actual accident.

    Please watch and share this profanity-laced interview with David Hogg, one of the astroturfed Parkland student gun control activists. This is what they are all about:

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/david-hogg-wild


    Quotes from the 17 year old:

    "When your old-ass parent is like, 'I don't know how to send an iMessage,' and you're just like, 'Give me the fucking phone and let me handle it.' Sadly, that's what we have to do with our government; our parents don't know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to."

    "It just makes me think what sick fuckers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected. What type of shitty person does that? They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn't take action, because they all still see these dollar signs."

    To Senator Rubio: "What about the $176,000 you took for those 17 people's blood?
  • perlchpr||

    Hogg was in a different building from the shooting. Based upon this, I have survived several building fires since I was in a nearby building. I have also several car accidents by being in the general vicinity, even if not involved in the actual accident.

    Pfff. I've survived multiple airplane and helicopter crashes under this doctrine.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Yeah and god forbid a kid whose schoolmates were mass murdered have a political opinion on mass murders.

    The problem is his political beliefs, right or wrong, should stand on their own merits. And whether he was involved is not relevant.

    The idea That it's more relevant is the issue and it's beyond intellectually immature to believe so.

    As if you believe that, then only military veterans with war experience should decide how they're used.

    Or maybe crime victims get to determine criminal penalties?

    Just stupid...

  • ||

    A kid whose schoolmates were mass murdered?

    Not all of those kids were pro-gun control. But only some of them got soapboxes out of the tragedy, for some reason.

  • KevinP||

    The five Parkland gun control activists have been successfully astroturfed by the media and the Left.

    Why Did It Take Two Weeks To Discover Parkland Students' Astroturfing?


    Quotes (but read the whole article):
    "Can you believe these kids?" It's been a recurring theme: the remarkable effectiveness of the high school students who created a gun control organization. In seemingly no time, the magical kids had organized events ranging from a national march to a mass school walkout, and they'd brought in a million dollars in donations from Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney.

    On February 28, BuzzFeed came out with the actual story: Rep. Debbie Wassermann Schultz aiding in the lobbying in Tallahassee, a teacher's union organizing the buses that got the kids there, Michael Bloomberg's groups and the Women's March working on the upcoming March For Our Lives, MoveOn.org doing social media promotion and (potentially) march logistics, and training for student activists provided by federally funded Planned Parenthood.

    What's striking about all this isn't the organization. If you start reading books about organizing, it's clear how it all works. But no journalist covering the story wrote about this stuff for two weeks. Instead, every story was about the Parkland kids being magically effective.
  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Fuck off, Tony. If you could remember interactions from conversation to conversation you'd remember that I'm not some right-wing inforwars zealot. Reflexively attacking anybody that disagree with you on any single point is one of the signs of a political noob, and that's you, not me.

    I dislike Hogg for the same reason I dislike Jeff Sessions. Both spend their days working hard to deny my fellow citizens of their civil rights.

  • ||

    If you could remember interactions from conversation to conversation

    Hell - if he could remember interactions from comment to comment it would be an improvement!

  • Tony||

    What would you consider your top 4 primary sources of news?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    I don't know. But it's certainly not Infowars, Breitbart, or Fox News. I've never watched/listened to or read any of those three. Not one single fucking time.

    You said up above that you don't like to generalize entire populations, but it seems to me that's the entirety of what you do. "Anybody who disagrees with me on anything is a toothless hillbilly that gets their information from Breitbart!" You and Kirkland and the Buttplug. Read loveconstitution's stuff and notice how anybody that disagrees with him is a Libtard. That's you in a different colored jersey.

    And I don't care what you say, Hogg (like Sessions) is a statist authoritarian thug who makes his bones advocating the denial of other people's rights. The fact that you don't like that particular right doesn't make it any less valid.

  • Tony||

    If you have such overbearing emotions about a single teenaged activist, you did not develop those feelings on your own. I'm telling you, apart from whatever it is that you read, being this emotional about this kid is freakish. And I suspect you could work on not having such freakish emotional issues if you didn't read the right-wing bullshit you read.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Have you seen a dermatologist yet?

    "Dang, dude. You need a dermatologist to help you with that rosacea."
    Angela Edwards - August 11, 2018

  • KevinP||

    Not to mention:

    Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'


    Quote:
    President Obama on Thursday made an impassioned case that gun violence is "something we should politicize" following a mass shooting at a community college in Oregon.

