5 ms·

What is wrong with enforcing border security laws? Curious why you think less of him for supporting those efforts.

pfisch 7y ago
It is pretty easy to foresee monitoring technologies like this being used for awful purposes. I'm not a big fan of creating newer and better technological solutions to suppress poor people.
- ganitarashid 7y ago
  Then how should border security be enforced in your opinion? Or should it not?
  - pfisch 7y ago
    We have had border security being enforced for over 100 years.
  - csb6 7y ago
    MLK said something along the lines of, there is no problem with just laws (such as those upholding border security), but there is a problem when they’re applied unjustly. There is nothing wrong, all other things being equal, with enforcing border security. I think this is where your perspective comes from. Nations have sovereignty. Therefore, they can enforce their borders. If all else actually was equal, it would be a sensible argument. However, this new “virtual border fence” does not exist in a vacuum. The current administration - and the prior administration - has ramped up immigration enforcement efforts, in many cases tearing apart families who have lived in the U.S. for many years, had kids, jobs, etc., causing immense pain. Billions and billions spent to remove hardworking residents from the country and place them back across an imaginary line. Why? Because “law and order”. How will your children sleep, if an illegal immigrant is working night shifts to send money back home to his struggling family? The response (e.g. ICE raids, children in prison camps separated from parents without medical care/showers/hygiene, increased enforcement causing more dangerous crossings resulting in drowning) is clearly disproportional to the crime, even if you see illegal immigration as criminal and unjust. The “virtual fence” exists in context with all of these other realities. Perhaps you can see why myself and the parent commenter aren’t exactly cheery about our nation’s innovative, synergistic solution to border enforcement. All of the unjust measures mentioned above (minus perhaps more ICE raids) will be easier than ever to do. “How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world / with such efficient surveillance measures in ‘t!” Even if you see the startling conditions/extensive surveillance measures as justified and deserved of people thrust into difficult circumstances beyond their control, the current administration is clearly incompetent and untrustworthy in the task of implementing such a border fence system. Do we really trust the people who separated parents and children without keeping track of which child belongs to which parents will use such a system in a just manner? I seriously doubt it, and therefore I doubt any argument implying that all enforcement measures can be justified because “order”. Breaking the law does not make you subhuman, and no new measure exists in a theoretical vacuum of just intentions.
    - hart_russell 7y ago
      Yeah but we're not discussing those other issues. We're specifically discussing using technology to enforce borders. If you want to make immigration to the US completely legal and unfettered that's a different conversation.
      - nemothekid 7y ago
        >Yeah but we're not discussing those other issues. We're specifically discussing using technology to enforce borders. You can't remove Anduril from the cultural context it was born in. Handwaving away his entire post "because we are not discussing those other issues" is a cheap cop-out. Its akin to saying Facebook shouldn't have an instropective look at the way it collects data because "elections are other unrelated issues." We agree that sovereign nations should be allowed to enforce its borders. But for what reason should technology like Anduril be funded and exist? It's more likely this technology is used in an Orwellian manner than in whatever noble "enforcing borders" principle you believe in.
      - csb6 7y ago
        I did not say I want illegal immigration to be legal. I agree with nemothekid’s other reply. As I said earlier, nothing exists in a vacuum. I am arguing that the U.S. government’s immigration enforcement apparatus is consistently unjust. Saying, “Oh but that’s not what we’re talking about” saddens me. That is exactly what we are talking about, only looking ahead at a new way for injustice to occur. It is absolutely reasonable for you and I to consider who the people are who will be using this privacy-invasive technology. Increasingly, I am disappointed by the tech world’s lack of ethical awareness and foresight for these kinds of issues. The outcome won’t be “border += cool new virtual fence”. It will be “border += virtual fence” plus the bad side effects that come from making immigration enforcement more powerful, as I argued above. On the other hand, maybe all that ethical stuff is just B.S. and all actions should be taken without thinking of consequences or context. Indeed, the world is a bit like Haskell - all pure and no side effects! Just a promising startup with some kick-ass tech ready to disrupt shit!
