Man Arrested for Leaving Food and Water for Migrants in Arizona Desert(npr.org)
npr.org
Man Arrested for Leaving Food and Water for Migrants in Arizona Desert
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/28/725716169/extending-zero-tolerance-to-people-who-help-migrants-along-the-border
36 comments
Aiding and abetting criminals is a crime. Whodathunk?
What a world you live in: human compassion is a labeled a crime, and your response is "that's fine".
Seeking asylum is not a criminal act, and is protected by federal and international law.
Seeking asylum at a port of entry is not a criminal act. Running across a border is not seeking asylum.
That is a lie. When this law was codified, the authors went well out of their way to make it explicitly clear that "ports of entry" have absolutely nothing to do with it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
8 U.S. Code § 1158. Asylum
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
8 U.S. Code § 1158. Asylum
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
2 million people running across the border each year aren't 'asylum seekers' - it is mass illegal economic migration.
Nope! The number of economic-driven migrants on the southern border of the united states has been falling for years, and is at a low point right now.
I have neither reason, legal authority, nor moral authority to a priori doubt the legitimacy of asylum claims, and neither do you.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/17/falli...
http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S...
http://theconversation.com/todays-us-mexico-border-crisis-in...
I have neither reason, legal authority, nor moral authority to a priori doubt the legitimacy of asylum claims, and neither do you.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/17/falli...
http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S...
http://theconversation.com/todays-us-mexico-border-crisis-in...
Legitimate asylum seekers can seek asylum at the border. They do not need to run across the border, unless they actually have no valid claim for asylum and are simply jumping the border.
You see, as a legal immigrant who was stuck in the dreaded green card queue for years and many of whose family are still stuck in that queue because
(a) the immigration system is overwhelmed by illegals and (b) because there is political lack of will to fix legal immigration
I do have a vested interest and authority to complain about illegals.
You see, as a legal immigrant who was stuck in the dreaded green card queue for years and many of whose family are still stuck in that queue because
(a) the immigration system is overwhelmed by illegals and (b) because there is political lack of will to fix legal immigration
I do have a vested interest and authority to complain about illegals.
> Legitimate asylum seekers can seek asylum at the border.
Not when the executive directs that they be prevented from doing so, even to the extent of closing border crossings and launching cross border armed attacks to prevent it.
The “crisis at the border” is deliberately and unsubtly manufactured to sell the response.
> the immigration system is overwhelmed by illegals
No, it's not. Both because the systems legal immigrants use don't deal with illegals and vice versa, so that simply doesn't happen in any cased because illegal immigration has been dropping for a long time to the point where there is no longer even a net inflow.
> because there is political lack of will to fix legal immigration
That's not really an accurate statement. Portraying the problem as lack of will suggests that there is a broad consensus on what it means to “fix legal immigration” but people are just afraid to stand up and vote for it, while the truth is pretty much the opposite: plenty of people are willing to stand up and vote for things that are (in the view of particular factions) “fixig legal immigration”, but there is no consensus on which of the mutually incompatible fixes to adopt, because people have diametrically opposed view of what the problem with legal immigration is and what the goals are any fix should address (and that's even before disagreements on approaches between people sharing the same view of the problem/goals.)
> I do have a vested interest
Perhaps, but clearly not much understanding, and
> and authority
Beyond the universal “authority” inherent in free speech, no.
Not when the executive directs that they be prevented from doing so, even to the extent of closing border crossings and launching cross border armed attacks to prevent it.
The “crisis at the border” is deliberately and unsubtly manufactured to sell the response.
> the immigration system is overwhelmed by illegals
No, it's not. Both because the systems legal immigrants use don't deal with illegals and vice versa, so that simply doesn't happen in any cased because illegal immigration has been dropping for a long time to the point where there is no longer even a net inflow.
> because there is political lack of will to fix legal immigration
That's not really an accurate statement. Portraying the problem as lack of will suggests that there is a broad consensus on what it means to “fix legal immigration” but people are just afraid to stand up and vote for it, while the truth is pretty much the opposite: plenty of people are willing to stand up and vote for things that are (in the view of particular factions) “fixig legal immigration”, but there is no consensus on which of the mutually incompatible fixes to adopt, because people have diametrically opposed view of what the problem with legal immigration is and what the goals are any fix should address (and that's even before disagreements on approaches between people sharing the same view of the problem/goals.)
> I do have a vested interest
Perhaps, but clearly not much understanding, and
> and authority
Beyond the universal “authority” inherent in free speech, no.
