4 ms·

What do you mean "ignoring" it? Biden deported hundreds of thousands of people, surpassing even Trump's records. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o

What do you mean "ignoring" it? Biden deported hundreds of thousands of people, surpassing even Trump's records. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o If the only practical way to deport the "right" amount of people is to disobey the courts and catch innocent Americans in the dragnet and deny them of due process, then maybe we shouldn't do that. You say that their motivations are understandable, but so are the reasons behind extermination camps. They are ruthlessly efficient. Having a reason for doing something does not make it right, just, or legal. At the end of the day, we have sent dozens of immigrants with legal status and no criminal history to El Salvador's version of Guantanamo Bay, where people do indeed die with regularity. Here's something from last year: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/el-salvadors-prisons-deaths-anti-gang-crackdown-rcna161327 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/el-salvadors-prisons-deat... So, we're sending Americans of a certain stripe (color) to camps in other countries where there is no escape, and where it is not unlikely they will perish. What do you call this?

_bin_ 1y ago
This is such a straw man. The motives behind extermination camps aren't, actually. The reasonable response to someone entering your country illegally is to remove him. This is proportionate and just. I think Trump is very much skirting the rules and figure courts will smack him over it, but it's about time we changed the system so illegals can be quickly removed without fifty thousand appeals. Otherwise the system does not work and we are conceding our borders to a flood of third-worlders, which is a bad idea. It's also essential we alter our asylum system such that anybody who skips over another country to get here is automatically denied. If someone is fleeing guatemala and has to travel up through central America to get here, he should not be granted asylum. Stop in any one of those countries you passed along the way. Note that legal status can be revoked for anyone besides a citizen. This is actually one of the less illegal moves trump's admin has made. I have a problem with what appears to be targeting based on support for palestine but not with the core concept: they all have to go back. Every single one of them.
- naught0 1y ago
  > conceding our borders to a flood of third-worlders Feels a bit like a mask off moment. there's a mountain of evidence that shows immigrants are the backbone of important parts of our economy, pay taxes, and commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born people. The laws and processes around immigration are a significant factor in creating "illegals." Why not adjust our laws to accommodate normal, innocent people who come here simply to work, live, and survive? If we applied more resources to processing immigrants and making it easier to come here legally it would be a boon to our population, economy, and subjectively, our culture. The opposite is true for deporting 11 million people. The cost outweigh the benefits at every single turn, unless your ultimate benefit is removing the supposed "third worlders" i.e. brown people. (aside: why is a person from the third world an inherent negative?) The border should be permeable to people escaping oppression or looking for a better life. It's not like we're hurting for space or money, we just actually have to DO something. Here is some great fact-based review of our immigration policies (from a source typically opposed to my worldview, mind you) https://www.cato.org/testimony/real-cost-open-border-how-americans-are-paying-price#u-s-policy-makes-legal-immigration-impossible-for-nearly-all https://www.cato.org/testimony/real-cost-open-border-how-ame... I hope you take the time to read through. on your final point, regarding Palestinian support: what about the perfectly legal immigrants that we have deported because of political views? That seems particularly fascist to me.
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    No, there's not. George Borjas' "We Wanted Workers" is a pretty good summary of why. He analyzed the annual benefits of immigration to America in 2015 and found it came to about $2.1T. However, 98% of that went straight to those same immigrants. The remaining $50B, 2% or so, wasn't really surplus. He estimated a net transfer from workers ($516B loss) to the capitalist class ($566B). There is a reason Sanders, when asked about open borders, called it a "Koch Brothers policy". If you are an average person, mass immigration is a really shitty policy, doubly so when we no longer need the same level of new people to run factories. High-skill immigration where people eagerly assimilate is a neutral or good thing; a huge number of mostly single young men is not. I consider the latter point particularly relevant, as increasing the number of men versus women is a socially disastrous policy from everything I know of history. How will unskilled immigrants create a boon for our economy? How will that help our population when housing prices are already so high and so many are out of work? How will it help our culture, objectively or subjectively? This isn't an attempt to ask for demanding answers to questions so I can "gotcha" later, I'm legit curious, particularly on the culture point, how you think it would help. I used "third-worlder" as code for 1. uneducated, 2. poor, 3. usually a single man, and 4. culturally dissimilar. Being an American is not defined by a piece of paper. We all know what it is and what it looks like. Our virtue is that, unlike a european nation, that's not constrained by ethnicity. A somali can never really be a briton, but he can be an American. However, that doesn't mean we are without defining attributes; we replaced the old-style combination of ethnicity and culture with just culture. As such, we must cling all the harder to that culture and those shared values, precisely because it's what lets us admit white, black, brown, red, and yellow without diluting or destroying what makes America herself. You say "we're not hurting for space". I say I resent the idea that we should tear up more of our beautiful country for more people, or pack in ever closer like sardines in a can. I actually really respect you linking cato; that's a pretty solid summary you linked. I think perhaps I miscommunicated my position somehow. I am not opposed to immigration. Given that our population will end up declining otherwise, I think at the very least, it's fine to admit enough people to maintain it. I do not think that importing tons of any one group at a time is good; that breeds ethnic ghettoes which tend to produce poverty and slow assimilation. I do not think that importing tons of young, single men is good; that's a legitimate social risk. I think the "who will pick the strawberries" argument has slowed investments we should have made in automation and robotics over the past decades and we desperately need to catch up on that, as over a sufficiently long time, the rest of the world will "catch up". We already see this with cost of chinese labor rising, even cost of Mexican relative to other latin american countries. We can not simply find the next cheapest country forever. I do not support deporting legal immigrants over support for Palestine. That act would make more sense if we were discussing an actual enemy nation, e.g. china, but obviously it's much easier for Trump to beat up on the little guy who's barely a state than actually stand up to a credible threat. There is a reason I didn't vote for Trump and don't consider myself a supporter; my hope is we can bring a bit more common sense to non-maga republicans' and democrats' visions of immigration to remove his base of support.

