11 ms·

Sounds like immigration is gonna be this generation's "War on Drugs"

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Not a lot of good solutions. Can't let everyone in. No one cares for merit based immigration like other countries (ie Canada) because pro-immigration supporters want others than the best to have a shot, and no one wants quotas because it'll clamp down on immigration from countries with large populations (China and India).
- esotericn 8y ago
  The US was founded on immigration. > Can't let everyone in. Why not?
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Because it breaks your economy and social fabric (super simplified for the sake of fitting a decent reply into one short HN comment). We're at the lowest level of unemployment in decades, and wages are barely moving up. Bringing in large amounts of unskilled workers (remember, skilled workers get in on merit) would only delay wages rising (or those unskilled workers are going to be working under the table in jobs like slaughter houses, dairy farms, and other hazardous work environments where they will have no recourse when they're injured or maimed). Some immigrants want to integrate with American society, but not all (and that is what is expected of you as an immigrant, to share and hold our values in the same regard citizens do). Europe has had its fair share of troubles with economic migrants. This isn't about race, this is about economic systems and the social stability of your host country. I support an immigration pipeline that gets skilled workers into the US as fast as possible (most especially in the healthcare field), but that's not what's on the public policy table.
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      Immigration is at generationally low levels, I don’t see how you could blame it for lack of wage increases. What about the stagnant minimum wage, record corporate profits or union busting; might they play a role? “American society” and “our values” are by-products of immigration, how would more immigrants ruin that?
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        > What about the stagnant minimum wage, record corporate profits or union busting might they play a role? I don't discount that these are major contributors to the problem. Adding additional labor supply, supply willing to work for almost nothing, does not help the problem.
        moorhosj 8y ago
        Growing the pie has always helped everyone in America. Is there something that has fundamentally changed in your view to alter this trend? Are there Americans out there who want to do these types of jobs?
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        The pie hasn’t grown for four decades [1], and the middle class has been hollowed out [2]. The existing system must be fixed before more burden is placed on it. A job not being filled in no way validates that someone should fill that job. Some jobs should not exist (anything where life and limb is constantly in significant peril, for example). We don't throw our hands up when we can't find workers to clean up nuclear waste accidents. We build robots for the job. [1] https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCTuo.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCTuo.jpg [2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477/the-tipping-point-most-americans-no-longer-are-middle-class https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477...
        moorhosj 8y ago
        ==The pie hasn’t grown for four decades [1], and the middle class has been hollowed out [2]. The existing system must be fixed before more burden is placed on it.== Your first chart doesn't show a stagnant pie, looking at GDP numbers disproves that theory. The pie has absolutely grown, corporations have just chosen to keep more of it. The problem is that you are connecting these things directly to immigration and there isn't much evidence to back that up. You are taking a real problem (stagnating wages and fewer corporate profits going to workers) and shoehorning in an ideological belief to explain it. Your sources provide no evidence that immigration is to blame for either of these phenomena. They simple show that the phenomena exists. ==We don't throw our hands up when we can't find workers to clean up nuclear waste accidents. We build robots for the job.== Wasn't your entire point that we are just hiring immigrants to do this work instead of building robots (your Wisconsin dairy example)?
    - jhbadger 8y ago
      But this isn't the first time that anti-immigration hysteria happened. In the 19th century the fear was that massive Irish immigration to America in the wake of the potato famine would destroy the culture and economy of the mostly Protestant, English-descended America. While it certainly changed America, in retrospect it is hard to say it was really for the worse.
    - lupire 8y ago
      Immigrants aren't only laborers. They are also consumers, increasing demand for economic activity. At least in the US, claiming that immigrants hold "our values" in lower regard than citizens is not at all obvious. Why wouldn't workers have recourse? Only illegal immigrants are excluded from protection under law. Unless your claim is that no low-skilled laborer are, which undermines your claim about "our values".
