7 ms·

"Just do it the right way." "Coming here illegally is a crime so everyone who does it is a criminal." The legal moralism people apply to immigration is absurd

"Just do it the right way." "Coming here illegally is a crime so everyone who does it is a criminal." The legal moralism people apply to immigration is absurd, especially in the United States. We have purposefully made it impossible to do the right thing, so we can rejoice in punishing those who do it "wrong". It's shameful, in my opinion.

nxor 11mo ago
It should be telling that a great portion of these people are young men, and young men from certain regions view women, minorities, and ideas like honesty and fairness much differently. Europe is facing this right now. What are you suggesting? All of India moves to the US? Are you even aware they'd do that if they could? That is _not_ practical.
- bulbar 11mo ago
  What do you mean with "telling"? That they are in tech because that's the demographic of tech folks? Or that men in most parts of the world are responsible to make enough money for the whole family? It's more rethorical but I seriously don't know how that's telling. > Europe is facing this right now. What exactly? War in Syria was ten years ago. > What are you suggesting? All of India moves to the US? I find it clear that the suggestion is: Provide a clear and feasible path for people who wish to migrate and will benefit the society. We lack that in Europe/Germany as well and ironically are missing the laws to deal with criminal immigration effectively. It's sad many people don't even know or think about the difference of regular migration and coming as a refugee. Migration of skilled workers must become much easier in Europe, while refugees are a very different topic.
BobaFloutist 11mo ago
Also a lot of people applying that legal moralism consider it not just acceptable, but laudable to try to cheat on your taxes, a pretty significant crime.
- happytoexplain 11mo ago
  Combining qualities you oppose into theoretical groups is a common, very human fallacy, but it will poison your mind against humanity. It's the origin of tribalism. For example, I'm a white non-religious straight liberal US man with a hippy upbringing that I value dearly, and I think the opportunity to immigrate should be as available as possible to all good people. But I also recognize that it must be responsibly controlled, and the native culture and quality of life must be prioritized (for all nations, not just the West), and one piece of that is stopping illegal immigration. And it's not unreasonable to have an opinion that we are, to some degree, failing at all the pieces.
  - Gud 11mo ago
    Why must the natives quality of life be prioritised?
    - AngryData 11mo ago
      Because otherwise why should native residents support the government or agree to submit under its laws and regulations?
    - happytoexplain 11mo ago
      Maybe I wasn't clear - I mean each country must prioritize its citizens and native culture (i.e. the default position of most nations). Not that they must prioritize their native-born citizens over their immigrant citizens (once they are actually full-fledged citizens). The point being that one affects the other: Bad immigration practices (bad laws, bad enforcement of good laws, etc) negatively affect citizens, but the people trying to immigrate become citizens who we are morally obligated to then prioritize equally, so it requires a balance. You may make the argument that a country shouldn't prioritize anybody in the world, but it falls into the same category of argument as "there should be no borders". Yes, you are envisioning a beautiful world, and maybe in a few hundred or a few thousand years we will be able to get there. But each day in between we must give a shit about reality.
  - krapp 11mo ago
ThrowawayTestr 11mo ago
No one has the right to immigrate to another country. If that country has steep requirements, that's its prerogative.
scoofy 11mo ago
Look, the point is that democracy should mean democracy. You don't like our immigration laws. I really don't like our immigration laws. They're still our immigration laws, we should fight to change them. Nobody's human rights are being actively violated because they're not allow to immigrate here. The entire reason the last 20 years of effective nullification (by blue states ignoring them and even subverting them) is so pernicious is because it's just plain anti-democratic. If, like marijuana, most people were effectively in favor then this wouldn't be a serious issue, but the problem is that nullification undermines rule of law. It's hard for us to argue for a reasonable immigration system when, if we don't get the system we want, we literally just say "fuck it, just ignore the rules."
- bdangubic 11mo ago
  so glad we have Red people running the country / ICE who obey every law on the books - phew…
  - scoofy 11mo ago
    So, is this what we are doing? Downvoting and non sequiturs that amount to deflection and whataboutism? Not caring about democratic results — when human rights are not at issue — is a very dangerous precedent. I absolutely hate the current administration. They are not responsible you the laws on the books. They were successful last election, in some part, exactly because this is a very relevant political issue.
    - bdangubic 11mo ago
      I don’t downvote people that have a different opinion so it ain’t me! > they are not responsible for the laws on the books so in 26/28 when Blue people take over they are free to disregard all laws because they are not “responsible for it”?
      - scoofy 11mo ago
