3 ms·

> Is it really grossly immoral to have immigration checkpoints, borders and laws... and corresponding enforcement of those laws? I don't think many people, of

> Is it really grossly immoral to have immigration checkpoints, borders and laws... and corresponding enforcement of those laws? I don't think many people, of any political affiliation, are making an argument for open borders — that's a red herring. I do think it is grossly immoral to detain and intern immigrants at the border indefinitely, house them in substandard living facilities, separate them from their children, and both refuse and force (in different instances) medical treatment without consent. All of those things would appear to violate Federal and International law, on top of being the wrong thing to do.

nickff 6y ago
>"I don't think many people, of any political affiliation, are making an argument for open borders — that's a red herring." Open borders are quite a popular policy among libertarians, though perhaps that just goes to show how far libertarians are from the 'mainstream' of democrats and republicans.[1][2][3] [1] https://reason.com/tag/open-borders/ https://reason.com/tag/open-borders/ [2] https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-cap... [3] https://www.hoover.org/research/graphic-case-open-borders https://www.hoover.org/research/graphic-case-open-borders
- tuna-piano 6y ago
  Open borders and free trade share a lot of economic characteristics. Why should the US only get the benefits of foreign labor only while that labor is outside of the country? Crime is one reason. Immigrants from different backgrounds, countries, etc have different propensities to commit crimes. Inequality of negative effects is another reason. If we allow in unlimited hair cutters - of course the wage for hair cutters in the US may decline.
tuna-piano 6y ago
I'm going to put alternative arguments below to try and show there is a reasonable discussion to be had on this topic. My actual views are more complex. >I do think it is grossly immoral to detain and intern immigrants at the border indefinitely, house them in substandard living facilities, aka jails. Places for those who committed crimes and who are awaiting procedures for removal. What would you suggest instead? It's worth noting they allow many out into the country with electronic monitoring. The US also allows refugees to stay and has (imperfect, but mostly fair) legal procedures for removal. >separate them from their children, A now ended policy that is the same as for people in jail for any other non-immigration crime. Of course immigration crimes are both non-violent and where economic harm is diffused (if it even exists), which is why people feel sympathy for these families. >and both refuse and force (in different instances) medical treatment without consent. Which would be improper. The recent case of the OBGYN doctor is both unproven and if proven would lead to imprisonment and universal condemnation. The truth is that thousands of immigrants come here illegally with nothing and get world class medical treatment for no charge. Any cases where that doesn't happen are news because they are exceptions, not the rule.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > aka jails. Places for those who committed crimes and who are awaiting procedures for removal. What would you suggest instead? It's worth noting they allow many out into the country with electronic monitoring. The US also allows refugees to stay and has (imperfect, but mostly fair) legal procedures for removal. We're not talking about criminals who are being removed, or the morality of immigration being a criminal act at all. People trying to enter the country under asylum claims have not committed any crimes. Furthermore, indefinite detention without a trial is clearly unconstitutional, even for non-residents. Companies weren't quitting government contracts during the Bush or Obama administrations, so we're clearly not talking about the normal actions taken by immigration authorities. > A now ended policy that is the same as for people in jail for any other non-immigration crime. Of course immigration crimes are both non-violent and where economic harm is diffused (if it even exists), which is why people feel sympathy for these families. Again, asylum seekers haven't committed any crime, appeared before a magistrate, been indicted, or been tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, yet their rights have been roundly violated by the Trump administration. They ended it only after being caught, investigated, and even then, only begrudgingly. > Which would be improper. The recent case of the OBGYN doctor is both unproven and if proven would lead to imprisonment and universal condemnation. The truth is that thousands of immigrants come here illegally with nothing and get world class medical treatment for no charge. Any cases where that doesn't happen are news because they are exceptions, not the rule. This is patently untrue. Beyond the recent case, there is also the ICE official who decided he was the emperor of who in ICE custody could receive an abortion. There are wide-spread reports of neglect, and a lack of medical care and unsanitary living conditions, in stark contrast to your claim of world class care being rendered. Even if you believe these people deserve this treatment (they don't.) — our jails and prisons experience all of these same issues, so to your earlier point - we should also be making our jails more humane places too.
  - tuna-piano 6y ago
    Just to be clear, my point was that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on these issues or not? But I'll also address some of the counterpoints raised above: -The supreme court ruled in 2018 on some aspects of detention hearings and of course their ruling is being followed by ICE[1]. So to say that its unconstitutional seems at the very least up for debate, and at the most already settled affirmatively. -Medical care. I read this article[2], and my reading of it is that ICE generally provides decent care with the exceptions noted in the report/article. These stories seem to be most similar to the stories we heard coming out of the VA hospitals a few years ago - aka due to large government orgs being incompetent not evil. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_v._Rodriguez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_v._Rodriguez [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ice-detainees-health-care-report/2020/09/21/270a64f4-fc1e-11ea-830c-a160b331ca62_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ice-detainees-hea...
jariel 6y ago
There are literally people on this board indicating that 'Nations are not real'. There are large numbers of individuals who don't believe in borders, or in any form of real border enforcement. There are large numbers of individuals who don't think that there is any such thing as an 'illegal status' and that nobody should be deported or sanctioned on any terms. That's what makes the 'ICE ban' more controversial than it may seem, and probably hard to understand for 'pro ban supporters' why some might not support it. You seem to be saying 'hey, this is just about arbitrary detention, because that's what I feel is wrong' - but I would say it's a much broader issue. It's inherently more political than 'detention' which is what makes it difficult, and why there needs to be more objectivity on this. For the life of me I can't understand why the US government doesn't at least make sure there is fairy consistent law-fullness within ICE.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  I'm not saying there aren't people who feel that way, but they don't represent any significant majority. Even in the Democratic party, open borders is a highly unpopular idea. I guess it depends on your definition of "large numbers", but mine is "large enough to affect policy in the US", and by that definition, the open borders lobby does not have large numbers. > You seem to be saying 'hey, this is just about arbitrary detention, because that's what I feel is wrong' - but I would say it's a much broader issue. I'm saying that we're violating the rights of the people we are detaining. I'm not strictly against the detention or removal if the law is sane and it's enforced accordingly. > For the life of me I can't understand why the US government doesn't at least make sure there is fairy consistent law-fullness within ICE. One party has a vested interested in the way things currently are. Maybe both of them do.