hart_russell 7y ago
Nothing is wrong with securing your nation's border.
- kevingadd 7y ago
  Big fan of the iron curtain, then? The way borders between North Korea and China/SK are secured too? Protesters being shot to death at the Gaza Strip borders? That's fine? There have to be reasonable limits to how you secure your border and whether you violate international and local laws to do it. The US border is currently being "secured" by ignoring lots of laws and treaties we agreed to re: asylum seekers and people seem to be OK with that even though the result is dead or horribly ill asylum seekers who have done literally nothing wrong.
  - hart_russell 7y ago
    The United States allows all asylum seeker's safe entrance at ports of entry, so... Dunno what you're arguing here
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      Does stealing children from asylum seekers when they apply at ports of entry and then losing them count as safe entrance? Because we've been doing that.
- cityzen 7y ago
  Until you are on the wrong side of it...
dang 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20953487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20953487.
elbasti 7y ago
In principle, nothing. In practice, current policy at the southern US border is directly responsible for acts which are unconscionably cruel and inhumane. Separating children, babies and toddlers from their parents. Keeping children in bed-less, 24/7 lit rooms. Not giving sanitary pads to menstruating girls, etc. The list of atrocities is growing, depressing and unforgivable. Apprehended migrants are treated in ways that most humans would consider too cruel for dogs. It is because of these policies that enforcing border security is immoral. Because of these policies, any increase in enforcement has a direct, causal, traceable and immediate consequence of increasing human suffering. "Law and order vs chaos" is a false dichotomy. There can be peaceful lawlessness and cruel law and everything in between. Anduril, anyone working there, and anyone backing them, will now be directly responsible for an increase in human suffering. I will never pitch A16Z again.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  >>>Separating children, babies and toddlers from their parents. You mean the same thing we do with American citizens who commit crimes? [1] >>>> Keeping children in bed-less, 24/7 lit rooms. Not giving sanitary pads to menstruating girls, etc. The list of atrocities is growing, depressing and unforgivable. Apprehended migrants are treated in ways that most humans would consider too cruel for dogs. Additional funding would help, but the same politicians criticizing the conditions also ....voted against additional funding! [2] It's almost like they aren't interested in actually solving problems.... As an aside, the US isn't alone in first-world countries with harsh immigration prisons.[3][4] Pretty much every gaijin I know understands the importance of "staying on the level" with regards to the immigration authorities here because the prisons are terrifying. >>> Because of these policies, any increase in enforcement has a direct, causal, traceable and immediate consequence of increasing human suffering. Or you could put personal responsibility on the people who chose to leave their homes at great personal risk, exposing themselves to life-threatening dangers.[5] <---that couple both had steady employment in El Salvador. Do you consider their decision to leave their (meager) economic situation and expose their children to danger immoral? Have you seen interviews with some of the detained African aliens?[6] There are NGOs feeding these people propaganda about how the US will take care of them, provide for them, and give them money. If anything, those organizations and people are directly responsible for deceiving unfortunate populations and skewing their risk analysis in order to convince them to undertake an objectively-dangerous course of action. Are you going to directly hold them accountable for human suffering, as well? [1]https://youtu.be/ZEFoi_leYDw https://youtu.be/ZEFoi_leYDw [2]https://thehill.com/homenews/house/450363-the-4-house-democrats-who-voted-against-the-border-funding-bill https://thehill.com/homenews/house/450363-the-4-house-democr... [3]http://www.debito.org/?p=13056 http://www.debito.org/?p=13056 [4]https://www.economist.com/banyan/2012/01/18/gulag-for-gaijin https://www.economist.com/banyan/2012/01/18/gulag-for-gaijin [5]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/world/americas/rio-grande-drowning-father-daughter.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/world/americas/rio-grande... [6]https://youtu.be/mJlOmMj21uM https://youtu.be/mJlOmMj21uM