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        > Why wouldn't workers have recourse? Only illegal immigrants are excluded from protection under law. Unless your claim is that no low-skilled laborer are, which undermines your claim about "our values". Legal immigrants would of course have employment law recourse. The vast majority of illegal immigrants currently do not (but should!), and that is what I was referring to. Those dangerous jobs I mention haven't been automated away yet solely because illegal, unskilled labor exists to perform them (see: dairy farms in Wisconsin that cannot exist without that labor [1]) (or the business cannot exist paying legal wages). Illegal immigration subsidizes business owners through the suffering of those immigrants. Legalizing those immigrants (and therefore, pushing their wages into what legal workers command) would eliminate those jobs. Catch-22. [1] https://madison.com/ct/news/local/under-trump-wisconsin-dairies-struggle-to-keep-immigrant-workers/article_198b9d16-b3b5-5557-b492-1a52e9195680.html https://madison.com/ct/news/local/under-trump-wisconsin-dair... (Under Trump, Wisconsin dairies struggle to keep immigrant workers)
    - esotericn 8y ago
      I feel like a summary of all of that would basically be "nationals matter, non-nationals don't". It's not unique to the US at all, I'm in the UK and you know how that's working out. If the same barrier existed between the north and south of England, if I needed a visa to travel/study/work, I wouldn't be on here commenting, and tons of people would be stuck in crap conditions in the expensive south east because moving north would be visa-gated.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - vetinari 8y ago
        Citizens do matter, if the country has a social system, like the Europeans do. You can have either social support system, or open borders, but not both. It is unfair to those who built the system to open borders and deplete it on people, who neither built it, nor have intention to continue building it.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        jnbiche 8y ago
        Well-argued. I agree 100%. But note that you can oppose this current system of enforcement being described in the article without being in favor of open borders.
        esotericn 8y ago
        This rests on the assumption that immigrants "deplete systems" and that citizens don't. They're both just people. If anything, immigrants are generally above-average in terms of dedication (for one, there's a sampling bias because they've just travelled across countries to come to yours). Limiting access to contributory systems (e.g. having a state pension require contribution) is reasonable, preventing someone from literally setting foot in a country or trading within a country is not that.
        8y ago
    - camgunz 8y ago
      > We're at the lowest level of unemployment in decades, and wages are barely moving up. This has everything to do with corrupt politicians gaming the US economy and tax code for their patrons, and absolutely nothing to do with immigration. Study after study shows immigration has very little effect on wages. > Some immigrants want to integrate with American society, but not all What does this even mean? There is no single American society. If you don't believe me, compare Savannah to Oakland, or St. Paul to New Orleans. Your comment repeats a lot of incorrect and dangerous information about immigrants. I encourage you to do some research.
  - briandear 8y ago
    Imagine if the entire population of Bangladesh were suddenly added to the state of California. You’d quickly become the third world because no country could handle that sort of influx. Just the act of building enough schools would bankrupt the state. Not to mention any other social services — and the only benefit to the country initially would be simply millions of unskilled workers — which would drive wages to near zero. If you enforce minimum wages, then you’d have massive unemployment. Immigration should be fair, measured and designed around a policy of quick assimilation, both for the benefit of the immigrant and the existing citizens.
    - mynameisvlad 8y ago
      That's not realistic. Even remotely. There won't be some sudden influx because getting to the United States alone is hard. For most people, it'll be a transoceanic flight which is not very cheap at all.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        Speaking as an immigrant - trust me, there would be. Yes, you wouldn't get the entire population of the Third World overnight. But even the amount that could afford it (or would save to afford it if they knew they had that option) would be orders of magnitude more, and would overwhelm the country.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      This should not be down voted. I am from Bangladesh. You’re leaving out the fact that your hypothetical would also destroy our social fabric. Fully 1/3 of the population of the country believes that I should be executed for leaving Islam: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi.... That makes Bangladesh very moderate compared to say Pakistan where that number is 2/3.
  - pixl97 8y ago
    Why dont you ask the native Americans about that.
    - camgunz 8y ago
      Are you drawing a comparison between what the US did to Native Americans and what immigrants might do to us? That is such a dangerous, slanderous, ignorant comment that I really have to question your motives.
