MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Mollie Tibbetts' Mom Takes in the Son of Undocumented Immigrants

The Tibbetts family is not letting their daughter's death be used to support Trumpist immigration policies.

|||Poweshiek County Emergency Management Agency/FacebookPoweshiek County Emergency Management Agency/FacebookFollowing a national search, the parents of 20-year-old Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts received devastating news. Their daughter's body had been found with suspected stab wounds a month after she went missing. Cristhian Bahena Rivera, a 24-year-old undocumented immigrant, was arrested in connection with her murder. Now, four months after Rivera's arrest, the Tibbetts family has taken in the teenage child of undocumented immigrants.

The Washington Post reports that Tibbetts' mother, Laura Calderwood, has taken in the 17-year-old son of immigrants so that he can finish high school. Scott, Calderwood's son and Tibbett's younger brother, is a senior at a Brooklyn, Iowa, high school. His friend, Ulises, was born to Mexican immigrants. His parents fled the area in fear following Rivera's arrest. Ulises wanted to stay in the town, the only one he had ever known, and finish high school.

Calderwood took Ulises in to her home and agreed to treat him like she would her own son.

Prior to the decision, the Tibbetts family repeatedly asked for their daughter's death to not be used as a political prop. Several family members took to social media to condemn anti-immigrant spin. Her father wrote an article asking for her death not to be politicized. He also sent assurances to the Hispanic community, writing, "That you've been beset by the circumstances of Mollie's death is wrong." One aunt said, "Evil comes in EVERY color," on Facebook. A cousin tweeted at a conservative commentator to tell her to "stop being a fucking snake and using my [cousin's] death as political propaganda."

Despite the family's pleas, many immigration hardliners sought to use her death to justify the expansion of anti-immigrant policies. Statistics show that Rivera's alleged actions are an outlier. Even immigration restrictionists like the Center for Immigration Studies have even admitted that a "lot of data does suggest immigrants are less likely to be involved in crime."

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.

  • A Lady of Reason||

    As much as I feel for the family, and admire their amazing sense of grace and forgiveness, I have to think they're still mistaken for downplaying the illegal immigrant part. Yes, evil does in fact, come in every color, and the murder wasn't wrong and horrific simply because an illegal did it versus anyone else, however the point is Molly might still have been alive if that illegal wasn't in our country bringing his 3rd world values here. Also, the audacity that an illegal had the change to murder a US citizen in their own country! It's like a house guest murdering their hosts in ingratitude! Or more to the point a burglar coming into your home and killing one of yours!
    https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/

  • A Lady of Reason||

    The murder in itself wasn't any more immoral than any other murder because an illegal did it, but the fact that someone who was never supposed to be in the country harmed one of its citizens does rub salt into that gaping wound...

  • JFree||

    The only people whose opinions matter on this are the families'. Period.

    If someone in your family is killed, then you have every right to wave the bloody shirt. Until then - STFU you sack of pus.

  • Fancylad||

    My opinion is the only opinion that matters to me.
    A family can be both sainted and delusional. Having your child murdered doesn't make your opinions any more or less valid.

  • JFree||

    It does when THEY are deciding that there is no such thing as collective guilt.

    Course it doesn't surprise me that many commenters here find collective guilt everywhere - while breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for how individualist they are.

  • BigT||

    "Prior to the decision, the Tibbetts family repeatedly asked for their daughter's death to not be used as a political prop."

    What gives them the right to tell others what to think or say? We can admire their actions while still calling into question their interpretation of the meaning of their daughter 's death. Requiring all immigrants to enter the country legally is not collectivism, its following rule of very practical and moral law.

  • Rogers1234||

    They were asking, not telling

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hey JFree, as I don't want to wait around for some fucking illegal to murder a member of MY family, ill work off of my opinion. The only one that EVER matters.

    No more illegals. Build the wall.

  • Mr. JD||

    There is no rationale by which what you just said makes sense.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Pass a law against poor native-born Americans having babies, or unwed mothers having babies, or the wrong-skin-colored mothers having babies, and whenever such illegal babies commit horrible crimes, we could also be saying the exact same things about these illegal babies.

    Whatever you "ultimate moral guide" might be, reason or conscience or God or nature or evolution or the Cosmos or the Local Galactic Cluster, I have never heard of any such moral agency that says "born on the wrong side of the border" = sacred criteria, and poor-born or unwed-born or wrong-skin-color born = evil criteria. They are all just arbitrary human distinctions.

    Praises be to "the parents of 20-year-old Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts"!!!!

  • TuIpa||

    In this thread, I slap Leo around so much he whines like a bitch and scurries off.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Everyone please beware... Tulpa is off of his rocker!!!

    He had a personal psych-therapist named Phillip Zimbardo. Zimbardo basically told Tulpa that Tulpa needs to get back on his meds. So now Tulpa's Sacred Baby Feelings have been badly hurt, and he takes it out on Zimbardo and everyone and anyone, especially when he can do it anonymously.

    Just so that y'all can be aware...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "In this thread, I slap Leo around so much he whines like a bitch and scurries off."

    Isn't that the way of things?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "admire their amazing sense of grace and forgiveness"

    I think it's rather grotesque and inhuman.

    "Tibbetts family has taken in the teenage child of undocumented immigrants."

    They are committing a crime. The kind of crime that got their daughter murdered.

    8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
    (a)(1)(A)
    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection

    http://bit.ly/2ErBBNQ

  • JeffreyL||

    I believe the child was born in the US and therefore a US citizen. Its his parents who are not here legally.

  • Jerryskids||

    I think I read this story somewhere else. It involves a scorpion and a frog, doesn't it?

  • Homple||

    ^^Nailed it.

  • SIV||

    " When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"

  • damikesc||

    "lot of data does suggest immigrants are less likely to be involved in crime."

    Legal ones, sure. Illegal ones, no.

    Stop conflating the two.

  • E. Zachary Knight||

    Wrong. Both legal and illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native born Americans.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    I guess if you pad your native born stats with illegal immigrants by using numbers from sanctuary cities then you're correct. They don't bother with noting the status so you're either throwing out numerous large cities or your improperly classifying large numbers in your crime stats due to their deliberate obfuscation.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What makes YOU so convinced that illegal immigrants are this hotbed of criminal activity (beyond the de jure crime of illegal status itself)?

  • TuIpa||

    It's the deception that is the problem. The studies don't leave it to the reader to decide the importance of the crime of being here illegally, they just ignore it or act loke it is nothing like you did. Then people like you propagandize and pass legialation based on the studies, which for all intents and purposes are lying.

    100% of illegals are criminals. It's not up to the studies creators or you to decide for anyone else if their crime is a speeding type crime or a murder type crime and it is insulting that you try to ignore the criminality because it ruins your talking points.

  • TuIpa||

    And to be clear be chemleft constantly reads things that no one said, I think apart from being here illegally, immigrants commit crime at a rate that is probably very close to everyone else. The idea they are more careful and law abiding in order to avoid getting sent home actually holds some merit on my mind.