    Obama chided opponents of gun control legislation, including those who argue the country needs more guns to prevent mass shootings. And he urged proponents of stricter gun laws to vote for political candidates who share their views.

    "Each time this happens, I'm going to bring this up," Obama said. "Each time this happens, I am going to say we can actually do something about it."

    In a veiled jab at the NRA, Obama asked American gun owners to consider "whether your views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it is speaking for you."

  • Michael S. Langston||

    This is a great example of how one person's trash is another's treasure.

    Or one person's favorite charitable cause is another's 'special interest group'.

    And this family is just following Obama et al as they are the arbiters, apparently, of what is 'too political'.

    Using school shooting deaths for gun control - sensible and non-political.

    Using school deaths to increase security and armed presence - political and extremist.

    Violating private property rights to punish smokers - non-political.

    Violating property rights to stop live sex shows - political and extremist.

    I could go on, but it's tiring and saddening.

  • ThomasD||

    Setyon, you are a hack's hack.

    An article, with a headline "Mollie Tibbet's Family" and a body that leads off with "An entire family..." then gets gradually reduced to an aunt, and a cousin and someone who claims friendship with the victim. While not mentioning anything about statements from any other immediate family members is beyond dishonest.

    But, frankly I expect nothing less from you.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    He's nothing but another junior grade Obamatard Professional Fake Libertarian in training whose balls just dropped like two weeks ago. Par for the course around here these days in other words.

  • ||

    And, for the conservative talking heads I know about, I have no idea who Owens is. As I pointed out above, it's literally two people on Twitter that CNN picked up and Reason is passing on. They are beyond their own parodies.

  • Nardz||

    Owens is the black chick who was harassed while eating breakfast by a mob of progressives who assembled there exclusively for that purpose.
    Harassment included throwing water at her and chanting that she's a white supremacist while blocking her ability to exit without the aid of law enforcement.

  • ||

    OK then, 'no idea' was an exaggeration. I didn't know who she was when they threw water bottles at her and had forgotten that was her.

  • Intelligent Mr Toad||

    Something very bad happened to me last year: a dear friend of mine was murdered. His name was Roddy Posa. And at the trial, I found out that the murderer was wearing yellow socks at the time when he murdered my friend Roddy Posa. Looking into it further, I found that this murderer loves yellow socks and wore them all the time.

    So now, I'm trying to get my congressman to pass a law against yellow socks. I know that this law won't bring Roddy back to life, but at least it will make other Americans safer. I know it will make Americans safer, because if this law had been in place, and enforced, last year, then my friend Roddy would still be alive.

    Tell your congressman: no more Roddy Posas! Ban yellow socks NOW!

  • Just Say'n||

    If he weren't wearing yellow socks would he have not been near the vicinity to murder your friend?

  • Just Say'n||

    Reducing the argument made by conservatives here to the absurd sort of highlights the difficulty in answering their point. Because there is validity to their point

  • Just Say'n||

    The same is true with gun control arguments. Every time the argument of the gun controllers is reduced to "we need common sense knife control" or something of that nature, you end up undercutting your argument because their response is that a knife, unlike a gun, serves a purpose outside of killing.

    You may not like their argument, but when you draw false parodies from it you show that they do have a point to their argument that you don't want to address.

  • lap83||

    because their response is that a knife, unlike a gun, serves a purpose outside of killing.
    I don't know if that's true. It's just that no one cares about a vegetable's life

  • lap83||

    That said, I agree that it's not the best argument. There are at least a handful better arguments, like 1.gun control doesn't control guns 2. the police don't have to protect you 3. you benefit from the crime deterring effects from the second amendment even without having to own a gun, but no one benefits from a gun ban except criminals and dictators

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes. I agree. I support gun ownership.

    But, notice that the arguments in favor of guns are more diverse than "shootings are going to happen regardless of gun ownership". In the case of illegal immigration relative to this matter you cannot argue "this murder would have occurred regardless of illegal immigration". Not in this specific example. And that's why conservatives have a legitimate point in this case.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Well, I suspect this topic to provoke a reasonable, logical debate with valid points made by both sides.

    The only thing I'll say is this: using death(s) to promote a political agenda is tacky regardless of whether it's conservatives using this girl's death to score cheap points against illegal immigration or, say, leftists using the 17 people killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS earlier this year to score cheap points against guns. At least wait for the bodies to reach room temperature before using them as a soapbox.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes. But only one is ever called out.

  • Tony||

    Nobody ever criticizes anti-gun activists. Nope.