        > I don’t downvote people that have a different opinion so it ain’t me Totally fair. I’ve had a tough time with my good-faith, heterodox views on this issue lately. >>they are not responsible for the laws on the books >so in 26/28 when Blue people take over they are free to disregard all laws because they are not “responsible for it”? No, my only point is that some seem to try to argue that “Trump is different because he is acting in bad faith,” and I generally agree. The problem with that argument is that our immigration laws are decades old, and blue states nullification is also decades old. We’ve found ourselves dealing with federal enforcement of federal laws because of state nullification, we don’t like that enforcement — I don’t like that enforcement — but we could pretty much end all this escalation between blue states and the feds by just agreeing to enforce the laws on the books. No more flirting with literal civil war. Just dealing with the consequences of a losing position as humanely as possible, given the fact that it’s going to suck. Then we can fight to change those laws democratically.
like_any_other 11mo ago
> especially in the United States. China has 1.4 million immigrants, and 12000 foreigners with permanent residency. Not per year, but total, cumulative [1]. Despite having 4x the population of the USA. Meanwhile the USA has gone from 83% White in 1970 [2], to White children being a minority [3] in less than 50 years. And most of that change was due to legal immigration (that they were promised wouldn't change anything [4]) Yet still they're called out for not erasing their own identity even faster. So do you just not believe in the national right to self-determination, to decide who may live among them? Do you also not believe in this right for Kashmir [5,6] or Palestine? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta... [3] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/less-than-half-of-us-children-under-15-are-white-census-shows/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/less-than-half-of-us-chil... [4] Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), asserted that the bill would not affect the U.S. demographic mix - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac... [5] Kashmir’s new status could bring demographic change, drawing comparisons to the West Bank - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new-status-could-bring-demographic-change-drawing-comparisons-west-bank/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new... [6] Human rights activists said that the moves to change Kashmir’s status were only the first steps in a broader plan to erode Kashmir’s core rights and seed the area with non-Kashmiris, altering the demographics and eventually destroying its character. Previous laws barred outsiders from owning property. - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-jammu.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/asia/india-pakistan...
- hshdhdhj4444 11mo ago
  How long did it take America to go from 0% white to almost complete native erasure? If we’re gonna apply your definitionally racist argument then whites (ie Europeans) (or Asians or Africans) shouldn’t be in the country. Also, apparently you’re ok with America’s population doubling with immigration as long as those immigrants are white Europeans? The share of immigrants as a percentage of population is about where it was between the mid 1800s and early 1900s, but you’re fine with that because it was primarily Europeans? (Although, ironically, a lot of those Europeans were also not considered white contemporaneously and it’s only now that their descendants consider themselves white and rail about all the non white immigeants).
QuiEgo 11mo ago
Illegal immigration is a crime. So is jay walking and software piracy and murder. There’s a lot of nuance to be had here in how big of a deal it is and how people who do the deed are treated. It’s always felt weird though that it’s become taboo to call it a crime, but maybe that’s just me.
- ivraatiems 11mo ago
  I think it's more that something being a crime doesn't make it immoral, and something being a crime doesn't mean it should continue to be. I do not think most illegal immigration should be considered a crime. That's my position. Moralizing about it by saying "well these people are CRIMINALS" because they crossed an imaginary line on a map is odious to me.
  - QuiEgo 11mo ago
    I guess I don’t have a huge association with calling someone a CRIMINAL as a big deal. Like I speed on the highway every day, I’m a criminal too. I don’t really feel like I’m doing anything wrong if I drive safe and there’s no traffic near me. If I got a ticket though I did the deed and so be it. It’s not some black and white, “you’re a criminal so you’re evil” thing for me at all. The punishment should fit the crime.
- scoofy 11mo ago
  The issue is that it is illegal AND a nontrivial part of the electorate wants it enforced. The “let’s all step back and consider my side’s view of this” isn’t really relevant after our side loses elections. If the will of the people is to start enforcing jay-walking, for better or worse, we’re going to see a lot of jay-walking enforcement.
- 4MOAisgoodenuf 11mo ago
  The vast majority of undocumented immigrants arrived legally and are visa overstays, which is NOT a criminal violation but rather a civil violation. For most of America's history it wasn't even illegal to enter the US without prior authorization. The law that made it a crime to enter the US without authorization (8 U.S.C. § 1325) was specifically created in the 20's to restrict immigration by race. And the violent enforcement of this law has really only ramped up in the last few decades. It is very strange to see many people in the US (and in this thread) accept the current enforcement framework as simply a set of static rules that just happen to be here, and not a relatively recent phenomenon that was enacted and enforced for a project of racial prejudice.
