10000%

Would you be in favour or opposed if they were only targeting illegals?

Traitors.

Nailed it

Unsurprising if true 😐 Stay safe out there, folks .

Opposed. State aggression never stays contained. The coercive apparatus always finds "general purpose" use

Is prosecuting murders, state aggression? Stopping burglaries? I don't see how enforcing borders is different. (Obviously you do have to be wary of apparatus being used against the general population. Not disagreeing with you there).

I'm speaking generally here, I'm not following the US situation closely or with enough info.

But your answer is interesting and I assume common here. Let's say hypothetically a state simply and only expelled illegal entrants into the country. The powers never extended beyond that and never got used against the legal population. I would guess most people are against that too (" no human is illegal" ). So really you're against borders, let's not beat around the bush lol

If they were "really after illegals", you'd be against that too. Which sort of makes me read this meme as merely propaganda.

Well the difference in this case is that border crossing is a victimless crime, like drug use, and those other two aren't. So technically as an anarchist I don't think that States can ever be contained at the "night-watchman" level that traditional minarchism prescribes... But I think there's a funny thing about victimless crime enforcement... Both in the case of the drug war and immigration you start to have to erode fundamental aspects of 2nd, 4th amendment etc protections in order to do any "practical" level of law enforcement.

Are you 12?

This happens because you're creating categories of crime that are disconnected from specific criminal acts (murder, theft etc) and rather things that are simply ongoing human conditions... I.e. possessing a plant or simply existing on the wrong side of a line in the sand

Ultimately it winds up destroying freedom for everyone, in the same way internet restrictions "for the children" mean that now everyone has to prove they're an adult to access the internet.

The difference between lawful and legal.

Sorry, but I'm not going to get into the boring drug debate. But neither are victimless crimes. This is a very sheltered /deliberately naive view, or you're completely ignoring the consequences of these crimes and the complexities around them. I don't feel as strongly about the drug issue as say Peter hitchens, but he is right to think there is a link with drug use and violence, mental illness. This is just one very small aspect of the link with victims. Having open borders also means an influx is criminals. You can see this very plainly if you walk around an area with illegals. If you adopt your logic theft is also victimless in most cases. This is a (naive, not all) online lefty position. You just don't agree with that one. You'll attest to the consequences in that one I reckon.

Theft is simply an object moving from one pocket to another. Don't worry about it.

Murder is simply a soul moving from one plane to another.

Well disagree on both drugs and illegal immigrants. I've been around those two things most of my adult life and have been generally enriched by both. And I think there are significant statistics to back up both of those points, especially if "drugs" includes cannabis, which remains federally illegal.

I believe in freedom of association, but I guess most of the world still isn't ready for that yet.

Is Bitcoin use a victimless crime? Considering all of the Drug use it enables?

I assume you are in an affluent area, or very sheltered generally. ('my cab driver is great, a lovely chap', 'whT a lovely Gardner I have!' type thing, that's what it sounds like to me at least). I'm not sure about the stats for the US, nor the situation but the *recorded* serious crime (rape, burglary, murder, violent crime) stats for illegal immigrants is pretty shocking and that is even with pressure to cook the books on this and inability to even police it.

(I'm not sure this works.) Bitcoin is money. Charging interest on Bitcoin loans should be a crime. How money is used for crime is not the fault of money.

Yes I live in a "sanctuary city" that has a significantly lower crime rate than many Red US cities. Yes I place significant value on the myriad of positive market- and non-market based interactions I've had throughout my life with classmates, neighbors, friends, street vendors, & etc, some of whom may very well have been "illegal" or had family that had that designation. And as an individualist rather than a collectivist, I'm not about to create demographic categories of human beings to say "these people are more dangerous than those people, therefore the State should restrict their freedom of movement." Even if that were the case, which I don't believe it generally is in the case of immigrants.

I didn't say immigrants, I said illegal immigrants. But I would probably argue there would be other categories of cultural compatability to take into account, levels of animosity to the host nation, an erosion of a sense of place, rooted ess of native populations, whose opinions are disregarded (despite continually democratic votes against this policy) in favour of globalist sludge. None of this really matters in a nice bubble tho. But you'll find this actually a common and popular opinion amongst immigrants themselves who do not wish it in their adopted homelands (and even more strongly in the original homelands). The US situation is probably fairly different. But I think you live in a nice little bubble from the sounds of it.

