5 ms·

The author makes reference to ICE using these techniques to find "unauthorized immigrants", which seems to be just another softer term for "illegal immigrant".

The author makes reference to ICE using these techniques to find "unauthorized immigrants", which seems to be just another softer term for "illegal immigrant". If we want to progress, we need to recognize countries do have different values and have the right to monitor their borders to limit who can enter based on those values. When someone chooses to break the law to cross a border and live anywhere without notifying the authorities they have to accept the consequences of that.

mikeash 9y ago
Sure, as long as we apply this principle evenly. People who break the speed limit aren’t “speeders,” they’re “illegal drivers.” Forgot to declare some Bitcoin to the IRS? You’re not mildly negligent, you’re an “illegal crypto currency trader”! Very few people dispute that countries have the right to control their borders. But that doesn’t mean countries have the right to do whatever they want in order to do so, any more than a country’s right to punish murderers means the police can randomly search people’s houses to look for murderers.
- lamarpye 9y ago
  Very few people argue that countries have the right to do anything they want to track illegal immigrants. Also it looks like the Trump administration is continuing an Obama era program.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Right, so let's get past the "countries have a right to police their border" strawmanning and have an actual discussion about how that should be done.
- fiblye 9y ago
  >Sure, as long as we apply this principle evenly. It is applied fairly evenly, despite how many people try to frame it. Online piracy is often referred to as "illegal downloading/filesharing". People selling fentanyl aren't referred to as "unauthorized pharmacists" but "illegal drug dealers." And speeding isn't "illegal driving." When you're speeding, it's not the act of driving itself that's illegal. It's the speed violation, which is often referred to as illegally speeding or illegally exceeding the speed limit. Illegally driving would involve either driving without a license or driving a stolen vehicle. Illegal immigration involves actively violating the law in order to gain access or maintain access to another country. The argument over what term is appropriate is bikeshedding.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    "The argument over what term is appropriate is bikeshedding." Maybe you should take that up with the fellow who started the argument? And I don't understand why you'd state this after arguing a bunch about the appropriate term. Your examples are good, but do you have any that aren't crimes? Entering the US without authorization is a crime, but staying without authorization is merely a civil infraction. The majority of "illegal immigrants" fall into the second category. Driving without a license is a crime, so a more apt analogy would be parking where it's not allowed. It may sound hyperbolic to compare an immigration violation to a parking ticket, but that is what the law says. We don't call people "illegal parkers" when they park where it's not allowed. Other analogous violations might be trying to take a prohibited item through airport security ("illegal passengers"?) or violating a building code (a builder who deliberately and frequently does this might well be referred to as an "illegal builder"). Interesting side note: in addition to confusing the issue enormously when it comes to the seemingly straightforward "illegal immigrants are criminals by definition" argument, the fact that it's only a civil infraction to be in the country without authorization means that there is no right to a public defender. People without the means to hire a lawyer or the luck to find one who will represent them for free get the joyous experience of representing themselves.
    - legostormtroopr 9y ago
      > Driving without a license is a crime, so a more apt analogy would be parking where it's not allowed. Sure, and the similar analogy is "sure he's parked illegally, but you can't charge him for driving without a licence because parking illegally is a civil infraction." Prosecuting illegal migration protects the system. If you want to petition for easier access to migrate between countries, thats fine. But willfully ignoring very clear laws and crimes helps no one.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        I don’t understand your analogy. Why would the driver be unlicensed in this scenario?

mikeash 9y ago

Sure, as long as we apply this principle evenly. People who break the speed limit aren’t “speeders,” they’re “illegal drivers.” Forgot to declare some Bitcoin to the IRS? You’re not mildly negligent, you’re an “illegal crypto currency trader”! Very few people dispute that countries have the right to control their borders. But that doesn’t mean countries have the right to do whatever they want in order to do so, any more than a country’s right to punish murderers means the police can randomly search people’s houses to look for murderers.

lamarpye 9y ago
Very few people argue that countries have the right to do anything they want to track illegal immigrants. Also it looks like the Trump administration is continuing an Obama era program.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Right, so let's get past the "countries have a right to police their border" strawmanning and have an actual discussion about how that should be done.
fiblye 9y ago
>Sure, as long as we apply this principle evenly. It is applied fairly evenly, despite how many people try to frame it. Online piracy is often referred to as "illegal downloading/filesharing". People selling fentanyl aren't referred to as "unauthorized pharmacists" but "illegal drug dealers." And speeding isn't "illegal driving." When you're speeding, it's not the act of driving itself that's illegal. It's the speed violation, which is often referred to as illegally speeding or illegally exceeding the speed limit. Illegally driving would involve either driving without a license or driving a stolen vehicle. Illegal immigration involves actively violating the law in order to gain access or maintain access to another country. The argument over what term is appropriate is bikeshedding.
- mikeash 9y ago
  "The argument over what term is appropriate is bikeshedding." Maybe you should take that up with the fellow who started the argument? And I don't understand why you'd state this after arguing a bunch about the appropriate term. Your examples are good, but do you have any that aren't crimes? Entering the US without authorization is a crime, but staying without authorization is merely a civil infraction. The majority of "illegal immigrants" fall into the second category. Driving without a license is a crime, so a more apt analogy would be parking where it's not allowed. It may sound hyperbolic to compare an immigration violation to a parking ticket, but that is what the law says. We don't call people "illegal parkers" when they park where it's not allowed. Other analogous violations might be trying to take a prohibited item through airport security ("illegal passengers"?) or violating a building code (a builder who deliberately and frequently does this might well be referred to as an "illegal builder"). Interesting side note: in addition to confusing the issue enormously when it comes to the seemingly straightforward "illegal immigrants are criminals by definition" argument, the fact that it's only a civil infraction to be in the country without authorization means that there is no right to a public defender. People without the means to hire a lawyer or the luck to find one who will represent them for free get the joyous experience of representing themselves.
  - legostormtroopr 9y ago
    > Driving without a license is a crime, so a more apt analogy would be parking where it's not allowed. Sure, and the similar analogy is "sure he's parked illegally, but you can't charge him for driving without a licence because parking illegally is a civil infraction." Prosecuting illegal migration protects the system. If you want to petition for easier access to migrate between countries, thats fine. But willfully ignoring very clear laws and crimes helps no one.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I don’t understand your analogy. Why would the driver be unlicensed in this scenario?