9 ms·
Are we now against all forms of deportation? This is pretty silly.
by darawk 8y ago
Are we now against all forms of deportation? This is pretty silly.
- pjc50 8y agoRather like the War On Drugs, it's worth asking what all this life-ruining use of violence is actually achieving.
- slowmotiony 8y agoIt's achieving less illegal immigration which I thought was the whole point
- drb91 8y agoThe point is to get rich people elected. Xenophobia is one means to this end, and deportation is one manifestation. I don’t think I’ve met an undocumented resident I wouldn’t fight for; I’d much rather deport citizens who conspire to lower wages, like Eric Schmidt. That’s goddamn unamerican.
- darawk 8y agoWe don't arrest criminals because they're bad people. We do so because the behavior they're engaging in is harmful to society. Society has decided that undocumented immigration is harmful to it, it's as simple as that. You could try to argue that undocumented migration is not harmful - but you'll have to do a whole lot better than "some immigrants I met are nice". Eric Schmidt is probably a pretty nice guy in person too, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate him fixing prices.
- drb91 8y agoThose stoners keep rioting! Throw ‘em in jail and ignore their skin color.
- speedplane 8y ago> We don't arrest criminals because they're bad people. We do so because the behavior they're engaging in is harmful to society. This is not right. We don't make arrests just based on harms to society, we also consider ease of enforcement and likelihood of winning in court. Governments generally don't pass laws that are impossible to enforce, as it hurts their credibility as a source of power. Accordingly, arresting illegal immigrants is relatively easy, you can catch them red-handed crossing the border, and they generally don't have the means to put up a fight. In contrast, financial crimes, which often cause far more harm to society in both monetary value and trust in institutions, is far more difficult to enforce. The accused do have the means to a full legal defense, and they fight hard. As a result, some types of crimes that cause far more harm to society go entirely unpunished, where easy targets face the full weight of the law.
- darawk 8y ago> This is not right. We don't make arrests just based on harms to society, we also consider ease of enforcement and likelihood of winning in court. Governments generally don't pass laws that are impossible to enforce, as it hurts their credibility as a source of power. Government passes laws like that all the time. See: drugs and prostitution for two easy examples. > In contrast, financial crimes, which often cause far more harm to society in both monetary value and trust in institutions, is far more difficult to enforce. The accused do have the means to a full legal defense, and they fight hard. Financial crimes are actually much easier to enforce. Our system is designed specifically so that they are difficult to enforce. But that is a question of system design. Immigration is hard to enforce because of the fundamental physics. But i'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
- pjc50 8y ago> drugs and prostitution for two easy examples. Yes, the other great examples where the amount of violence used might outweigh the actual harm, and the violence gets mostly used against people who might be considered to be the victims ...
- coldtea 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pjc50 8y ago> Society has decided that undocumented immigration is harmful to it, it's as simple as that. (Parts of) society have also decided that climate change isn't real and vaccines don't work. This is the 21st century, we could at least try having evidence of what the harm is supposed to be.
- winter_blue 8y ago> Society has decided that undocumented immigration is harmful No, it hasn't. The only reason the Dream Act didn't pass in 2010 was because of the Senate filibuster (despite Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency). The Senate, a wholly undemocratic institution to begin with, blocked the Dream Act with its effective 60% majority requirement for legislation. In 2013, the Senate managed to pass a bipartisan immigration bill, but the Speaker of the House blocked it[1]. Despite there being majority support among members of the House. Why was it blocked then? Because of the Hastert Rule[2]. We should also ask: how did the Republicans have a majority in the House in 2013? Democrats received 1.4 million votes in 2012[3]. Yet, Republicans won because of massive gerrymandering[4]. Ugly, undemocratic gerrymandering. So if the United States were a more representative democracy, most of the undocumented immigrants in this country would have had rights and freedom already. Even that hate-filled orange turd has become President despite losing the popular vote by 3 million. Current immigration laws are rooted in racism and xenophobia of the ugliest kind. Grover Norquist said it beautifully: "Historically, opposition to immigration in the United States has been racially and religiously motivated in the ugliest, nastiest way possible"[5]. Pew Research studies have shown that the majority of Americans are pro-immigrant, and want to grant legal status to the undocumented[6]. Moreover, some pro-immigrant folk might still vote Republican due to wanting lower taxes, pro-life views, opposition to large government, etc. The only reason pro-immigrant policy has not become the law is because a minority is allowed to dictate policy thanks to a bunch of highly undemocratic institutions and practices. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Oppo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Re... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering [5] https://reason.com/video/grover-norquist-on-open-borders-and-hist/ https://reason.com/video/grover-norquist-on-open-borders-and... [6] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/majority-of-americans-continue-to-say-immigrants-strengthen-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/majority-of...