rayiner 11mo ago
Illegal immigration isn’t bad because people didn’t do their paperwork. It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many. So “making it easier to immigrate legally” misses the point completely. And this concern about “who and how many” is well founded. Alexander Hamilton himself noted the dangers of cultural division from immigration. https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-view-on-immigration https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie.... He wrote: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.” Silicon Valley understands that culture drives outcomes when it comes to companies and startups, but have a huge blind spot about culture when it comes to countries. But culture matters just as much for countries as companies. Immigrants bring their cultures with them—typically from places less successful than the U.S.—and that culture persists for generations: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... That has serious consequences for society. You can easily look at Minnesota versus New Jersey and see that immigration patterns have left an imprint on culture centuries later. And it’s equally clear that certain parts of the country are culturally better than other parts of the country. America would be much more orderly and well governed if more of it was like Minnesota and Utah and less like West Virginia or New Jersey.
- ivraatiems 11mo ago
  > It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many. So “making it easier to immigrate legally” misses the point completely. No it doesn't. What if I want more foreigners? What if I want people to come here? Somehow, these arguments only ever seem to rachet in favor of people who want less immigration, not more. I'd say the federal government of the United States is currently overriding my preferences about who to allow into the country and how many, actually, by aggressively enforcing immigration laws in ways they likely were not intended to be enforced, and in ways which are repeatedly being found to be illegal, actually. > And it’s equally clear that certain parts of the country are culturally better than other parts of the country. America would be much more orderly and well governed if more of it was like Minnesota and Utah and less like West Virginia or New Jersey. You need to add a "to my preference" here when you talk about which parts of the country are "culturally better" than others. You clearly have strong ideas about what you'd like US culture to be, many of which I suspect I deeply disagree with. Is your argument that West Virginia is "disorderly" or "culturally inferior" because of immigrants? Which groups, and from when?
stronglikedan 11mo ago
> We have purposefully made it impossible to do the right thing We have the most people trying to get in and let the most people in legally year after year, so not only is it no impossible, but we're the best at it. > so we can rejoice in punishing those who do it "wrong". Except no one is rejoicing that, but I can see how certain bubbles may have interest in spreading that misinformation.
refurb 11mo ago
Actually the United States stands out not from the moralism, that’s very common in other countries. What amazed me is how many Americans think immigration laws are optional. That entering and working illegally is no biggie. Every other country I’ve lived in has much more strict immigration laws. Even the 3rd world countries that can’t seem to deliver potable tap water. Deportations are standard, quick and supported by the population. Actually “supported” is wrong, it was more “yeah and…?”. No anger, self-riteousbess, just “thats how it’s supposed to work” Most countries consider immigration enforcement is as standard as enforcing laws against bank robbery or littering. “Why wouldn’t you do it?” is the most typical take.
- TheCoelacanth 11mo ago
  I don't think it's a very common opinion in the US that immigration laws should not be enforced. There is a small contingent on the left that wants that on humanitarian grounds and another small contingent on the right that wants very loose immigration laws for the business benefits of immigrant labor. There were an enormous number of deportations under previous administrations without much pushback. What distinguishes this situation is that the deportations are proceeding with a complete disregard for US law and human rights. People are being deported without getting a chance to fight it in court, a violation of the constitutional right to due process. People are being rounded up as suspected illegal immigrants solely based on their skin color or the language they are speaking, a violation of the constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. People are being deported while it is still being determined whether they are eligible for asylum or refugee status, a violation of US statute. The US is supposed to be a nation of laws where everyone can be certain that their legal rights will be respected. That is being grossly violated with the current deportation push.
  - refurb 11mo ago
    Opinion polls are around 60-70% supporting enforcement of immigration laws. That’s means a quarter to a third don’t believe they should be enforced. I’d call that significant. And the US “disregard for human rights”? You mean the right to contest your deportations multiple times? That’s far more than other countries provide. It’s more typical for an officer to not find proof of legal entry being the sole decision maker. You’ll be on a plane the same day leaving the country. There are people in the US who have been here for years awaiting a decision on their case. You feel that’s an abuse of their human rights?

