5 ms·

depends on the work, depends on the government. building a system to hunt down illegal immigrants for mass deportation? no thanks. building a missile shield? ha

depends on the work, depends on the government. building a system to hunt down illegal immigrants for mass deportation? no thanks. building a missile shield? happy to help.

dotancohen 2y ago
Serious question, I don't live in the US so have no stake in the matter. Why do some Americans defend illegal immigration into the US?
- ben_w 2y ago
  Also not American. Some hire the illegal immigrants, and many benefit from the lower prices this brings. The game theoretic payoff varies a lot depending on which specific interest and timescale you have, including from the countries the migrants come from who probably don't want their moderately capable citizens — above average but not by enough to do it legally — leaving, and wose: getting badly paid jobs so they can't send much cash back home.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  I would expect the answer to mostly lie with what decides what "legal" is. If you view the current policies to be unreasonable, then immigration in defiance of those policies is defensible. Such arguments are usually coupled with gestures towards how we already rely on such immigration for our economy.
- input_sh 2y ago
  Because it's largely impossible to do it legally, with wait times sometimes being measured in decades. The only difference between a legal and an illegal migrant is paperwork. If the paperwork route was a viable alternative, nobody would risk their lives crossing a river or a giant desert to do it illegally.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  I take issue with the proposition. Not wanting to partake in building a machine that's going to be used by the government to hunt down "undesirables" isn't "defending illegal immigration". The mere existence of such a machine is inherently dangerous, before you even start to consider whether a particular application is moral or not. Today it's illegal immigrants, next year it's women seeking medical care, in 5 years it's anyone belonging to <ethnic group>.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Well I can give two American cents here. I don't defend illegal immigration, I take issue with today's immigration laws. I view our current immigration problems as an obvious side effect of welfare programs - creating financial incentives to physically be in the country means the government budget is a blank check and people have a reason to move here other than the hope of making a better life for themselves. In my view, those immigration problems should be a sign that our welfare programs can't function without strong borders and heavily controlled immigration. We can't seem to solve immigration management, and until we do we should abandon the welfare programs and accept that people will move here if they want to. Edit: I can also come at this from a fundamental rights angle. I am a strong believer in individual rights and don't believe that I have the right to decide who can live here.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    The central driver of migration is global wealth disparity. What is grinding poverty in the US isn't too bad compared to the same in Haiti.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Sure, I can agree with that. I mentioned the incentives welfare programs create and maybe that doesn't play as big a role as I expect for motivating immigrants. It is a structural problem of sorts though, welfare programs and immigration are financially at odds with one another. I don't personally have any problem whatsoever with someone from a poorer country immigrating to the US (not saying that was your argument here) and don't agree with any immigration laws that limit based on wealth. The US wouldn't be what it is today if only the wealthy were ever allowed to immigrate here.