- coldtea 8y agoThere's also a matter of whether a nation prioritizes its own people over foreigners that e.g. want to be immigrants. If it doesn't (at least to some degree) then it doesn't make much sense for it to exist as a sovereign nation (in the trivial case, everybody could come in that wants it at anytime). If it does, some discrimination and sending back of illegal immigrants is inevitable. The situation is a little trickier for the US though, because itself is a hodgepodge nation made up of immigrants (were most conventional nations have a larger degree of homogeneity). So it can't in good faith say "no immigrants" (at best it can say, "no more immigrants, there's enough of us already here"). (Of course those immigrants first got to exterminate the natives and get their land, so the origins of the US is not exactly a success story for peaceful immigration...)
- 55555 8y ago> The point is to get rich people elected. Xenophobia is one means to this end, and deportation is one manifestation. And... so is the opposite? Easing immigration laws and enforcement = more democratic votes. So clearly these are both _points_, but they aren't the only point; we are having a national immigration debate for many other reasons than votes.
- drb91 7y agoSome people care about others without an end. Parties are free to exploit this.
- StreamBright 8y agoInteresting side effect of illegal immigration is lower wages for the lower class. Even legal immigration pushes down wages in the upper middle class. Deportation is not xenophobia but upholding the rule of law, even when you disagree.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- drb91 7y agoIllegal immigration depresses wages because capitalists can pay under the minimum wage. Granting citizenship would increase wages for the working class. I’m fine with depressing wages above that.
- VvR-Ox 8y agoIt doesn't. Migration will never stop. It's funny how people like to believe what you hypothesize without anyone having some solid proof. That is just proof how good the populism of Trump and the likes is creeping into your minds and stops your ability to think rationally.
- drb91 8y agoI have no clue what people envision when they considering a secure border. It’s impossible.
- freeflight 8y agoIndeed, it's like people completely forget about such attempts in the form of the Berlin-wall or the border between the two Koreas. Heavily militarized borders with everything technically possible defending them, regardless of inhumane it was/is, yet didn't stop people from attempting to cross and actually crossing. Even the great wall of China isn't a good example because afaik that wasn't built to stop immigration, it was built to stop raiding parties.
- manigandham 8y agoIt doesn't need to be perfect. Nobody is arguing for it to be impenetrable, just better secured than it is.
- slowmotiony 8y agoMurder or theft will probably never stop either, I fail to see your point. I think deporting illegals from US soil results in less illegals on US soil, i would have thought that was obvious, but it could be Trump creeping into my mind and making me think such irrational thoughts.
- VvR-Ox 8y agoMigration != Murder OR theft Even the least intelligent human knows that. The term "illegals" is misleading because they don't do anything illegal when they try to find a future for their family that is worth living. The USA is founded by migrants so there is not even a real "US-citizen" by DNA, color or whatever. The same goes for Germany and other countries - they where founded by immigrants which is consistent with the ongoing migration of mankind. You fail to see my point because you don't want to understand it. So much is obvious.
- darawk 8y agoThere are lots of reasons that open borders might not be a good idea. There are certainly reasonable arguments in favor of them as well. But if you're not going to have open borders, then you have to deport some number of people. So, either you're making the case for completely open borders and all that comes with it, or you're in favor of deportation.
- drb91 8y agoAhh yes, the old “deport all undocumented residents or have open borders” false dichotomy. As if securing a border is possible. Just make it mildly difficult and that’s gonna be the best bang for your buck. Wow! We already solved it!
- darawk 8y agoIf you don't deport any undocumented immigrants, you have open borders. It's not a false dichotomy. It is the actual choice.
- drb91 8y agoWell, it seems we simply disagree about the meaning of basic english words like “border” here, so I’m going to bed.
- swish_bob 8y agoThat's clearly untrue, since it's entirely possible to consider having perfectly sealed borders while not deporting undocumented immigrants. There is no way such a situation could be described as "open borders".
- manigandham 8y agoHow would you have sealed borders with illegal immigrants? Where would they have come from? And if the border is sealed, why would they not be removed?
- rjf72 8y agoI find it useful to answer questions such as this by turning to reductio ad absurdum. What would happen if absolutely all drugs were legalized? We'd probably see an uptick in addiction as well as an increase in premature deaths. I imagine soon after we'd probably see a call for regulation against more addictive drugs as people end up losing their life following one experience with especially addictive (or otherwise dangerous) substances, but the nation would probably not be changed all that much as a whole. What would happen if we instead simply just removed all borders and let anybody and everybody in? One question that must be answered, to answer this, is what makes the United States what it is? Is it our geography, our resources? I mean they have to play some role for certain, but I think the overwhelming factor at play is simply us - the people. Our views, our values, our culture. And of course views, values, and culture are not static. They change and migration can indeed help shape these views and values in ways that can be beneficial for all. But taken to extremes, as probably would happen if we simply did away with border controls, migration could end up not enhancing but instead simply replacing the views, values, and culture of the nation. This could be organic and it could even be carried out by hostile actors. China has a population of 1.4 billion. They'd only need send a small fraction of that over the US to obtain complete political control. So clearly we need some sort of migration control, and deportation stems directly from this. Absence of deportation would not only reward unlawful migrants, but effectively punish lawful ones. It effectively turns into 'please don't enter unlawfully, but if you do - congratulations on skipping the queue, all paperwork, and costs - welcome to America!' In the process of trying to create a better world for everybody, you very much risk doing the exact opposite.