nxor 11mo ago

It should be telling that a great portion of these people are young men, and young men from certain regions view women, minorities, and ideas like honesty and fairness much differently. Europe is facing this right now. What are you suggesting? All of India moves to the US? Are you even aware they'd do that if they could? That is _not_ practical.

bulbar 11mo ago
What do you mean with "telling"? That they are in tech because that's the demographic of tech folks? Or that men in most parts of the world are responsible to make enough money for the whole family? It's more rethorical but I seriously don't know how that's telling. > Europe is facing this right now. What exactly? War in Syria was ten years ago. > What are you suggesting? All of India moves to the US? I find it clear that the suggestion is: Provide a clear and feasible path for people who wish to migrate and will benefit the society. We lack that in Europe/Germany as well and ironically are missing the laws to deal with criminal immigration effectively. It's sad many people don't even know or think about the difference of regular migration and coming as a refugee. Migration of skilled workers must become much easier in Europe, while refugees are a very different topic.

BobaFloutist 11mo ago

Also a lot of people applying that legal moralism consider it not just acceptable, but laudable to try to cheat on your taxes, a pretty significant crime.

happytoexplain 11mo ago
Combining qualities you oppose into theoretical groups is a common, very human fallacy, but it will poison your mind against humanity. It's the origin of tribalism. For example, I'm a white non-religious straight liberal US man with a hippy upbringing that I value dearly, and I think the opportunity to immigrate should be as available as possible to all good people. But I also recognize that it must be responsibly controlled, and the native culture and quality of life must be prioritized (for all nations, not just the West), and one piece of that is stopping illegal immigration. And it's not unreasonable to have an opinion that we are, to some degree, failing at all the pieces.
- Gud 11mo ago
  Why must the natives quality of life be prioritised?
  - AngryData 11mo ago
    Because otherwise why should native residents support the government or agree to submit under its laws and regulations?
  - happytoexplain 11mo ago
    Maybe I wasn't clear - I mean each country must prioritize its citizens and native culture (i.e. the default position of most nations). Not that they must prioritize their native-born citizens over their immigrant citizens (once they are actually full-fledged citizens). The point being that one affects the other: Bad immigration practices (bad laws, bad enforcement of good laws, etc) negatively affect citizens, but the people trying to immigrate become citizens who we are morally obligated to then prioritize equally, so it requires a balance. You may make the argument that a country shouldn't prioritize anybody in the world, but it falls into the same category of argument as "there should be no borders". Yes, you are envisioning a beautiful world, and maybe in a few hundred or a few thousand years we will be able to get there. But each day in between we must give a shit about reality.
- krapp 11mo ago

ThrowawayTestr 11mo ago

No one has the right to immigrate to another country. If that country has steep requirements, that's its prerogative.

scoofy 11mo ago

Look, the point is that democracy should mean democracy. You don't like our immigration laws. I really don't like our immigration laws. They're still our immigration laws, we should fight to change them. Nobody's human rights are being actively violated because they're not allow to immigrate here. The entire reason the last 20 years of effective nullification (by blue states ignoring them and even subverting them) is so pernicious is because it's just plain anti-democratic. If, like marijuana, most people were effectively in favor then this wouldn't be a serious issue, but the problem is that nullification undermines rule of law. It's hard for us to argue for a reasonable immigration system when, if we don't get the system we want, we literally just say "fuck it, just ignore the rules."

