5 ms·

There's another argument that you touched on in your last paragraph that I think deserves to be underlined, which is about proper accountability. Imagine an un

There's another argument that you touched on in your last paragraph that I think deserves to be underlined, which is about proper accountability. Imagine an undocumented immigrant who commits a serious crime, like murder. Do you want the local prosecutors to go after them, and send them to jail for a long time? Or do you want ICE to go after them, in which case they ... get deported and wind up living free in another country (putting aside the current debacle with El Salvador and CECOT). Where is the justice in that? If someone commits some sort of crime in the US, I want justice to be served before we talk about deporting them.

pfannkuchen 1y ago
I mean banishment has worked pretty well for crimes historically. The punishment/rehabilitation spectrum is wrong on both sides IMO. If the threat is gone, from a utility perspective it doesn’t really matter how it happens.
- godelski 1y ago
  Has it? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolanus - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin Are you guessing or are you positive?
  - pfannkuchen 1y ago
    I just can’t even talk to people on the internet anymore. I am speaking in general. Banishment was applied to commoners since forever. Did they crime in the area anymore? No, they aren’t there anymore. Is there a special case for banishing political leaders, where the dynamics are different? Sure, probably. Does that apply here? No, obviously not.
    - thunderfork 1y ago
      [dead]
    - godelski 1y ago
      Except this isn't entirely accurate. While I did show prominent cases to make the point clearer, there are still plenty of times more common people were exiled and came back creating more harm. It's just that these stories, as well as success (I'm not denying that) are neither recorded as well nor is that information as widely distributed[0]. But there are also more well known cases where larger deportations/exiles/banishment occur and the acts create whole new societies! In most cases those societies are not very friendly with the ones who caused their banishment in the first place[1]. The distinction is that we're trying to be intelligent creatures with foresight. You're absolutely right that effectively there is no distinction when the crimes no longer occur. But what also matters is if these actions are prelude to greater turmoil down the line. If it is, you haven't solved the problem, you just kicked the can down the road. And we all know when that happens, the interest compounds. This isn't to say to not use banishment at all, but to recognize that it isn't so cut and dry as you claimed. And there is specific concern because we have seen how US deportations over the last few decades has created and empowered many cartels in Latin America. It is worth considering alternative solutions, as we're already affected by this result. [0] Although this is an exceptionally common plot in many stories. Ones told throughout the centuries... [1] Some examples may be the Israelites in the bible (fact or fiction), you could argue the Vandals or the Goths and recognize many countries formed through people being pushed out of one place or another and being unable to find a place to settle take up arms. It is true for the Normans and the Comanches. It includes the Puritans who fled to America. It includes the Irish Diaspora. There are plenty of instances where groups of people were pressured out of a region and came back to fight and create more bloodshed.
  - m4rtink 1y ago
    Well, at least Shunkan did not return in the end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunkan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunkan But he did became famous and kinda imortalized in Japanese culture thanks to that.
noemit 1y ago
Funny enough, CECOT only exists because of this. MS-13 started in the United States, and only spread to El Salvador because of deportations, making El Salvador completely unlivable.
- sarlalian 1y ago
  That is a very simple explanation to an obviously more complex issue.
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    And is entirely correct.
  - einszwei 1y ago
    You cannot discard the role of US Immigration & Deportation policy in the rise of MS13 gang. Please read some books on the matter if you disagree. My recommendation is "Unforgetting: A Memoir of Family, Migration, Gangs, and Revolution in the Americas"
trhway 1y ago
> Imagine an undocumented immigrant who commits a serious crime, like murder. ..... wind up living free in another country Check out that Russian guy, a director at NVIDIA at the time, so i'd guess pretty legal immigrant, who had a DUI deadly crash on I-85 in summer 2020, and for almost 3 years his lawyers were filing piles of various defenses like for example "statute of limitations" just few month after the crash, etc., and he disappeared later in 2022, with a guy with the same name, age, face, etc. surfacing in Russia as a director of AI at a large Russian bank. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/one-dead-driver-arrested-in-suspected-san-jose-dui-crash/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/one-dead-driver-ar...
pcthrowaway 1y ago
Undocumented immigrants who are charged with murder should not be deported without a trial first. If found guilty they would typically serve their sentence before facing deportation (though perhaps this is different now) Though I personally don't see the point in making people who are going to be deported anyway serve a sentence... taxpayers would then be paying the bill for both their incarceration and their deportation. But I also think incarceration should primarily be focused on rehabilitation, which it's currently not designed for, so what do I know.
- mulmen 1y ago
  So you are in favor of rehabilitation but you want to gatekeep it? Undocumented immigrants are taxpayers.
  - pcthrowaway 1y ago
    No, I'm in favour of rehabilitation and setting people up for success, and also not deporting people who have undergone a rehabilitation process. If we are going to incarcerate people under the current system (which doesn't serve to rehabilitate, and thus only serves to remove people from the general public who may be a danger to said public), then I think we shouldn't bother for people who are going to get deported anyway, though I think those people should still receive a trial by jury before deportation. I think incarceration only has limited effectiveness as a deterrent, and the cost to society of incarcerating people who are going to be deported after outweighs any benefit in deterrence from doing so. To be clear, I think the cost of incarceration in the current system outweighs the benefit more generally, so I'd strongly favour overall prison reform and an end of for-profit prisons. But people being deported will incur additional costs, and deportation itself serves as a deterrent already.
    - godelski 1y ago
      If someone can be rehabilitated, they should be. If someone can't be rehabilitated, they should be contained[0] | If they need to be contained, we have additional concerns with deportation. | | If they are being deported freely to another country (i.e. not through extradition), then we are doing (at least) similar harm to another as to what harm would be if we just let them go in our own country. Personal ethics aside, this creates disorder and enemies. It is one thing if extradition is attempted and this is the result after failure, but it is another if the process doesn't happen. This is analogous to capturing all the rattlesnakes in my backyard and throwing them into yours. "Not my problem" isn't so accurate when I piss you off and now I have a new problem which is you being pissed at me and seeking your own form of justice. In the short term, being an asshole is an optimal strategy, but in the long term is really is not. | | If they are being extradited to another country and that country is known to torture or do things that we do not believe are humane to their inmates, then I similarly agree we should not extradite and it is better to contain here. The blood is still on your hands, as they say. Extradition (distinct from deportation) is the right move when it is believed the criminal will face the rule of law, fairly and in accordance to our own ethics (how we would treat our own). I see no situation in which extra-judicial deportation (or extradition!) is the right course of action. It is also critical to recognize that mistakes happen. Even if cumbersome, the judicial process reduces the chance for mistakes. It's also worth noting that, by design, the judicial system is biased such that when mistakes occur there is a strong preference that a criminal is left unpunished rather than an innocent be prosecuted (an either or situation). We want to maximize justice, I doubt there is many who do not. But when it comes down to it, there is a binary decision at the end of the day "guilty or not guilty." We engineer failure into the judicial system just like we do in engineering. You do not design a building to fail, but you do design a building such that when it does fail, it is most likely to fail in a predictable manner which causes the least harm. And if you don't want to take my word on it, you can go consult Blackstone, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and many others. Because at the end of the day, I'm not the one who created this system, but I do agree with their reasoning. [0] Not killed, because if we are wrong about the inability the rehabilitate then the cost is higher than the cost of custodianship.

