Man Arrested for Leaving Food and Water for Migrants in Arizona Desert
npr.org
npr.org
> 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
I don't think it's clear-cut.