  • lap83||

    They are (sometimes) allowed to comment on the major news articles calling for gun control after every shooting, what more do these gun nuts want?

  • Tony||

    They want the federal government to fund teachers possessing guns in the classroom. I'm sure there's something after that too.

  • ||

    At least wait for the bodies to reach room temperature before using them as a soapbox.

    Technically, Tibbett died a month ago and while statements about the MSD HS shooting were being spouted as they occurred.

  • Tony||

    Illegal immigration the concept didn't cause this girl's death. Gun proliferation is arguably implicated in regular occurrences of mass shootings. It is after all the only variable that explains their prevalence in this country compared to other advanced countries.

  • leninsmummy||

    "Illegal immigration the concept" must've missed that one, is it anything like 'Assault weapons the concept'?

  • ||

    Gun proliferation is arguably implicated in regular occurrences of mass shootings. It is after all the only variable that explains their prevalence in this country compared to other advanced countries.

    'arguably' is about the only accurate part of this statement and means we could insert anything in place of 'Gun' and the statement wouldn't change at all factually;

    Invisible pink unicorn proliferation is arguably implicated in regular occurrences of mass shootings. It is after all the only variable that explains their prevalence in this country compared to other advanced countries.

  • KevinP||

    CPRC is about to come out with a study that shows that mass shootings with guns are very prevalent across the world, and when adjusted for population, the US has a low rate of mass shootings with guns.

    And for everyone's info:

    US becoming safer compared to Europe in both fatalities and frequency of mass public shootings: US now ranks 11th in fatalities and 12th in frequency


    Quote:
    Between January 2009 and December 2015, there are 11 European countries with a higher frequency of these mass public shootings than the US, and 10 European countries with a higher rate of deaths from these attacks.

    Indeed, over that same period of time, the European Union (EU) suffered 303 deaths from mass public shootings, while the US had 199.

  • Happy Chandler||

    It's often the survivors making the statement after shootings. They wantedd to push for change. Which ones were complaint about trying for change? They wanted to honor the victims through change.

    Here the family is saying that the use of her story is a dishonor to her memory.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Stupid ducking phone.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    The only thing I'll say is this: using death(s) to promote a political agenda is tacky...

    Disagree to some extent. While I agree I general that 'politicizing' a murder isn't the best way to make an argument, one person's politicalization is another person's moral.imperative.

    Example: Is showing starving children in North Korea politicizing the issue or trying to highlight reality?

  • M.L.||

    Liberals: Mexico and El Salvador and other places are violent hellscapes so people from there needed to be admitted as refugees.

    Also Liberals: Letting the more criminally inclined people from those countries into ours by permitting illegal immigration and de facto open borders won't bring violent crime here -- That's ridiculous, and racist!

    Hmmmmmm. Must be the ground is cursed in those countries, and we have magic soil here?

    P.S. Also Liberals: This isn't about Democrat votes, power, and the anti-American, socialist, identity politics agendas. Noooo, it has nothing to do with that. I'm just a good person, that's all.

  • ||

    Must be the ground is cursed in those countries, and we have magic soil here?

    The problem isn't just the ground, it's the people as well and across national lines. You might say their ground and culture is cursed. That they immigrate through shitholes on their way to get here because we have magic blood and soil or something.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Hmmmmmm. Must be the ground is cursed in those countries, and we have magic soil here?


    Why not? We have all those ancient Indian burial grounds, might as well use 'em for something good.

  • Just Say'n||

    If the statement from this relative had simply been "we are grieving and are not interested in discussing politics at this time" that would be a neutral statement. By actively voicing opposition to proposed legislation regarding your relative's murder you have engaged in political speech.

  • Benitacanova||

    There's little doubt that being college age the deceased girl was a PC open borders advocate. It's sad she didn't live long enough to grow up and change her mind.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you and I are neighbors on adjacent parcels of land, and I invite you onto my property, then no third party should stand in the way of that invitation.

    BUT, if there is a national border separating those two parcels of land, THEN suddenly it becomes justifiable for the government, or the majority, or some court, to have veto power over that invitation?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    jeff, no country in the world has zero-control open borders. Why is that?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Because every government is a coercive controlling authority?

    But could you address the question I asked above? Why is it that if two neighbors invite each other onto their property, it's not a problem, UNLESS there is a national border separating their two parcels of land?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    You're describing Libertarian Utopia. When you find it, let me know.