      - Aloha 8y ago
        Is it? Our ancestors tried to annihilate natives in almost totality (physically first, then just culturally) - why is it a shock that some Americans would be afraid of the same thing happening to us? I mean one of the hallmarks of American culture is subsuming the culture of the newly arrived into our own - it not unconscionable to think that some Americans think all peoples/cultures have that same impulse. I'm generally pro-immigration, but you need to have immigrants that want to be Americans, not people who want to bring their culture with them and pass it down. That means people who understand freedom of speech, democratic values, and largely either speak, or are willing to learn english.
        rayiner 8y ago
        As an immigrant myself, that is certainly what my family thought they were signing up for when they came here. Indeed, we left Bangladesh precisely because it was turning away from western culture and values. I think, for the most part, immigrants today feel that way too. (There is evidence that Spanish speaking immigrants are taking up English faster than German speaking immigrants did). What scares me are the (I think well meaning but misguided) liberals who deny that assimilation is imperative.
        Aloha 8y ago
        I guess they assume that assimilation is bad, and is causing some cultural havoc - Whereas you and I both feel that assimilation is an imperative, While the newly arrived have historically wanted to do everything they can to be american, some old fashioned and/or non-americas values will always remain for them - they didnt grow up fully immersed in our culture. In any case assimilation is what will happen, with it mostly locked in by the first native born generation, and fully locked in by the second native born generation. I'm glad you and your family are here, adding to our rich tapestry of culture and experiences.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Not a lot of good solutions. There are a lot of easy improvements; there's no perfect solution, but this is a perfect is the enemy of the good situation. > Can't let everyone in. There are two halves of this: Not everyone is personally acceptable as an immigrant; there are reasons for prohibition based on individual history. You can't let everyone who isn't individually prohibited in for free because assimilating immigrants has costs. The US has a basically reasonable approach (perhaps wanting some tweaks in details) for the first, but less than ideal handling of the second; most notably, aside from issues with the design of some of the available visa categories like H-1B, hard per-category caps and even moreso, per-country caps on visa categories exacerbate supply/demand imbalances for which the natural consequence is illegal migration. > No one cares for merit based immigration like other countries US preference categories, which are the basis of virtually all legal immigration, are merit-based, though you may not like then particular notion of merit on which they are based. > and no one wants quotas We have both per-category, and within each category per-country, quotas, and lots of people want them (and many want them to be smaller.) It's not a good policy, but many people absolutely do.want them. > because it'll clamp down on immigration from countries with large populations (China and India). Well, the particular formula effects countries with large number of people qualified and seeking to immigrate, which depending on the Visa category includes Mexico, the Phillipines, China, and India (and I think a couple others in a few categories.) Population has an indirect role, but it's not the direct driver of quota imbalance.
ryandrake 8y ago
Which generation? This is being planned and executed by the same people that conducted (and failed) the war on drugs.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  Why do you think it failed? I imagine failure of the war on drugs would be a revolution. That didn't happen, so the war on drugs didn't fail. War on drugs was never about drugs.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    Good point. The War on Drugs stated goal of getting rid of an arbitrary subset of drugs and their users failed. The real goal, oppression and mass-incarceration of dark skinned and poor people, was a pretty resounding success. They’ve at least dropped the pretext with the War on Immigrants. The stated goal is the real goal: oppression, deportation and mass-incarceration of (primarily dark skinned and poor) foreigners and immigrants.
    - briandear 8y ago
      > War on Immigrants Immigrants and illegal aliens are different. Legal immigrants aren’t getting oppressed, deported without cause or mass incarcerated. The clever wordplay to conflate immigrants with illegal aliens is rather effective because it creates a convienent xenophobic narrative, when the truth is that a majority of Americans are against illegal aliens but for legal immigrants.
    - Aloha 8y ago
      It's not really targeting poor people, or dark skinned people - it's targeting people that the elites of the time saw as 'morally deficient' - most malum prohibitum laws target moral perceptions of moral deficiency - or try to preserve notions of a static society.
  - vezycash 8y ago
    Downvoted you initially but changed it to an upvote after reading it three times. Clarification: Iff the war on drugs was designed to systematically imprison Blacks, then the war's been largely successful.

