7 ms·

The way US treats the migrants is human rights violation at the border. Now add this to the pile of atrocities committed by the border patrol and ICE. It's high

The way US treats the migrants is human rights violation at the border. Now add this to the pile of atrocities committed by the border patrol and ICE. It's high time we should consider open border.

arein3 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago
- weard_beard 4y ago
  No, for some time it’s been clear this is a safe space for, “just following orders” and future camp guards.
- _uhtu 4y ago
  They do indeed have established processes. And the US violates the shit out of them and illegally detains people against international law. You really think the UN established processes involve caging people without checking their credentials or asylum claims? Do you think international law is big on freeing up border guards to violate civil liberties of both citizens and immigrants? No. After the Holocaust, where many countries turned away fleeing Jews, who would then end up getting gassed, the US made sure the UN implemented international law that would make seeking asylum more human rights friendly. Then we started violating those processes and cracking down on immigration, which actually increased illegal overstays because people stopped going home after their short term visa jobs because they knew they couldn't come back next year to pick strawberries if they left. This isn't wokeism, it's just history.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Wow, it's almost like "human rights" are a cultural/political/ideological construct and not a legalistic one, and people might have varying differing opinions of what those rights are. And that there might be room in a democratic society for discussion of this, what is most just and sensible, and how we might accommodate a changing world situation. But no... the legal categories of border rights are immutable and constant. Citizenship is a fixed construct. Migrants fleeing starvation and war and climate crisis are criminals. And all these borders set and conquered by force 200-300 years ago are inviolable. Migrant go home.
  - rfrey 4y ago
    > But no... the legal categories of border rights are immutable and constant. Except of course, they're not, since the whole concept of restricting movement into the US didn't really being until about 1917 - before that you pretty much just showed up. (I know you know this, I'm just re-enforcing your point.)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
londons_explore 4y ago
I'd like to see a country experiment with an open-but-chargable border. Ie. You pay a substantial fee for permission to cross the border. Once the fee is paid, it's unlimited border crossings for life. For example the fee could be $5000 + 5% of your total wealth. The fee reduces immigration and limits it to the rich, who you probably wanted to allow in anyway. And it costs about what people traffickers currently charge, but the government gets to keep the revenue.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  We have something like that with "golden visas/golden passports" already here in Europe. The result was a bunch of Russian oligarchs with Schengen freedom of movement [1]. [1] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-threatens-legal-action-over-maltas-golden-passport-scheme/a-61378063 https://www.dw.com/en/eu-threatens-legal-action-over-maltas-...
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    So maybe we don't want all the rich people? And we probably want some of the poor people. There is a shortage of all sorts of labor afterall. The real issue is that there is no good way to verify the identity or non-criminal nature of any of the migrants. You can create a solid ID at the time of entry and start tracking there at least.
    - londons_explore 4y ago
      If you have strong diplomatic ties with the country the migrant came from, you can totally do identity/criminal background checks. You can also do things like asking an existing citizen to sponsor an immigrant. If that immigrant commits a crime or doesn't pay their taxes, the sponsor is jointly liable.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Every country asks for your criminal record and does background checks before issueing visas. You are trying to reinvent a system that existed for decades
hulitu 4y ago
Human rights violation ? In US ? /s These things are happening from some years now and besides some isolated reports everybody seems very happy.
refurb 4y ago
Searching your phone is a humans rights violation? I mean, I get the hyperbole, but I'd say more like a privacy issue. But hey, just add the US to the long list of countries like Canada, UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc. Maybe we can come up with a positive list of countries that won't search your phone at the border?
- Tijdreiziger 4y ago
  Privacy is a human right. United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, Article 12: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” https://privacyinternational.org/explainer/56/what-privacy https://privacyinternational.org/explainer/56/what-privacy
  - refurb 4y ago
    Right but clearly it’s more complex than “human right” since you and your belonging can be searched at the border for every single country. Clearly searching your phone is overstepping it, but it’s not like there is some absolute right to privacy when crossing borders.
  - bigbacaloa 4y ago
    Privacy is not a right under US law. The US constitution makes no mention of it and the interpretive framework that creates such a right was recently overthrown in the antiRoe ruling.
    - refurb 4y ago
      You seem confused. Privacy is not an implicit right under the Constitution under the new ruling of RvW, but that doesn't mean it's not a right under US law. There are plenty of privacy laws in the US.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
koheripbal 4y ago
This is like suggesting a biological cell not have a cell wall. One of the fundamental functions of a country is to regulate input/outputs at the border. There are so many disastrous problems that arise from the elimination of a border, that I question whether such a suggestion is ever even made seriously or made by sane people.
- gjm11 4y ago
  That analogy may be more insightful than you meant it to be. Animal cells (e.g., the ones in your body or mine) do not have cell walls. They do have membranes surrounding the cells, but they aren't walls. In the same way, any country has borders, but there's a lot of scope for variation in what they allow across the border under what conditions. "Open borders" does not mean "no borders". For instance, the borders between countries in the Schengen Area of Europe are "open", even though those countries still have borders. This has been the case since 1995. Civilization there does not appear to have fallen so far.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    To get into the Schengen area there is a bit more inspection though right? We are just talking about a bigger cell.
    - gjm11 4y ago
      We're talking about a multicellular organism. An animal's skin keeps out things that its individual cell membranes aren't concerned with. (I don't actually think the details of what cell walls, cell membranes, skin, etc., do and don't regulate / completely block really tell us anything much about what should happen at national borders. If tomorrow someone discovered a previously unknown regulatory mechanism in cell membranes, that shouldn't make anyone change their mind about immigration controls. The way these analogies actually work is that someone decides what they think about immigration on other grounds, and then goes looking for an analogy that fits the rhetorical point they want to make. Someone arguing for "open borders" would probably choose something else rather than cells to make analogies with. The analogy isn't doing any real intellectual work, it's just window-dressing.)
hackerlight 4y ago
People ask "what will our descendants think we're currently doing that's horrific?". The usual response is eating meat. But another one will be closed borders. It is one of those shamefully morally abhorrent violations of individual freedoms that is fairly widely accepted as normal.