bdangubic 11mo ago
so glad we have Red people running the country / ICE who obey every law on the books - phew…
- scoofy 11mo ago
  So, is this what we are doing? Downvoting and non sequiturs that amount to deflection and whataboutism? Not caring about democratic results — when human rights are not at issue — is a very dangerous precedent. I absolutely hate the current administration. They are not responsible you the laws on the books. They were successful last election, in some part, exactly because this is a very relevant political issue.
  - bdangubic 11mo ago
    I don’t downvote people that have a different opinion so it ain’t me! > they are not responsible for the laws on the books so in 26/28 when Blue people take over they are free to disregard all laws because they are not “responsible for it”?
    - scoofy 11mo ago
      > I don’t downvote people that have a different opinion so it ain’t me Totally fair. I’ve had a tough time with my good-faith, heterodox views on this issue lately. >>they are not responsible for the laws on the books >so in 26/28 when Blue people take over they are free to disregard all laws because they are not “responsible for it”? No, my only point is that some seem to try to argue that “Trump is different because he is acting in bad faith,” and I generally agree. The problem with that argument is that our immigration laws are decades old, and blue states nullification is also decades old. We’ve found ourselves dealing with federal enforcement of federal laws because of state nullification, we don’t like that enforcement — I don’t like that enforcement — but we could pretty much end all this escalation between blue states and the feds by just agreeing to enforce the laws on the books. No more flirting with literal civil war. Just dealing with the consequences of a losing position as humanely as possible, given the fact that it’s going to suck. Then we can fight to change those laws democratically.

like_any_other 11mo ago

> especially in the United States. China has 1.4 million immigrants, and 12000 foreigners with permanent residency. Not per year, but total, cumulative [1]. Despite having 4x the population of the USA. Meanwhile the USA has gone from 83% White in 1970 [2], to White children being a minority [3] in less than 50 years. And most of that change was due to legal immigration (that they were promised wouldn't change anything [4]) Yet still they're called out for not erasing their own identity even faster. So do you just not believe in the national right to self-determination, to decide who may live among them? Do you also not believe in this right for Kashmir [5,6] or Palestine? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta... [3] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/less-than-half-of-us-children-under-15-are-white-census-shows/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/less-than-half-of-us-chil... [4] Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), asserted that the bill would not affect the U.S. demographic mix - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac... [5] Kashmir’s new status could bring demographic change, drawing comparisons to the West Bank - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new-status-could-bring-demographic-change-drawing-comparisons-west-bank/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new... [6] Human rights activists said that the moves to change Kashmir’s status were only the first steps in a broader plan to erode Kashmir’s core rights and seed the area with non-Kashmiris, altering the demographics and eventually destroying its character. Previous laws barred outsiders from owning property. - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-jammu.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/asia/india-pakistan...

hshdhdhj4444 11mo ago
How long did it take America to go from 0% white to almost complete native erasure? If we’re gonna apply your definitionally racist argument then whites (ie Europeans) (or Asians or Africans) shouldn’t be in the country. Also, apparently you’re ok with America’s population doubling with immigration as long as those immigrants are white Europeans? The share of immigrants as a percentage of population is about where it was between the mid 1800s and early 1900s, but you’re fine with that because it was primarily Europeans? (Although, ironically, a lot of those Europeans were also not considered white contemporaneously and it’s only now that their descendants consider themselves white and rail about all the non white immigeants).

QuiEgo 11mo ago

Illegal immigration is a crime. So is jay walking and software piracy and murder. There’s a lot of nuance to be had here in how big of a deal it is and how people who do the deed are treated. It’s always felt weird though that it’s become taboo to call it a crime, but maybe that’s just me.

ivraatiems 11mo ago
I think it's more that something being a crime doesn't make it immoral, and something being a crime doesn't mean it should continue to be. I do not think most illegal immigration should be considered a crime. That's my position. Moralizing about it by saying "well these people are CRIMINALS" because they crossed an imaginary line on a map is odious to me.
- QuiEgo 11mo ago
  I guess I don’t have a huge association with calling someone a CRIMINAL as a big deal. Like I speed on the highway every day, I’m a criminal too. I don’t really feel like I’m doing anything wrong if I drive safe and there’s no traffic near me. If I got a ticket though I did the deed and so be it. It’s not some black and white, “you’re a criminal so you’re evil” thing for me at all. The punishment should fit the crime.
scoofy 11mo ago
The issue is that it is illegal AND a nontrivial part of the electorate wants it enforced. The “let’s all step back and consider my side’s view of this” isn’t really relevant after our side loses elections. If the will of the people is to start enforcing jay-walking, for better or worse, we’re going to see a lot of jay-walking enforcement.
4MOAisgoodenuf 11mo ago
The vast majority of undocumented immigrants arrived legally and are visa overstays, which is NOT a criminal violation but rather a civil violation. For most of America's history it wasn't even illegal to enter the US without prior authorization. The law that made it a crime to enter the US without authorization (8 U.S.C. § 1325) was specifically created in the 20's to restrict immigration by race. And the violent enforcement of this law has really only ramped up in the last few decades. It is very strange to see many people in the US (and in this thread) accept the current enforcement framework as simply a set of static rules that just happen to be here, and not a relatively recent phenomenon that was enacted and enforced for a project of racial prejudice.