  • JesseAz||

    The percentage of federal inmates that are illegal immigrants is one Mr. Goldfish.

  • Fancylad||

    Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, E. White Knight, and look at the actual statistics on illegals.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oh bullshit. Illegals commit more crimes. FFS, they're committing a crime just by their illegal border crossing. Then there is the problem that 75% of illegals use stolen SSNs. Not withstanding any other crimes they're committing.

  • JesseAz||

    God youre a fucking idiot. Is this where you compare jaywalking to violent drug offenses and such? 22% of federal inmates are illegal immigrants.

  • Cloudbuster||

    It's the Black crime rate that throws it off. The Black crime rate is so far above the White or Hispanic (illegal, legal or native) crime rates that the immigrant crime rate turns out lower. The Hispanic crime rate is substantially higher than the White crime rate.

  • JWC||

    Detractors aside, Zachary makes a valid point. The actual statistics are very difficult to track because there are so many vested interests that work hard to keep them from being tracked. But what numbers we are able to glean suggest that illegal aliens do, in fact, commit crimes at a disproportionate rate, keeping in mind, of course, that some illegals come here specifically to commit crimes (see the Center for Immigration Studies report: Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16). Regardless: even if every immigrant, legal or otherwise, had angel wings and hearts of gold, the United States has the right and responsibility to select who resides within its borders. It is ludicrous that that should be controversial.

  • Jerryskids||

    I am curious as to how many immigrant children these people have taken in before their daughter was killed, though. Surely they aren't taking in this kid just to make a political point about Trump's evil racist anti-immigration stance, are they? Because that would be sort of politicizing their daughter's death wouldn't it? Maybe they can go back-packing across Morocco next to show how kind and loving the adherents of the Religion of Peace really are.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Everyone else has politicized their daughter's death, why not the people who were most affected by it?

    It turns out that people are individuals. Their are good and bad in all groups and classes of people. I know it's a shock, but there are even murderers among our citizenry too.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Explain the racial disparity in violent crime statistics.

  • You're Kidding||

    Racism. Pure and simple. Just ask any SJW why there are more blacks in jail than whites.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    It's a complex picture that is far bigger than the broad strokes and stark statistics. People are individuals. I firmly believe that, and pragmatically speaking that's how I choose to approach life. Once folks start taking about "those people", about groups, out groups, and generalizations, that's something I switch off to. Perhaps I'm naive but I'm old fashioned that way. It doesn't mean I'm totally gay for open borders, though.

    #virtuesignaling #justdontletthemin #closedbordersliberaltarian

  • Dan S.||

    It doesn't mean I'm totally gay for open borders, though.

    Do you associate open borders with gay people? Why? I suppose both could fall under the general category of social liberalism, but I see no direct connection. Or is "gay for" some new usage that simply means "fully support"? I don't think people who are actually gay (homosexual) would be happy with any such usage.

  • TuIpa||

    "Or is "gay for" some new usage "

    It's actually an old usage and I can't imagine why anyone would care if they are happy with it.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Oh I don't know, Dan. Why don't you call the WORD POLICE and get them to sort this out since you seem incapable of parsing basic colloquialisms.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I wouldn't claim to know the full answer. I'm sure there's a complex mix of upbringing, social status, economic status, and labor opportunity. I've not seen a credible source that it is nature (genetic differences between the races) over nurture (environmental). Do you have a source that suggests otherwise?

  • StackOfCoins||

    "I've not seen a credible source that it is nature (genetic differences between the races) over nurture (environmental). Do you have a source that suggests otherwise?"
    I don't. But at the same time I'm not ready to dismiss the idea that some of these differences are in some small way rooted in race.

  • JesseAz||

    Crime and poverty both are more tightly correlated to single family households than race. Of course we cant point out the high rates of single family homes in some communities without being called racist.

  • ||

    If I read TFA correctly, Laura Calderwood did not take some random Mexican kid into her home as some kind of political statement. She took a friend of her son into her home as a simple gesture of charity.

  • SIV||

    Correct, But WaPo and Reason are politicizing that act of charity as well as the death of Miss Tibbets.

  • MikeP2||

    ^^^

    This, because propaganda is all that matters these days.

  • Ben_||

    We don't make policy based on the opinion of a single family.

    We used to make policy based on what was best for America and Americans. Now we have one political party that works for non-Americans, to bring non-Americans here to replace Americans. Because Americans sometimes won't vote to give them more power over everything everyone does. And Reason is on their side, happy to enable leftist totalitarianism for a few dollars from a few rich donors.

  • An Innocent Man||

    I've a feeling if their daughter had been murdered by a skinhead, they would not be taking in the children of skinheads. Which would be their right of course, but they've politicized this as much as anyone. Which is also their right.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Which is also their right.

    They lost all rights when their lives were thrust into a heated political debate. Don't you know the rules?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We used to make policy based on what was best for America and Americans.

    Okay then. I vote that what is best for America and Americans is to have a government that does not create and enforce a prohibition on illegal labor that grows government, increases our taxes, creates an undue regulatory burden, and deprives everyone - citizens and non-citizens alike - of essential liberty. What say you?

  • XM||

    Your "policy" isn't best for America, so it's a moot point.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Respecting the liberty of Americans isn't what's best for America? Huh.

  • ||

    It is, but your policy is the opposite of that. SIN QUAN NON.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jeffy, you don't respect shit. You're an idiot. You have bad, stupid ideas that will make things worse.

  • XM||

    Your policy advocates for anarchy.

    Libertarians are for limited government, not zero government. Border enforcement is a legitimate function of government and "freedom of movement" of foreign nationals is not a constitutional right.

    What is "illegal labor that grows government"?

  • Paloma||

    XM Bullshit.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I'm in a quandary because in Libertopia, any private enterprise or individual should be able to transact peaceably and mutually with any other private enterprise or individual, and this would be all be jolly nice. But, it seems naive to extend the sovereignty of this hypothetical Libertopia beyond the borders of the United States at this point. Convince me, Jeff.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that the US should force liberty onto nations beyond its sovereignty. I'm arguing that the US government should respect the liberty of American citizens within its jurisdiction. And this includes the liberty to associate with whom one pleases.

  • TuIpa||

    "And this includes the liberty to associate with whom one pleases"

    And if they decide not to associate with non-citizen immigrants?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Then don't. It's quite simple. Do you really need government to tell you who you can and can't associate with?

  • TuIpa||

    So, what is wrong with exercising that right collectively?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I think you answered your own question.

    Do you believe in collective rights or individual rights?

  • TuIpa||

    So two people can't engage in free speech activities together?

    It's the same right. It's just people banding together to exercise it.

    So no, I didn't answer my question. And neither did you.

    Now tell me why you want Citizen's united overturned.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Nice try. Citizens United says that corporations have rights to speech, not that they can usurp individual rights to exercise said rights. The immigration restrictionists would claim that the collective rights of Americans to limit immigration usurps my individual right to associate with whom I choose, and their individual right of mobility. That's a major difference in your analogy.

  • JesseAz||

    Hey leo... collective rights kind of kill your own question since we have to feed bathe and take care of said immigrants and their progeny. This isnt an isolated issue. Only idiots like you and jeff think it is.

