7 ms·

Not many are against immigrants or immigration in general, at least not in regards to the US. The issue is Illegal immigration. You're supposed to come throug

by vokep 8y ago

Not many are against immigrants or immigration in general, at least not in regards to the US. The issue is Illegal immigration. You're supposed to come through the front door.

towaway1138 8y ago
Came here to point this out. Both I and my wife had immigrant parents, and they all integrated beautifully. None of them would have been caught dead so much as speeding. The idea of breaking into the country--obviously a very serious crime--would never have occurred to them.
- eesmith 8y ago
  Could you clarify a few things which come to mind when I read your comment? I have problems reconciling it with my understanding. 1) What guidelines do you have for judging if a group of people have 'integrated beautifully'? As an example, would those guidelines show that the Amish have integrated beautifully? If they have not, is the lack of integration a problem that must be remedied? My understanding is that the Amish have not 'integrated beautifully' in the sense that they keep their own language and culture, and remain isolated from most of the rest of the country. My understanding is that that's also perfectly fine, because US culture is not homogeneous. 2) What does "breaking into the country" mean? As a specific example, when my US friends canoed in the Boundary Waters and knowingly landed in Canada to pretend to "claim" the land for the US - and did so not at a place of entry, nor did they report that entry - were they breaking into Canada? And was it a very serious crime? My understanding is that it's illegal, but not serious. 3) For a first time offender, entering or or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place other than one designated by U.S. immigration officers is a misdemeanor, with a punishment of no more than six months of incarceration and up to $250. How can something which is "obviously a very serious crime" have such a mild punishment? (The specific law is at https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1325.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/... .) That is, my understanding is that "breaking into a country" is ill-defined, and reasonably interpreted to include things which are well-accepted as not being a serious crime.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Six months isn't a mild punishment.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      It is a mild punishment for something which is a "obviously a very serious crime". How many other 'very serious crimes' have a maximum incarceration of only six months? How many other 'very serious crimes' are misdemeanors?
      - SamReidHughes 8y ago
        Simple battery, shoplifting, petty theft, DUI.
        eesmith 8y ago
        And littering is also a misdemeanor which in some jurisdictions have a higher penalty than illegal border crossing, according to http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/states-with-littering-penalties.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resourc... . My argument is that it's meaningless to describe all cases of illegal border crossing as a "very serious crime", because then there's no way to distinguish between the very serious crime of littering and the very serious crime of murder. Bear in mind that the term "petty theft" contains the word "petty", which means it's "less important, serious, or great than other" types of theft, quoting https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/petty https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/petty . The listed synonyms for petty are "minor, lower, junior, secondary". You are of course free to use "very serious crime" to apply to any crime, but that is not common usage. I believe most people, most of the time, would limit the term "very serious crimes" to describe felonies. For example, quoting https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/classifications-of-crimes.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/classificat... > Crimes receive different classifications according to their severity. The mildest crimes are known as infractions, more serious crimes are known as misdemeanors, and the most serious crimes are known as felonies. This would suggest that "serious crimes" might include misdemeanors and felonies, but "very serious crime" should be limited to felonies. Or from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seriousness#Measuring_degree_of_seriousness_in_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seriousness#Measuring_degree_o... > A felony is generally considered to be a crime of "high seriousness", while a misdemeanor is not. I am hammering the point because I believe that describing all illegal entries as a "very serious crime" muddies the water, likely deliberately so. Why describe it using terms more appropriate for murderers than litterers?
hopler 8y ago
1. http so://news.vice.com/en_us/article/pa4mq7/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-own-citizens US keeps mistakenly deporting its own citizens. 2. Natural born citizens don't come in through the front door. 3. Making immigration illegakt and then claiming to be anti illegal immigration isn't fooling anyone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)
- artificial 8y ago
  Over 1 million people legally immigrate annually. No other country comes close to this and it apparently still isn't open enough. What do you propose to improve things?
  - hopler 8y ago
    I don't know. I was simply refuting the bogus claim that there is some logically justifiable moral boundary between legal and illegal immigration. If you want to oppose legal immigration, at least be honest.
  - romwell 8y ago
    >Over 1 million people legally immigrate annually. What do you propose to improve things? How about we really punish people who benefit from this? That is, punish people who hire illegal immigrants with prison terms. The only reason no other country comes close is that our country allows that to happen on purpose by not going after people who benefit from it.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- vokep 8y ago
  1. That sucks and is bad and should not happen. I would think we agree on that. I don't think this is relevant to the discussion 2. Yes that is how it works. It's an analogy and this is where it breaks, we could push it though - if parents have a baby, that baby doesn't have to pass tests to confirm it is their child and gets to stay in their home. If some random person claims they're your descendant, you'd have them do a paternity test. 3. I'm sure there are people who do that, but I'm not one of them.
akhilcacharya 8y ago
This is a canard and actual immigrants aren't falling for it. There are lots of people that dislike immigration as a whole, either for matters of race, religion, or nebulous "culture". The Muslim ban, which then evolved into a travel ban coupled with a refugee ban, is proof of this. When President Trump asked why people are coming from certain countries and not others, everyone heard what he was saying. There's a good reason why Asian-Americans, who used to lean Republican, no longer do despite immigrating overwhelmingly through difficult legal channels.
- vokep 8y ago
  You can claim its a canard, as you can claim the sky is purple. Maybe it is for others, but not for me and a some I know with a similar position. I have immigrant family members, I have no issue with immigration, with new people. There is no issue with someone coming to the door of a place and saying "May I please come in" and complying with whatever standards of admission there are. There is an issue when instead they break a window or sneak in somehow. Even if they aren't causing any harm, it isn't a reasonable precedent to allow to be set.
  - akhilcacharya 8y ago
    This doesn't hold water when the current administration stops refugee resettlement and makes applying for asylum more difficult (legal by definition) while simultaneously opposing family unification (also legal by definition) by calling it "chain migration". The RAISE Act would cut legal immigration in half. And that's while ignoring changes to the H4 visa and general animosity towards the H1B visa program.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Obviously all people anti-legal-immigration are going to be anti-illegal. You're guaranteed that Venn diagram by construction. People in favor of reducing or altering legal immigration are quite vocal about it.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Not many are against immigrants or immigration in general, at least not in regards to the US. Yes, many are, which is why the same people in government that have been most vocal in pushing for the wall have also been the most vocal advocates against a major part of the legal immigration (family unification, which gets the hostile name “chain migration” by it's opponents), have proposed or signalled support for laws slashing legal immigration, have taken executive action to direct border agents to use force to prevent people from legally applying for asylum at ports of entry, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, as infinitum. > The issue is Illegal immigration No, it's just immigration. > You're supposed to come through the front door. That would be a lot more credible if the people complaining about illegal immigration weren't the ones slamming the front door closed.