- pjc50 8y ago> What would happen if we instead simply just removed all borders and let anybody and everybody in? OK, so in a US context (and that of several other colonial countries) this raises the question of how that used to be the case, why and when it was stopped, and at what date in history it became the right answer that the current set of Americans were the "right" ones and future arrivals weren't. For example, the Boston Irish are a distinct and not entirely integrated community who in the past have been sponsors of terrorism in the form of overt IRA fundraising. Should they have been allowed in? (This is not my actual opinion of Bostonians, this is just me twisting historical fact to present the most hypothetical negative case) Australia used to pay people to immigrate ("ten pound poms"). When and why did they stop?
- puranjay 8y agoWhen the number of people who want to live in your country is more than the number of people in your country, border control becomes a necessity. I'm an Indian national and have traveled extensively. The amount of border control in every country I visited was directly proportional to its economic status. The poorer a country is, the easier it is to get a visa for it, because everyone wants to live in richer countries
- TKWasRight 7y agoDeportation does not equal violence...
- drb91 8y agoThe idea of nationality is pretty silly too.
- darawk 8y agoThat's certainly an opinion. I figure you'd have no trouble integrating into the local culture and customs of the tribes of Papua New Guinea, then?
- VvR-Ox 8y agoNot being nationalist or getting rid of all nations borders does not exclusively lead to you being forced to integrate into New Guinean Culture. Just because we don't do this nationalized small-minded shit we do right now, doesn't automatically mean we get rid of all roots, cultures, ideas, fears, wishes etc. of each "nation", "culture", whatever.
- darawk 8y agoDid you read the comment I was responding to? It sad "the idea of nationality is silly". Your response to me is a non-sequitur.
- ascar 8y agoCulture and nationality are not synonyms. In fact most countries have multiple cultures. Especially the US as a country of immigrants. Saying the idea of nationality is silly, isn't the same as saying culture is silly. Edit: changed "nationalism" for "nationality".
- Angostura 8y agoWhat, gives the impression that anyone is saying that? What makes this particularly newsworthy is the company's previous denials that it software was involved.
- darawk 8y agoThe spokesperson said that they did not work for ERO. The reporting says that ERO agents used the software. There's no contradiction there.
- untog 8y agoThen it's still an interesting story because it demonstrates the creep of software like this. When you're vacuuming up all sorts of data there's nothing stopping that data being used for a purpose you never intended.
- darawk 8y agoYa I guess. I mean, if they didn't have this Palantir thing maybe they'd have used Excel. But we've already sort of grandfathered Excel into the "tools taken for granted by civilization" so maybe that wouldn't have made the news.
- fche 8y agolook downthread for examples open borders, hugging illegal aliens is de rigeur amongst the vanguard of the proletariat
- VvR-Ox 8y agoBasically: Yes we are (humans who have feelings) because it's unthinkable that a civilized race would do such things (to their own kind). Just to remind you and others who may have forgotten this: Deportation was one of the favorite tools of Adolf Hitler. Noteworthy: "The findings of Palantir’s involvement, first reported by The Intercept, is in contrast to the Silicon Valley firm’s previous claims." Disgusting: "[Palantir is] a company that “played a key role in family separation.”" And of course "The firm was founded by Thiel, the PayPal co-creator-turned-investor who is one of President Trump’s most vocal supporters in Silicon Valley". So if you don't like Trump, you'll have a problem with this company. I know there is a lot US-citizens who like Trump, I don't know why and I can't explain it. The rest of the world looks at the US with a mixture of fear and hate nowadays because of this orange Ape you elected as president. He give's a shit about human rights or anything that is good for humanity (stopping climate change, using renewable energy, multilateral contracts in good faith, accepting sovereignty of states) and he is a horrible person (a sexist, a liar,...). So anyone who is connected to him or supports him is very likely an a$$hole, too.
- huffmsa 8y agoI'd hazard that the lack of nation vs nation wars over the last 70 years has led to a misunderstanding of what a "sovereign government" is primarily supposed to do. Control it's borders, territory, and exert monopolist force / rule of law in that territory.