  • Paloma||

    Rights are not collective.

  • TuIpa||

    "Do you really need government to tell you who you can and can't associate with?"

    Jeff seems to. It was his hypothetical. Why do you think I need anything when I clearly said "they?"

    What the hell is wrong with you that you lazily assume I hold a position just because I'm arguing it? Isn't that why we're here? To discuss libertarian policy?

    Seriously, I've grown pretty tired of you and your ilk making that stupid assumption.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I simply asked you a question to follow up with your question. I didn't assume anything. I honestly don't know your position on immigration beyond what you've posted on this thread.

    My response was trying to point out what should be an obvious answer to your question, at least based on a libertarian set of principles. Individuals have rights. To assume collective rights assumes the tyranny of the majority. If 51% of people say that they are willing to use the full force of government to disallow association then the other 49% have to simply deal with it?

  • TuIpa||

    "I didn't assume anything. "

    Yes you did. Right here.

    "Do you really need government to tell you who you can and can't associate with?"

    You said "you." Not the hypothetical "they" the rest of us were using, but you. If you didn't intend to, then be more careful in the future. However, it's an obviously snide comment and I think you did intend to. You just didn't expect me to call you on it.

    "Individuals have rights. To assume collective rights "

    I didn't assume collective rights. I assumed individual rights, exercised collectively. There is a difference, and the Citizen's United decision is an example of this.

    People don't lose their rights just because they exercise them as a block. Your position is incompatible with that idea.

  • TuIpa||

    " If 51% of people say that they are willing to use the full force of government to disallow association then the other 49% have to simply deal with it?"

    Who said anything about government? Not me. I was and still am talkong about the individual right of asaociation. Your argument assumes individuals simply can't choose not to associate with certain people unless governement is involved. But any workplace with sufficient numbers of people proves that is wrong.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I'm not sure what we're even arguing about immigration restriction if you don't think government is necessary to enforce it. The whole basis of Jeff's argument is that the U.S. government (he specifically says that) doesn't have the authority to tell individuals with whom to associate.

  • TuIpa||

    "if you don't think government is necessary to enforce it"

    It isn't, hypothetically at least, possible for people to do it themselves?

    No. It is. That, and their right to do so, is what you and I are discussing.

    And what I am personally trying to do is find out how people who insist their right to associate is inviolate, but the inverse is not.

  • Paloma||

    The inverse would be the right NOT to associate, and if whole groups of people want to say, not hire non citizens, fine. But don't tell OTHER people they can't.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Fair enough, I guess I was being loose with the use of the word you.

    There's a difference between collective rights, and individual rights collectively exercised. Again, maybe my language wasn't precise, but immigration restrictionists are looking to revoke individual rights through the tyranny of the majority, not by collectively exercising some "right," unless one assumes there's a right to restrict movement and association (I don't).

    What right, specifically, is being exercised collectively in the case of immigration restriction?

  • TuIpa||

    The right of association.

    Or... Do you not believe that right allows people the freedom not to associate?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Of course it does. It's a right not a compulsion.

  • TuIpa||

    Then I don't understand what you are having trouble with.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    An individual or collectively exercised right to not associate doesn't preclude my individual right to associate. I didn't agree to collectively exercise any right... I chose to associate.

    I can't compel them to associate, just as they can't prevent me from associating if I so choose.

  • TuIpa||

    This is where I was trying to get us.

    How do you guarantee that by exercising your right, you aren't violating someone else's right of association?

    You are going to be the only person that your immigrant associate ever interacts with? Will they never use any resources of any kind?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Well we certainly took the long way around. :)

    I can't be responsible for what my associates do. I simply have the right to associate with him. He also has the right to use other resources, should he enter into another association.

    When you mention resources, are you also concerned with his use of public resources? Schools, roads, and the like? In the interest of time, I'll assume that argument as well.

    The nature of public resources is just that, they are public by definition. Right or wrong, they are paid for by the collective for all to use. We wouldn't deny access to those resources to a citizen who contributed nothing by way of taxes to their upkeep (a homeless man, for instance). We shouldn't preclude access by a guest of a citizen who is simply here to associate freely with that citizen. Besides the fact that he's likely paying taxes to live and work here anyway...

    Public resources are the only resources where we must strictly enforce equal accommodations, else we would certainly have tyranny of the majority. If that's not acceptable, then transfer the public land to private ownership.

  • TuIpa||

    "I can't be responsible for what my associates do."

    You brought him here bro. Yes you can.

  • TuIpa||

    "He also has the right to use other resources"

    Even if they are resources that the people have had taken from them and have decided he doesn't get to use?

  • Paloma||

    Like the homeless guy? Got it.

  • TuIpa||

    "I can't be responsible for what my associates do."

    I have to add, this line of thinking is deeply frustrating. YOU exercised your right. The consequences of that can't just be hand waved away as not your responsibility.

  • TuIpa||

    "they are paid for by the collective for all to use."

    So the entire world is eligible for welfare?

    Stop it.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Who is assuming now? i thought we were taking about roads. My associate doesn't need welfare to be able to associate with me. He's just here to work and live. If you have a problem with him possibly getting welfare, then simply don't allow him to. He has no right to it.

    In fact, that's likely the most libertarian solution to this whole debate. Allow anyone willing to come here and work and live to do so with no automatic path to citizenship and no eligibility to welfare. Just simply allow them to work if we can at least agree that they have that right.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Just simply allow them to work if we can at least agree that they have that right."

    Would you at least agree that everyone has the right to rent an apartment and work at a business if both the landlord and the employer agree to associate with him?

  • TuIpa||

    No, I can't say that.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    If you don't believe in those fundamental rights, then I'm afraid we're likely at an impasse in the debate. I believe that people are capable of deciding who they would like to associate with, and the public doesn't have a compelling interest in limiting that. If you can't agree with that, then we don't have any common ground on the issue. Have a good night.

  • TuIpa||

    "If you don't believe in those fundamental rights"

    Huh?

    Renting an aparatment is a fundament right?

    Am I misunderstanding you?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Yes you are, possibly intentionally at this point. Being able to rent an apartment from a willing landlord without interference from the "public" is the very definition of being free to associate. Being able to enter into an agreement between a worker and an employer without consent of the government is the very definition of being free to associate.

    But you know that. You're simply not arguing in good faith at this point. Have a good night.

  • TuIpa||

    "Being able to rent an apartment from a willing landlord without interference from the "public" is the very definition of being free to associate. "

    No it isn't, it's renting an apartment which isn't a right.

  • TuIpa||

    "You're simply not arguing in good faith at this point. "

    Excuse me? Fuck you.

    How's that for good faith.

    Scurry off now that you had your ass handed to you.

  • TuIpa||

    And it's obvious that it's you jeff.

  • TuIpa||

    You're an idiot and an asshole Leo. i have a reasonable conversation with you loke all the bitch scolds are constantly admonishing me to do and you STILL claim I'm not arguing in good faith because your stupid scenario isn't a right but "YES HUH!"