'enrichment' usually at a level of 'think of the yummy food' and 'my cab driver was so nice yesterday'.

Aren't people in the US arguing about the legality of actions by ICE? Not everything anyone does to address a murder is legal. Murder should be addressed by doing exactly what the text of the law says ought to be done (at the time of the act, or the prosecution, whichever is the most lenient). If a policeman just shoots me because I am a murderer (not to *prevent* a crime, to punish the crime), now you have two murderers.

I can't read OP's minds, but the recent events people are discussing about have nothing to do with expelling anyone from the country, they are about expelling people out of the living world and to the afterlife.

Yes, I'm not sure about this particular incident. I was merely pointing out that people agreeing with this are going to be against the enforcement of borders, generally. Even if they were actually and genuinely only "really after illegals", these people would come up with another reason to be against it. I just found it disingenuous.

It also may very well be true, or partly true, the second half of the statement in the image/text, thY is. I'm just suspicious of libertarians, I suppose. They have a bit of a reputation for being the useful idiots of globalists.

> Even if they were actually and genuinely only "really after illegals", these people would come up with another reason to be against it. If you commit crimes, such as murders, only against actual illegals (many of whom, to my understanding, are not even criminals, as theirs is a civil violation), you still shouldn't be wearing a uniform. So it would still make sense to oppose ICE for those who think their actions were illegal.

That's not what the first part of the statement means tho. "Really after illegals" isn't talking about murdering illegals. It's talking about removing people who crossed a border illegally.

I know, it's not really a good meme if it's about recent events. It should be more like "ICE is a bunch of fucking criminals and our country should be deeply ashamed about them" or something of the sort. Still, some people do oppose ICE's actions more when they also happen to be against legal citizens.

You can be against very tragic, (and what looks like) shameful incidents committed by a border control agency, but still be in favour of enforcing border controls. That is logical. (But I'm sensing that the majority of nostr are actually against being "really after illegals" anyway.)

> You can be against very tragic No, I am against every single violation of the text of the law by anyone tasked with enforcing it, even when it isn't tragic in the slightest.

In any case, OP has actually clarified his position, so I see no reason to speculate about it. nostr:

Your argument is pointless. Jose Huerta Chuma was a violent criminal who Alex Pretti and everyone other "protester" there was trying to protect. If the goal was to protect people who only committed victimless crimes, then personally I think Alex Pretti should have chosen a better illegal immigrant to die for.

Choose a job you love and you’ll never have to work a day in your life.

Legal border control is completely reasonable. So is legal deportation. Warrantless search, seizure, detainment, and deportation are a different matter. They are not only questionably legal, but most importantly they create a militarized police force not accountable to laws that can used to oppress anyone who displeases power. Left unchecked this reliably goes very badly for everyone involved.

They're not really trying to help refugees. They're just using refugees to destabilize your country and maintain the ability to control it through the same globalist channels and networks that brought you the Federal Reserve, The New Deal, and the 16th amendment. It's just another British/globalist backed colour revolution in progress. Mind the psy-ops.

Never forget that the stated goal of the Bavarian Illuminati was to overthrow national governments and replace them with a cult of reason. Which sounds good until you realize it's just globalist technocracy.

I'd be careful about "majority of nostr" as we do tend to get pretty silo'ed, especially without an algorithm to encourage us to constantly see information we disagree with to incite rage to drum up engagement and adviews. I see a good amount of both angles based on my follows. If you've got a more complete way to do analytics on nostr though, I'd love to know your methodology.