If I see someone in distress, am I supposed to interrogate them before rendering aid?
minikites(2)
This has an old, ugly history. We are pretty much exactly recapitulating actions taken against religious leaders who were doing these things in the early 80s, and who were prosecuted under Reagan. They won by losing, then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_movement
I found this radio documentary about The Missing Migrants Project interesting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01v5sq8
> In Pima County, Tucson, anthropologist Robin Reineke works on identifying the deceased, piecing together clues found among the personal effects found on the decomposed bodies found in the desert. Her goal is to trace the dead migrant's family to inform them of their relative’s fate, and ultimately return the body home for burial.
> In Pima County, Tucson, anthropologist Robin Reineke works on identifying the deceased, piecing together clues found among the personal effects found on the decomposed bodies found in the desert. Her goal is to trace the dead migrant's family to inform them of their relative’s fate, and ultimately return the body home for burial.
Some communities have made it a crime to feed homeless people. I like the angle of "sincere religious beliefs" - I think the Religious Right have no idea of the scope of the can of worms they've opened with that clause. Talk about your unintended consequences...
https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/justice/florida-feeding-homel...
The game of nonviolent civil disobedience becomes "make the government arrest people who obviously shouldn't be arrested for doing things that nobody should be arrested for, and make them do it on the national news, over and over until this changes"
90 year old vets, priests, monks, nuns, rabbis, imams, children, mothers with babies. The more dignified-looking and able to remain composed under pressure, the better.
Nothing in US law specifically prevents the FBI from dragging sanctuary claimants out of church basements. It happened, in Vietnam protests. It proved to be counterprodutive because it was so obviously immoral and it was done with a news team on the premises.
The game of nonviolent civil disobedience becomes "make the government arrest people who obviously shouldn't be arrested for doing things that nobody should be arrested for, and make them do it on the national news, over and over until this changes"
90 year old vets, priests, monks, nuns, rabbis, imams, children, mothers with babies. The more dignified-looking and able to remain composed under pressure, the better.
Nothing in US law specifically prevents the FBI from dragging sanctuary claimants out of church basements. It happened, in Vietnam protests. It proved to be counterprodutive because it was so obviously immoral and it was done with a news team on the premises.
>harboring, sheltering
Harboring someone who is actively breaking the law doesn't seem that controversial.
> leaving food and water
Littering and providing assistance to someone breaking the law.
Harboring someone who is actively breaking the law doesn't seem that controversial.
> leaving food and water
Littering and providing assistance to someone breaking the law.
Read the sheltering charges. They are probably cherry-picked, but even so, they are ridiculous and never should have merited arrests. These are good people being harassed for not looking the other way while human beings needlessly die in the desert.
These immigrants are breaking your laws and it's understandable if they aren't accepted, but waiting for them to die crosses the line into evil. Sometimes the moral alternative is illegal, but that doesn't make it wrong.
These immigrants are breaking your laws and it's understandable if they aren't accepted, but waiting for them to die crosses the line into evil. Sometimes the moral alternative is illegal, but that doesn't make it wrong.
I think a human carcass that could have been saved with food or water is much more offensive litter than a water bottle, but YMMV.
There's legal, and there's moral.
It was illegal to harbor fugitive slaves.
It was moral to break that law.
If you think the issue is that clear-cut, you end up on the side of slavers.
It was illegal to harbor fugitive slaves.
It was moral to break that law.
If you think the issue is that clear-cut, you end up on the side of slavers.
It cuts both ways -
It's illegal to harbor rapists, murderers, drug smugglers and sex traffickers.
If you think that's legal, you're on the side of rapists, murderers, drug smugglers and sex traffickers.
It's illegal to harbor rapists, murderers, drug smugglers and sex traffickers.
If you think that's legal, you're on the side of rapists, murderers, drug smugglers and sex traffickers.
Well, up until the 60s, it was also illegal to marry outside your race in some states. So should someone have been arrested if They let an interracial couple live with them? If you think this attitude is old - according to one survey, 20% of all conservative Christians in Alabama still think interracial marriage is a sin.
You omitted the "If you think the issue is that clear-cut".
I don't think it's clear-cut.
I don't think it's clear-cut.
Not sure why this got flagged. It's not directly political, it's a human rights issue.
Oh you know exactly why this got flagged.
I'm not sure about why either. It did occur to me that it could be racism/nationalism, but I'm not used to see that here, so I dismissed it and kept wondering why.