    I should have known better than to engage one of jeff's sockpuppets.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I'm certainly not Jeff. I went to bed that night, but you and I had a reasonable conversation and I appreciated it.

    The issue we couldn't seem to overcome is that you don't see being able to engage in association as a right. You can say renting an apartment isn't a right, and you're correct in the sense that you can't force someone to rent to you. But what I was arguing is that the right is to engage in commerce with the willing without majority vote from parties not involved.

    A landlord and a tenant have an absolute right to agree to terms to rent an apartment without government or public permission. I suspect in the case that both are citizens you would fully agree.

    If the tenant happens to be a non citizen immigrant, I claim that nothing changes. He still doesn't need government permission. That's the claim I was making. Immigration restrictionists would claim that government has the ability to deny the transaction and detain the immigrant regardless of the private agreement terms. Now replace the hypothetical landlord with an employer and the analogy becomes even clearer.

  • Paloma||

    It's a fundamental property right, yes.

  • TuIpa||

    "and the public doesn't have a compelling interest in limiting that"

    Even in the case of a generous welfare state like say...Germany?

    I would say that as long as EMTALA exists, the government has such a compelling interest.

  • TuIpa||

    " Have a good night."

    You as well.

  • TuIpa||

    "Who is assuming now? i thought we were taking about roads"

    You. We weren't talking about roads, you just assumed that and said as much in your 10:47 post.

    " My associate doesn't need welfare to be able to associate with me"

    I didn't say he does, and you misunderstood my point. You said resources, as public, are for "all."

    I was making the poimt that no, they are not, and used welfare as an example. You made another bad assumption.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Why is it so hard for so many people to understand that a corporation is just some people who got together for a particular purpose?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And if they decide not to associate with non-citizen immigrants?

    Go right ahead.

  • TuIpa||

    And AGAIN, since you are both repetitive and late to the party, when they exercise that right Citizen's United style?

    There's a fabulous discussion I'd rather not repeat.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You mean, when individuals agree via their express consent and voluntary choices to commit to a collective course of action? Sure! Go right ahead!

    What does this have to do with a coercive state taking away individuals' choices?

  • TuIpa||

    "You mean, when individuals agree via their express consent and voluntary choices to commit to a collective course of action? Sure! Go right ahead!"

    Like setting a border?

  • TuIpa||

    You know what jeff? Don't answer that. I don't want to have a discussion with you because you can't even keep up with wjat we are talking about and I despise the rhetorical silliness you constantly engage in.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I despise the rhetorical silliness you constantly engage in.

    *My* rhetorical silliness? lol.

    Well whatevs.

  • TuIpa||

    Yes. Like this.

    "What does this have to do with a coercive state taking away individuals' choices"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, the state set the border. It was not decided upon by individual voluntary consent of the citizens of the nations involved.

  • TuIpa||

    "No, the state set the border"

    I don't care and that is both irrelevant and not what I was asking, I was AGAIN speaking hypothetically.

    That is exactly the rhetorical silliness I despise.

    You know the answer is "of course they can" as you said, but then you have the uncomfortable task of separating individuals from government.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    but then you have the uncomfortable task of separating individuals from government.

    "Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together."

    Huh. Who knew that Tulpa was really Barney Frank.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't care

    Well I do.

    and that is both irrelevant

    No it isn't.

    and not what I was asking, I was AGAIN speaking hypothetically.

    No you weren't. You seem to have a very casual relationship with the truth.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But as usual, Tulpa is just being an argumentative dick.

    Shame on me, I suppose, for attempting to take him seriously.

    I won't make that mistake again.

  • TuIpa||

    "It was not decided upon by individual voluntary consent of the citizens of the nations involved."

    Yes it was. They participated in representative government.

    Stop pretending government is some animal inrelated to humans making decisions.

  • Lowdog||

    I did not consent, just because I have no other choice.

  • TuIpa||

    Yes you did bitch. You didn't leave. You didn't fight. You sat there and consented.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes it was. They participated in representative government.

    Wait, really? How do you even know if I voted or not? How can non-voters express consent in what they never even decided upon?

    And EVEN IF you argue "well you didn't leave therefore you consent", that is totally different from a Citizens United-type of understanding of collective decision-making. Every single stockholder in a corporation at some point expressly chose to buy stock in that corporation by some affirmative action. They HAD to affirmatively opt in to what the corporation stood for, at some point along the way. That is what makes the transaction voluntary. Not so with the state. The state gets to decide for everyone, whether they opt in or not, whether they even have a voice in the decision-making process or not.

    That is why your analogy fails, and you know this.

  • Paloma||

    California has a border. Can they decide only white people get in?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah, laws do that to an extent. Even in a libertarian society.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    But that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that the US should force liberty onto nations beyond its sovereignty. I'm arguing that the US government should respect the liberty of American citizens within its jurisdiction. And this includes the liberty to associate with whom one pleases.

    Okay my bad for apparently not being clear, I didn't mean "force liberty onto nations beyond it's sovereignty", I meant it more as the proverbial "Libertopia" being not the United States, but the ideal state of libertarian living, slightly tongue in cheek (hence the name). So in theory national borders, federal immigration policy, and restrictions/controls imposed on trade and the labor market are not very libertarian, and were these impediments to a truly free market removed, Libertopia (separate from any particular nation) could exist beyond the United States. "Sovereignty" was a poor choice of word, and I look forward to being browbeaten about what an idiot I am.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay then. So what is the origin of your quandary?

    If your argument is that it would be naive to just immediately throw open the borders to everyone right away, then I would agree with that. That isn't what I would advocate, but only from a purely pragmatic perspective.

    What I argue for is aspirational in nature. Individuals ought to be free to associate with whom they please, with as minimal state interference in that association as possible. Of course there will be practical limitations to any realistic implementation of this ideal. But IMO libertarians at a minimum should be at the forefront pushing the envelope on the liberty that we want to see secured for ourselves. The other two parties are hopelessly statist and there is no need for us to be making their arguments for them; they are perfectly capable of advocating statism without our help.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So you have no functional idea what you're saying? For once I agree with you.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    In that case I suppose my quandary is about how, practically speaking, libertarians can "be at the forefront pushing the envelope on the liberty that we want to see secured for ourselves."

    I suppose a lot of us are, in our own ways. I just don't see any ideas of how that "aspirational" liberty is realised in terms of border control. It seems you're just here to nay say the more conservative voices on the issues of immigration and borders, without offering any alternatives. That's fine but as someone who is also against the kind of massive, overreaching, wasteful, inhuman state intervention like CBP, I'm guilty of the same thing from a different perspective. The outspoken left (broadly speaking) just use the migrants as a political prop to bolster the trope that objectors are racist. The migrants themselves don't necessarily assume entitlement to citizenship or the benefits of living in a free and prosperous country, but much of the focus for arguing in support of them from the left is argued from a position of assumed entitlement on their behalf, which is insulting to the migrants who hope to become US citizens and who I hope, in good faith, would be nothing but a positive for the US.

    ...

