3 ms·

I’m not conflating anything. The actual effect of your “norm” has been vastly higher immigration than what is set forth in the law. So why would we continue to

I’m not conflating anything. The actual effect of your “norm” has been vastly higher immigration than what is set forth in the law. So why would we continue to follow a norm that guts the law?

ajross 1y ago
Because it's wasn't putting clearly innocent people in jail? I mean... you get that, right? That there are worse things than "vastly higher immigration" that people might actually care about?
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  Who is innocent? My understanding is the number of legal citizens and residents detained and deported is nonzero, but close. Everyone being deported broke the law in some form or another.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    > Who is innocent? Quite a few people by now, as a percentage of the total given the numbers involved. Oh, sucks to be them I guess... > My understanding is the number of legal citizens and residents detained and deported is nonzero, but close. Well, those people would be the innocent ones then, and 'close' isn't good enough for legal purposes. Wouldn't it be just too bad if you were the one to be deported as a result of one of these razzias? Or would you see your own deportation as taking one for the good of the country? > Everyone being deported broke the law in some form or another. Allegedly broke the law.
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      Close is all that is possible with human systems. The alternative is giving up on all legal action, because every single one is fallible. Would you forego all law enforcement in your own country because of a nonzero error rate?
      - TimorousBestie 1y ago
        > Close is all that is possible with human systems. The alternative is giving up on all legal action, because every single one is fallible. There are other alternatives. Many countries have rational immigration rules and enforcement. > Would you forego all law enforcement in your own country because of a nonzero error rate? A blatant false dilemma.
        s1artibartfast 1y ago
        What do those rational immigration rules and enforcement look like? From my perspective, the US is still more lax than most of Europe. None have birthright citizenship. None have an ongoing global amnesty program like the USA. AFAIK, All have administrative deportations without jury trial. Some countries require dual registration of every resident by landlords and tenants to verify residence. I think the republican right dreams of the type of immigration controls that are common in Europe. >A blatant false dilemma. The dilemma is forced if "close isn't good enough". It is a reasonable conclusion from the statement.
        TimorousBestie 1y ago
        > The dilemma is forced if "close isn't good enough". It is a reasonable conclusion from the statement. If you believe this, then there’s nothing to discuss. In your ontology, my stance is equivalent to having absolutely no law enforcement whatsoever.
        s1artibartfast 1y ago
        I have no clue what your stance is. I was responding to someone else. You are correct about the point I was making. If someone demands perfection or nothing, they are advocating for nothing.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        > Close is all that is possible with human systems. Yes, but there is 'close' with trying to get it as good as you can and there is 'close' without even trying. With is obviously better. To me, at least, even if it is slower. > The alternative is giving up on all legal action, because every single one is fallible. No, the alternative is to do your very best and to only disrupt lives when you have to, not just because you can. That's harder than just black and white and that is where judges come in and why people have a right to due process. > Would you forego all law enforcement in your own country because of a nonzero error rate? I don't think that's the choice. The choice is between having law enforcement that is bound by rules and law enforcement that is not bound by rules. The latter is - to me - unacceptable. I think everybody has a right to due process. The last time we had a regime in NL that did not agree with that thesis is still very much in living memory here so I don't think you're going to find a lot of takers for Razzias and mass deportations. If that were to happen here in NL I'd find the nearest barricade and join the resistance. And I'm pretty sure I would not be alone in that.

I’m not conflating anything. The actual effect of your “norm” has been vastly higher immigration than what is set forth in the law. So why would we continue to follow a norm that guts the law?

ajross 1y ago

Because it's wasn't putting clearly innocent people in jail? I mean... you get that, right? That there are worse things than "vastly higher immigration" that people might actually care about?

s1artibartfast 1y ago
Who is innocent? My understanding is the number of legal citizens and residents detained and deported is nonzero, but close. Everyone being deported broke the law in some form or another.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  > Who is innocent? Quite a few people by now, as a percentage of the total given the numbers involved. Oh, sucks to be them I guess... > My understanding is the number of legal citizens and residents detained and deported is nonzero, but close. Well, those people would be the innocent ones then, and 'close' isn't good enough for legal purposes. Wouldn't it be just too bad if you were the one to be deported as a result of one of these razzias? Or would you see your own deportation as taking one for the good of the country? > Everyone being deported broke the law in some form or another. Allegedly broke the law.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    Close is all that is possible with human systems. The alternative is giving up on all legal action, because every single one is fallible. Would you forego all law enforcement in your own country because of a nonzero error rate?
    - TimorousBestie 1y ago
      > Close is all that is possible with human systems. The alternative is giving up on all legal action, because every single one is fallible. There are other alternatives. Many countries have rational immigration rules and enforcement. > Would you forego all law enforcement in your own country because of a nonzero error rate? A blatant false dilemma.
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
        What do those rational immigration rules and enforcement look like? From my perspective, the US is still more lax than most of Europe. None have birthright citizenship. None have an ongoing global amnesty program like the USA. AFAIK, All have administrative deportations without jury trial. Some countries require dual registration of every resident by landlords and tenants to verify residence. I think the republican right dreams of the type of immigration controls that are common in Europe. >A blatant false dilemma. The dilemma is forced if "close isn't good enough". It is a reasonable conclusion from the statement.
        TimorousBestie 1y ago
        > The dilemma is forced if "close isn't good enough". It is a reasonable conclusion from the statement. If you believe this, then there’s nothing to discuss. In your ontology, my stance is equivalent to having absolutely no law enforcement whatsoever.
        s1artibartfast 1y ago
        I have no clue what your stance is. I was responding to someone else. You are correct about the point I was making. If someone demands perfection or nothing, they are advocating for nothing.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      > Close is all that is possible with human systems. Yes, but there is 'close' with trying to get it as good as you can and there is 'close' without even trying. With is obviously better. To me, at least, even if it is slower. > The alternative is giving up on all legal action, because every single one is fallible. No, the alternative is to do your very best and to only disrupt lives when you have to, not just because you can. That's harder than just black and white and that is where judges come in and why people have a right to due process. > Would you forego all law enforcement in your own country because of a nonzero error rate? I don't think that's the choice. The choice is between having law enforcement that is bound by rules and law enforcement that is not bound by rules. The latter is - to me - unacceptable. I think everybody has a right to due process. The last time we had a regime in NL that did not agree with that thesis is still very much in living memory here so I don't think you're going to find a lot of takers for Razzias and mass deportations. If that were to happen here in NL I'd find the nearest barricade and join the resistance. And I'm pretty sure I would not be alone in that.