3 ms·

It seems to me one of the methods of control in oppressive States is to have a multitude of rules, which are impractical to actually adhere to, where failure to

It seems to me one of the methods of control in oppressive States is to have a multitude of rules, which are impractical to actually adhere to, where failure to adhere provides leverage to State - a "justification" for State to then do whatever it is it decides to do with you (such as deportation without due process).

osa1 1y ago
Exactly. Another case where this happens is with credit/point based systems for things like settlement/citizenship that effectively allows governments to discriminate freely based on vague criteria.
- jjcob 1y ago
  I think point based systems are the most fair and not arbitrary, since points are usually awarded for things like age, degree, language proficiency. That's the least discriminating way to steer immigration.
  - casenmgreen 1y ago
    From what I've read - but have not myself looked into - Australia has been using this system for some time, and wants very much to move on from it, as it has not worked well in practice.
FirmwareBurner 1y ago
Play the devil's advocate with me for a bit. Say you let someone in who suicide bombs himself and takes out several Americans. Then a reporter asks the DHS spokesperson how they let someone in the country that had "Death to America" posts all over their social media out in the open for everyone to see but they didn't. Nobody would forgive the government for such a grave oversight. At the airport you already let them check your luggage and pockets to make sure you're not a threat to the crew and passengers. How's it different to be checking your social media before entering to make sure you're not a threat to the citizens? Which do you think is more important to the electorate, the safety of the citizens, or the privacy inconveniences of immigrants, which doesn't exist anyway?
- matwood 1y ago
  "takes out several Americans" is a Tuesday in the US right now [1]. The main people attacking Americans on American soil are...other Americans. The US has decided to do almost nothing to address the issue. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Motive matters.
- lifeformed 1y ago
  Why would a suicide bomber provide the government links to their death to America posts?
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    Why do thieves post pics of themselves on Facebook with the stuff they stole? Because some criminals will always be stupid.
- OKRainbowKid 1y ago
  If the authorities weren't already aware of the identity of the person who posted that, what's stopping somebody with terrorist intentions from simply omitting that account while applying for a visa? To me, this seems like a grave transgression of privacy with little to no actual safety benefits.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    It's a little dumb to just ignore it. People on Visas are guests, it makes sense to ask questions like this that wouldn't ask ordinary citizens. We have been way too relaxed with it and it's nice to see some changes.
    - 1y ago
hagbard_c 1y ago
You're describing more or less every legal system in existence for at least the last few centuries. It is often close to impossible to go through a day without breaking at least one law, usually a multitude of them. Such infractions are not acted upon until some power-that-be deems it necessary to get a handle on a person. As to the sudden insistence on due process when it comes to deportation of illegals I do wonder why this was not an issue when the previous regime let in millions of people without any regard for the laws of the land - i.e. due process. Is it the intention to make it impossible to correct this flagrant violation of migration laws by suddenly insisting on having every single individual go though a lengthy legal process, clogging up the courts?
- saagarjha 1y ago
  That's not what due process means.
- biimugan 1y ago
  What you say may be true with respect to breaking laws. But illegal immigration is one of those relatively small infractions, and only now is there some sudden insistence to prosecute all of them and deport them. So this is a self-made problem. All of the evidence available to us shows us that migrants, on average, commit less crime than U.S. citizens. The evidence shows us that they pay into social programs without reaping almost any benefit. The evidence shows us that they take jobs that the average American isn't interested in. An evidence-based political program would not target migrants as a first priority, except to provide some more straightforward way to become documented and legal. The other issue is -- the U.S. has 300 million+ citizens. This argument that migrants will "clog up" the courts seems ridiculous if you also believe U.S. citizens deserve due process. If your court system can't handle a relatively small percentage of your residents committing the crimes you have on the books, then maybe those crimes aren't really serious crimes are they? Or else not funding the courts appropriately to satisfy the political program is purposeful. The goal is to avoid due process and accountability, for citizens and non-citizens alike.
krona 1y ago
While your perspective bias undermines your point, this form of government (i.e. vague laws, the highly selective application of them, and the use of the justice system regardless of guilt as a weapon to suppress dissent by middle classes (e.g. threat of bankruptcy, threats of long term pre-trial detention, etc.) has existed for quite some time. It goes by different names depending on your bias, but it exists. The right side of the political spectrum would call it anarcho-tyranny.
ghusto 1y ago
They're called "pretextual laws", and are prevalent in places like Russia and China. They always require proof though, since the whole point is an easy case in court. I can't see an easy way to prove someone supplied an incomplete list of online handles though. It would be trivial for me to look up all the places I've supplied my real e-mail address and make sure to include them in the list, and good luck finding my handles otherwise.
- bananapub 1y ago
  > I can't see an easy way to prove someone supplied an incomplete list of online handles though. 1. it doesn't matter - it's immigration, them simply asserting you lied is enough for them to decline your visa, and as of January 2025, enough for them to have masked goons kidnap you on the street and imprison you without charge or trial and/or deport you to some random country 2. the easy way is to just ask American Big Tech to rat you out - Elon obviously would do it for a kind glance, the rest will do it because they either support the actual end of democracy in the US or because they think it'll increase shareholder value
mrtksn 1y ago
IMHO the new administration is aiming for full control, they don't need pretext to deny visa. Maybe they will iron out the process on foreign enemies before start chasing the enemies from within. IIRC they want to profile everyone and Palantir will handle that.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

osa1 1y ago

Exactly. Another case where this happens is with credit/point based systems for things like settlement/citizenship that effectively allows governments to discriminate freely based on vague criteria.