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    However, the main issue that is actually argued isn't whether to let them in or not, (they are of course free to apply for citizenship) but how they are treated by CBP and ICE. I'm sure we all agree that it's disgraceful. It was disgraceful under Obama and it's no better now. The migrants also have agency, which is something (broadly speaking) that the left only grants people when it serves their political goals or enriches their political capital (see #metoo). They may have faced hardships beyond what the likes of you or I could have ever imagined, but ultimately they were faced with hard choices that they made. I respect those choices but it doesn't automatically mean I- ah fuck it I suppose I'm just a stubborn conservative.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Both the left and the right are guilty of collectivizing migrants, of course. But AT LEAST the left does not treat migrants as evil scumbags.

    And there are several issues, one of which is actually whether migrants should be able to come here at all, legally or not. Many on the outspoken right want to reduce or eliminate ALL immigration.

    I do think one way we can pursue the aspirational liberty of free migration and free association, with respect to immigration policy, is to point out the CBP/ICE abuses when they occur. Why does this country even need a separate law enforcement agency specifically devoted to immigration? (Same deal with ATF, by the way.)

    I also think we need to push back on the frankly xenophobic nature of right-wing rhetoric when it comes to immigration. In the right-wing press, immigrants are portrayed, AT BEST, as a problem that must be managed. AT WORST, they are evil invaders bent on the destruction of America. Immigrants are individuals with their own agency, as you point out. We should not stand by and let them be demonized by the right-wing trolls.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Americans are free to associate with anyone they want in America.

    Foreigners are not free to invade America.

    If you want to associate with foreigners, go where the foreigners are. See ya.

  • Ben_||

    Illegal labor causes increased use of government services, which causes taxes to rise and/or causes existing taxpayers to mostly lose access to the government services they paid for. US taxpayers didn't build schools for Honduran children, we built schools for US children. Same for roads, same for every other government service and societal institution.

    But beyond that, the left's plan is to make illegals into voters so then their new voters will allow the left to wield unlimited power.

    Importing unlimited people from Central America leads to a desperate underclass of government dependents in the short term and totalitarian leftist government in the long term.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If some people exercise a liberty in an irresponsible manner, then that is an argument for doing something about the irresponsible behavior, not about restricting the liberty of *all*, both the responsible and the irresponsible ones.

    Just like, the fact that some legal gun owners will sometimes use guns irresponsibly, does not justify taking away the liberty of all gun owners.

    Just like, the fact that some drug users will sometimes use drugs irresponsibly, does not justify taking away the liberty of all drug users.

    Same deal with migration.

    But beyond that, the left's plan is to make illegals into voters so then their new voters will allow the left to wield unlimited power.

    This will only happen if one regards immigrants as just mindless robots following a siren song of leftist politics.

  • TuIpa||

    "If some people exercise a liberty in an irresponsible manner, then that is an argument for doing something about the irresponsible behavior, not about restricting the liberty "

    Restricting the liberty IS LITERALLY doing something ablut the irresponsible behavior. You completely contradicted yourself.

    Do you even think about what you post?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

    My meaning is plain. That some people abuse liberty is not a reason to take away EVERYONE'S liberty. It is only a reason to do something about the specific instances of abuse.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Tulpa shit-posts. Therefor, the rights of all of us to do any posting at all, should be taken away! That would be LITERALLY solving our problems here!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jeffy is the shitposter.

  • Ben_||

    Millions of people migrate here legally. The problem is the others who sneak across the border. We literally have a system that does what you say you want.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Yes. Jeff I totally get you. I actually pretty much wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying and you said it better than I. In fact I totally failed and said some other stuff which I expect to be torn apart, but in this brief moment of accord, let's hold hands and watch the sun set. For liberty.

  • XM||

    A victim of an illegal criminal is the equivalent of a victim who was murdered by a mass shooter who obtained weapons because the government refused to enforce gun laws.

    You cannot allow a deported criminal alien (a record surely exists somewhere) to return to your nation 3,4 times and then claim "evil is a human quality" when he murders an innocent victim. This is not an unforeseeable anomaly. It's a systematic breakdown of oversight and border enforcement. The man who killed Tibetts could have murdered someone else.

    If a white nationalist criminal was paroled early and he murdered a woman of color, do you expect the left to say "evil comes in all color"? BS. Jamiel Shaw's father was shown close to zero respect by the democrats. We should respect the wishes of Tibbett's parents, but the injustice still remains.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    They aren't undocumented they are illegal. They are breaking the law. If you don't agree with the law you change it.
    If I break into a house am I an undocumented visitor? What about if I rob a bank? Am I undocumented withdrawer?

    Reason writes like Shrike and such never explained why people who come here illegally from Mexico get preface over say people from Africa or India? Why are they racist?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Breaking into a house violates the rights of the property owner.
    Robbing a bank violates the property rights of the depositors and the bank owners.
    Whose rights are violated by an immigrant stepping over a border without the correct papers?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    It's either they took all of our jobs or all of our welfare, depending of course on the situation.

  • MikeP2||

    Whose rights? Well that would be the taxpayers who agreed to fund public works that will inevitably be utilized by the illegal immigrant and who also agreed to the acceptable framework of legal immigration. This is not a libertarian idealized reality where the immigrant will solely exist in on private property.

    Stop being so intentionally obtuse. Our representative government has a set of agreed upon rules for immigration. But you, in your ignorant idealism, wish to void those rules and piss on the fellow citizens who disagree. If you want open border, them get that passed in congress. But you and your ilk are too lazy to do so.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    We have all kinds of "agreed upon rules" but that certainly doesn't mean they are all legitimate. By what authority does government say who can travel where, who you as an American citizen can hire, rent property to, or sell the fruits of your labor to? That doesn't seem like a legitimate use of government force to me.

  • Fancylad||

    Are you intentionally missing the last point of his statement? "If you want open border, them get that passed in congress. But you and your ilk are too lazy to do so."

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The whole argument is that restricting the free association of individuals is not a legitimate function of government, therefore the laws shouldn't be valid.

    An analogy in the spirit of my response could be the drug war. Because it's not a legitimate function of government to control what I put in my body those laws aren't valid.

    Why put the burden of passing laws on the individual to regain his liberty as opposed simply acknowledging that individuals have rights?

  • TuIpa||

    "The whole argument is that restricting the free association of individuals is not a legitimate function of government, therefore the laws shouldn't be valid."

    Not really. The argument appears to be "The representative government we have doesn't do what I want, and changing that is too hard, so the laws are void"

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Do you believe that restricting free association of consenting individuals is a legitimate function of government? Yes or no?

  • TuIpa||

    That depends on what the individuals who formed the government and consent to be governed think.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I don't believe individual rights come from any government, nor do my rights require any consent of other individuals. Again, if you're not willing to agree with that, then I'm afraid this debate is at an impasse.

  • TuIpa||

    "I don't believe individual rights come from any government"

    Nor do I. And that most definitely is not what I said.