It is pretty easy to foresee monitoring technologies like this being used for awful purposes. I'm not a big fan of creating newer and better technological solutions to suppress poor people.

ganitarashid 7y ago
Then how should border security be enforced in your opinion? Or should it not?
- pfisch 7y ago
  We have had border security being enforced for over 100 years.
- csb6 7y ago
  MLK said something along the lines of, there is no problem with just laws (such as those upholding border security), but there is a problem when they’re applied unjustly. There is nothing wrong, all other things being equal, with enforcing border security. I think this is where your perspective comes from. Nations have sovereignty. Therefore, they can enforce their borders. If all else actually was equal, it would be a sensible argument. However, this new “virtual border fence” does not exist in a vacuum. The current administration - and the prior administration - has ramped up immigration enforcement efforts, in many cases tearing apart families who have lived in the U.S. for many years, had kids, jobs, etc., causing immense pain. Billions and billions spent to remove hardworking residents from the country and place them back across an imaginary line. Why? Because “law and order”. How will your children sleep, if an illegal immigrant is working night shifts to send money back home to his struggling family? The response (e.g. ICE raids, children in prison camps separated from parents without medical care/showers/hygiene, increased enforcement causing more dangerous crossings resulting in drowning) is clearly disproportional to the crime, even if you see illegal immigration as criminal and unjust. The “virtual fence” exists in context with all of these other realities. Perhaps you can see why myself and the parent commenter aren’t exactly cheery about our nation’s innovative, synergistic solution to border enforcement. All of the unjust measures mentioned above (minus perhaps more ICE raids) will be easier than ever to do. “How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world / with such efficient surveillance measures in ‘t!” Even if you see the startling conditions/extensive surveillance measures as justified and deserved of people thrust into difficult circumstances beyond their control, the current administration is clearly incompetent and untrustworthy in the task of implementing such a border fence system. Do we really trust the people who separated parents and children without keeping track of which child belongs to which parents will use such a system in a just manner? I seriously doubt it, and therefore I doubt any argument implying that all enforcement measures can be justified because “order”. Breaking the law does not make you subhuman, and no new measure exists in a theoretical vacuum of just intentions.
  - hart_russell 7y ago
    Yeah but we're not discussing those other issues. We're specifically discussing using technology to enforce borders. If you want to make immigration to the US completely legal and unfettered that's a different conversation.
    - nemothekid 7y ago
      >Yeah but we're not discussing those other issues. We're specifically discussing using technology to enforce borders. You can't remove Anduril from the cultural context it was born in. Handwaving away his entire post "because we are not discussing those other issues" is a cheap cop-out. Its akin to saying Facebook shouldn't have an instropective look at the way it collects data because "elections are other unrelated issues." We agree that sovereign nations should be allowed to enforce its borders. But for what reason should technology like Anduril be funded and exist? It's more likely this technology is used in an Orwellian manner than in whatever noble "enforcing borders" principle you believe in.
    - csb6 7y ago
      I did not say I want illegal immigration to be legal. I agree with nemothekid’s other reply. As I said earlier, nothing exists in a vacuum. I am arguing that the U.S. government’s immigration enforcement apparatus is consistently unjust. Saying, “Oh but that’s not what we’re talking about” saddens me. That is exactly what we are talking about, only looking ahead at a new way for injustice to occur. It is absolutely reasonable for you and I to consider who the people are who will be using this privacy-invasive technology. Increasingly, I am disappointed by the tech world’s lack of ethical awareness and foresight for these kinds of issues. The outcome won’t be “border += cool new virtual fence”. It will be “border += virtual fence” plus the bad side effects that come from making immigration enforcement more powerful, as I argued above. On the other hand, maybe all that ethical stuff is just B.S. and all actions should be taken without thinking of consequences or context. Indeed, the world is a bit like Haskell - all pure and no side effects! Just a promising startup with some kick-ass tech ready to disrupt shit!