    In the real, practical world there's no way we're going to go total open borders. And, honestly, there are people that we just don't want here anyway. And there are some of us that other countries don't want as well. Clearly, the guy that killed Mollie Tibbetts has proven himself to be one of those people.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Because every government is a coercive controlling authority?"

    They also do a lot of things to secure your liberty like secure your property rights, track down and imprison violent criminals, and prevent violent groups of outsiders from messing with you whether they be Imperial Japan or al-Qaeda.

    But hey, keep living in your natural rights fantasy land chemjeff. I am sure all those violent, coercive people out there will respect your natural rights if there is no force organized to oppose them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, governments occasionally do some good things. Which is why I'm not an anarchist, only a minarchist.

    But governments don't have open borders because they are doing something worthwhile. They are only doing it to protect their turf. Not for the sake of the citizens, but for the sake of their own power.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    ... no country in the world has zero-control open borders. Why is that?

    North Korea does

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "Neighbors"

  • Just Say'n||

    "BUT, if there is a national border separating those two parcels of land, THEN suddenly it becomes justifiable for the government, or the majority, or some court, to have veto power over that invitation?"

    This is the problem that I've always had with open border advocates who try to establish some property rights basis to transversing borders: the vast majority of illegal immigrants did not receive some invitation before they entered the country.

    Freedom of movement is a better argument

  • Tony||

    the vast majority of illegal immigrants did not receive some invitation before they entered the country.

    False. A visa is a literally an invitation to enter the country, and most "illegals" are people who overstayed visas.

  • Just Say'n||

    A "visa" is given by the government. This is why you should not engage in inter-libertarian discourse, because you don't understand how your comments actually bolstered my point.

  • ||

    Well, it also highlights the absurdity of the open borders idiocy. The border 'exists' not only in space but in time as well. Overstaying your Visa is as illegal as walking across the border without one. The idea that borders are a figment of imagination means you can void property rights any place and any *time*. Left your house to go to the store? Squatter's rights! Putin didn't annex Crimea, he eliminated an imaginary border that didn't used to exist.

  • ||

    While I have yet to hear any very realistic proposals from immigration restrictionists on what to actually do that doesn't violate the NAP, I agree that the "borders are imaginary lines" argument is particularly weak.

    "The Government" is also a "figment of imagination," as are a whole lot of things that we think of as being very, very real. And you would ignore those things as "fictions" at your peril.

  • Nardz||

    "The Government" is also a "figment of imagination," as are a whole lot of things that we think of as being very, very real. And you would ignore those things as "fictions" at your peril."

    Good point.
    Also - the NAP

  • Michael S. Langston||

    While I have yet to hear any very realistic proposals from immigration restrictionists on what to actually do that doesn't violate the NAP,..

    If trespassing violates Nap, then so does violating US immigration law.

    If trespassing isn't violation of NAP, then there's some really nice homes in the area I plan to confiscate.

  • Nardz||

    "The idea that borders are a figment of imagination means you can void property rights any place and any *time*."

    Bingo

  • wreckinball||

    What?
    If you have national borders laws govern entry across that border. If you don't like the laws elect folks to change them.

    You really shouldn't take too much of what Reason writes seriously.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Maybe the laws that govern entry/exit across national border start from the wrong premise and ought to be revised from a more libertarian direction.

    Maybe the entire presumption behind the current status quo - that the majority has some moral authority to decide who comes and goes from the country - is fatally flawed and should be re-examined.

  • ||

    Maybe the entire presumption behind the current status quo - that the majority has some moral authority to decide who comes and goes from the country - is fatally flawed and should be re-examined.

    You want people like Joe Arpaio doing it without the burden of conforming to Federal laws and statutes?

  • wreckinball||

    No he is OK with just not following the laws he doesn't like. We MUST of course enforce the laws he likes.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    This has been rebutted so many times.

    1. The government does not have to assist in your association by ignoring its laws.
    2. Even libertarians reconize that geographic boundaries do matter, even in the simplistic situation you posit. For example, what if your neighbor has a restraining order against the person you're inviting, barring them from coming within 1000 feet, which overlaps your property? What if the property line is also a state line, and the person you're inviting is free on bail and not allowed to leave their state?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    1. The government does not have to assist in your association by ignoring its laws.

    If the laws infringe upon liberty, then the laws should be ignored.

    2. Even libertarians reconize that geographic boundaries do matter, even in the simplistic situation you posit. For example, what if your neighbor has a restraining order against the person you're inviting, barring them from coming within 1000 feet, which overlaps your property? What if the property line is also a state line, and the person you're inviting is free on bail and not allowed to leave their state?