pfannkuchen 1y ago

I mean banishment has worked pretty well for crimes historically. The punishment/rehabilitation spectrum is wrong on both sides IMO. If the threat is gone, from a utility perspective it doesn’t really matter how it happens.

godelski 1y ago
Has it? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolanus - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin Are you guessing or are you positive?
- pfannkuchen 1y ago
  I just can’t even talk to people on the internet anymore. I am speaking in general. Banishment was applied to commoners since forever. Did they crime in the area anymore? No, they aren’t there anymore. Is there a special case for banishing political leaders, where the dynamics are different? Sure, probably. Does that apply here? No, obviously not.
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    [dead]
  - godelski 1y ago
    Except this isn't entirely accurate. While I did show prominent cases to make the point clearer, there are still plenty of times more common people were exiled and came back creating more harm. It's just that these stories, as well as success (I'm not denying that) are neither recorded as well nor is that information as widely distributed[0]. But there are also more well known cases where larger deportations/exiles/banishment occur and the acts create whole new societies! In most cases those societies are not very friendly with the ones who caused their banishment in the first place[1]. The distinction is that we're trying to be intelligent creatures with foresight. You're absolutely right that effectively there is no distinction when the crimes no longer occur. But what also matters is if these actions are prelude to greater turmoil down the line. If it is, you haven't solved the problem, you just kicked the can down the road. And we all know when that happens, the interest compounds. This isn't to say to not use banishment at all, but to recognize that it isn't so cut and dry as you claimed. And there is specific concern because we have seen how US deportations over the last few decades has created and empowered many cartels in Latin America. It is worth considering alternative solutions, as we're already affected by this result. [0] Although this is an exceptionally common plot in many stories. Ones told throughout the centuries... [1] Some examples may be the Israelites in the bible (fact or fiction), you could argue the Vandals or the Goths and recognize many countries formed through people being pushed out of one place or another and being unable to find a place to settle take up arms. It is true for the Normans and the Comanches. It includes the Puritans who fled to America. It includes the Irish Diaspora. There are plenty of instances where groups of people were pressured out of a region and came back to fight and create more bloodshed.
- m4rtink 1y ago
  Well, at least Shunkan did not return in the end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunkan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunkan But he did became famous and kinda imortalized in Japanese culture thanks to that.

