5 ms·

>I don't really care if people want to relocate from one country to another. I just care that they do it legally and the two countries know about it. The probl

>I don't really care if people want to relocate from one country to another. I just care that they do it legally and the two countries know about it. The problem is that requiring them to do it legally is requiring many to not do it at all because those who do care if you can do it have made the laws so burdensome. >If you are paying a coyote to sneak you across a lightly patrolled stretch of the border in the middle of the night... you should know you are doing it wrong. If you see people paying someone money to take them on a very dangerous journey instead of going through your legal process, you should know the legal process is broken.

jack-r-abbit 11y ago
As I said in the last part of my statement.
dropit_sphere 11y ago
I don't think this logic stands up. Does the presence of widespread illegal activity automatically imply that said illegal activity has the moral high ground? Is it impossible to acknowledge that sometimes, people will have conflicts, but that one has the right to decide how they'll be resolved, and the other doesn't?
- davidw 11y ago
  It may not have the moral high ground, but you'd better design your systems to deal with it, rather than pretend that it's possible to stop it. Also, people moving to seek a better life for themselves and their children is pretty core to the existence of the US, so I would posit that it's a moral thing to do if people aren't breaking any other laws. By making legal immigration easier, you keep people on the side of the law and less tempted to break other laws, since, hey, in for a penny, in for a pound.
  - dropit_sphere 11y ago
    > but you'd better design your systems to deal with it, rather than pretend that it's possible to stop it. Ah, but see, no one cares what I think when designing systems. I'm just another programmer, you know? The systems I get to design are things like: my career, my marriage, how I raise my kids. And the sensible adaptations of my systems to unbounded immigration are: improve my lot, possibly at the expense of society's (making a bigger pie doesn't make sense if that simply attracts more pie eaters), prize relative status over absolute wealth (for the same reason), carry a gun, decrease my investment in society and retain options for moving abroad (same reason), and work hard to afford expensive real estate near "good schools" to send my children to elite colleges---elite you understand, not good enough, because with enough people, good enough, isn't. And this is all antisocial behavior, and I don't really like it, and perhaps I will find a way to refrain from most of it and die in my bed in Oakland after ten years of philanthropy, surrounded by not only my multilingual grandchildren who, by dint of the virtues of hard work, collaboration, and generosity that I've taught, have managed to find their places in society, but also the neighborhood youths that I've mentored, Gran Torino style. That is the outcome I would be urged to pursue, and the one I personally find most fulfilling. But: perhaps my neighbor Steve the auto mechanic is not so insufferably capable as I am, and feels betrayed by his country. What Steve feels is his due is loyalty, which means: discrimination. If loyalty to a company means that you stay there when you perhaps get a better offer from another, loyalty to a citizenry means that you favor its interests over some other body of people. And I do not get the sense that proponents of mass immigration favor the interests of the citizenry over migrants. I am happily ensconced at my well-paying tech job, so I will be OK---but what about Steve? What does he tell his kids when a Mexican (by pure chance---it could have been white, but this time, it wasn't) kid bullies them at school? Does he feel a moral obligation to consider the other child's interests? Is he likely to have a calm chat with the other child's parents? What I am saying is: "You need to design your systems to deal with it" is equivalent to saying, "Fuck you," and while the moral and civilized response to "Fuck you" is "Have a nice day, sir," there are many who will not be able to afford that answer. Instead, they'll say "Fuck you." And (without the insulting meaning I ascribed to it earlier) you need to design your systems to deal with that.
    - davidw 11y ago
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >I don't think this logic stands up. Does the presence of widespread illegal activity automatically imply that said illegal activity has the moral high ground? No. This only applies when it is an legal outcome which has a legal means to achieve, but which large numbers are going with the illegal means. And it isn't about a moral high ground, because morals are tricky business and can differ extremely based on what moral system you choose to use. Instead, it is pointing out that the official system is broken (at least in regards to the issue) when so many decide to work around it. I think the truth of the matter isn't one of the system being broken, but of a harder to publicly state mention that the official system is keeping out the people that are not wanted. But it means dropping the 'everyone can get in legally' shield.
a3n 11y ago
One solution to that is to have semi-open borders. Let almost anyone cross legally, without having to go through the burdensome routes we have now. When you go "crossing light," you're just "here" without any official ties or rights other than normal constitutional rights extended to anyone in the country. This would be essentially the same group of people who are here illegally, and they're going to come anyway; the difference is that we'd know they're here, they have no disincentive to go back (because they can safely cross again), and they didn't risk their lives and fund coyotes and other predator criminals. We'd still have people here illegally, because some won't qualify even for crossing light, and some come here expressly for criminal purposes. But this seems like an improvement.
- davidw 11y ago
  > We'd still have people here illegally, because some won't qualify even for crossing light, and some come here expressly for criminal purposes. But this seems like an improvement. It'd probably be far easier to catch them and point them out - no one much would likely feel sorry for them, and they'd likely stand out even among their own communities.
  - a3n 11y ago
    And, legal casual residents would not be reluctant to call the police, because they won't fear deportation. It's in everyone's interest that when someone sees a crime, they report it, but right now there are a lot of observed crimes that go unreported because of this fear.