Not a lot of good solutions. Can't let everyone in. No one cares for merit based immigration like other countries (ie Canada) because pro-immigration supporters want others than the best to have a shot, and no one wants quotas because it'll clamp down on immigration from countries with large populations (China and India).

esotericn 8y ago
The US was founded on immigration. > Can't let everyone in. Why not?
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Because it breaks your economy and social fabric (super simplified for the sake of fitting a decent reply into one short HN comment). We're at the lowest level of unemployment in decades, and wages are barely moving up. Bringing in large amounts of unskilled workers (remember, skilled workers get in on merit) would only delay wages rising (or those unskilled workers are going to be working under the table in jobs like slaughter houses, dairy farms, and other hazardous work environments where they will have no recourse when they're injured or maimed). Some immigrants want to integrate with American society, but not all (and that is what is expected of you as an immigrant, to share and hold our values in the same regard citizens do). Europe has had its fair share of troubles with economic migrants. This isn't about race, this is about economic systems and the social stability of your host country. I support an immigration pipeline that gets skilled workers into the US as fast as possible (most especially in the healthcare field), but that's not what's on the public policy table.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    Immigration is at generationally low levels, I don’t see how you could blame it for lack of wage increases. What about the stagnant minimum wage, record corporate profits or union busting; might they play a role? “American society” and “our values” are by-products of immigration, how would more immigrants ruin that?
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      > What about the stagnant minimum wage, record corporate profits or union busting might they play a role? I don't discount that these are major contributors to the problem. Adding additional labor supply, supply willing to work for almost nothing, does not help the problem.
      - moorhosj 8y ago
        Growing the pie has always helped everyone in America. Is there something that has fundamentally changed in your view to alter this trend? Are there Americans out there who want to do these types of jobs?
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        The pie hasn’t grown for four decades [1], and the middle class has been hollowed out [2]. The existing system must be fixed before more burden is placed on it. A job not being filled in no way validates that someone should fill that job. Some jobs should not exist (anything where life and limb is constantly in significant peril, for example). We don't throw our hands up when we can't find workers to clean up nuclear waste accidents. We build robots for the job. [1] https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCTuo.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCTuo.jpg [2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477/the-tipping-point-most-americans-no-longer-are-middle-class https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477...
        moorhosj 8y ago
        ==The pie hasn’t grown for four decades [1], and the middle class has been hollowed out [2]. The existing system must be fixed before more burden is placed on it.== Your first chart doesn't show a stagnant pie, looking at GDP numbers disproves that theory. The pie has absolutely grown, corporations have just chosen to keep more of it. The problem is that you are connecting these things directly to immigration and there isn't much evidence to back that up. You are taking a real problem (stagnating wages and fewer corporate profits going to workers) and shoehorning in an ideological belief to explain it. Your sources provide no evidence that immigration is to blame for either of these phenomena. They simple show that the phenomena exists. ==We don't throw our hands up when we can't find workers to clean up nuclear waste accidents. We build robots for the job.== Wasn't your entire point that we are just hiring immigrants to do this work instead of building robots (your Wisconsin dairy example)?
  - jhbadger 8y ago
    But this isn't the first time that anti-immigration hysteria happened. In the 19th century the fear was that massive Irish immigration to America in the wake of the potato famine would destroy the culture and economy of the mostly Protestant, English-descended America. While it certainly changed America, in retrospect it is hard to say it was really for the worse.
  - lupire 8y ago
    Immigrants aren't only laborers. They are also consumers, increasing demand for economic activity. At least in the US, claiming that immigrants hold "our values" in lower regard than citizens is not at all obvious. Why wouldn't workers have recourse? Only illegal immigrants are excluded from protection under law. Unless your claim is that no low-skilled laborer are, which undermines your claim about "our values".