hart_russell 7y ago

Nothing is wrong with securing your nation's border.

kevingadd 7y ago
Big fan of the iron curtain, then? The way borders between North Korea and China/SK are secured too? Protesters being shot to death at the Gaza Strip borders? That's fine? There have to be reasonable limits to how you secure your border and whether you violate international and local laws to do it. The US border is currently being "secured" by ignoring lots of laws and treaties we agreed to re: asylum seekers and people seem to be OK with that even though the result is dead or horribly ill asylum seekers who have done literally nothing wrong.
- hart_russell 7y ago
  The United States allows all asylum seeker's safe entrance at ports of entry, so... Dunno what you're arguing here
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    Does stealing children from asylum seekers when they apply at ports of entry and then losing them count as safe entrance? Because we've been doing that.
cityzen 7y ago
Until you are on the wrong side of it...

dang 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20953487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20953487.

elbasti 7y ago

In principle, nothing. In practice, current policy at the southern US border is directly responsible for acts which are unconscionably cruel and inhumane. Separating children, babies and toddlers from their parents. Keeping children in bed-less, 24/7 lit rooms. Not giving sanitary pads to menstruating girls, etc. The list of atrocities is growing, depressing and unforgivable. Apprehended migrants are treated in ways that most humans would consider too cruel for dogs. It is because of these policies that enforcing border security is immoral. Because of these policies, any increase in enforcement has a direct, causal, traceable and immediate consequence of increasing human suffering. "Law and order vs chaos" is a false dichotomy. There can be peaceful lawlessness and cruel law and everything in between. Anduril, anyone working there, and anyone backing them, will now be directly responsible for an increase in human suffering. I will never pitch A16Z again.

CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>>Separating children, babies and toddlers from their parents. You mean the same thing we do with American citizens who commit crimes? [1] >>>> Keeping children in bed-less, 24/7 lit rooms. Not giving sanitary pads to menstruating girls, etc. The list of atrocities is growing, depressing and unforgivable. Apprehended migrants are treated in ways that most humans would consider too cruel for dogs. Additional funding would help, but the same politicians criticizing the conditions also ....voted against additional funding! [2] It's almost like they aren't interested in actually solving problems.... As an aside, the US isn't alone in first-world countries with harsh immigration prisons.[3][4] Pretty much every gaijin I know understands the importance of "staying on the level" with regards to the immigration authorities here because the prisons are terrifying. >>> Because of these policies, any increase in enforcement has a direct, causal, traceable and immediate consequence of increasing human suffering. Or you could put personal responsibility on the people who chose to leave their homes at great personal risk, exposing themselves to life-threatening dangers.[5] <---that couple both had steady employment in El Salvador. Do you consider their decision to leave their (meager) economic situation and expose their children to danger immoral? Have you seen interviews with some of the detained African aliens?[6] There are NGOs feeding these people propaganda about how the US will take care of them, provide for them, and give them money. If anything, those organizations and people are directly responsible for deceiving unfortunate populations and skewing their risk analysis in order to convince them to undertake an objectively-dangerous course of action. Are you going to directly hold them accountable for human suffering, as well? [1]https://youtu.be/ZEFoi_leYDw https://youtu.be/ZEFoi_leYDw [2]https://thehill.com/homenews/house/450363-the-4-house-democrats-who-voted-against-the-border-funding-bill https://thehill.com/homenews/house/450363-the-4-house-democr... [3]http://www.debito.org/?p=13056 http://www.debito.org/?p=13056 [4]https://www.economist.com/banyan/2012/01/18/gulag-for-gaijin https://www.economist.com/banyan/2012/01/18/gulag-for-gaijin [5]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/world/americas/rio-grande-drowning-father-daughter.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/world/americas/rio-grande... [6]https://youtu.be/mJlOmMj21uM https://youtu.be/mJlOmMj21uM