jack-r-abbit 11y ago

As I said in the last part of my statement.

dropit_sphere 11y ago

I don't think this logic stands up. Does the presence of widespread illegal activity automatically imply that said illegal activity has the moral high ground? Is it impossible to acknowledge that sometimes, people will have conflicts, but that one has the right to decide how they'll be resolved, and the other doesn't?

davidw 11y ago
It may not have the moral high ground, but you'd better design your systems to deal with it, rather than pretend that it's possible to stop it. Also, people moving to seek a better life for themselves and their children is pretty core to the existence of the US, so I would posit that it's a moral thing to do if people aren't breaking any other laws. By making legal immigration easier, you keep people on the side of the law and less tempted to break other laws, since, hey, in for a penny, in for a pound.
- dropit_sphere 11y ago
  > but you'd better design your systems to deal with it, rather than pretend that it's possible to stop it. Ah, but see, no one cares what I think when designing systems. I'm just another programmer, you know? The systems I get to design are things like: my career, my marriage, how I raise my kids. And the sensible adaptations of my systems to unbounded immigration are: improve my lot, possibly at the expense of society's (making a bigger pie doesn't make sense if that simply attracts more pie eaters), prize relative status over absolute wealth (for the same reason), carry a gun, decrease my investment in society and retain options for moving abroad (same reason), and work hard to afford expensive real estate near "good schools" to send my children to elite colleges---elite you understand, not good enough, because with enough people, good enough, isn't. And this is all antisocial behavior, and I don't really like it, and perhaps I will find a way to refrain from most of it and die in my bed in Oakland after ten years of philanthropy, surrounded by not only my multilingual grandchildren who, by dint of the virtues of hard work, collaboration, and generosity that I've taught, have managed to find their places in society, but also the neighborhood youths that I've mentored, Gran Torino style. That is the outcome I would be urged to pursue, and the one I personally find most fulfilling. But: perhaps my neighbor Steve the auto mechanic is not so insufferably capable as I am, and feels betrayed by his country. What Steve feels is his due is loyalty, which means: discrimination. If loyalty to a company means that you stay there when you perhaps get a better offer from another, loyalty to a citizenry means that you favor its interests over some other body of people. And I do not get the sense that proponents of mass immigration favor the interests of the citizenry over migrants. I am happily ensconced at my well-paying tech job, so I will be OK---but what about Steve? What does he tell his kids when a Mexican (by pure chance---it could have been white, but this time, it wasn't) kid bullies them at school? Does he feel a moral obligation to consider the other child's interests? Is he likely to have a calm chat with the other child's parents? What I am saying is: "You need to design your systems to deal with it" is equivalent to saying, "Fuck you," and while the moral and civilized response to "Fuck you" is "Have a nice day, sir," there are many who will not be able to afford that answer. Instead, they'll say "Fuck you." And (without the insulting meaning I ascribed to it earlier) you need to design your systems to deal with that.
  - davidw 11y ago
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>I don't think this logic stands up. Does the presence of widespread illegal activity automatically imply that said illegal activity has the moral high ground? No. This only applies when it is an legal outcome which has a legal means to achieve, but which large numbers are going with the illegal means. And it isn't about a moral high ground, because morals are tricky business and can differ extremely based on what moral system you choose to use. Instead, it is pointing out that the official system is broken (at least in regards to the issue) when so many decide to work around it. I think the truth of the matter isn't one of the system being broken, but of a harder to publicly state mention that the official system is keeping out the people that are not wanted. But it means dropping the 'everyone can get in legally' shield.

a3n 11y ago

One solution to that is to have semi-open borders. Let almost anyone cross legally, without having to go through the burdensome routes we have now. When you go "crossing light," you're just "here" without any official ties or rights other than normal constitutional rights extended to anyone in the country. This would be essentially the same group of people who are here illegally, and they're going to come anyway; the difference is that we'd know they're here, they have no disincentive to go back (because they can safely cross again), and they didn't risk their lives and fund coyotes and other predator criminals. We'd still have people here illegally, because some won't qualify even for crossing light, and some come here expressly for criminal purposes. But this seems like an improvement.

davidw 11y ago
> We'd still have people here illegally, because some won't qualify even for crossing light, and some come here expressly for criminal purposes. But this seems like an improvement. It'd probably be far easier to catch them and point them out - no one much would likely feel sorry for them, and they'd likely stand out even among their own communities.
- a3n 11y ago
  And, legal casual residents would not be reluctant to call the police, because they won't fear deportation. It's in everyone's interest that when someone sees a crime, they report it, but right now there are a lot of observed crimes that go unreported because of this fear.