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      > Why wouldn't workers have recourse? Only illegal immigrants are excluded from protection under law. Unless your claim is that no low-skilled laborer are, which undermines your claim about "our values". Legal immigrants would of course have employment law recourse. The vast majority of illegal immigrants currently do not (but should!), and that is what I was referring to. Those dangerous jobs I mention haven't been automated away yet solely because illegal, unskilled labor exists to perform them (see: dairy farms in Wisconsin that cannot exist without that labor [1]) (or the business cannot exist paying legal wages). Illegal immigration subsidizes business owners through the suffering of those immigrants. Legalizing those immigrants (and therefore, pushing their wages into what legal workers command) would eliminate those jobs. Catch-22. [1] https://madison.com/ct/news/local/under-trump-wisconsin-dairies-struggle-to-keep-immigrant-workers/article_198b9d16-b3b5-5557-b492-1a52e9195680.html https://madison.com/ct/news/local/under-trump-wisconsin-dair... (Under Trump, Wisconsin dairies struggle to keep immigrant workers)
  - esotericn 8y ago
    I feel like a summary of all of that would basically be "nationals matter, non-nationals don't". It's not unique to the US at all, I'm in the UK and you know how that's working out. If the same barrier existed between the north and south of England, if I needed a visa to travel/study/work, I wouldn't be on here commenting, and tons of people would be stuck in crap conditions in the expensive south east because moving north would be visa-gated.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - vetinari 8y ago
      Citizens do matter, if the country has a social system, like the Europeans do. You can have either social support system, or open borders, but not both. It is unfair to those who built the system to open borders and deplete it on people, who neither built it, nor have intention to continue building it.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - jnbiche 8y ago
        Well-argued. I agree 100%. But note that you can oppose this current system of enforcement being described in the article without being in favor of open borders.
      - esotericn 8y ago
        This rests on the assumption that immigrants "deplete systems" and that citizens don't. They're both just people. If anything, immigrants are generally above-average in terms of dedication (for one, there's a sampling bias because they've just travelled across countries to come to yours). Limiting access to contributory systems (e.g. having a state pension require contribution) is reasonable, preventing someone from literally setting foot in a country or trading within a country is not that.
        8y ago
  - camgunz 8y ago
    > We're at the lowest level of unemployment in decades, and wages are barely moving up. This has everything to do with corrupt politicians gaming the US economy and tax code for their patrons, and absolutely nothing to do with immigration. Study after study shows immigration has very little effect on wages. > Some immigrants want to integrate with American society, but not all What does this even mean? There is no single American society. If you don't believe me, compare Savannah to Oakland, or St. Paul to New Orleans. Your comment repeats a lot of incorrect and dangerous information about immigrants. I encourage you to do some research.
- briandear 8y ago
  Imagine if the entire population of Bangladesh were suddenly added to the state of California. You’d quickly become the third world because no country could handle that sort of influx. Just the act of building enough schools would bankrupt the state. Not to mention any other social services — and the only benefit to the country initially would be simply millions of unskilled workers — which would drive wages to near zero. If you enforce minimum wages, then you’d have massive unemployment. Immigration should be fair, measured and designed around a policy of quick assimilation, both for the benefit of the immigrant and the existing citizens.
  - mynameisvlad 8y ago
    That's not realistic. Even remotely. There won't be some sudden influx because getting to the United States alone is hard. For most people, it'll be a transoceanic flight which is not very cheap at all.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Speaking as an immigrant - trust me, there would be. Yes, you wouldn't get the entire population of the Third World overnight. But even the amount that could afford it (or would save to afford it if they knew they had that option) would be orders of magnitude more, and would overwhelm the country.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    This should not be down voted. I am from Bangladesh. You’re leaving out the fact that your hypothetical would also destroy our social fabric. Fully 1/3 of the population of the country believes that I should be executed for leaving Islam: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi.... That makes Bangladesh very moderate compared to say Pakistan where that number is 2/3.
- pixl97 8y ago
  Why dont you ask the native Americans about that.
  - camgunz 8y ago
    Are you drawing a comparison between what the US did to Native Americans and what immigrants might do to us? That is such a dangerous, slanderous, ignorant comment that I really have to question your motives.