_bin_ 1y ago

This is such a straw man. The motives behind extermination camps aren't, actually. The reasonable response to someone entering your country illegally is to remove him. This is proportionate and just. I think Trump is very much skirting the rules and figure courts will smack him over it, but it's about time we changed the system so illegals can be quickly removed without fifty thousand appeals. Otherwise the system does not work and we are conceding our borders to a flood of third-worlders, which is a bad idea. It's also essential we alter our asylum system such that anybody who skips over another country to get here is automatically denied. If someone is fleeing guatemala and has to travel up through central America to get here, he should not be granted asylum. Stop in any one of those countries you passed along the way. Note that legal status can be revoked for anyone besides a citizen. This is actually one of the less illegal moves trump's admin has made. I have a problem with what appears to be targeting based on support for palestine but not with the core concept: they all have to go back. Every single one of them.

naught0 1y ago
> conceding our borders to a flood of third-worlders Feels a bit like a mask off moment. there's a mountain of evidence that shows immigrants are the backbone of important parts of our economy, pay taxes, and commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born people. The laws and processes around immigration are a significant factor in creating "illegals." Why not adjust our laws to accommodate normal, innocent people who come here simply to work, live, and survive? If we applied more resources to processing immigrants and making it easier to come here legally it would be a boon to our population, economy, and subjectively, our culture. The opposite is true for deporting 11 million people. The cost outweigh the benefits at every single turn, unless your ultimate benefit is removing the supposed "third worlders" i.e. brown people. (aside: why is a person from the third world an inherent negative?) The border should be permeable to people escaping oppression or looking for a better life. It's not like we're hurting for space or money, we just actually have to DO something. Here is some great fact-based review of our immigration policies (from a source typically opposed to my worldview, mind you) https://www.cato.org/testimony/real-cost-open-border-how-americans-are-paying-price#u-s-policy-makes-legal-immigration-impossible-for-nearly-all https://www.cato.org/testimony/real-cost-open-border-how-ame... I hope you take the time to read through. on your final point, regarding Palestinian support: what about the perfectly legal immigrants that we have deported because of political views? That seems particularly fascist to me.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  No, there's not. George Borjas' "We Wanted Workers" is a pretty good summary of why. He analyzed the annual benefits of immigration to America in 2015 and found it came to about $2.1T. However, 98% of that went straight to those same immigrants. The remaining $50B, 2% or so, wasn't really surplus. He estimated a net transfer from workers ($516B loss) to the capitalist class ($566B). There is a reason Sanders, when asked about open borders, called it a "Koch Brothers policy". If you are an average person, mass immigration is a really shitty policy, doubly so when we no longer need the same level of new people to run factories. High-skill immigration where people eagerly assimilate is a neutral or good thing; a huge number of mostly single young men is not. I consider the latter point particularly relevant, as increasing the number of men versus women is a socially disastrous policy from everything I know of history. How will unskilled immigrants create a boon for our economy? How will that help our population when housing prices are already so high and so many are out of work? How will it help our culture, objectively or subjectively? This isn't an attempt to ask for demanding answers to questions so I can "gotcha" later, I'm legit curious, particularly on the culture point, how you think it would help. I used "third-worlder" as code for 1. uneducated, 2. poor, 3. usually a single man, and 4. culturally dissimilar. Being an American is not defined by a piece of paper. We all know what it is and what it looks like. Our virtue is that, unlike a european nation, that's not constrained by ethnicity. A somali can never really be a briton, but he can be an American. However, that doesn't mean we are without defining attributes; we replaced the old-style combination of ethnicity and culture with just culture. As such, we must cling all the harder to that culture and those shared values, precisely because it's what lets us admit white, black, brown, red, and yellow without diluting or destroying what makes America herself. You say "we're not hurting for space". I say I resent the idea that we should tear up more of our beautiful country for more people, or pack in ever closer like sardines in a can. I actually really respect you linking cato; that's a pretty solid summary you linked. I think perhaps I miscommunicated my position somehow. I am not opposed to immigration. Given that our population will end up declining otherwise, I think at the very least, it's fine to admit enough people to maintain it. I do not think that importing tons of any one group at a time is good; that breeds ethnic ghettoes which tend to produce poverty and slow assimilation. I do not think that importing tons of young, single men is good; that's a legitimate social risk. I think the "who will pick the strawberries" argument has slowed investments we should have made in automation and robotics over the past decades and we desperately need to catch up on that, as over a sufficiently long time, the rest of the world will "catch up". We already see this with cost of chinese labor rising, even cost of Mexican relative to other latin american countries. We can not simply find the next cheapest country forever. I do not support deporting legal immigrants over support for Palestine. That act would make more sense if we were discussing an actual enemy nation, e.g. china, but obviously it's much easier for Trump to beat up on the little guy who's barely a state than actually stand up to a credible threat. There is a reason I didn't vote for Trump and don't consider myself a supporter; my hope is we can bring a bit more common sense to non-maga republicans' and democrats' visions of immigration to remove his base of support.