nickff 6y ago

>"I don't think many people, of any political affiliation, are making an argument for open borders — that's a red herring." Open borders are quite a popular policy among libertarians, though perhaps that just goes to show how far libertarians are from the 'mainstream' of democrats and republicans.[1][2][3] [1] https://reason.com/tag/open-borders/ https://reason.com/tag/open-borders/ [2] https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-cap... [3] https://www.hoover.org/research/graphic-case-open-borders https://www.hoover.org/research/graphic-case-open-borders

tuna-piano 6y ago
Open borders and free trade share a lot of economic characteristics. Why should the US only get the benefits of foreign labor only while that labor is outside of the country? Crime is one reason. Immigrants from different backgrounds, countries, etc have different propensities to commit crimes. Inequality of negative effects is another reason. If we allow in unlimited hair cutters - of course the wage for hair cutters in the US may decline.

tuna-piano 6y ago

I'm going to put alternative arguments below to try and show there is a reasonable discussion to be had on this topic. My actual views are more complex. >I do think it is grossly immoral to detain and intern immigrants at the border indefinitely, house them in substandard living facilities, aka jails. Places for those who committed crimes and who are awaiting procedures for removal. What would you suggest instead? It's worth noting they allow many out into the country with electronic monitoring. The US also allows refugees to stay and has (imperfect, but mostly fair) legal procedures for removal. >separate them from their children, A now ended policy that is the same as for people in jail for any other non-immigration crime. Of course immigration crimes are both non-violent and where economic harm is diffused (if it even exists), which is why people feel sympathy for these families. >and both refuse and force (in different instances) medical treatment without consent. Which would be improper. The recent case of the OBGYN doctor is both unproven and if proven would lead to imprisonment and universal condemnation. The truth is that thousands of immigrants come here illegally with nothing and get world class medical treatment for no charge. Any cases where that doesn't happen are news because they are exceptions, not the rule.