The way US treats the migrants is human rights violation at the border. Now add this to the pile of atrocities committed by the border patrol and ICE. It's high time we should consider open border.

arein3 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago

weard_beard 4y ago
No, for some time it’s been clear this is a safe space for, “just following orders” and future camp guards.
_uhtu 4y ago
They do indeed have established processes. And the US violates the shit out of them and illegally detains people against international law. You really think the UN established processes involve caging people without checking their credentials or asylum claims? Do you think international law is big on freeing up border guards to violate civil liberties of both citizens and immigrants? No. After the Holocaust, where many countries turned away fleeing Jews, who would then end up getting gassed, the US made sure the UN implemented international law that would make seeking asylum more human rights friendly. Then we started violating those processes and cracking down on immigration, which actually increased illegal overstays because people stopped going home after their short term visa jobs because they knew they couldn't come back next year to pick strawberries if they left. This isn't wokeism, it's just history.
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Wow, it's almost like "human rights" are a cultural/political/ideological construct and not a legalistic one, and people might have varying differing opinions of what those rights are. And that there might be room in a democratic society for discussion of this, what is most just and sensible, and how we might accommodate a changing world situation. But no... the legal categories of border rights are immutable and constant. Citizenship is a fixed construct. Migrants fleeing starvation and war and climate crisis are criminals. And all these borders set and conquered by force 200-300 years ago are inviolable. Migrant go home.
- rfrey 4y ago
  > But no... the legal categories of border rights are immutable and constant. Except of course, they're not, since the whole concept of restricting movement into the US didn't really being until about 1917 - before that you pretty much just showed up. (I know you know this, I'm just re-enforcing your point.)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

londons_explore 4y ago

I'd like to see a country experiment with an open-but-chargable border. Ie. You pay a substantial fee for permission to cross the border. Once the fee is paid, it's unlimited border crossings for life. For example the fee could be $5000 + 5% of your total wealth. The fee reduces immigration and limits it to the rich, who you probably wanted to allow in anyway. And it costs about what people traffickers currently charge, but the government gets to keep the revenue.