  • TuIpa||

    "nor do my rights require any consent of other individuals"

    Your right to free asaociation does. You don't get to force yourself on other for example.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you believe that taxation is theft, then your rights were violated the moment the taxman showed up at your door, regardless of what those taxes were spent on. Your rights aren't violated a second time if an illegal immigrant then drives on those publicly funded roads.

  • TuIpa||

    The fuck they aren't. The fact that my money was stolen in no way changes that and your assertion that it does is going in the "things to laugh at chemjeff about" file.

    "She was robbed boys, go ahead and rape her, it doesn't count when she got robbed" is LITERALLY what you just said.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So how are your rights violated if an illegal immigrant, specifically, drives on a public road? As opposed to anyone else driving on that same public road?

    Your property rights to your income were already violated when the money was stolen to build the road, regardless of who drives on the road.

    "She was robbed boys, go ahead and rape her, it doesn't count when she got robbed"

    No that isn't what I said. What I said was closer to: if you get robbed, it doesn't matter if the proceeds of the robbery are delivered to another citizen, or to a non-citizen. Either way you are robbed, but you're robbed only once.

  • Paloma||

    And you somehow think that taxpayers doesn't include immigrants. It does. Even illegal immigrants.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Stop being so intentionally obtuse"

    Mike, Mike, Mike, being intentionally obtuse, and making sophist arguments, are what Little Jeffy is all about.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I think when you coddle him a little and are patient with him he softens up slightly and starts making more sense. You still might not agree with him but his reflexive obtuseness and verbosity is calmed somewhat.

  • BigT||

    Someone breaks into the White House? Whose rights are violated?

    All of our rights. Same with the border.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The White House is not collectively owned. It is owned by the state.

  • BigT||

    When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor whose rights were violated?

    Apparently no one, according to you.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, the murdered sailors would disagree.

    But no singular individual's property rights were violated, because neither Pearl Harbor nor the White House is owned by any individual. The state's property rights were violated.

    But if I'm wrong, and I really do have some share of collective ownership in the White House, or Pearl Harbor, then why can't I sell or transfer my property interest? How can I really own some parcel of real property if I can't sell it?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oh Jeffy, so many bad, obtuse, sophist arguments. So little time........

  • BigT||

    "But if I'm wrong, and I really do have some share of collective ownership in the White House, or Pearl Harbor, then why can't I sell or transfer my property interest? How can I really own some parcel of real property if I can't sell it?"

    Belong to a country club? For many clubs, you are an owner. Can you sell the 18th hole? Same idea. The value of the thing rests in its being maintained as a whole, and thus partial owners can't take a part for themselves.

    Hey, I can't even sell my house without my wife's approval. Joint ownership may be more common than single ownership.

  • buybuydandavis||

    American citizens have a right not to have their country invaded.

    It's the explicit *responsibility* of the federal government to protect them from invasion.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Penniless Guatemalans are not "invaders" by any reasonable standard.

    You are the one who twists the language in order to cast penniless Guatemalans as evil villains in your immigration narrative.

    You are afraid of immigrants because you don't believe you can persuade them to adopt your views. Because to you they are just programmed robots immune to persuasion, just somehow born with programming to favor socialism or something.

  • buybuydandavis||

    We don't have magic dirt to turn penniless Guatemalans, or anyone else, into Americans.

    And we don't even try. Quite the opposite.

    The Left, which controls all avenues of propaganda, works hard to inculcate hatred of America into everyone.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You are unwilling to recognize the individual agency of foreigners. They aren't really individual human beings to you. Just a mass of unwelcome 'invaders' bent on harming you. You don't care who they are or why they come, just that they must be stopped. With that mentality, it is no wonder that more foreigners don't sign up for your right-wing views.

    Perhaps if you took the time to understand who these people are, why they come, you would understand that they really aren't all that different from you and me in terms of their individual natures. They aren't animals, they aren't invading soldiers. Overwhelmingly, they are just ordinary people trying to find better lives for themselves. If you engage with them as they are, then maybe they will be more receptive to the views of liberty. But, if you treat them like scum and villains, then they will continually reject your views and you will create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Tell you what. If you think it's so easy to turn people into libertarians, strut your stuff. When the numbers show that you're effectively converting immigrants into libertarians, I'll be happy to welcome them here.

    You are fundamentally a self righteous nitwit who argues from feelz and not facts. When the facts contradict you, you play ad hominem, projecting evil onto others.

    I never said they were evil animals, scum, or villains. That's all just your hallucinations.

    I'm going by the observable facts. Which you keep evading.

    Countries are people. They are what they are because the people who live in them make them that way. A country full of Guatemalans is a shithole.

    This doesn't make them evil. It just makes them like most all of humanity that has ever existed.

    You obliviously take the freedom, prosperity, and security of the US for granted. Like it emanates from magic dirt. It exists because Americans make it exist.

    Guatemalans don't make it exist in Guatemala. Why would they make it exist in the US?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I never said they were evil animals, scum, or villains. That's all just your hallucinations.

    Actually you are right. In your immigration narrative, Guatemalans are more like plague rats, carrying with them cultural pestilence that will lead only to misery and death for America. In any event, you clearly view them as inferior beings compared to your entitled American ass.

    Do you think Americans are superior to Guatemalans? Is it because of 'magic dirt' or 'magic blood'?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Magic culture.

    We've got it. They don't.

    We've got ideas and values that make for a more free, prosperous, and secure society than Latin America.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Would this be the 'magic culture' that created the world's largest welfare state and world's largest surveillance state on the planet? Be specific.

    Typically I find, invoking 'culture' from the border restrictionist crowd is just code for 'race', without wanting to seem like it's about race.

    If there is something special about supposed US 'magic culture' over Latin American 'culture' then please explain why Costa Rica isn't a shithole country, like Guatemala and Honduras are.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Didn't say our magic culture was perfect. All the more important not to import even worse "magic".

    "Typically I find, invoking 'culture' from the border restrictionist crowd is just code for 'race'"

    Typically you ignore what is *actually* said and keep imposing your hallucinations on events. Cognitive dissonance in action.

    Have you ever considered that going around calling people racists would make you quite a contemptible creature if your claims are actually false? You'd be societal cancer. Bad enough to relentlessly slander people, but it serves to convince others that their world is full of racists out to get them. Not a pleasant world. But it's the one they actually *experience* if they believe you.

    The Left used to terrorize minorities by stringing them up. Now they relentlessly propagandize them to again convince them that Whitey is at their doorstep with a rope.

    "Costa Rica isn't a shithole country"

    Shangri La, no doubt. A fifth the GDP per capita of America. Cherry picking, and that's the best you can come up with in Latin America. Let's hope they survive their recent fiscal problems.

    There are worse places in the world than Latin America. But there are clearly better ones too. Like Anglo America.

  • Ecoli||

    What we need is "comprehensive immigration reform". I have heard that phrase for decades, I think, and yet nothing ever happens. At this point the US has about 30 million illegal aliens. Here are some suggestions:

    1. Building a wall for the entire length of the southern border is not practical, but some portions of the border probably should be blocked.

