Anonymous #10 2d

I don't think it should be a crime and if it is there should be no fine, you think people coming here out of desperation have the money to pay a fine?

12

Anonymous #5 1d

Why do you think it shouldn’t be a crime?

-1

Anonymous #10 1d

Because it hurts nobody

-1

Anonymous #10 1d

Because we’re largely the reason they can’t stay where they are. We’re the market that allows cartels to garner more power than their local governments. More often than not, it’s American arms in cartel hands. Without us, there would be nothing to escape from

16

Anonymous #12 1d

“Not hurting someone directly” is not the standard used to determine whether something is illegal. Plenty of crimes exist because violating legal systems and regulations can undermine how society functions even without immediate physical harm to a specific individual.

-2

Anonymous #12 1d

I mean…with this logic, robbing a bank should be legal. Because that’s just cash. It’s not like you’re robbing John Smith’s bank account. His bank account is just a number. You could argue that multiple different types of fraud don’t actually hurt individuals

7

Anonymous #13 1d

What about illegal immigrants from Europe, Oceania, and Canada (~900,000)? The same argument doesn’t apply to those regions, yet we also must address people that illegally enter our country from there. Should we open our borders to them? If so, what justification would you offer for that reason?

1

Anonymous #7 1d

I agree. It’s not really a good argument. Besides, while few, there are examples of illegal immigrants hurting people in the United States. That proves that yes, illegal immigration can and does hurt people directly.

1

Anonymous #10 1d

I’m curious what the country breakdown of that number is. Or even what year. If it’s 2022 or later, a substantial number could be Ukrainians

1

Anonymous #7 1d

I’m using MPI as a source, which cites its numbers as 2023. I do want to note that your claim that “there would be nothing to escape from” is a bit optimistic. Take for example Ukraine. If, as you say, a substantial number of the 2023 illegal immigrants are from that region, they are moving due to a factor (Russia) that is not the US. Thus, it is likely that even if US intervention in Latin America halted, events would still transpire that would drive people into our country illegally.

1

Anonymous #10 1d

I wasn’t the one who said “there would be nothing to escape from”. Thanks for clarifying the source though, that makes sense

1

Anonymous #7 1d

Oh sorry Mb I get lost when it’s just numbers

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Me in cookie clicker

12

Bro chill

1

Anonymous #7 1d

Robbing a bank hurts people because you’re taking other peoples money. Moving to a new country illegally hurts nobody

1

Anonymous #12 1d

What if a bad person moves to our country illegally? With a robust immigration system we would be able to stop them before they entered our country and hurt people.

-1

Anonymous #10 1d

They can still come legally. If somebody’s a criminal then the legal process isn’t going to stop them from coming in unless you build it up to the point where it has the resources to be holding people, researching backgrounds, and letting people in case-by-case. Then if you have a system that does that, people will just come in illegally. It’s a catch-22.

0

Anonymous #10 1d

I don’t see more border security actually working to prevent violence in the US, in my opinion it’s more practical to process people in a sort of perfunctory way, get people’s name, destination, occupation as they cross the border, and then have the system respond to violence as it happens.

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 1d

The argument im making with the guy was that yes illegal immigration can hurt people. It’s like those old ads where they’d say “piracy isn’t a victimless crime”. I’m not arguing about the efficiency of our legal processes. I do think our immigration system needs reform, but open borders are not the answer.

-2

Anonymous bongo_fury 1d

So you would let people with criminal backgrounds just waltz in and wait for them to commit violent crimes before arresting them? How is that fair or safe for Americans citizens? How is it fair to regular immigrants who want to make a better life but now have a bad name because of the actions of a few?

-2

Anonymous #10 1d

If somebody has a criminal background then they aren’t necessarily going to commit any crimes. Of course if you’re actively wanted in another country then that’s another story, but if we don’t punish Americans just for being ex-cons then we shouldn’t do that to foreigners who come here.

5

Anonymous #10 1d

Immigrants commit fewer crimes than white people who live here

6

Anonymous #10 1d

We already have bad people. It shouldn't be he job of immigration to try and be crime prevention.

6

Anonymous #5 1d

This is the other thing, anytime there’s more people by any means there’s also an element of risk. Whenever somebody immigrates they might do something wrong one day, and whenever somebody is born, there’s the same chance. it’s bad but ultimately there isn’t much that can be done about it.

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 17h

But we do continue to punish ex-cons in America, even after official sentences end. It is significantly harder to get a job with a criminal record, with ex cons making close to 15,000$ less than an equally qualified person with no record. In part, this is due to the background checks that often lead to a 50% callback reduction for ex convicts. So, I turn your question back to you. If we place American ex-cons under higher scrutiny, why wouldn’t we do the same for immigrants?

1

Anonymous #10 17h

I don’t think you made the point you think you did. This is exactly why CA doesn’t let employers ask about criminal history before they make an offer

1

Anonymous #5 17h

That misses the point. Immigration policy isn’t meant to stop crime from citizens already here. It’s a screening process for people seeking entry or legal status. Saying “citizens commit crimes too” doesn’t remove the government’s right to vet who it admits and deport those who violate the terms of entry.

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 17h

That logic ignores the difference between unavoidable and voluntary risk. Births are unavoidable. Immigration policy is a controllable government decision. The fact that risk can never be zero doesn’t mean we should stop trying to minimize it through immigration policy. Through an effective, efficient, and fair immigration system (which I believe our current system is not), we can keep American citizens as safe as possible while giving people a fair chance at starting a new life.

1

Anonymous #7 17h

That doesn’t really address my point. “Ban the box” laws don’t eliminate background checks entirely. They just delay them. Employers and the government still use criminal history as part of risk assessment. Immigration vetting works on the same principle.