    In your first hypothetical example, assuming that the restraining order was justly decided, you are positing actions that the neighbor took that led to a restriction of his own liberty. So the state would be interfering in this invitation to visit my property based on the neighbor's prior actions, not based on the invitation itself.

    In your second example, since you are discussing someone who has only been accused of a crime, I would argue that the principle of innocent until proven guilty should not prevent this individual from accepting this invitation, and that the state is wrong to limit his movement in that way.

    But the important point, is that in either case, whether or not the state gets involved in the invitation, is entirely dependent on the individual actions of the two people involved. It is NOT based on some group characteristic such as nationality or race.

  • BunkerBill||

    I supposed that we should be not be surprised anymore when Reason magazine takes the side of murderous illegal aliens over American victims. Sad but predictable.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    It's one of the ways in which leftist assholes like Setyon signal their (imagined) superiority.

  • Brandybuck||

    Conservatives should NOT be doing this. But at the same time liberals should NOT be politicizing every school shooting either. A tragedy is a tragedy and simplistic kneejerk politicizing just puts you in line for the woodchipper.

  • Real American||

    If there are no illegals in this country, they can't commit crimes here. WIN-WIN.

  • Tony||

    The same could be said for Jews. Or anyone really.

  • Nardz||

    You know Hitler had pieces of flare he made the Jews wear.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If Tony had to wear a piece of lair every time he posted nonsense, he would be a human message board.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The real irony of Mollie's death isn't the issue of illegal immigration, per se. One look at her Twitter feed shows a young UMC woman steeped in years of left-wing gaslighting, especially in college, designed to increase her self-loathing and hostility towards people who looked like her, to make her question her instincts towards her own safety in favor of PC indoctrination. The guy's employer is a local GOP operative who epitomizes the Chamber of Commerce wing of the party, and didn't use E-verify to vet him, which would have revealed that he was committing identity theft.

    Repeal Hart-Cellar today.

  • wreckinball||

    Seems like the guy being here is illegal and not using E-verify is also an issue. Is it illegal? I'm not sure. If it is prosecute the employer and execute the illegal

    This shouldn't be a left v right issue.

    It is news though and reporting it is not necessarily "politicizing" it.

  • TxJack 112||

    Supposedly the employer did use E-verify, but that is irrelevant if the person is using a stolen SS number which happens all the time.

  • KevinP||

    Interesting. Links?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    ...didn't use E-verify...

    If you are unfamiliar with the systemic problems with E-verify, please study up.

    Otherwise, I wouldn't assume complying with a verification system prone to consistent failures is relevant to this case.

    Nice try though - C-

  • wreckinball||

    An illegal killed a citizen. Thus if the illegal was not here the girl would be alive. Pretty simple folks.

    Use some of your "reasoning" power to understand.

  • ||

    Where things seem very, very simple, it often has more to do with the mind than with reality.

  • wreckinball||

    Figures some idiot that goes by square= circle can't grasp simple facts . Because square does not equal circle moron.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    TANSTAAFL.

    Efforts devoted to tracking down every last undocumented immigrant would lead to other abuses in other areas.

    Yes we would have fewer undocumented immigrants killing cute Iowa coeds. But we would have more government goons with guns demanding compliance with an increasingly burdensome regulatory state for the purpose of "keeping out the illegals". And some of those goons with guns are going to accidentally kill some innocent people too.

    There is no ideal solution in which everybody lives happily ever after. The best thing we can do is to minimize coercion where we can, and let individuals acting via their own agency and liberty live their lives as they see fit.

  • Cathy L||

    I look forward to Republicans arguing all murderers should have been aborted.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Cathy, you're using an argument that I've seen a lot on the left use on social media to irrationally defend their politically-derived immigration stance - e.g. "you care about this but you don't care about the guy in Colorado that killed his wife and daughters".

    It's comparing unrelated events. Citizens who kill are here, and they've got the right to be here. It's protected by the Constitution. People who are here in violation of our immigration laws don't have that right.

    Expecting that we'd have an undocumented immigration rate of zero is the mirror image of Jeff's Completely Open Border Utopia. Call it Trumpista Utopia. It'll never happen. But it all comes down to probabilities. The lower the amount of illegals we have here, the lower the odds you or I or somebody else have of being killed or injured by one of them.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    "If (insert name of mass shooter here) had not had a gun, their victims would still be alive"

  • leninsmummy||

    "But in general, the benefits of both legal and illegal immigration far outweigh the costs." - it's absolutely priceless that this was tacked on to the end of THIS article. Bravo.

