7 ms·

There 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

by darawk 8y ago

There 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 ago
Ahh 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 ago
  If you don't deport any undocumented immigrants, you have open borders. It's not a false dichotomy. It is the actual choice.
  - drb91 8y ago
    Well, it seems we simply disagree about the meaning of basic english words like “border” here, so I’m going to bed.
  - swish_bob 7y ago
    That'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 7y ago
      How 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?
      - magnusmundus 7y ago
        They would have arrived before the border was sealed. If you think anything short of retroactively applying restrictions is "open borders", we should discuss the colonization of America.
speedplane 8y ago
> So, either you're making the case for completely open borders and all that comes with it, or you're in favor of deportation. It's this type of black and white thinking that is so poisonous to current discourse. There are many people that are okay with deporting illegal immigrants, as long as they are treated with some modicum of respect during the process, families are not separated, asylum laws are upheld, and children brought across the border at a young age that know no other place are allowed to stay. There are pretty reasonable solutions to these problems. Unfortunately, everyone prefers to see only my side versus your side.
- darawk 8y ago
  > It's this type of black and white thinking that is so poisonous to current discourse. There are many people that are okay with deporting illegal immigrants, as long as they are treated with some modicum of respect during the process, families are not separated, asylum laws are upheld, and children brought across the border at a young age that know no other place are allowed to stay. Nothing I said contradicted any of that.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    > Nothing I said contradicted any of that. You made it seem as if the people arguing for decent treatment of illegal migrants are somehow for 'open borders', when nobody on the left is seriously talking about having open borders.
    - fche 7y ago
      > nobody on the left is seriously talking about having open borders. This is a blatant lie.
      - AsyncAwait 7y ago
        Ok, strong statement, any evidence?
    - darawk 7y ago
pjc50 8y ago
Worth sharpening up what a "border" actually is and what it means to be "open". Entry and residence are two different things, for example. There is also the "interior border" of work permit requirements, proof of social security entitlement, driving license, etc. Simply walking across the border does not make one an American.
- darawk 8y ago
  Totally agree. I'm even somewhat disposed towards arguments for open borders. I think there's a great deal of logic to the idea. However, I also recognize that there are some serious costs and considerations that would need to be thought through. And I think basically 100% of the people in this thread who are mad at Palantir over this have thought through precisely zero of them.
AsyncAwait 7y ago
> There are lots of reasons that open borders might not be a good idea. I think few on the left are actually for 'open borders'. You generally need borders if you want some from of universal heath coverage for example, that's not disputed. The notion that 'open borders' is actually something a significant part of the left is for is a strawman. What is however problematic is treating illegal migrants in an inhumane way. You don't need to separate families and to hold children in cages, nor do you need Stasi like surveillance to protect your borders. Most are simple visa overstays entered legally anyway.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Families are separated when citizens commit crime. This is a vastly overblown issue that seems to be overtaken by emotions than any rational discourse. Also surveillance and other dynamic defenses are needed to keep a safe border. What would be the alternative?
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    > Families are separated when citizens commit crime. There have been reports of families being separated right as they cross the border. Is that the criminal act you're talking about? Because it in no way justifies separating families in my book. Also, deporting migrants who were in the US since they were 5, know no other country but the US and now they're being deported say 30 years later, when they have families here etc. is another example of an inhumane policy.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Yes, crossing the border illegally is a crime. Criminals are detained. If you get arrested for a minor crime as an American citizen, you are also detained and separated from your family. This is neither shocking nor unexpected. The other issue is far more complex. Obviously there must be a cutoff with some path to citizenship for those allowed to stay but this is why strong border security helps by preventing the issue in the first place.
captainbland 7y ago
Sure, but it's not really a dichotomy quite like that. You can have border controls but not agree to use massive data sifting programs to enforce them. I'm reminded of the Windrush scandal here in Britain where perfectly legal immigrants' children (adults who were born and had grown up in the UK!) and grandchildren were deported largely because the government shifted the goalposts in terms of burden for proof after having destroyed their own copy of their records under a previous administration. Our current prime minister had said "deport first, ask questions later" with respect to immigration policy. It's clear how automatic discovery of potential illegal immigrants can become problematic in such a "hostile environment". Some proportion of the accused will be false positives, and you can be double sure that immigration hawks are not massively concerned about this. Palantir and companies like it are partly responsible if their technologies are used in such a context.
- roenxi 7y ago
  I'd be a lot happier if the governments of the world willingly gave up the capability to pull stunts like that. Bit of privacy for the people and all that. That being said, if governments are going to use large data sifting operations, applying it to deportations (pretty much by definition non-citizens) first is the logical way to do it. I think it would be nice if this was going to trigger a bipartisan call for small government - but that seems unlikely. I bet any organised opposition decides the real problem is the people who currently run the government rather than the capability of the government.
- manigandham 7y ago
  >> You can have border controls but not agree to use massive data sifting programs to enforce them. Why not exactly? I don't understand this argument that government should not use tools to enforce laws effectively.