arrosenberg 6y ago
> aka jails. Places for those who committed crimes and who are awaiting procedures for removal. What would you suggest instead? It's worth noting they allow many out into the country with electronic monitoring. The US also allows refugees to stay and has (imperfect, but mostly fair) legal procedures for removal. We're not talking about criminals who are being removed, or the morality of immigration being a criminal act at all. People trying to enter the country under asylum claims have not committed any crimes. Furthermore, indefinite detention without a trial is clearly unconstitutional, even for non-residents. Companies weren't quitting government contracts during the Bush or Obama administrations, so we're clearly not talking about the normal actions taken by immigration authorities. > A now ended policy that is the same as for people in jail for any other non-immigration crime. Of course immigration crimes are both non-violent and where economic harm is diffused (if it even exists), which is why people feel sympathy for these families. Again, asylum seekers haven't committed any crime, appeared before a magistrate, been indicted, or been tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, yet their rights have been roundly violated by the Trump administration. They ended it only after being caught, investigated, and even then, only begrudgingly. > Which would be improper. The recent case of the OBGYN doctor is both unproven and if proven would lead to imprisonment and universal condemnation. The truth is that thousands of immigrants come here illegally with nothing and get world class medical treatment for no charge. Any cases where that doesn't happen are news because they are exceptions, not the rule. This is patently untrue. Beyond the recent case, there is also the ICE official who decided he was the emperor of who in ICE custody could receive an abortion. There are wide-spread reports of neglect, and a lack of medical care and unsanitary living conditions, in stark contrast to your claim of world class care being rendered. Even if you believe these people deserve this treatment (they don't.) — our jails and prisons experience all of these same issues, so to your earlier point - we should also be making our jails more humane places too.
- tuna-piano 6y ago
  Just to be clear, my point was that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on these issues or not? But I'll also address some of the counterpoints raised above: -The supreme court ruled in 2018 on some aspects of detention hearings and of course their ruling is being followed by ICE[1]. So to say that its unconstitutional seems at the very least up for debate, and at the most already settled affirmatively. -Medical care. I read this article[2], and my reading of it is that ICE generally provides decent care with the exceptions noted in the report/article. These stories seem to be most similar to the stories we heard coming out of the VA hospitals a few years ago - aka due to large government orgs being incompetent not evil. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_v._Rodriguez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_v._Rodriguez [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ice-detainees-health-care-report/2020/09/21/270a64f4-fc1e-11ea-830c-a160b331ca62_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ice-detainees-hea...

jariel 6y ago

There are literally people on this board indicating that 'Nations are not real'. There are large numbers of individuals who don't believe in borders, or in any form of real border enforcement. There are large numbers of individuals who don't think that there is any such thing as an 'illegal status' and that nobody should be deported or sanctioned on any terms. That's what makes the 'ICE ban' more controversial than it may seem, and probably hard to understand for 'pro ban supporters' why some might not support it. You seem to be saying 'hey, this is just about arbitrary detention, because that's what I feel is wrong' - but I would say it's a much broader issue. It's inherently more political than 'detention' which is what makes it difficult, and why there needs to be more objectivity on this. For the life of me I can't understand why the US government doesn't at least make sure there is fairy consistent law-fullness within ICE.

arrosenberg 6y ago
I'm not saying there aren't people who feel that way, but they don't represent any significant majority. Even in the Democratic party, open borders is a highly unpopular idea. I guess it depends on your definition of "large numbers", but mine is "large enough to affect policy in the US", and by that definition, the open borders lobby does not have large numbers. > You seem to be saying 'hey, this is just about arbitrary detention, because that's what I feel is wrong' - but I would say it's a much broader issue. I'm saying that we're violating the rights of the people we are detaining. I'm not strictly against the detention or removal if the law is sane and it's enforced accordingly. > For the life of me I can't understand why the US government doesn't at least make sure there is fairy consistent law-fullness within ICE. One party has a vested interested in the way things currently are. Maybe both of them do.