  • wreckinball||

    Its lack of "Reason" after all. For Mollie I guess they were death benefits?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    On a an individual level, the death of a person close to you has no price that would make it acceptable.

    In policy analysis however, the cost of putting a human being every 1.5 meters along the border 24/7/365 as compared to X cost for crimes committed by that group is not only relevant to the discussion, but of paramount importance.

    As anecdotes don't prove anything.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Molly Tibbets was a racist, white hating Antifa terrorist.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The guy that killed her loved white women, though. Or maybe he hated them too. Huh, time will tell I guess.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    This is like the worst chatroom ever.

  • perlchpr||

    a/s/l?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    we are not so fucking small-minded that we generalize a whole population based on some bad individuals.

    Almost everyone does that to some degree. Otherwise, the "Friends don't let friends [vote for a party I don't like]" bumper sticker industry would go bankrupt.

  • ||

    I need an "Arguing against broad generalization isn't always dumb but lots of times it is." bumper sticker.

  • ||

    Generalization is a 100% natural and necessary survival function. Those in the distant past who said "lions tend to kill people when approached, but maybe this one won't" didn't survive to leave us descendants.

    IMHO, an important skill for living in a modern, cosmopolitan society is understanding that this is a natural tendency, being aware of it, and being able to overcome it when observing and interacting with actual individuals.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Just like the leftists didn't generalize
    -- people who like the confederate flag based on Dylan Roof
    -- alt-righters based on the Charlottesville marchers
    -- gun owners based on the Vegas and Parkland shooting
    -- etc.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Almost everyone does that to some degree.

    Yep. It's part of the human experience and evolutionary advantageous.

    Your tribe encounters a new animal or new tribe and things don't go well. Assuming similar tribes or similar animals will cause similar problems is an obvious survival mechanism.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Though a disclaimer:just because this is unsurprising doesn't mean we should continue to do so. Humans were given the gift of contemplation and it is wrong to color any group based upon the actions of a minority within that group.

    But it's still true that it happens and the reasons are based in how humans think.

  • josh||

    I don't object to trying to use someone's death to enact change you think would be positive. What I object to is that the very people who would lecture us on how sad it is that a human being died, are actually the least likely to think of the victim as a human being. To them, they're a political prop, and make no mistake, when a family member comes forward to say the victim wouldn't have wanted this, then those same people are muttering under their breath how the family just "doesn't get it". This is why, the moment there's a school shooting for example, it's not the gun rights crowd that is talking politics, but they're also the ones who get accused of having blood on their hands.

  • Duelles||

    And "if we can save the life of just one child. . . " the crime of illegal immigration already took place. Murder? Always an evil. Like global warming the hype needs to be ramped up to get something done apropos of what Bill Clinton, Obama, and Trump have all 'championed'

  • XM||

    Owens didn't generalize any people and she hasn't actually called for any new immigration policy (as far as I can tell). She was observing a media double standard on how they cover immigration issues. This is on the heels of the media headlining ICE arresting a murder suspect as "ICE deports husband while wife gives birth".

    The left just invents random standards on the fly. They have zero problem politicizing anything. They can "generalize" NRA, ICE and police as a terrorist organization or blame toxic masculinity for a rapist stalking and murdering a women. If a string was found hung a campus tree, the entire campus or society at large is complicit in racism. But we can't criticize illegal immigration or radical Islam because that's somehow necessarily condemning an entire group of people.

    No 2A advocate would argue that Dylan Roof should have owned a gun after he failed the background check. It's not "politicizing" to say that The FBI's field office failed to properly handle tips on Nick Cruz. So why is criticizing immigration insensitive in this case? We're not talking about halting immigration or gun sales to stop all future crimes. The guy should not be in this country, and you can't tell me someone who commits this kind of crime had no red flags in his record.

  • JonFrum||

    " her cousin "would not want this to be used as fuel against undocumented immigrants."

    So as her cousin was dying, she thought to herself 'I hope they won't use my murder against these good people.'

    Yeah, that's likely.

  • Michael Cook||

    My experience in a career in criminal corrections is this: don't believe any blue state statistics on the proportion of "illegals" who are involved with the criminal justice system or are presently or formerly incarcerated. There are simply too many rabbit holes for those who are determined to obscure any social reality they wish to for political reasons to disappear the numbers into.

