Tag Archives: immigration

Borders != Doors

Source: Everything Voluntary
by Papa Libertarian

"Having locks on some doors does not mean that every door, every road, every shopping mall, every border should be locked and should require ID checks. I say this in response to BCFs (Border Control Freaks) who constantly draw a false analogy between sealed borders and a locked door. The analogy is doubly false. First off, in a free country, access is valuable to many property owners; this is why shopping malls are usually open on the outside, closed at specific points, such as the employee break area, the manager's office, the bank vault. Second, border controls are not just about the border itself; they restrict the property rights of everybody inside the border; if you happen to hire a person who does not have the right paperwork, your front door will be broken down by BCFs; your private property rights will be destroyed. BCFs, despite their analogy, are not the least bit interested in respecting your private property rights." (02/15/17)


CO: Mother of four fears abduction, deportation, takes sanctuary at Denver church

Source: Denver Post

"A mother of four facing impending deportation from the United States has taken sanctuary in a Denver church in hope of gaining a 'stay of deportation.' Jeanette Vizguerra, who is in the country illegally [sic], avoided a scheduled meeting with U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officials and instead declared sanctuary at the First Unitarian Society of Denver. Vizguerra's declaration of sanctuary came after her 'stay of removal expired' and she feared a scheduled meeting with ICE on Wednesday would have resulted in immediate [abduction] and quick deportation." (02/15/17)


Unintended consequences

Source: A Geek With Guns
by Christopher Burg

"Whenever the State involves itself in an issue there are unintended consequences (okay, the consequences could be intended but I'll give the politicians the benefit of the doubt in this case). When the State involved itself in the alcohol market by prohibiting its manufacture, sale, and consumption criminal organizations arose to provide the prohibited good. Today we'e seeing the same thing happen again as the State has involved itself in the markets of several other substances. When the State further involved itself in the healthcare market health insurance premiums skyrocketed. What happens when the State involves itself in immigration? Unintended consequences …" (02/14/17)


Report: The myth of the government-dependent immigrant

Source: Niskanen Center
by Samuel Hammond and Robert Orr

"The notion that immigrants come to the United States to access public programs has become something of a popular myth. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), better known as welfare reform, introduced a five year ban on lawful immigrants using public benefits with very few exceptions, like refugees and asylees. This helps ensure new immigrants are net fiscal contributors to the U.S. Treasury — a fact which empirical studies consistently confirm. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for public benefits. Yet some myths are harder to correct than others." [summary — full report available as PDF download] (02/14/17)


Foreign policy is not for the courts to determine

Source: Reason
by Andrew P Napolitano

"Last week, in a public courtroom in the federal courthouse in Seattle, the states of Washington and Minnesota — after suing President Donald Trump, alleging injury caused by his executive order that suspended the immigration of all people from seven foreign countries — asked a federal judge to compel the president and all those who work for him to cease enforcing the order immediately. After a brief emergency oral argument, the judge signed a temporary restraining order, which barred the enforcement of the president's order everywhere in the United States. … A 1952 federal statute permits the president to suspend the immigration status of any person or group whose entry into the United States might impair public health or safety or national security. Trump exercised that authority in accordance with the 1952 law when he signed his Jan. 27 order banning all immigration from the seven named countries." (02/09/17)


Appeals court panel unanimously rejects Trump on travel ban; Trump throws usual Twitter tantrum

Source: The Hill

"A San Francisco-based appeals court on Thursday rejected the Trump administration's request to resume his executive action on immigration and refugees, setting up a potential showdown in the Supreme Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously [sic] that a nationwide restraining order against President Trump's temporary travel ban may continue while a federal judge considers a lawsuit over the policy. … [Trump] tweeted about the decision, declaring: 'SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!'" [editor's note: No, the court did not rule unanimously. The court has 29 active judgeships, and its version of a full "en banc" review usually consists of 11 of those judges. THIS decision was the unanimous decision of a three-judge panel, not of the court proper – TLK] (02/09/17)


Sorry, Judge Napolitano: Immigration isn't "foreign policy"

Source: Garrison Center
by Thomas L Knapp

"By the time you read this, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may have handed down a ruling for or against president Donald Trump's executive order banning travel and immigration from seven countries. Two states (Washington and Minnesota) are suing to kill that order. Andrew Napolitano — a prominent constitutionalist and libertarian commentator, not to mention a former New Jersey Superior Court judge — writes in Reason that the states don't have legitimate standing to sue. Why? Because the Constitution provides for quite a bit of presidential latitude on foreign policy. I'll explain why Judge Napolitano is wrong on the details momentarily, but first let's get one thing out of the way: Immigration is not a foreign policy matter." (02/09/17)


Sessions: End migrant lawlessness

Source: BBC [UK state media]

"America's new top prosecutor, Jeff Sessions, has said the US must bring an end to illegal immigration, as he was sworn in at the White House. The US attorney general said: 'We need to end this lawlessness that threatens the public safety, pulls down the wages of working Americans.' During the ceremony, President Donald Trump signed three executive orders targeting crime and drug cartels. The Senate confirmed him in the post on Wednesday by a vote of 52 to 47. Mr Sessions, who is widely seen as an inspiration for Mr Trump's anti-immigration policies, was appointed after a series of divisive congressional hearings over his record on civil rights." (02/09/17)


AZ: Several arrested after attempting to intervene in ICE gang's abduction of woman

Source: Fox News

"The [abduction] of an illegal [sic] immigrant sparked a protest Wednesday outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs office in Phoenix that resulted in seven arrests as crowds blocked ICE buses on nearby streets. Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, 36, arrived at the office for her routine check in, but instead of being released — under President Trump's illegal [sic] immigration crackdown — she was [abducted]. Garcia de Rayos, 36, was considered a 'low priority' for deportation under the Obama administration and had to check in with ICE officials every six months following a 2008 conviction for felony identity theft for having false papers, The Los Angeles Times reported." (0209/17)


Why Republicans should want to expand protection from deportation

Source: Niskanen Center
by Jeremy L Neufeld

"There are compelling conservative reasons to expand the offer for provisional protected status to the parents of Dreamers, veterans, long-term law-abiding immigrants, and community leaders. The economic case practically explains itself. Undocumented status makes it dangerous for people to work. Granting more people protected status and work authorization means they can participate in the formal economy and provide for themselves, subject to the regulations and taxes associated with legal employment. And, the best economic evidence shows the American labor market can easily accommodate more labor without decreasing wages." (02/08/17)