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        Yup! That's the point that gets talked past a lot in the welfare-immigration debate, as each side emphasizes only the facets that buttress their argument. Welfare and immigration must be balanced, to some degree, in that total_production of a country needs to pay for total_welfare. What gets lost is why welfare. I'd say most Democrat would say "Because it's a moral imperative" and most Republicans would say "It's allowing people to be lazy." Imho, both of those may be true to various degrees, but its utility is the prevent the negative consequences of extreme poverty, which also impacts those in extreme poverty's ability to lift themselves out of it and the next generation born into that situation, both of which ultimately impact the economy. So a case of saving/making (future) money by spending (current) money. That said, obviously even the US can't afford to provide welfare for the entire world's population, so there needs to be some cap to the immigration flow (probably much higher than the current legal limits). Although it does fund 1/3 of the UN [0] and is the 2nd largest independent aid funder [1] (via USAID, behind China on an absolute basis, and behind many others on a per-GNI basis). [0] https://www.cfr.org/article/funding-united-nations-what-impact-do-us-contributions-have-un-agencies-and-programs https://www.cfr.org/article/funding-united-nations-what-impa... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovereign_state_donors#Development_Assistance_by_DAC_Members https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sove...
- antifa 2y ago
  They say "illegal immigration" in polite company, but they really mean non-white immigrants. They're also openly talking about revoking citizenships of legal immigrants. The right wing is seeking a rascist/fascist solution to a heavily exaggerated issue.
  - dismalpedigree 2y ago
    I agree the plans is to deport illegal immigrants. I have not seen anything substantiating the claims to revoking citizenship. Do you have some legitimate sources to support your claim?
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  America is a land of immigrants. To say that the immigrants who got here earlier won’t let the immigrants who try to come later is against US values. On a practical level, immigration is fundamental to the success of the US economy and is helping the US avoid the inverted pyramid demographic problem faced in many other countries like Japan. The US economy depends on illegal immigrant labor - who do you think does all the picking in the Central Valley (CA)? But by restricting the path to immigration we exploit that labor since those people have no rights (just a step up from slavery). I’m against illegal immigration not because I want them gone, like Trump, but because I believe we should allow them to immigrate legally instead of exploiting them.
dingi 2y ago
I'm not an American. Why do you all need people living illegally in your country? Almost no country allows such thing. The ones that do are in a mess.
- christophilus 2y ago
  My senator defended illegal immigration for economic reasons: illegal immigrants work well below minimum wage, don’t pay income taxes, and don’t have access to litigation, so they’re useful for doing hard, labor intensive or dangerous work like picking crops and stuff. This in turn keeps the price of US-grown foods, etc lower. To me, that defense is suspect. I live in the south, where slavery was once defended on similar grounds.
- immibis 2y ago
  Why should living be allowed to be illegal?
immibis 2y ago
I remember reading a comment, probably on HN. Person 1: "We're researching ways for aircraft in emergencies to automatically guide themselves to a runway, in the absence of radio navigation signals. That's not unethical." Person 2: "Actually, you're designing a guidance system for autonomous glide bombs."
- Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
  Morality is cowardice in disguise.