    2. This is Mexico's problem as much as it is the US problem, so let's make them feel the pain too. Thanks to Trump, they are actually helping at the moment by keeping the illegals in Tijuana. Let's make them do it along the entire border. Repercussions to trade is a good stick to use. Closing the border is another.

    3. End birth right citizenship. This is the silver bullet, this single change would be more effective than any other. We don't need birth tourists from China, and Russia hatching out dual citizenship future spies. We also don't need anchor babies for the US tax payer to support.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We don't need birth tourists

    We also don't need anchor babies

    Maybe you should take your collectivism and shove it up your ass.

    You don't speak for me. You don't speak for anyone but yourself.

  • buybuydandavis||

    You can take your hatred of America and shove it up your ass.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    YOU are the one who hates America with your desire to take away the liberties OF CITIZENS in order to pursue the cult of flag-worship and ignorant chest-beating nationalism.

  • buybuydandavis||

    You have the liberty to frolic with Guatemalans to your heart's content in Guatemala. You don't have the liberty to destroy America.

    "ignorant chest-beating nationalism"

    Hate America First.

    Nothing ignorant about noticing that the US is freer, more prosperous, and more secure than Guatemala.

    The illegal aliens noticed. Why can't you?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Shorter buybuy: We must destroy Americans' liberty in order to save America!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Still have to dodge the issues.

    But you forgot to call me a racist too. That's part of the magic spell to keep the WrongThink at bay.

    Don't forget it again!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Duly noted that you want to take liberty away from Americans in order to supposedly preserve their liberty.

  • buybuydandavis||

    We can't have all the liberty we want for the price of wishing for it. No sparkly unicorn ponies shitting gold and farting diamonds either.

    When you get anarchotopia working, let us all know.

  • Azathoth!!||

    " When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"

    Say, are parents who abandon their children good people, or bad people?

    Because ditching your kid because someone else committed a crime, doesn't seem like something good people would do.

    Treating your kids like accessories to be used and abandoned might be why ICE is having to deal with kids dying as soon as they're picked up.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You really believe that illegal immigrants are fundamentally inferior people compared to people like yourself, don't you?

  • Chest Rockwell||

    Don't liberals believe the same thing about conservatives?

  • BigT||

    Liberals believe that all minorities and women are inferior, and that's why they need special help. At their core progressives are the most bigoted of all. And they want to provide restitution for their thought sins with your money and resources.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    There is substance to that. Women, immigrants, whoever really, are only granted agency in The Narrative when it serves the "progressive" political agenda.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Countries are people.
    Mexico is Mexico because Mexicans make it that way.
    America is America because Americans make it that way.

    Mexicans coming north across the border don't seem particularly confused about whether Mexicans or Americans make a better country.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    PEOPLE are people.
    Countries are lines on a map.

    Mexicans are not innately inferior to Americans.

    And people wonder why you all are called racist for your immigration views.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Is it lines on maps that make America more free, prosperous, and secure than Mexico?

    If the lines on maps switched populations, would they be just free, prosperous, and secure with their new populations?

    You believe magic GPS coordinates make countries what they are.
    I believe that countries are what they are because they are made that way by the people who live in them.

    I don't wonder why I'm called racist. That's what Lefty vermin call people with arguments they can't refute.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You believe magic GPS coordinates make countries what they are.

    Nope. I believe countries are the way they are because of what their people do, AND because of the external pressures forced upon those countries, AND due to the sum total of historical decisions that have shaped the trajectory of the country.

    You see none of this context. You blame only the people living today for the sum total of what the country is.

    You refuse to acknowledge the meddling that lots of other countries, INCLUDING the US, have had on Central American countries that have made them overall worse off.

    You refuse to even do cursory research on the historical differences of nations like Guatemala vs. the US. Here is a hint. Guatemala was conquered, literally enslaved, and looted for centuries upon centuries. It is hard for any nation to pick themselves off the floor after treatment like that.

    You should read up on the history of a country like Haiti. It is incredibly sad. If America had had the history of a country like Haiti's, then America would probably look a lot like Haiti does today.

    But oh no. You only blame the people living today.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "You only blame the people living today."

    This is your problem. It's all about moral preening with you. It's all about feelz.

    I don't *blame* people in shithole countries for being born in them and having the ideas that make those countries shithole countries.

    Mankind's history has been a history of shithole places, with people lacking the ideas to make it otherwise.

    Except in a very few places at very limited times. Preserving those places and passing on those ideas is the most important thing to do in the world for anyone who cares about human freedom and flourishing.

    You know, people entirely unlike you, who only cares about his moral preening, *actual* freedom in the world be damned.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't *blame* people in shithole countries for being born in them and having the ideas that make those countries shithole countries.

    Bullshit. You sure don't show any compassion at all for their plight. You treat them like disease-carrying plague rats, as I said. Elsewhere you blame them for "not fixing their own countries", as if that was even in their power to do, as if 'foment bloody revolution against a corrupt state' should be a prerequisite before being allowed to emigrate anywhere.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "You sure don't show any compassion at all for their plight"

    Because that's what's important in life, right? Oozing GoodFeelz?

    That's the basis of your whole self image. You ooze the GoodFeelz, and therefore are good. Doesn't matter that in *reality* that what you push for would destroy the US. You would point the finger of blame at others and be at peace.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Do you *really* believe that Guatemalans just don't like freedom or prosperity all that much and that is why Guatemala is the way it is?

    Maybe the reason why Guatemala is in such a poor state is far more complex than simply "because Guatemalans are inferior people"?

  • buybuydandavis||

    George Bush thought freedom was the universal aspiration of mankind when he called for the invasion of Iraq.

    Pat Buchanan laughed.

    Who do you think was right?

    Did the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein unleash a nation of Thomas Paines from their bondage? Did they swiftly build Libertopia?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So, it is your contention that Iraqis hate freedom? Guatemalans hate freedom?

    Why do Iraqis and Guatemalans hate freedom, in your view?

  • buybuydandavis||

    A great many Iraqis hate a great many freedoms I value and you take for granted.

    Anglo American conceptions of liberty are not universally valued. It's the worldwide exception, not the rule.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Are Americans superior human beings compared to Guatemalans?

  • buybuydandavis||

    I find the society made and sustained by Americans superior to the one made and sustained by Guatemalans.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You really believe that illegal immigrants are fundamentally inferior people compared to people like yourself, don't you?

    I believe that people who would abandon their children are not 'good people', as I said.

    I have no idea where your idiotic comment comes from.

  • Echospinner||

    Accessories?

    No they fled knowing they would be deported. They left their high school age son in the care of a good family to finish school. No different than sending your kid to boarding school except they are not wealthy Trumps.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Except for the breaking US immigration law part.

  • Widhalm19||

    As Mollie Tibbitts mother is demonstrating, cultural Marxism / Identitarian Politics is a secular religion far more powerful than reason or truth.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Or love of your own children.

  • Benitacanova||

    The kid will do the chores that Mollie wouldn't, and for half the allowance.

  • buybuydandavis||

    +1

  • Chest Rockwell||

    We have enough crime from our legal citizens so it's crazy to think illegals would need to commit MORE crime than legal citizens people before we are allowed to be concerned.

