Sunday, June 24, 2018

'Occupy ICE' Protests Emerge Across the Country

From The Hill:
Protesters are occupying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities across the country, inspired by a Portland protest that resulted in the indefinite shutdown of an ICE detention center on Wednesday.

"Occupy ICE" protesters are blocking the loading dock of ICE headquarters in New York, have set up tents in front of an ICE facility in Los Angeles and are gathered outside of a detention center in Washington state.

Though the protests are not led by any one group, the Democratic Socialists of America are involved in most states, alongside groups associated with prison abolition, immigration rights and anarchist collectives. The protests are calling for an abolition of ICE and an end to what they call human rights abuses by the criminal justice system, alongside other reforms.
The Portland protest began in response to the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border, a result of the administration's “zero tolerance” policy toward illegal border crossings
Like I have said, Trump is a boost to the socialist movement in America.

It is said that there aren't more libertarians objecting to the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border, so that the kids can learn there are non-socialist alternatives to Trump.



  1. re: "It is said that there aren't more libertarians objecting to the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border, so that the kids can learn there are non-socialist alternatives to Trump."

    First, I assume you meant "sad" not said.

    The problem is that immigration is a more complicated issue without unambiguous libertarian positions. Even Rothbard changed his mind. The mix of welfare state and poor migrants generally pose some risk to the US population. Also, given the history Mexican and Central American migrants to vote for Dems/bigger welfare/interventions state is some factor in the practical side of the equation.

    The narrow issue of whether to detain migrants with children and how is also not fully clear. There is evidence that children are often explicitly brought along as a means to get released into the US pending an asylum hearing that they don't attend. Detaining children with adults is also an obvious problem.

    My preference - allowing migrants in to live and work, but not to receive government welfare and vote - is not an option on the table and doesn't seem to fit on a protest sign.

    I don't like anything about the current situation, but it's clear that most of the optics and presentation here are a game of partisan political theater that most libertarians tend to avoid even when there is a strong policy lean.

    1. Tom:

      I see "Rothbard changed his mind" many times on this issue. But if that refers to his article, "Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State," in that article he did not suggest state management of the border as his new position (compared with his prior position of "open borders"), but, rather, continual secession down to the smallest possible governance unit, so that each governance unit would essentially be a collection of private-property owners (e.g., a local neighborhood).

    2. tom, you summed it up well, my sentiments exactly. this isnt a situation where we can apply the libertarian position of open borders. open borders only work if all property were private, there was no welfare, and you could not vote yourself a right to someone else's property. these conditions clearly dont exist. I think the situation is much more nuanced--the standard libertarian "open borders" policy is not appropriate here. IMHO, we should let the fundamental principle of property rights be our guide. Clearly open borders in our current form of government would be a step backwards if property rights are a main concern. but, basically what this all boils down to is more democratic voters. which should be a cause for concern.

  2. I like the sign "Abolish ICE, CBP, DHS." On that we can find common cause. One state department at a time works for me.

    1. I would add one more TLA (three letter acronym): GOV.

  3. The 'left' would create protests so long as any non-leftist was in office. The only difference is degree based on if the republican president was approved by the established ruling class or not. They protested with GWB but just at a lower intensity.

    If Ron Paul were elected there would have been huge protests regarding existing and continuing government evils that were none of his doing. Which has happened with Trump plus a couple things that were Trump's or Trump's people's doing. What do you think they would do if a libertarian in office put up a functioning welfare wall?

    Leftists are led by an any route to power group. They don't play fair. They lie to the base and manipulate them emotionally and socially. The only way protests don't happen is when their guy is in office.

  4. It is not the Trump administration's policy to separate children from parents. This is the bologna that CNN and NBC is pushing, but its false. There are two court rulings at play here that were around long before trump. One is from the 9th circuit court. There is a court ruling banning parents from being detained with their children and another that limits the detention of the children to 20 days before they are reunited with a responsible party in the us.

    The Trump administration policy is that he prosecutes people with children, who were just let in before. This also meant that some people were coming in by bringing children who weren't their own to bypass getting arrested. He decided to prosecute everyone, which means they will be separated from their children by law.

    Also, some of those pictures of children in "cages" that CNN published were from the Obama administration.

    I am not saying any of this is right or good, but if you are going to join in the crucifixion of Trump, you should at least be skeptical of all of the media claims, because a lot of it is BS. I don't like a lot of what Trump does, but using him as a scapegoat for things he didn't do or has no power over will not fix those things and only hides the true nature of their origin.