I think it's fair to say most people here are bitcoiners and libertarians, and have this "no humans are illegal" sentiment. Kind of a reasonable guess ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Suggesting that trespassing, which border crossing amounts to, is a victimless crime suggests that property rights being violated have no victim. Sort of a hard position to hold unless you're a leftist anarchist. Would it be better if the property were held by individuals and private institutions rather than the state? Sure. Is it still held by someone though? Yes. It's true things get messy when analyzing the real world given that we don't live in Ancapistan. But the idea that political enforcement of relatively open border policy is not an aggressive act, against which retaliation and restitution is justified (in appropriate measure) is not one I can see a good argument for. Specifics of ICE's behavior being a separate matter, and indeed, there's room to rein in some bad actors as of late, as well as improve policy and training. Where this gets hard, though, is that the aggressor, here, is not the group that is being targeted. The ones targeted, in large part, are actually perhaps better thought of as the munition being fired at us by globalist aggressors who are themselves not in ICE's crosshairs. So it's hardly surprising there's a lot of sympathy for them. I've been exploring looking at it a bit from a historical lens of the English unification, wherein Danes, who arguably were spurred into their invasion by the aggression of Charlemagne's restriction of trade routes. By all rights the native population would not have been wrong to evict the Danish incursion (though, doing so entirely likely wouldn't have been possible despite them putting up a very good fight). This seems to be an analogous situation to what we have, though obviously not identical. That said, there's a reason Alfred the Great had his namesake. The sort of threading of the needle it'd take to pull this off in an appropriate manner is not trivial. But it does seem that given the entanglement we find ourselves here, looking to books on anarchist theory are not quite as useful as historic events, as they simply don't adequately address what happens when the two parties in conflict are not the aggressor, even when there has been an act of aggression. It's not a black and white issue, and I do think that far too many are trying to make it out to be one.

They're not the same. Possessing a plant in no way affects anyone else's property. Being on the wrong side of a property border does. And certainly drawing resources from a welfare state does.

Whose property? Who's necessarily being trespassed upon?

Who's being trespassed upon? If I am a private property owner and I invite an immigrant, also on private property, who then crosses a border to join me without State permission, is that trespassing?

In our not-Ancapistan world, the state manages property on behalf of the nation, and it is the nation's property that is being trespassed upon. I do agree this is a suboptimal arrangement. But given that their presence on said land also comes with additional costs that are shared across the nation's tax base, it is the situation we have.

Oh OK so now it's "imaginary" property claims in our "real" world. Why isn't drugs then a victim-producing crime? I'm just going to "posit" that the State owns our bodies and minds, and now we're robbing the State's productive capacity by doing drugs. Bitcoin produces additional enforcement costs for the State, so let's just ban that too while we're at it.

Some great reading to explore this matter is Murray Rothbard's "Nations by Consent."

Murray N. Rothbard, Nations by Consent (1993)

"Camp of the Saints" is a White Supremacist power fantasy. Turner Diaries for Europeans. It's highly disappointing Rothbard is quoting this approvingly, he's in the same camp as Stephen Miller on that regard. For an actual modern take on the subject, backed by actual statistics and modern economic analysis, I prefer Open Borders by Byran Caplan.

Eminent domain is hardly imaginary.

So again, if we're going to open up the subject of "eminent domain" to be "the entire geographic area of the nation", which is specifically NOT what that means, why don't we just say that the State has "eminent domain" over our brains and therefore the right to restrict drugs? Why don't they have the right to restrict every decision we make on the basis of what it will costs the welfare state?

As for drugs, these are indeed victimless crimes. Laws around them basically amount to pre-crime, based on the heuristic that people who use drugs go on to commit crimes, and therefore, drugs are banned. Statistically it's commonly accurate enough, but it's lazy enforcement I can't get behind. Especially since statistical targeting before a crime is committed is not in any way justified.

"Laws around them basically amount to pre-crime, based on the heuristic that people who use drugs go on to commit crimes, and therefore, drugs are banned." Isn't that precisely the argument against immigration? "immigrants commit crimes statistically"?

Drugs have enriched your life? How?

The argument against immigration is Article I of the Constitution. The document which also specifically doesn't extend the state's domains to our bodies and minds.

Because the constitution specifically does not grant this authority.

There's also the 13th amendment, which reaffirms the state's inability to own our bodies and mind, at least outside of the conviction and sentencing for criminal activity.

And no -- the case against immigration isn't that immigrants are any more likely to commit crimes. It's that illegal immigrants have a net cost on the state, and thus, indirectly on the nation, as the state is acting as steward for the nation's resources.

I mean, its not as if they are killing random bystanders. Even the people who died would agree that their conflict was about migration.