    It's silly. And if the crimes occur in sanctuary cities immigration status is especially important.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Mollie Tibbetts was murdered, w/o any indication of her killer having killed in self-defense.

    PLAIN JUSTICE says kill the killer, or put him away for decades, and hope that he doesn't escape, or that some crazy judge springs him loose.

    Confused injustice gets all distracted. Was the killer a punk rocker with an ugly punk hairdo? Did he have skinhead tattoos? AntiFa tattoos? Was he born of an unwed mother? Was he poor? Did he say hurtful things while he killed? What was his skin color? Was he an illegal sub-human? Born 5 yards or 10 yards on which side of what border? What if his mother's twat straddled the middle of the border-line as she gave birth?

    Oh, the law says those born in shithole nations need to be kept in shithole nations. We could just as easily pass a law that says libertarianism-espousing persons need to be kept on reservations (AKA, concentration camps or re-education camps). Then when one of them escapes and commits a crime, we can say "Well, this wouldn't have happened if we kept 'them' where they belong! Stricter enforcement NOW!"

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Destroy America NOW!"

  • SQRLSY One||

    This (illegal immigration in general) is a part of a long pattern of Government Almighty fuck-ups making necessary, MORE Government Almighty fuck-ups! Government Almighty mandated WAY too many licenses, before we're allowed to earn an honest living... Put too many of us into poverty. To "help" with this poverty problem that Government Almighty created, Government Almighty gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, Government Almighty now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies, so I suppose Government Almighty will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).

    Those of us who like individual freedom, would like for Government Almighty to SHRINK, for once, instead of always making itself BIGGER to fix all of the problems created by Government Almighty in the first place!

  • wreckinball||

    Just enforce immigration law
    Is that what they disagree with?
    Seriously that is Trumps policy that is so controversial somehow

  • Echospinner||

    He has said many times that he wants to change the laws, not merely enforce existing ones.

    I agree that the laws need to change. Trump and I just want them to do so in opposite directions.

  • buybuydandavis||

    If Trump wanted to enforce immigration law, he could.
    It's his responsibility.
    A responsibility he is shirking.

    Much like every President since Reagan.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What would "enforce immigration law" look like to you?
    Armies of ICE agents hassling every brown person on the street, demanding to see their papers?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Deporting illegal aliens.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How will you find the illegal aliens? Hmm?
    More regulations on businesses?
    More stop-and-frisk police searches?
    More hassling of brown people?
    More 'Constitution-free' zones to find them?

  • buybuydandavis||

    The same way we find all criminals - we look for them. We apprehend them when we come across them.

  • Echospinner||

    The story of the Tibbett family, what they have suffered and gone through and how they have reacted, forced to deal with this in public, there is a lot to learn there.

    Whatever lessons or conclusions each of us may come to will not be found in Washington politics or Texas border walls. The only meaning here is to be found by focusing on the people involved.

    Libertarianism to me is to always ask what does this mean for the individual. How does it affect individual liberty and autonomy.

    I really admire how they have dealt with this. It is humbling really to see the humanity and generosity of these people.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Amen, well said! "Humanity and generosity" indeed! These are indeed precious traits!

  • Echospinner||

    There will be refreshments after the service provided by Bernice Kaplan and family. Don't forget Wednesday is men's night out. Last month we raised $800 for the building fund and a good time was had by all. We continue on page 143 with the 43rd psalm.

  • Echospinner||

    Seriously it is an amazing story. I think the fact that the boy they took in is a classmate of Mollie's brother just tells you something about community and what that means. Not what the government thinks but real community.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Amen again! It is refreshing to see some positive comments about positive behaviors (performed by positive humanoids) in these comments, which, frankly, I find to be often nearly saturated with the negativity of the nattering nabobs. The only-thinly-disguised xenophobia ranks very-very highly in what distresses me the most.

    Liberty and positivity can NEVER be killed, though! They will live as long as sentient beings live!

  • Texasmotiv||

    Man, what the fuck happened to the commentariat? Were all the libertarians run off by the shitposting conservatives?

  • buybuydandavis||

    MAGA

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Man, what the fuck happened to the commentariat? Were all the libertarians run off by the shitposting conservatives Anarchists and Lefties writing for Reason?

    FTFY.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Non-Libertarians refuse to admit that Libertarianism is fine with Rule of Law under a small and limited government and that that Constitutional Democratic Republic can absolutely defend itself from non-American invaders violating US law.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Borders are evil, m'kay? Anarchotopia now! Woohoo!"

    They claim they want freedom, while rejecting the only means mankind has found to make that freedom a reality.

    "Let's have our cake and eat it too."

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Wait wait wait. America became great only because of massive immigration restrictions? Is that why there were no immigration restrictions at all in this country for the first 100 years of its existence?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The world today is exactly like it was in the 1800s."

    I've pointed out the *relevant* changes to the world and the US since the immigration waves of the 1800s many times.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I thought it was 'magic culture' that made America great. Was it the 'magic culture' of the past, or the decadent 'magic culture' of today? If it was the 'magic culture' of the past, then the past had very little if any immigration restrictions. That is my point.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Our culture has changed for good and bad. Our government has changed. Technology has changed. The world has changed. The outcome of an open borders has changed as well.

    But there I go again, caring more about outcomes in reality than GoodFeelz.

    You just keep oozing and feeling good about yourself thereby.

  • Presskh||

    "Undocumented immigrant". So, if I break into the author's house and start eating his food and stealing stuff, I guess he would just refer to me as an "undocumented visitor"?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "undocumented lover"

  • SQRLSY One||

    I have had illegal sub-humans pick my veggies and fruits, mow my yard, baby-sit my kids, build and repair my house, serve me food, and so on, and not a ONE of them has EVER broken into my house, eaten my food, or stolen my stuff. LEGAL sub-humans have done some of these nasty things to me, but the illegal sub-humans have all been VERY nice to me, and worked VERY hard for me. When I want to do business with (or be friends with) an illegal sub-human, I wish that other sub-humans (legal or otherwise, un-invited third-party busybodies) would BUTT OUT of my business!

    You can call them illegal sub-humans or undocumented visitors, and I really don't care. Just mind your own business. That's all I ask.

  • SQRLSY One||

    I have had illegal sub-humans pick my veggies and fruits, mow my yard, baby-sit my kids, build and repair my house, serve me food, and so on, and not a ONE of them has EVER broken into my house, eaten my food, or stolen my stuff. LEGAL sub-humans have done some of these nasty things to me, but the illegal sub-humans have all been VERY nice to me, and worked VERY hard for me. When I want to do business with (or be friends with) an illegal sub-human, I wish that other sub-humans (legal or otherwise, un-invited third-party busybodies) would BUTT OUT of my business!

    You can call them illegal sub-humans or undocumented visitors, and I really don't care. Just mind your own business. That's all I ask.

  • Business Broker Maryland||

    Yes, I was and still am talkong about the individual right of asaociation. Your argument assumes individuals simply can't choose not to associate with certain people unless governement is involved.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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