3 ms·

No doubt it's a difficult problem. Personally I would start with more straightforward measures such as a zero tolerance policy for violent crime. If someone com

No doubt it's a difficult problem. Personally I would start with more straightforward measures such as a zero tolerance policy for violent crime. If someone commits a violent crime of any sort in their adopted country before achieving citizenship they should be swiftly and permanently deported.

mrtksn 3y ago
Why not deport those who are citizens but commit crimes too? See, the problem with punishment which is different for one group than the other is that you create an artificial subclass. You chose "violent crime", which sounds reasonable but someone can say any crime or even a parking ticket should result in deportation. So let's consider that the politics in your country have turned very divisive and immigrants are protesting together with the citizens against something - should the immigrants be able to protest? What if the protests are considered illegal? What if the protest are legal but at the heat of it some people throw stones and maybe even injured some law enforcement officers. Is it O.K. to have a slap at the wrist for some of the protestors and life changing deportation to the immigrants? I don't say it's easy and there are easy answers, it's just that I really don't like the artificial borders and I think it's worth paying the price of a transition period to get a global society where people are not divided like work cattle and are treated as individuals regardless of their nationality.
- causality0 3y ago
  The citizens own the country and the non-citizens do not. If I burn a car I own in my front yard I'm probably going to get a ticket for improper disposal or some such. If someone else burns my car in my front yard they're going to jail. There isn't much point in debating border policy with someone who doesn't believe in borders. Believing in the greatest good for the greatest number of people fullstop is a respectable philosophical stance but it isn't one to which I subscribe.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    No one owns countries, these are political structures that often come and go but the people stay even when the country is gone. It is OK to restructure those.

mrtksn 3y ago

Why not deport those who are citizens but commit crimes too? See, the problem with punishment which is different for one group than the other is that you create an artificial subclass. You chose "violent crime", which sounds reasonable but someone can say any crime or even a parking ticket should result in deportation. So let's consider that the politics in your country have turned very divisive and immigrants are protesting together with the citizens against something - should the immigrants be able to protest? What if the protests are considered illegal? What if the protest are legal but at the heat of it some people throw stones and maybe even injured some law enforcement officers. Is it O.K. to have a slap at the wrist for some of the protestors and life changing deportation to the immigrants? I don't say it's easy and there are easy answers, it's just that I really don't like the artificial borders and I think it's worth paying the price of a transition period to get a global society where people are not divided like work cattle and are treated as individuals regardless of their nationality.

causality0 3y ago
The citizens own the country and the non-citizens do not. If I burn a car I own in my front yard I'm probably going to get a ticket for improper disposal or some such. If someone else burns my car in my front yard they're going to jail. There isn't much point in debating border policy with someone who doesn't believe in borders. Believing in the greatest good for the greatest number of people fullstop is a respectable philosophical stance but it isn't one to which I subscribe.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  No one owns countries, these are political structures that often come and go but the people stay even when the country is gone. It is OK to restructure those.