rayiner 11mo ago

Illegal immigration isn’t bad because people didn’t do their paperwork. It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many. So “making it easier to immigrate legally” misses the point completely. And this concern about “who and how many” is well founded. Alexander Hamilton himself noted the dangers of cultural division from immigration. https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-view-on-immigration https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie.... He wrote: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.” Silicon Valley understands that culture drives outcomes when it comes to companies and startups, but have a huge blind spot about culture when it comes to countries. But culture matters just as much for countries as companies. Immigrants bring their cultures with them—typically from places less successful than the U.S.—and that culture persists for generations: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... That has serious consequences for society. You can easily look at Minnesota versus New Jersey and see that immigration patterns have left an imprint on culture centuries later. And it’s equally clear that certain parts of the country are culturally better than other parts of the country. America would be much more orderly and well governed if more of it was like Minnesota and Utah and less like West Virginia or New Jersey.

ivraatiems 11mo ago
> It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many. So “making it easier to immigrate legally” misses the point completely. No it doesn't. What if I want more foreigners? What if I want people to come here? Somehow, these arguments only ever seem to rachet in favor of people who want less immigration, not more. I'd say the federal government of the United States is currently overriding my preferences about who to allow into the country and how many, actually, by aggressively enforcing immigration laws in ways they likely were not intended to be enforced, and in ways which are repeatedly being found to be illegal, actually. > And it’s equally clear that certain parts of the country are culturally better than other parts of the country. America would be much more orderly and well governed if more of it was like Minnesota and Utah and less like West Virginia or New Jersey. You need to add a "to my preference" here when you talk about which parts of the country are "culturally better" than others. You clearly have strong ideas about what you'd like US culture to be, many of which I suspect I deeply disagree with. Is your argument that West Virginia is "disorderly" or "culturally inferior" because of immigrants? Which groups, and from when?

stronglikedan 11mo ago

> We have purposefully made it impossible to do the right thing We have the most people trying to get in and let the most people in legally year after year, so not only is it no impossible, but we're the best at it. > so we can rejoice in punishing those who do it "wrong". Except no one is rejoicing that, but I can see how certain bubbles may have interest in spreading that misinformation.

refurb 11mo ago

Actually the United States stands out not from the moralism, that’s very common in other countries. What amazed me is how many Americans think immigration laws are optional. That entering and working illegally is no biggie. Every other country I’ve lived in has much more strict immigration laws. Even the 3rd world countries that can’t seem to deliver potable tap water. Deportations are standard, quick and supported by the population. Actually “supported” is wrong, it was more “yeah and…?”. No anger, self-riteousbess, just “thats how it’s supposed to work” Most countries consider immigration enforcement is as standard as enforcing laws against bank robbery or littering. “Why wouldn’t you do it?” is the most typical take.

TheCoelacanth 11mo ago
I don't think it's a very common opinion in the US that immigration laws should not be enforced. There is a small contingent on the left that wants that on humanitarian grounds and another small contingent on the right that wants very loose immigration laws for the business benefits of immigrant labor. There were an enormous number of deportations under previous administrations without much pushback. What distinguishes this situation is that the deportations are proceeding with a complete disregard for US law and human rights. People are being deported without getting a chance to fight it in court, a violation of the constitutional right to due process. People are being rounded up as suspected illegal immigrants solely based on their skin color or the language they are speaking, a violation of the constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. People are being deported while it is still being determined whether they are eligible for asylum or refugee status, a violation of US statute. The US is supposed to be a nation of laws where everyone can be certain that their legal rights will be respected. That is being grossly violated with the current deportation push.
- refurb 11mo ago
  Opinion polls are around 60-70% supporting enforcement of immigration laws. That’s means a quarter to a third don’t believe they should be enforced. I’d call that significant. And the US “disregard for human rights”? You mean the right to contest your deportations multiple times? That’s far more than other countries provide. It’s more typical for an officer to not find proof of legal entry being the sole decision maker. You’ll be on a plane the same day leaving the country. There are people in the US who have been here for years awaiting a decision on their case. You feel that’s an abuse of their human rights?