by vokep 8y ago

Not many are against immigrants or immigration in general, at least not in regards to the US. The issue is Illegal immigration. You're supposed to come through the front door.

towaway1138 8y ago

Came here to point this out. Both I and my wife had immigrant parents, and they all integrated beautifully. None of them would have been caught dead so much as speeding. The idea of breaking into the country--obviously a very serious crime--would never have occurred to them.

eesmith 8y ago
Could you clarify a few things which come to mind when I read your comment? I have problems reconciling it with my understanding. 1) What guidelines do you have for judging if a group of people have 'integrated beautifully'? As an example, would those guidelines show that the Amish have integrated beautifully? If they have not, is the lack of integration a problem that must be remedied? My understanding is that the Amish have not 'integrated beautifully' in the sense that they keep their own language and culture, and remain isolated from most of the rest of the country. My understanding is that that's also perfectly fine, because US culture is not homogeneous. 2) What does "breaking into the country" mean? As a specific example, when my US friends canoed in the Boundary Waters and knowingly landed in Canada to pretend to "claim" the land for the US - and did so not at a place of entry, nor did they report that entry - were they breaking into Canada? And was it a very serious crime? My understanding is that it's illegal, but not serious. 3) For a first time offender, entering or or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place other than one designated by U.S. immigration officers is a misdemeanor, with a punishment of no more than six months of incarceration and up to $250. How can something which is "obviously a very serious crime" have such a mild punishment? (The specific law is at https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1325.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/... .) That is, my understanding is that "breaking into a country" is ill-defined, and reasonably interpreted to include things which are well-accepted as not being a serious crime.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Six months isn't a mild punishment.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    It is a mild punishment for something which is a "obviously a very serious crime". How many other 'very serious crimes' have a maximum incarceration of only six months? How many other 'very serious crimes' are misdemeanors?
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      Simple battery, shoplifting, petty theft, DUI.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        And littering is also a misdemeanor which in some jurisdictions have a higher penalty than illegal border crossing, according to http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/states-with-littering-penalties.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resourc... . My argument is that it's meaningless to describe all cases of illegal border crossing as a "very serious crime", because then there's no way to distinguish between the very serious crime of littering and the very serious crime of murder. Bear in mind that the term "petty theft" contains the word "petty", which means it's "less important, serious, or great than other" types of theft, quoting https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/petty https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/petty . The listed synonyms for petty are "minor, lower, junior, secondary". You are of course free to use "very serious crime" to apply to any crime, but that is not common usage. I believe most people, most of the time, would limit the term "very serious crimes" to describe felonies. For example, quoting https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/classifications-of-crimes.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/classificat... > Crimes receive different classifications according to their severity. The mildest crimes are known as infractions, more serious crimes are known as misdemeanors, and the most serious crimes are known as felonies. This would suggest that "serious crimes" might include misdemeanors and felonies, but "very serious crime" should be limited to felonies. Or from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seriousness#Measuring_degree_of_seriousness_in_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seriousness#Measuring_degree_o... > A felony is generally considered to be a crime of "high seriousness", while a misdemeanor is not. I am hammering the point because I believe that describing all illegal entries as a "very serious crime" muddies the water, likely deliberately so. Why describe it using terms more appropriate for murderers than litterers?

