3 ms·

Australia's mandatory detention is controversial. I don't see why people need to be detained while they have ongoing court cases. I don't see what harm an undoc

Australia's mandatory detention is controversial. I don't see why people need to be detained while they have ongoing court cases. I don't see what harm an undocumented person causes by simply being in the country. Most of them are not criminals, they're just here for better living conditions, work opportunities or family. Moving people around detention centers to hide them from lawyers and families, while too often ignoring court orders and due process is also extremely concerning. As are the poor conditions often reported in these detention facilities. The process should be humane and legal.

rayiner 9mo ago
> I don't see why people need to be detained while they have ongoing court cases. Because it turns the immigration system on its head. People come to the U.S., stay for years while court proceedings drag on, and in most cases the government eventually gives up. The U.S. issues 65,000 or so skilled worker visas annually, but over a million people enter illegally. At that point, why even bother having an immigration system? > Most of them are not criminals, they're just here for better living conditions, work opportunities or family. Do you think keeping out criminals is why we have an immigration system?
- zzrrt 9mo ago
  > Do you think keeping out criminals is why we have an immigration system? A person should be forgiven for thinking so, with government figures constantly invoking Laken Riley et al, and generally saying we’re being invaded by violent criminals and they’re going after “the worst of the worst.” Since the administration is catching up on 20-year-old violations, I look forward to — only for the sake of those skilled workers waiting in line, of course — to Elon Musk being denaturalized, deported, and exit-taxed for his admitted “gray area” period of his immigration journey.
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    Rhetoric aside, every developed country has an immigration system, and the function is the same everywhere. The principal function is to manage the cultural and economic impact of immigration by controlling total immigrant numbers and filtering for more desirable immigrants. Filtering out criminals is an extreme case of it, but that’s not the be-all-end-all of the immigration system.

rayiner 9mo ago

> I don't see why people need to be detained while they have ongoing court cases. Because it turns the immigration system on its head. People come to the U.S., stay for years while court proceedings drag on, and in most cases the government eventually gives up. The U.S. issues 65,000 or so skilled worker visas annually, but over a million people enter illegally. At that point, why even bother having an immigration system? > Most of them are not criminals, they're just here for better living conditions, work opportunities or family. Do you think keeping out criminals is why we have an immigration system?

zzrrt 9mo ago
> Do you think keeping out criminals is why we have an immigration system? A person should be forgiven for thinking so, with government figures constantly invoking Laken Riley et al, and generally saying we’re being invaded by violent criminals and they’re going after “the worst of the worst.” Since the administration is catching up on 20-year-old violations, I look forward to — only for the sake of those skilled workers waiting in line, of course — to Elon Musk being denaturalized, deported, and exit-taxed for his admitted “gray area” period of his immigration journey.
- rayiner 9mo ago
  Rhetoric aside, every developed country has an immigration system, and the function is the same everywhere. The principal function is to manage the cultural and economic impact of immigration by controlling total immigrant numbers and filtering for more desirable immigrants. Filtering out criminals is an extreme case of it, but that’s not the be-all-end-all of the immigration system.