3 ms·

Why are you calling them undocumented, and not illegal?

by ICE_enforcement 6y ago

komali2 6y ago
Because the concept of an illegal human is philosophically and ethically absurd.
- Nesco 6y ago
  What do you find absurd in “someone who illegally entered on the soil of a sovereign state”? Because it seems to me then that you find the very concept of law absurd.
  - komali2 6y ago
    Law? No. Borders? Certainly. Is this as uncontroversial as you assume? My conservative friend was laughing earlier this week when he found out he can't go to Canada anymore because it's closed to Americans. He pointed to the woods north of his yard and said "the border is an invisible line buried in there somewhere." This is also unrelated to the terminology of "illegal immigrant," insomuch as an immigrant is a person and so therefore the equivalent phrase is "illegal person" which is again, absurd, how can a person's existence be "illegal?"
    - Nesco 6y ago
      It’s clearly not his existence but his presence at $CURRENT_LOCATION because he immigrated illegaly. In my view you get an absurd result because you exchanged two words in a context where it is absurd to do so. Everything is clearer if you find borders absurd, but I personally find difficult for the exact same arguments to not find private property absurd, which is of the same nature and as abstract (why couldn’t I go on your lawn or drink the juice in front of me event if you have this so-called ‘property’ of it?). My take on the issue is this: a territory is the possession of the moral person which is the state or the macro entity called ‘country’. Like a cell, it survives because of its borders, and it is as a real entity superior to the sum of its of inhabitants as you are superior from a random arrangement of cells / atoms. In my view they form “macro”-organism and war for example are battles for resources. Territories are to human groups the same as to herds of cows. Just at a much larger scale and with precise and written conventions between the herds.
      - komali2 6y ago
        > private property absurd It kinda is though. > (why couldn’t I go on your lawn or drink the juice in front of me event if you have this so-called ‘property’ of it?). Sort of for similar reasons you can't cross an invisible line - though the argument falls apart if you start taking juice out of my hand. Your argument is interesting, but of course I disagree that the "moral" possessor of the property (nearly every nation on earth) is inherently moral (or even more moral than immoral). > it survives because of its borders The issue being that we've described some cells as "good" and some cells as "bad" based on whether they're inside, or outside, the borders, which isn't good enough. Obviously there are good humans outside the USA, and bad ones within. The borders failed to do the job. They're a bad solution. Also, what definitions of "survive?" There were relatively "borderless" nations in the past, such as roving warbands and the like, that many would argue "survived" just fine (of course, like all nations, they ended or "died" eventually, but all nations do this).
        Nesco 6y ago
        You have a pretty interesting take on that matter however I have to disagree with you. Firstly you can’t compare nations of the past where the horse or the boat where the fastest means of transportations and where the vast majority people were often bounds to some lands. There are few examples of peaceful long term human migration between established states at the scale of what is happening right now in the US. Secondly, considering that property, unless of immediate usage, is absurd and immoral is a pretty bold claim. I know literally no one, even monks, who live at the full extent of what it means. Basically ascetism is the only real way of achieving it. Unfortunately I consider one’s opinion meaningful only if one has skin in the game related to it.
        komali2 6y ago
        > Unfortunately I consider one’s opinion meaningful only if one has skin in the game related to it. When it comes to a woman's right to bodily autonomy (right to abort a pregnancy), I'm pro-women's right to choose. Considering I'm a man it's impossible for me to have skin in the game. So, my support is meaningless? My calls and letters to my representatives, invalid? Very curious viewpoint. I would imagine the angle you're going for is "you can't be a communist software engineer working for FAANG" or something? "If you really believe that, why don't you give away all your things?" I hope that's not what you mean as that'd be very bad faith.

Why are you calling them undocumented, and not illegal?

komali2 6y ago

Because the concept of an illegal human is philosophically and ethically absurd.

Nesco 6y ago
What do you find absurd in “someone who illegally entered on the soil of a sovereign state”? Because it seems to me then that you find the very concept of law absurd.
- komali2 6y ago
  Law? No. Borders? Certainly. Is this as uncontroversial as you assume? My conservative friend was laughing earlier this week when he found out he can't go to Canada anymore because it's closed to Americans. He pointed to the woods north of his yard and said "the border is an invisible line buried in there somewhere." This is also unrelated to the terminology of "illegal immigrant," insomuch as an immigrant is a person and so therefore the equivalent phrase is "illegal person" which is again, absurd, how can a person's existence be "illegal?"
  - Nesco 6y ago
    It’s clearly not his existence but his presence at $CURRENT_LOCATION because he immigrated illegaly. In my view you get an absurd result because you exchanged two words in a context where it is absurd to do so. Everything is clearer if you find borders absurd, but I personally find difficult for the exact same arguments to not find private property absurd, which is of the same nature and as abstract (why couldn’t I go on your lawn or drink the juice in front of me event if you have this so-called ‘property’ of it?). My take on the issue is this: a territory is the possession of the moral person which is the state or the macro entity called ‘country’. Like a cell, it survives because of its borders, and it is as a real entity superior to the sum of its of inhabitants as you are superior from a random arrangement of cells / atoms. In my view they form “macro”-organism and war for example are battles for resources. Territories are to human groups the same as to herds of cows. Just at a much larger scale and with precise and written conventions between the herds.
    - komali2 6y ago
      > private property absurd It kinda is though. > (why couldn’t I go on your lawn or drink the juice in front of me event if you have this so-called ‘property’ of it?). Sort of for similar reasons you can't cross an invisible line - though the argument falls apart if you start taking juice out of my hand. Your argument is interesting, but of course I disagree that the "moral" possessor of the property (nearly every nation on earth) is inherently moral (or even more moral than immoral). > it survives because of its borders The issue being that we've described some cells as "good" and some cells as "bad" based on whether they're inside, or outside, the borders, which isn't good enough. Obviously there are good humans outside the USA, and bad ones within. The borders failed to do the job. They're a bad solution. Also, what definitions of "survive?" There were relatively "borderless" nations in the past, such as roving warbands and the like, that many would argue "survived" just fine (of course, like all nations, they ended or "died" eventually, but all nations do this).
      - Nesco 6y ago
        You have a pretty interesting take on that matter however I have to disagree with you. Firstly you can’t compare nations of the past where the horse or the boat where the fastest means of transportations and where the vast majority people were often bounds to some lands. There are few examples of peaceful long term human migration between established states at the scale of what is happening right now in the US. Secondly, considering that property, unless of immediate usage, is absurd and immoral is a pretty bold claim. I know literally no one, even monks, who live at the full extent of what it means. Basically ascetism is the only real way of achieving it. Unfortunately I consider one’s opinion meaningful only if one has skin in the game related to it.
        komali2 6y ago
        > Unfortunately I consider one’s opinion meaningful only if one has skin in the game related to it. When it comes to a woman's right to bodily autonomy (right to abort a pregnancy), I'm pro-women's right to choose. Considering I'm a man it's impossible for me to have skin in the game. So, my support is meaningless? My calls and letters to my representatives, invalid? Very curious viewpoint. I would imagine the angle you're going for is "you can't be a communist software engineer working for FAANG" or something? "If you really believe that, why don't you give away all your things?" I hope that's not what you mean as that'd be very bad faith.