hopler 8y ago

1. http so://news.vice.com/en_us/article/pa4mq7/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-own-citizens US keeps mistakenly deporting its own citizens. 2. Natural born citizens don't come in through the front door. 3. Making immigration illegakt and then claiming to be anti illegal immigration isn't fooling anyone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)

artificial 8y ago
Over 1 million people legally immigrate annually. No other country comes close to this and it apparently still isn't open enough. What do you propose to improve things?
- hopler 8y ago
  I don't know. I was simply refuting the bogus claim that there is some logically justifiable moral boundary between legal and illegal immigration. If you want to oppose legal immigration, at least be honest.
- romwell 8y ago
  >Over 1 million people legally immigrate annually. What do you propose to improve things? How about we really punish people who benefit from this? That is, punish people who hire illegal immigrants with prison terms. The only reason no other country comes close is that our country allows that to happen on purpose by not going after people who benefit from it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
vokep 8y ago
1. That sucks and is bad and should not happen. I would think we agree on that. I don't think this is relevant to the discussion 2. Yes that is how it works. It's an analogy and this is where it breaks, we could push it though - if parents have a baby, that baby doesn't have to pass tests to confirm it is their child and gets to stay in their home. If some random person claims they're your descendant, you'd have them do a paternity test. 3. I'm sure there are people who do that, but I'm not one of them.

akhilcacharya 8y ago

This is a canard and actual immigrants aren't falling for it. There are lots of people that dislike immigration as a whole, either for matters of race, religion, or nebulous "culture". The Muslim ban, which then evolved into a travel ban coupled with a refugee ban, is proof of this. When President Trump asked why people are coming from certain countries and not others, everyone heard what he was saying. There's a good reason why Asian-Americans, who used to lean Republican, no longer do despite immigrating overwhelmingly through difficult legal channels.

vokep 8y ago
You can claim its a canard, as you can claim the sky is purple. Maybe it is for others, but not for me and a some I know with a similar position. I have immigrant family members, I have no issue with immigration, with new people. There is no issue with someone coming to the door of a place and saying "May I please come in" and complying with whatever standards of admission there are. There is an issue when instead they break a window or sneak in somehow. Even if they aren't causing any harm, it isn't a reasonable precedent to allow to be set.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  This doesn't hold water when the current administration stops refugee resettlement and makes applying for asylum more difficult (legal by definition) while simultaneously opposing family unification (also legal by definition) by calling it "chain migration". The RAISE Act would cut legal immigration in half. And that's while ignoring changes to the H4 visa and general animosity towards the H1B visa program.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
Obviously all people anti-legal-immigration are going to be anti-illegal. You're guaranteed that Venn diagram by construction. People in favor of reducing or altering legal immigration are quite vocal about it.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Not many are against immigrants or immigration in general, at least not in regards to the US. Yes, many are, which is why the same people in government that have been most vocal in pushing for the wall have also been the most vocal advocates against a major part of the legal immigration (family unification, which gets the hostile name “chain migration” by it's opponents), have proposed or signalled support for laws slashing legal immigration, have taken executive action to direct border agents to use force to prevent people from legally applying for asylum at ports of entry, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, as infinitum. > The issue is Illegal immigration No, it's just immigration. > You're supposed to come through the front door. That would be a lot more credible if the people complaining about illegal immigration weren't the ones slamming the front door closed.