    - Aloha 8y ago
      Is it? Our ancestors tried to annihilate natives in almost totality (physically first, then just culturally) - why is it a shock that some Americans would be afraid of the same thing happening to us? I mean one of the hallmarks of American culture is subsuming the culture of the newly arrived into our own - it not unconscionable to think that some Americans think all peoples/cultures have that same impulse. I'm generally pro-immigration, but you need to have immigrants that want to be Americans, not people who want to bring their culture with them and pass it down. That means people who understand freedom of speech, democratic values, and largely either speak, or are willing to learn english.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        As an immigrant myself, that is certainly what my family thought they were signing up for when they came here. Indeed, we left Bangladesh precisely because it was turning away from western culture and values. I think, for the most part, immigrants today feel that way too. (There is evidence that Spanish speaking immigrants are taking up English faster than German speaking immigrants did). What scares me are the (I think well meaning but misguided) liberals who deny that assimilation is imperative.
        Aloha 8y ago
        I guess they assume that assimilation is bad, and is causing some cultural havoc - Whereas you and I both feel that assimilation is an imperative, While the newly arrived have historically wanted to do everything they can to be american, some old fashioned and/or non-americas values will always remain for them - they didnt grow up fully immersed in our culture. In any case assimilation is what will happen, with it mostly locked in by the first native born generation, and fully locked in by the second native born generation. I'm glad you and your family are here, adding to our rich tapestry of culture and experiences.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Not a lot of good solutions. There are a lot of easy improvements; there's no perfect solution, but this is a perfect is the enemy of the good situation. > Can't let everyone in. There are two halves of this: Not everyone is personally acceptable as an immigrant; there are reasons for prohibition based on individual history. You can't let everyone who isn't individually prohibited in for free because assimilating immigrants has costs. The US has a basically reasonable approach (perhaps wanting some tweaks in details) for the first, but less than ideal handling of the second; most notably, aside from issues with the design of some of the available visa categories like H-1B, hard per-category caps and even moreso, per-country caps on visa categories exacerbate supply/demand imbalances for which the natural consequence is illegal migration. > No one cares for merit based immigration like other countries US preference categories, which are the basis of virtually all legal immigration, are merit-based, though you may not like then particular notion of merit on which they are based. > and no one wants quotas We have both per-category, and within each category per-country, quotas, and lots of people want them (and many want them to be smaller.) It's not a good policy, but many people absolutely do.want them. > because it'll clamp down on immigration from countries with large populations (China and India). Well, the particular formula effects countries with large number of people qualified and seeking to immigrate, which depending on the Visa category includes Mexico, the Phillipines, China, and India (and I think a couple others in a few categories.) Population has an indirect role, but it's not the direct driver of quota imbalance.

ryandrake 8y ago

Which generation? This is being planned and executed by the same people that conducted (and failed) the war on drugs.

zzzcpan 8y ago
Why do you think it failed? I imagine failure of the war on drugs would be a revolution. That didn't happen, so the war on drugs didn't fail. War on drugs was never about drugs.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  Good point. The War on Drugs stated goal of getting rid of an arbitrary subset of drugs and their users failed. The real goal, oppression and mass-incarceration of dark skinned and poor people, was a pretty resounding success. They’ve at least dropped the pretext with the War on Immigrants. The stated goal is the real goal: oppression, deportation and mass-incarceration of (primarily dark skinned and poor) foreigners and immigrants.
  - briandear 8y ago
    > War on Immigrants Immigrants and illegal aliens are different. Legal immigrants aren’t getting oppressed, deported without cause or mass incarcerated. The clever wordplay to conflate immigrants with illegal aliens is rather effective because it creates a convienent xenophobic narrative, when the truth is that a majority of Americans are against illegal aliens but for legal immigrants.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    It's not really targeting poor people, or dark skinned people - it's targeting people that the elites of the time saw as 'morally deficient' - most malum prohibitum laws target moral perceptions of moral deficiency - or try to preserve notions of a static society.
- vezycash 8y ago
  Downvoted you initially but changed it to an upvote after reading it three times. Clarification: Iff the war on drugs was designed to systematically imprison Blacks, then the war's been largely successful.