depends on the work, depends on the government. building a system to hunt down illegal immigrants for mass deportation? no thanks. building a missile shield? happy to help.

dotancohen 2y ago

Serious question, I don't live in the US so have no stake in the matter. Why do some Americans defend illegal immigration into the US?

ben_w 2y ago
Also not American. Some hire the illegal immigrants, and many benefit from the lower prices this brings. The game theoretic payoff varies a lot depending on which specific interest and timescale you have, including from the countries the migrants come from who probably don't want their moderately capable citizens — above average but not by enough to do it legally — leaving, and wose: getting badly paid jobs so they can't send much cash back home.
saagarjha 2y ago
I would expect the answer to mostly lie with what decides what "legal" is. If you view the current policies to be unreasonable, then immigration in defiance of those policies is defensible. Such arguments are usually coupled with gestures towards how we already rely on such immigration for our economy.
input_sh 2y ago
Because it's largely impossible to do it legally, with wait times sometimes being measured in decades. The only difference between a legal and an illegal migrant is paperwork. If the paperwork route was a viable alternative, nobody would risk their lives crossing a river or a giant desert to do it illegally.
dns_snek 2y ago
I take issue with the proposition. Not wanting to partake in building a machine that's going to be used by the government to hunt down "undesirables" isn't "defending illegal immigration". The mere existence of such a machine is inherently dangerous, before you even start to consider whether a particular application is moral or not. Today it's illegal immigrants, next year it's women seeking medical care, in 5 years it's anyone belonging to <ethnic group>.
_heimdall 2y ago
Well I can give two American cents here. I don't defend illegal immigration, I take issue with today's immigration laws. I view our current immigration problems as an obvious side effect of welfare programs - creating financial incentives to physically be in the country means the government budget is a blank check and people have a reason to move here other than the hope of making a better life for themselves. In my view, those immigration problems should be a sign that our welfare programs can't function without strong borders and heavily controlled immigration. We can't seem to solve immigration management, and until we do we should abandon the welfare programs and accept that people will move here if they want to. Edit: I can also come at this from a fundamental rights angle. I am a strong believer in individual rights and don't believe that I have the right to decide who can live here.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  The central driver of migration is global wealth disparity. What is grinding poverty in the US isn't too bad compared to the same in Haiti.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Sure, I can agree with that. I mentioned the incentives welfare programs create and maybe that doesn't play as big a role as I expect for motivating immigrants. It is a structural problem of sorts though, welfare programs and immigration are financially at odds with one another. I don't personally have any problem whatsoever with someone from a poorer country immigrating to the US (not saying that was your argument here) and don't agree with any immigration laws that limit based on wealth. The US wouldn't be what it is today if only the wealthy were ever allowed to immigrate here.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Yup! That's the point that gets talked past a lot in the welfare-immigration debate, as each side emphasizes only the facets that buttress their argument. Welfare and immigration must be balanced, to some degree, in that total_production of a country needs to pay for total_welfare. What gets lost is why welfare. I'd say most Democrat would say "Because it's a moral imperative" and most Republicans would say "It's allowing people to be lazy." Imho, both of those may be true to various degrees, but its utility is the prevent the negative consequences of extreme poverty, which also impacts those in extreme poverty's ability to lift themselves out of it and the next generation born into that situation, both of which ultimately impact the economy. So a case of saving/making (future) money by spending (current) money. That said, obviously even the US can't afford to provide welfare for the entire world's population, so there needs to be some cap to the immigration flow (probably much higher than the current legal limits). Although it does fund 1/3 of the UN [0] and is the 2nd largest independent aid funder [1] (via USAID, behind China on an absolute basis, and behind many others on a per-GNI basis). [0] https://www.cfr.org/article/funding-united-nations-what-impact-do-us-contributions-have-un-agencies-and-programs https://www.cfr.org/article/funding-united-nations-what-impa... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovereign_state_donors#Development_Assistance_by_DAC_Members https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sove...
antifa 2y ago
They say "illegal immigration" in polite company, but they really mean non-white immigrants. They're also openly talking about revoking citizenships of legal immigrants. The right wing is seeking a rascist/fascist solution to a heavily exaggerated issue.
- dismalpedigree 2y ago
  I agree the plans is to deport illegal immigrants. I have not seen anything substantiating the claims to revoking citizenship. Do you have some legitimate sources to support your claim?
insane_dreamer 2y ago
America is a land of immigrants. To say that the immigrants who got here earlier won’t let the immigrants who try to come later is against US values. On a practical level, immigration is fundamental to the success of the US economy and is helping the US avoid the inverted pyramid demographic problem faced in many other countries like Japan. The US economy depends on illegal immigrant labor - who do you think does all the picking in the Central Valley (CA)? But by restricting the path to immigration we exploit that labor since those people have no rights (just a step up from slavery). I’m against illegal immigration not because I want them gone, like Trump, but because I believe we should allow them to immigrate legally instead of exploiting them.

dingi 2y ago

I'm not an American. Why do you all need people living illegally in your country? Almost no country allows such thing. The ones that do are in a mess.

christophilus 2y ago
My senator defended illegal immigration for economic reasons: illegal immigrants work well below minimum wage, don’t pay income taxes, and don’t have access to litigation, so they’re useful for doing hard, labor intensive or dangerous work like picking crops and stuff. This in turn keeps the price of US-grown foods, etc lower. To me, that defense is suspect. I live in the south, where slavery was once defended on similar grounds.
immibis 2y ago
Why should living be allowed to be illegal?

immibis 2y ago

I remember reading a comment, probably on HN. Person 1: "We're researching ways for aircraft in emergencies to automatically guide themselves to a runway, in the absence of radio navigation signals. That's not unethical." Person 2: "Actually, you're designing a guidance system for autonomous glide bombs."

Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Morality is cowardice in disguise.