jjcob 1y ago
I think point based systems are the most fair and not arbitrary, since points are usually awarded for things like age, degree, language proficiency. That's the least discriminating way to steer immigration.
- casenmgreen 1y ago
  From what I've read - but have not myself looked into - Australia has been using this system for some time, and wants very much to move on from it, as it has not worked well in practice.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

Play the devil's advocate with me for a bit. Say you let someone in who suicide bombs himself and takes out several Americans. Then a reporter asks the DHS spokesperson how they let someone in the country that had "Death to America" posts all over their social media out in the open for everyone to see but they didn't. Nobody would forgive the government for such a grave oversight. At the airport you already let them check your luggage and pockets to make sure you're not a threat to the crew and passengers. How's it different to be checking your social media before entering to make sure you're not a threat to the citizens? Which do you think is more important to the electorate, the safety of the citizens, or the privacy inconveniences of immigrants, which doesn't exist anyway?

matwood 1y ago
"takes out several Americans" is a Tuesday in the US right now [1]. The main people attacking Americans on American soil are...other Americans. The US has decided to do almost nothing to address the issue. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Motive matters.
lifeformed 1y ago
Why would a suicide bomber provide the government links to their death to America posts?
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  Why do thieves post pics of themselves on Facebook with the stuff they stole? Because some criminals will always be stupid.
OKRainbowKid 1y ago
If the authorities weren't already aware of the identity of the person who posted that, what's stopping somebody with terrorist intentions from simply omitting that account while applying for a visa? To me, this seems like a grave transgression of privacy with little to no actual safety benefits.
- msgodel 1y ago
  It's a little dumb to just ignore it. People on Visas are guests, it makes sense to ask questions like this that wouldn't ask ordinary citizens. We have been way too relaxed with it and it's nice to see some changes.
  - 1y ago

hagbard_c 1y ago

You're describing more or less every legal system in existence for at least the last few centuries. It is often close to impossible to go through a day without breaking at least one law, usually a multitude of them. Such infractions are not acted upon until some power-that-be deems it necessary to get a handle on a person. As to the sudden insistence on due process when it comes to deportation of illegals I do wonder why this was not an issue when the previous regime let in millions of people without any regard for the laws of the land - i.e. due process. Is it the intention to make it impossible to correct this flagrant violation of migration laws by suddenly insisting on having every single individual go though a lengthy legal process, clogging up the courts?

saagarjha 1y ago
That's not what due process means.
biimugan 1y ago
What you say may be true with respect to breaking laws. But illegal immigration is one of those relatively small infractions, and only now is there some sudden insistence to prosecute all of them and deport them. So this is a self-made problem. All of the evidence available to us shows us that migrants, on average, commit less crime than U.S. citizens. The evidence shows us that they pay into social programs without reaping almost any benefit. The evidence shows us that they take jobs that the average American isn't interested in. An evidence-based political program would not target migrants as a first priority, except to provide some more straightforward way to become documented and legal. The other issue is -- the U.S. has 300 million+ citizens. This argument that migrants will "clog up" the courts seems ridiculous if you also believe U.S. citizens deserve due process. If your court system can't handle a relatively small percentage of your residents committing the crimes you have on the books, then maybe those crimes aren't really serious crimes are they? Or else not funding the courts appropriately to satisfy the political program is purposeful. The goal is to avoid due process and accountability, for citizens and non-citizens alike.

krona 1y ago

While your perspective bias undermines your point, this form of government (i.e. vague laws, the highly selective application of them, and the use of the justice system regardless of guilt as a weapon to suppress dissent by middle classes (e.g. threat of bankruptcy, threats of long term pre-trial detention, etc.) has existed for quite some time. It goes by different names depending on your bias, but it exists. The right side of the political spectrum would call it anarcho-tyranny.

ghusto 1y ago

They're called "pretextual laws", and are prevalent in places like Russia and China. They always require proof though, since the whole point is an easy case in court. I can't see an easy way to prove someone supplied an incomplete list of online handles though. It would be trivial for me to look up all the places I've supplied my real e-mail address and make sure to include them in the list, and good luck finding my handles otherwise.

bananapub 1y ago
> I can't see an easy way to prove someone supplied an incomplete list of online handles though. 1. it doesn't matter - it's immigration, them simply asserting you lied is enough for them to decline your visa, and as of January 2025, enough for them to have masked goons kidnap you on the street and imprison you without charge or trial and/or deport you to some random country 2. the easy way is to just ask American Big Tech to rat you out - Elon obviously would do it for a kind glance, the rest will do it because they either support the actual end of democracy in the US or because they think it'll increase shareholder value

mrtksn 1y ago

IMHO the new administration is aiming for full control, they don't need pretext to deny visa. Maybe they will iron out the process on foreign enemies before start chasing the enemies from within. IIRC they want to profile everyone and Palantir will handle that.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]