    To put the reality of criminal justice statistics another way: "Torture statistics enough and they will confess to anything."

    My belief based on my personal experience is that at least 70% of illegal males are good human beings (higher for females). Eventually most of them will learn not to drive while uninsured and do other dumb stuff that was OK back in the less fortunate land of origin.

    As high as 30%, however, are going to be long term, on-going problems. BTW, my specialty in corrections (because of language ability) was dealing with our large Russian immigrant population that arrived in the 1990's. I figured them at 25% males being pretty much doomed to chronic trouble with society. That was a bit high, because our country actually does do a fair job of sobering people up and AA support, etc.

  • Michael Cook||

    P.S. our dear Washington Dept. of Corrections bureaucrats actually felt empowered to simply release inmates years ahead of what they had been sentenced to because the prison bosses wanted to. No OK from the legislature to do it that way or from any higher court, they just did it. Now people like that are going to do whatever they want with mere data.

  • JoeBlow123||

    My dad worked in a bank in Los Angeles and has tons of stores about illegal Russians coming in with Social Security cards and other identification of like 80 year old Asians and trying to open bank accounts. It would be funny if it was not so ridiculous.

  • UncleSam13||

    Family: don't use Millie's death for political propaganda. That's our job.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    You know how much the left despises using murdered people to advocate for their preferred policies.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Right on!

  • spanky & alfalfa||

    this article, while not as crudely and barbaric as the mainstream, is also politicizing her death. using the moment to discuss the backwards nature of american public schools and the high rates of illiteracy would go against the grain of libertarian-ism i suppose. at the end of the day you only tolerate illegal immigrants for their cheap labor.

  • retiredfire||

    Obviously, her relatives care more about open borders than the preventable murder of their family member.
    Now, who is deplorable?

  • SIV||

    Alex Nowrasteh has blood on his hands.

  • Eddy||

    By the way, here is Snopes explaining about the guy arrested while taking his pregnant wife to the hospital.

    "Citing an anonymous law enforcement official in Guanajuato, multiple news agencies reportedly corroborated the existence of an outstanding homicide warrant. The Los Angeles Times reported that they had obtained a copy of the warrant from an anonymous source in Mexico, and that Arrona-Lara (the guy ICE arrested) was one of three men wanted in connection with the 17 March 2006 beating death of Miguel Angel Morales Rodriguez. Also wanted in that case are Julio Cesar Arrona-Lara and Roberto Arrona-Lara.

    "According to the Times report, the warrant doesn't specify what Joel Arrona-Lara's alleged role in the crime was, nor what his relationship with the other men who share his surname is. A December 2014 press release issued by the Guanajuato attorney general's office states Julio Arrona-Lara, also known as "El Chikis," was arrested on suspicion of beating Rodríguez "in the company of other people" but does not identify those other people. Rodriguez later died of his injuries."

  • Eddy||

    Also,

    "San Diego-based immigration attorney Ginger Jacobs said ICE's decision to make public criminal allegations stemming from information provided by Mexico is not only a break from the past but "character assassination," noting that the actual case against Arrona-Lara in the U.S. makes no mention of such charges. "As an observer, this dynamic of ICE or Border Patrol coming out and revealing a lot more information than they would have in the past that makes the immigrant look bad is a new phenomenon," she told us. "We are seeing a lot more character assassination against the immigrants that are being arrested in response to social media outrage.""

  • Eddy||

    Now, if he actually had a clean criminal record in Mexico, then I would say he has a 9th Amendment right to file a defamation suit agains the ICE press officer or whoever said he'd been charged with murder.

    That is *if* ICE made up the murder charge - but so far, media which don't seem particularly sympathetic to ICE have said yes, there's a murder warrant.

  • NashTiger||

    Snopes: 'Democrat says the sun rises in the West' - Mostly True. "Republican says sun rises in East" - Mostly False (the sun does not move relative to Earth)

  • NashTiger||

    " many conservatives seized on police claims that her suspected killer is an illegal immigrant"

    you just can't make this shit up. Reason, Satan in particular, are full progtard apologists

  • Echospinner||

    This family has undergone the most horrible loss and suffering imaginable.

    They just want to be left alone. That includes not having their deceased murdered daughter paraded around the news and internets like some political tool.

    Talk about immigration somewhere else. This is not the place.

    Give them that decency.

  • dpbisme||

    Sorry, that is not how it works.