noemit 1y ago

Funny enough, CECOT only exists because of this. MS-13 started in the United States, and only spread to El Salvador because of deportations, making El Salvador completely unlivable.

sarlalian 1y ago
That is a very simple explanation to an obviously more complex issue.
- jrflowers 1y ago
  And is entirely correct.
- einszwei 1y ago
  You cannot discard the role of US Immigration & Deportation policy in the rise of MS13 gang. Please read some books on the matter if you disagree. My recommendation is "Unforgetting: A Memoir of Family, Migration, Gangs, and Revolution in the Americas"

trhway 1y ago

> Imagine an undocumented immigrant who commits a serious crime, like murder. ..... wind up living free in another country Check out that Russian guy, a director at NVIDIA at the time, so i'd guess pretty legal immigrant, who had a DUI deadly crash on I-85 in summer 2020, and for almost 3 years his lawyers were filing piles of various defenses like for example "statute of limitations" just few month after the crash, etc., and he disappeared later in 2022, with a guy with the same name, age, face, etc. surfacing in Russia as a director of AI at a large Russian bank. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/one-dead-driver-arrested-in-suspected-san-jose-dui-crash/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/one-dead-driver-ar...

pcthrowaway 1y ago

Undocumented immigrants who are charged with murder should not be deported without a trial first. If found guilty they would typically serve their sentence before facing deportation (though perhaps this is different now) Though I personally don't see the point in making people who are going to be deported anyway serve a sentence... taxpayers would then be paying the bill for both their incarceration and their deportation. But I also think incarceration should primarily be focused on rehabilitation, which it's currently not designed for, so what do I know.

mulmen 1y ago
So you are in favor of rehabilitation but you want to gatekeep it? Undocumented immigrants are taxpayers.
- pcthrowaway 1y ago
  No, I'm in favour of rehabilitation and setting people up for success, and also not deporting people who have undergone a rehabilitation process. If we are going to incarcerate people under the current system (which doesn't serve to rehabilitate, and thus only serves to remove people from the general public who may be a danger to said public), then I think we shouldn't bother for people who are going to get deported anyway, though I think those people should still receive a trial by jury before deportation. I think incarceration only has limited effectiveness as a deterrent, and the cost to society of incarcerating people who are going to be deported after outweighs any benefit in deterrence from doing so. To be clear, I think the cost of incarceration in the current system outweighs the benefit more generally, so I'd strongly favour overall prison reform and an end of for-profit prisons. But people being deported will incur additional costs, and deportation itself serves as a deterrent already.
  - godelski 1y ago
    If someone can be rehabilitated, they should be. If someone can't be rehabilitated, they should be contained[0] | If they need to be contained, we have additional concerns with deportation. | | If they are being deported freely to another country (i.e. not through extradition), then we are doing (at least) similar harm to another as to what harm would be if we just let them go in our own country. Personal ethics aside, this creates disorder and enemies. It is one thing if extradition is attempted and this is the result after failure, but it is another if the process doesn't happen. This is analogous to capturing all the rattlesnakes in my backyard and throwing them into yours. "Not my problem" isn't so accurate when I piss you off and now I have a new problem which is you being pissed at me and seeking your own form of justice. In the short term, being an asshole is an optimal strategy, but in the long term is really is not. | | If they are being extradited to another country and that country is known to torture or do things that we do not believe are humane to their inmates, then I similarly agree we should not extradite and it is better to contain here. The blood is still on your hands, as they say. Extradition (distinct from deportation) is the right move when it is believed the criminal will face the rule of law, fairly and in accordance to our own ethics (how we would treat our own). I see no situation in which extra-judicial deportation (or extradition!) is the right course of action. It is also critical to recognize that mistakes happen. Even if cumbersome, the judicial process reduces the chance for mistakes. It's also worth noting that, by design, the judicial system is biased such that when mistakes occur there is a strong preference that a criminal is left unpunished rather than an innocent be prosecuted (an either or situation). We want to maximize justice, I doubt there is many who do not. But when it comes down to it, there is a binary decision at the end of the day "guilty or not guilty." We engineer failure into the judicial system just like we do in engineering. You do not design a building to fail, but you do design a building such that when it does fail, it is most likely to fail in a predictable manner which causes the least harm. And if you don't want to take my word on it, you can go consult Blackstone, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and many others. Because at the end of the day, I'm not the one who created this system, but I do agree with their reasoning. [0] Not killed, because if we are wrong about the inability the rehabilitate then the cost is higher than the cost of custodianship.