1

Anonymous #10 17h

I never said they eliminate background checks. They should eliminate the pay discrepancy that results from conviction history coming up before the offer is made, because the background check doesn’t happen until after the offer is accepted

1

Anonymous #7 7h

But that still supports my point. The reason the background check is delayed rather than removed is because society still sees criminal history as relevant information for risk assessment. Immigration vetting follows the same logic. Thus, we screen people before granting entry or legal status.

1

Anonymous #10 7h

Do you think our treatment of ex-cons is just, or unjust? I was using them as a rhetorical example based on the assumption that we both agreed that they shouldn’t be mistreated. I’d assumed that they were protected by anti discrimination laws but I might have been wrong. I should amend my argument from “we don’t continue to punish ex-convicts” to “we shouldn’t/aren’t supposed to punish ex-convicts.”

1

Anonymous #10 6h

Births are voluntary, most of the time. Involuntary births should have been abortions. I think we agree about the need to minimize risk, but we disagree on the degree to which risk can be reduced. My point was to set an amount of risk that I see as unavoidable.

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 6h

Whether society treats ex-cons fairly is a separate debate. My original point was that we already use criminal history in many forms of risk assessment, so immigration vetting based on criminal background is not some unusual or unjust principle.

1

Anonymous #10 6h

It’s an important part of my argument. It’s unjust to deny somebody a job based on their criminal history, so it’s similarly unjust to deny somebody entrance to the country on the same grounds.

13

Anonymous bongo_fury 6h

You’re shifting the argument from societal risk to individual choices. My point wasn’t that every single birth is involuntary. It was that births are an inherent part of any society, while immigration levels and standards are direct policy decisions. Because immigration is controllable at the state level, it makes sense to debate how much risk is acceptable and how best to minimize it.

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 6h

Those aren’t really equivalent situations. A job is participation within a society someone is already legally part of, while immigration is a request to enter and gain legal status within that society. Governments generally have broader authority to screen non-citizens seeking entry than employers do over citizens seeking work.

1

Anonymous #10 6h

Immigration is also an inherent part of society, there will always be people who want to come into your country, and if those people can’t get in legally for some reason then they’ll come in illegally. Migration has happened continually for all history. My point is about determining the level of restrictiveness where the resulting increase in illegal migration doesn’t undermine the system

4

Anonymous #10 6h

you explicitly stated “what if a bad person moves to our country illegally?” in an earlier comment, no they are not shifting the conversation from a societal perspective to individual actions; you directly referenced as much in your own arguments.

1

Anonymous #10 6h

that was a sneaky way to try and avoid rebuttal though.

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 6h

also it’s important to remember how immigration is one of the two methods a nation grows its population: population growth via immigration Or population growth via domestic births I think it’s very interesting how this modern escalation in aggressive anti-immigration rhetoric coincides with the reversal of roe v wade and the attacks on bodily autonomy. then again, it lines right the fuck up with the projected last-ditch retaliatory efforts of white supremacy

1

Anonymous #6 6h

(sorry bongo that wasn’t meant to be directed at you per se, accidentally attached the comment to yours lol)

1

Anonymous #10 6h

We’re defining immigration differently. I see it as any migration into the country, while the immigration system is for registering people as they enter and monitoring migration. You see immigration as the process by which people go through the system, the purpose of which is to filter people, essentially.

1

Anonymous #10 6h

So we’re talking about different ways for the system to work. People will go around your system, and they won’t go around mine. Your system treats people in a way I see as unjust (akin to denying a job to somebody who’s a former criminal). You’re right that the relationship of an employer to an employee isn’t similar to that of a government to a foreign national but, from my point of view, somebody becomes a national of the place they’re immigrating to upon their starting to immigrate.

1

Anonymous #10 6h

Furthermore you see the immigration system as existing to establish conditions on participation in society, like the prison system. From my point of view the only condition on participation in any society is pro-social behavior, and we have laws and jails in every country to ensure that sort of behavior. If somebody isn’t wanted for prosecution under an actual, legitimate law, then there isn’t any just reason for their exclusion from any society.

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 6h

This is in address to both your and #6’s correct comment on my inconsistency. I agree that migration is a persistent part of human society, and I’m not arguing for a system so restrictive that it encourages mass illegal immigration. My point is simply that because immigration policy is controllable at the state level, governments are justified in debating what level of vetting and restriction best balances public safety, fairness, practicality, and the risk posed by bad actors.

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 5h

I think our disagreement is that you see participation in society as something people are entitled to unless they violate laws, while I see citizenship and residency as statuses a nation can regulate before entry. That’s why I don’t see immigration vetting as equivalent to punishing citizens after they’ve served a sentence. And if someone immigrates illegally, wouldn’t that itself violate a legitimate law and therefore justify exclusion under your framework?

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 5h

I just want to say that I really appreciate how civil you’ve been with the entire discussion. It’s a breath of fresh air from an app where people usually just yell at each other. I’m getting a bit lost in all these threads, so if you want to continue the conversation, feel free to DM me.

1

Anonymous #10 4h

No, I think that laws should be about putting restrictions on antisocial behavior, and I don’t see illegal migration as inherently antisocial, so I don’t see it as justifying removal from society. Even if I did see it as antisocial I would advocate for their imprisonment rather than their deportation.

1

Anonymous #10 4h

To clarify terms antisocial behavior is anything that would make a person a genuine threat to others and that would justify a punishment of them, either to undo the harm they’ve done to others or to prevent them from doing more harm in the future, or both. Illegal immigration isn’t antisocial because I don’t see a tangible harm comes from it.

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 4h

Okay

1