mschuster91 4y ago
We have something like that with "golden visas/golden passports" already here in Europe. The result was a bunch of Russian oligarchs with Schengen freedom of movement [1]. [1] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-threatens-legal-action-over-maltas-golden-passport-scheme/a-61378063 https://www.dw.com/en/eu-threatens-legal-action-over-maltas-...
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  So maybe we don't want all the rich people? And we probably want some of the poor people. There is a shortage of all sorts of labor afterall. The real issue is that there is no good way to verify the identity or non-criminal nature of any of the migrants. You can create a solid ID at the time of entry and start tracking there at least.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    If you have strong diplomatic ties with the country the migrant came from, you can totally do identity/criminal background checks. You can also do things like asking an existing citizen to sponsor an immigrant. If that immigrant commits a crime or doesn't pay their taxes, the sponsor is jointly liable.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Every country asks for your criminal record and does background checks before issueing visas. You are trying to reinvent a system that existed for decades

hulitu 4y ago

Human rights violation ? In US ? /s These things are happening from some years now and besides some isolated reports everybody seems very happy.

refurb 4y ago

Searching your phone is a humans rights violation? I mean, I get the hyperbole, but I'd say more like a privacy issue. But hey, just add the US to the long list of countries like Canada, UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc. Maybe we can come up with a positive list of countries that won't search your phone at the border?

Tijdreiziger 4y ago
Privacy is a human right. United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, Article 12: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” https://privacyinternational.org/explainer/56/what-privacy https://privacyinternational.org/explainer/56/what-privacy
- refurb 4y ago
  Right but clearly it’s more complex than “human right” since you and your belonging can be searched at the border for every single country. Clearly searching your phone is overstepping it, but it’s not like there is some absolute right to privacy when crossing borders.
- bigbacaloa 4y ago
  Privacy is not a right under US law. The US constitution makes no mention of it and the interpretive framework that creates such a right was recently overthrown in the antiRoe ruling.
  - refurb 4y ago
    You seem confused. Privacy is not an implicit right under the Constitution under the new ruling of RvW, but that doesn't mean it's not a right under US law. There are plenty of privacy laws in the US.
    - hellojesus 4y ago

koheripbal 4y ago

This is like suggesting a biological cell not have a cell wall. One of the fundamental functions of a country is to regulate input/outputs at the border. There are so many disastrous problems that arise from the elimination of a border, that I question whether such a suggestion is ever even made seriously or made by sane people.

gjm11 4y ago
That analogy may be more insightful than you meant it to be. Animal cells (e.g., the ones in your body or mine) do not have cell walls. They do have membranes surrounding the cells, but they aren't walls. In the same way, any country has borders, but there's a lot of scope for variation in what they allow across the border under what conditions. "Open borders" does not mean "no borders". For instance, the borders between countries in the Schengen Area of Europe are "open", even though those countries still have borders. This has been the case since 1995. Civilization there does not appear to have fallen so far.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  To get into the Schengen area there is a bit more inspection though right? We are just talking about a bigger cell.
  - gjm11 4y ago
    We're talking about a multicellular organism. An animal's skin keeps out things that its individual cell membranes aren't concerned with. (I don't actually think the details of what cell walls, cell membranes, skin, etc., do and don't regulate / completely block really tell us anything much about what should happen at national borders. If tomorrow someone discovered a previously unknown regulatory mechanism in cell membranes, that shouldn't make anyone change their mind about immigration controls. The way these analogies actually work is that someone decides what they think about immigration on other grounds, and then goes looking for an analogy that fits the rhetorical point they want to make. Someone arguing for "open borders" would probably choose something else rather than cells to make analogies with. The analogy isn't doing any real intellectual work, it's just window-dressing.)

hackerlight 4y ago

People ask "what will our descendants think we're currently doing that's horrific?". The usual response is eating meat. But another one will be closed borders. It is one of those shamefully morally abhorrent violations of individual freedoms that is fairly widely accepted as normal.