    People do not get to decide if they are NEWS and never have had this ability.

    I mean I am sure that a Murdered Girl is not big deal to you but to many people with family members they see this and want it resolved and that someone might care about them...

    Funny how the LEFT ignores the mass murder going on in their cities like Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis, Chicago, Hartford, Cleveland, Trenton, Philadelphia, Compton, Oakland, Riverside, Durham and others that make up the majority of the MURDER in the entire US.

    I guess it is because they do not want to advertise they do not care about individual Americans and when they do talk about it some how it is the NRA's or the Republicans fault.

  • John Rohan||

    As Reason's Ronald Bailey has pointed out on several occasions, research shows that immigrants, including those in the country illegally, are actually less prone to commit crimes than American citizens.


    Except that's not true, even if you discount the fact that 100% of illegal immigrants committed a crime by crossing the border in the first place. There are just too many factors here that aren't being accounted for.

    It's not surprising that LEGAL immigrants would have lower crime rates, after all, you need to produce a criminal background check from your home country before being allowed to immigrate here. Illegal immigrants however, don't have that requirement, and illegal immigration is intimately intertwined with human trafficking, drug trafficking, and identity theft.


    There are also tricks to counting these statistics - if you count the people currently in jails and prisons, that isn't an accurate gauge because 1) many jurisdictions don't record someone's immigration status (and aren't even allowed to ask about it), and 2) many criminals are simply deported, when they would have been jailed if they were US citizens. You also have to consider that on average, immigrants have spent less time in the United States than the native born, thus much less time to rack up a criminal record. To be accurate, you would have to include any convictions they had prior to arriving.

  • TxJack 112||

    So her aunt and a cousin who "did not know her very well" are her "relatives" and the "family"? Seriously? Talk about skewing a story to push an agenda. Hello pot, this is kettle, you are black...

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Sounds like the illegal killed the wrong fucking family member. Can he get a do-over?

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Politicizing her death is wrong. Now can we get back to discussing all the evil gun owners and the NRA and Republicans?

    I love how it's "politicizing" when the other guys seize on an event as evidence, but it's "doing something about the problem" when our guys do it.

    I fucking hate all these fucking morons.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    "As Reason's Ronald Bailey has pointed out on several occasions, research shows that immigrants, including those in the country illegally, are actually less prone to commit crimes than American citizens."

    So I have the solution! Let's export them all so they're not exposed to the more criminally prone American citizens! That way, they're not tainted AND they'll return their sweet lovingkindness to Mexico where they'll turn it into a mecca of civility and niceness!

    Sold!

  • WhatYouMightNotKnow||

    So the author believes political change must never arise out of solid examples of why there should be that political change.

    Sounds stupid.

  • Remanufactured Engines||

    It was a bunch of opinion based questions that were treated as binary true false to the researchers. The poll was taken during a time when there was slow growth and low income growth.

  • dpbisme||

    More BS from the Open Border LIBTARDS.

    There is no upside to Illegal Immigration as it cosst the US between 1.32 and 1.5 Billion Dollars a year.

    This does not seem like real money to a LIBTARDS but add that up over seven or eight (7 or 8) years and you get a TRILLION>

    People who do not speak English and that are not educated do not make enough money usually to pay any Federal Taxes and pay low State taxes because we have a progressive tax system where low income earners pay little tax.

    Any Crime committed by a person the Government allows to stay here Illegally is an INCREASE to the crime rate because if they were not here the crime would not have been committed, what do this LIBTARDS think some one else is going to do that crime because it was inevitable?

    Sorry but this Author lives in an Alternate Reality where the US has unlimited resources and can take care of the five Billion people that live in crappy countries. Sorry we have a Black Underclass that needs attending (getting them to work themselves in to the Middle Class) to and DEBT that we cannot afford. WHY SHOULD WE borrow money from other countries to afford care for people who are not supposed to be here?

  • vek||

    The BEST part about this chick getting killed, is she was an idiot leftist. Supposedly she had posted a bunch of anti-white stuff on her page, despite being white of course, pro illegal immigrant stuff, etc.

    So as sad as it is she got murdered... I can't feel sorry for her. Her own bad opinions came back to bite her in the ass. If she'd been pro 2A and had a concealed carry piece she'd probably be alive too! LOL

  • macsnafu||

    With all due respect to her relatives, this is the only way Mollie Tibbetts will be remembered by society in general. Without all the political commentary, she would already be forgotten. Except by her friends and relatives, of course.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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