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.

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.

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.

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.