by darawk 8y ago

drb91 8y ago

Ahh 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 ago
If you don't deport any undocumented immigrants, you have open borders. It's not a false dichotomy. It is the actual choice.
- drb91 8y ago
  Well, it seems we simply disagree about the meaning of basic english words like “border” here, so I’m going to bed.
- swish_bob 7y ago
  That'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 7y ago
    How 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?
    - magnusmundus 7y ago
      They would have arrived before the border was sealed. If you think anything short of retroactively applying restrictions is "open borders", we should discuss the colonization of America.

speedplane 8y ago

> So, either you're making the case for completely open borders and all that comes with it, or you're in favor of deportation. It's this type of black and white thinking that is so poisonous to current discourse. There are many people that are okay with deporting illegal immigrants, as long as they are treated with some modicum of respect during the process, families are not separated, asylum laws are upheld, and children brought across the border at a young age that know no other place are allowed to stay. There are pretty reasonable solutions to these problems. Unfortunately, everyone prefers to see only my side versus your side.

darawk 8y ago
> It's this type of black and white thinking that is so poisonous to current discourse. There are many people that are okay with deporting illegal immigrants, as long as they are treated with some modicum of respect during the process, families are not separated, asylum laws are upheld, and children brought across the border at a young age that know no other place are allowed to stay. Nothing I said contradicted any of that.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > Nothing I said contradicted any of that. You made it seem as if the people arguing for decent treatment of illegal migrants are somehow for 'open borders', when nobody on the left is seriously talking about having open borders.
  - fche 7y ago
    > nobody on the left is seriously talking about having open borders. This is a blatant lie.
    - AsyncAwait 7y ago
      Ok, strong statement, any evidence?
  - darawk 7y ago

pjc50 8y ago

Worth sharpening up what a "border" actually is and what it means to be "open". Entry and residence are two different things, for example. There is also the "interior border" of work permit requirements, proof of social security entitlement, driving license, etc. Simply walking across the border does not make one an American.

darawk 8y ago
Totally agree. I'm even somewhat disposed towards arguments for open borders. I think there's a great deal of logic to the idea. However, I also recognize that there are some serious costs and considerations that would need to be thought through. And I think basically 100% of the people in this thread who are mad at Palantir over this have thought through precisely zero of them.

AsyncAwait 7y ago

> There are lots of reasons that open borders might not be a good idea. I think few on the left are actually for 'open borders'. You generally need borders if you want some from of universal heath coverage for example, that's not disputed. The notion that 'open borders' is actually something a significant part of the left is for is a strawman. What is however problematic is treating illegal migrants in an inhumane way. You don't need to separate families and to hold children in cages, nor do you need Stasi like surveillance to protect your borders. Most are simple visa overstays entered legally anyway.

manigandham 7y ago
Families are separated when citizens commit crime. This is a vastly overblown issue that seems to be overtaken by emotions than any rational discourse. Also surveillance and other dynamic defenses are needed to keep a safe border. What would be the alternative?
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > Families are separated when citizens commit crime. There have been reports of families being separated right as they cross the border. Is that the criminal act you're talking about? Because it in no way justifies separating families in my book. Also, deporting migrants who were in the US since they were 5, know no other country but the US and now they're being deported say 30 years later, when they have families here etc. is another example of an inhumane policy.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Yes, crossing the border illegally is a crime. Criminals are detained. If you get arrested for a minor crime as an American citizen, you are also detained and separated from your family. This is neither shocking nor unexpected. The other issue is far more complex. Obviously there must be a cutoff with some path to citizenship for those allowed to stay but this is why strong border security helps by preventing the issue in the first place.

captainbland 7y ago

Sure, but it's not really a dichotomy quite like that. You can have border controls but not agree to use massive data sifting programs to enforce them. I'm reminded of the Windrush scandal here in Britain where perfectly legal immigrants' children (adults who were born and had grown up in the UK!) and grandchildren were deported largely because the government shifted the goalposts in terms of burden for proof after having destroyed their own copy of their records under a previous administration. Our current prime minister had said "deport first, ask questions later" with respect to immigration policy. It's clear how automatic discovery of potential illegal immigrants can become problematic in such a "hostile environment". Some proportion of the accused will be false positives, and you can be double sure that immigration hawks are not massively concerned about this. Palantir and companies like it are partly responsible if their technologies are used in such a context.

roenxi 7y ago
I'd be a lot happier if the governments of the world willingly gave up the capability to pull stunts like that. Bit of privacy for the people and all that. That being said, if governments are going to use large data sifting operations, applying it to deportations (pretty much by definition non-citizens) first is the logical way to do it. I think it would be nice if this was going to trigger a bipartisan call for small government - but that seems unlikely. I bet any organised opposition decides the real problem is the people who currently run the government rather than the capability of the government.
manigandham 7y ago
>> You can have border controls but not agree to use massive data sifting programs to enforce them. Why not exactly? I don't understand this argument that government should not use tools to enforce laws effectively.