4 ms·

For clarity: yes, criminal law would take precedence for domestic crimes. I'm saying that if one presupposes a justly and reasonably administered Immigrant Wor

by ajross 1y ago

For clarity: yes, criminal law would take precedence for domestic crimes. I'm saying that if one presupposes a justly and reasonably administered Immigrant Work Visa program, that it's reasonable to arrest and deport people who sneak in without having such a visa.

cogman10 1y ago
But now you are talking about upending people's lives over misdemeanors. Should we deport someone for speeding? I just don't see a work visa program as having any benefit. Anyone working in the US should be protected by workers laws the same as if they have a visa or not. Why should we put limits on who can work for who and be employed by who. Who actually benefits from such limits?
- ajross 1y ago
  > Who actually benefits from such limits? People who work. It's just an economic argument. The US (and any other targets of net immigration, really) has a higher wage level than the regions from which the labor is arriving, more or less by definition. That's why the labor force is moving. So if you allow completely unlimited population motion at zero cost, the system will seek to a state where all wages for a given job are the same, everywhere. And that means that we highly-paid Americans end up poorer. Now, is such a world more just? More fair? Maybe! But it's worse for us, and that makes it a politically infeasible solution to argue for. You'll never convince people to live poorer for the benefit of others. A feasible/reasonable/moderate/boring immigration policy would simply ask the question "How much immigration is needed to fill existing jobs (good for growth) without depressing wages (bad for workers)?", and allow that much.
vkou 1y ago
If being undocumented is a crime, people accused of it are entitled to trial by a jury of their peers.
- ajross 1y ago
  FWIW, that's not strictly true. We deport non-criminal foreigners for diplomatic reasons all the time. I think it's very reasonable to imagine an enforcement regime (not the one we have) where legitimate workers (and their families, yada yada) have easily-available and auditable visa and citizenship documentation. And so if you find someone who doesn't, there's no failure of due process to simply deport them. Done right, there won't be many cheaters anyway as employers will have easy access to documented labor instead.
  - vkou 1y ago
    If you're not going to afford people the rights that they are due when accused of a crime, you can't call what you are accusing them of a crime. It's either a crime, and they are entitled to a a jury trial, or it's a civil issue. Calling people criminals and treating them as criminals, but not granting them the rights afforded to criminals by the constitution is speaking out of both sides of your mouth. The sixth amendment is unambiguous about it. > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
    - ajross 1y ago
      You're arguing with someone else, not me. I'm your ally in this fight, remember. But again, you're simply wrong as a matter of practice. Deportation does not require a criminal trial, and never has. The conflation with criminal law is something the current administration essentially invented as a pretext for deploying law enforcement force. And that's a bad thing. Deportation isn't punishment, and it has a trivial remedy in cases where it's misapplied (again, assuming a rational immigration policy): apply for a visa and come back.

by ajross 1y ago

cogman10 1y ago

But now you are talking about upending people's lives over misdemeanors. Should we deport someone for speeding? I just don't see a work visa program as having any benefit. Anyone working in the US should be protected by workers laws the same as if they have a visa or not. Why should we put limits on who can work for who and be employed by who. Who actually benefits from such limits?

ajross 1y ago
> Who actually benefits from such limits? People who work. It's just an economic argument. The US (and any other targets of net immigration, really) has a higher wage level than the regions from which the labor is arriving, more or less by definition. That's why the labor force is moving. So if you allow completely unlimited population motion at zero cost, the system will seek to a state where all wages for a given job are the same, everywhere. And that means that we highly-paid Americans end up poorer. Now, is such a world more just? More fair? Maybe! But it's worse for us, and that makes it a politically infeasible solution to argue for. You'll never convince people to live poorer for the benefit of others. A feasible/reasonable/moderate/boring immigration policy would simply ask the question "How much immigration is needed to fill existing jobs (good for growth) without depressing wages (bad for workers)?", and allow that much.

vkou 1y ago

If being undocumented is a crime, people accused of it are entitled to trial by a jury of their peers.

ajross 1y ago
FWIW, that's not strictly true. We deport non-criminal foreigners for diplomatic reasons all the time. I think it's very reasonable to imagine an enforcement regime (not the one we have) where legitimate workers (and their families, yada yada) have easily-available and auditable visa and citizenship documentation. And so if you find someone who doesn't, there's no failure of due process to simply deport them. Done right, there won't be many cheaters anyway as employers will have easy access to documented labor instead.
- vkou 1y ago
  If you're not going to afford people the rights that they are due when accused of a crime, you can't call what you are accusing them of a crime. It's either a crime, and they are entitled to a a jury trial, or it's a civil issue. Calling people criminals and treating them as criminals, but not granting them the rights afforded to criminals by the constitution is speaking out of both sides of your mouth. The sixth amendment is unambiguous about it. > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
  - ajross 1y ago
    You're arguing with someone else, not me. I'm your ally in this fight, remember. But again, you're simply wrong as a matter of practice. Deportation does not require a criminal trial, and never has. The conflation with criminal law is something the current administration essentially invented as a pretext for deploying law enforcement force. And that's a bad thing. Deportation isn't punishment, and it has a trivial remedy in cases where it's misapplied (again, assuming a rational immigration policy): apply for a visa and come back.