56 ms·

The focus on legality and absolute enforcement of the law I think is cover, dog-whistle language, for anti-immigrant discrimination. (I'm speaking generally; I

The focus on legality and absolute enforcement of the law I think is cover, dog-whistle language, for anti-immigrant discrimination. (I'm speaking generally; I don't pretend to read the mind of everyone who says it, including the parent - I expect many are repeating talking points they've heard.) For example, most laws are enforced unevenly and incompletely. Insider trading, for example, is widely practiced and rarely punished (EDIT: AFAIK, but I've seen plenty of serious evidence of it). Speeding, labor laws (making people work off-the-books, ignoring overtime, etc.), sexual assault rarely results in conviction, burglary, illegal activities by government itself (politicians, law enforcement, etc.). To be incensed that immigration laws are not enforced completely seems disingenuous. That doesn't mean there are no issues to address regarding immigration, but I don't believe the issue is the rule of law. (In fact, to be incensed about anything is a good sign that there's not a lot of reason behind it - anger is cover for lack of reason and is a propaganda tool.) It's particularly sad that people want to enforce the law on the weak and poor, the 'war on drugs' is another example, and not the people who can defend themselves and who are doing far more damage.

ng12 10y ago
> Insider trading, for example, is widely practiced and rarely punished Join a finance firm and tell that to your compliance department, they'll get a kick out of it.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Finish that thought. I'm not sure what experience you mean to relay with your sentence.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I clarified my statement to say I don't have direct knowledge. But do you? I know they have compliance departments, but every town has law enforcement and yet crime still happens.
  - ng12 10y ago
    I've worked in finance. Even if you're a ground-level shmuck without the means to insider trade you're still heavily regulated. Most firms require you to report investments and any trades you make as soon as you make them. Often the regulations extend to your immediate family as well. The only people I can imagine getting away with insider trading are those who don't have a direct connection to the business and trade amounts small enough that it's hard to prove. If you want hard data, in 2016 the SEC handed out $4B in fines: https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-212.html https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-212.html
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Thanks for sharing your knowledge. But people still do it somehow; it can't be that effective a solution. > If you want hard data, in 2016 the SEC handed out $4B in fines Possibly a sign that it's still widespread; and the SEC can't catch everyone, so more must be going on.
  - tacostakohashi 10y ago
    The SEC has a policy of splitting fines levied for insider trading (among other things) with informers: https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/owb-tips.shtml https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/owb-tips.shtml So, yes, I'd say that people with direct knowledge of actual insider trading have a strong incentive to report it. Quite different from petty crime in a town (or immigration), where nobody is really incentivized to do much about it until it gets really bad.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > people with direct knowledge of actual insider trading have a strong incentive to report it We're talking theoretically: Your point is one factor. Another is the profit from insider trading may far exceed the reward. Also, people who report it must become 'rats'; they risk sending their coworkers (and possibly friends) to jail, never working again on Wall Street, being completely ostracized socially and in the industry, and having the reputation of a traitor. But again, that's theoretical. I don't believe I know how it works in practice without some good inside sources.
edblarney 10y ago
"To be incensed that immigration laws are not enforced completely seems disingenuous." I'll bet $1000 that everyone concerned about illegal migration would absolutely support going after crooked bankers. Nobody will do it for them, certainly not Trump, and not Hillary - the Clintons are very deeply in the pockets of the banks. Surely Sanders would - he's a good antagonist, but he's not quite the guy America would elect. And 'the war on drugs' is very real, your statement is very unsympathetic to those who have lost lives and friends. Opiate overdoes - often from prescription drugs are a really huge problem, same with Meth. Even if drug use were treated as a medical issue and not a criminal one - the 'war on drugs' would still continue against dealers, and as the health community fights addiction.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > I'll bet $1000 ... This isn't evidence. > 'the war on drugs' is very real I'm not sure what that means. Certainly it's a real policy and there are real problems with drugs that should be addressed. The policy hasn't seemed effective, and has caused great harm to very large numbers of people - as is often the case, the poor and defenseless.

ng12 10y ago

> Insider trading, for example, is widely practiced and rarely punished Join a finance firm and tell that to your compliance department, they'll get a kick out of it.

tptacek 10y ago
Finish that thought. I'm not sure what experience you mean to relay with your sentence.
hackuser 10y ago
I clarified my statement to say I don't have direct knowledge. But do you? I know they have compliance departments, but every town has law enforcement and yet crime still happens.
- ng12 10y ago
  I've worked in finance. Even if you're a ground-level shmuck without the means to insider trade you're still heavily regulated. Most firms require you to report investments and any trades you make as soon as you make them. Often the regulations extend to your immediate family as well. The only people I can imagine getting away with insider trading are those who don't have a direct connection to the business and trade amounts small enough that it's hard to prove. If you want hard data, in 2016 the SEC handed out $4B in fines: https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-212.html https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-212.html
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Thanks for sharing your knowledge. But people still do it somehow; it can't be that effective a solution. > If you want hard data, in 2016 the SEC handed out $4B in fines Possibly a sign that it's still widespread; and the SEC can't catch everyone, so more must be going on.
- tacostakohashi 10y ago
  The SEC has a policy of splitting fines levied for insider trading (among other things) with informers: https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/owb-tips.shtml https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/owb-tips.shtml So, yes, I'd say that people with direct knowledge of actual insider trading have a strong incentive to report it. Quite different from petty crime in a town (or immigration), where nobody is really incentivized to do much about it until it gets really bad.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > people with direct knowledge of actual insider trading have a strong incentive to report it We're talking theoretically: Your point is one factor. Another is the profit from insider trading may far exceed the reward. Also, people who report it must become 'rats'; they risk sending their coworkers (and possibly friends) to jail, never working again on Wall Street, being completely ostracized socially and in the industry, and having the reputation of a traitor. But again, that's theoretical. I don't believe I know how it works in practice without some good inside sources.

edblarney 10y ago

"To be incensed that immigration laws are not enforced completely seems disingenuous." I'll bet $1000 that everyone concerned about illegal migration would absolutely support going after crooked bankers. Nobody will do it for them, certainly not Trump, and not Hillary - the Clintons are very deeply in the pockets of the banks. Surely Sanders would - he's a good antagonist, but he's not quite the guy America would elect. And 'the war on drugs' is very real, your statement is very unsympathetic to those who have lost lives and friends. Opiate overdoes - often from prescription drugs are a really huge problem, same with Meth. Even if drug use were treated as a medical issue and not a criminal one - the 'war on drugs' would still continue against dealers, and as the health community fights addiction.

hackuser 10y ago
> I'll bet $1000 ... This isn't evidence. > 'the war on drugs' is very real I'm not sure what that means. Certainly it's a real policy and there are real problems with drugs that should be addressed. The policy hasn't seemed effective, and has caused great harm to very large numbers of people - as is often the case, the poor and defenseless.