4 ms·

I would say this is good to see on principle, but I assume which businesses they target will be decided through corruption and not data.

tootie 1y ago
That presumes that this kind of enforcement is a net positive and I'm pretty convinced it isn't. The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is essentially arbitrary. Illegal immigration is not a crime of morality, it's basically one of economics. The legal framework theoretically is designed to produce an optimal outcome for the health and wealth of the nation and presently it is not doing that at all. We can and should welcome far more people than we do. Deporting people who are not violent and contributing to the economy because they have incorrect paperwork isn't a win for anyone but politicians and racists.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  > Illegal immigration is not a crime of morality, it's basically one of economics. Then why do you immediately shift into questions of moral judgement, and your moral judgement of how "welcoming" people should be? This politics is garbled. New immigrants lower the leverage of domestic workers, and the leverage of previous immigrants, by intention. The myth that they move on to become mandarins that are too good for those jobs comes from people who never had to work those jobs. Black people didn't move anywhere except to even worse, less secure work. I watched a South filled with black servants serving everyone's food and doing all the hard work, turned into a South filled with black people who have $0 worth outside of the equity in their cars, and all of that (horrible shit-)work being completely closed to them because they didn't speak a foreign language. At the same time, especially in the north, I watched tons of terrible jobs filled by the barely English speaking Indian "relatives" of the people who opened franchises, and who kick back half of their checks to these "uncles", another quarter of that check goes back in remittances, and they get to live like kefala Emerati slaves. It is dystopic to consider this the compassionate choice. It's purely a matter of trend following when the people who profit from this stuff also do the media work to set the trends. The "left" were against all of this in the 90s as a central principle. Cesar Chavez gave speeches about the "wetbacks" being brought in to undercut striking workers. As a Black person born in Chicago, I was part of the Great Migration that was brought in to undercut European immigrants who were fighting for their labor rights. It doesn't make me "bad," or my family "bad." The accusation that people who object to it are demonizing immigrants is an intentional distortion and a marketing strategy for consistent hypercapitalist laissez-faire politics. I miss when "liberals" didn't have Reagan's policies. But they're a natural consequence of their having become extraordinarily wealthy from them.
  - tootie 1y ago
    You're reading way too much into the word "welcome". I don't mean we should be more polite, just more intentional. Data says immigration is generally good for the economy but certainly within some parameters. I don't think any data says immigrants hurt black Americans but please cite something besides your personal observation. It does seem pretty specious to blame the least powerful people in society for the downfall of the next least powerful and not the massive wealth concentration at the top. The fact that immigration is being demonized by the same crew who want to ban discussion of racism or diversity is not a coincidence.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  << The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is essentially arbitrary. Most lines are. It is a line we agreed on as a society. Just for a quick comparison, 21 is a legal drinking age in US ( going after less incendiary example just to prove a point ). But, and here is my subtle point, either those are real lines or there are not. If they are real, they should be enforced and if they are not, they should be nulled. << We can and should welcome far more people than we do. Before I offer a reflexive response, I think it is worth to task a simple question: why? << Deporting people who are not violent and contributing to the economy because they have incorrect paperwork isn't a win for anyone but politicians and racists. That is amusingly neat way oh framing it, but if it only it was that simple. I want to argue against this framework, but not before you give me an idea about how you justify the why in previous section. I struggle to understand this particular perspective.
  - crooked-v 1y ago
    > why? Because without immigration, the population of the US will objectively shrink over time, and that's bad for both the country in the abstract and the personal welfare of the average middle class person as they reach old age.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
      Interesting, you do think the local populace is not capable of breeding? If so, can you point to the why? I might be leading you a little, but I promise only a little.
      - crooked-v 1y ago
        The US has a fertility rate of 1.6 (https://apnews.com/article/fertility-rate-us-low-cdc-replacement-532c4f43f420f29b32212db9cfa0e0af https://apnews.com/article/fertility-rate-us-low-cdc-replace...), i.e., 1.6 kids per 2 parents. Better social services and social safety nets would likely increase this some, but it would still probably be under 2, since that's the general trend for wealthy countries.
- yesiamracist 1y ago
  [flagged]
crooked-v 1y ago
The South Korean nationals that ICE arrested were already allowed to enter the country without a visa (for trips under 90 days) and perform business activities (such as overseeing construction and factory layout planning). That's not even targeting based on corruption, it's just trying to fill quotas without giving a shit about the rest of the country.

tootie 1y ago

That presumes that this kind of enforcement is a net positive and I'm pretty convinced it isn't. The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is essentially arbitrary. Illegal immigration is not a crime of morality, it's basically one of economics. The legal framework theoretically is designed to produce an optimal outcome for the health and wealth of the nation and presently it is not doing that at all. We can and should welcome far more people than we do. Deporting people who are not violent and contributing to the economy because they have incorrect paperwork isn't a win for anyone but politicians and racists.

pessimizer 1y ago
> Illegal immigration is not a crime of morality, it's basically one of economics. Then why do you immediately shift into questions of moral judgement, and your moral judgement of how "welcoming" people should be? This politics is garbled. New immigrants lower the leverage of domestic workers, and the leverage of previous immigrants, by intention. The myth that they move on to become mandarins that are too good for those jobs comes from people who never had to work those jobs. Black people didn't move anywhere except to even worse, less secure work. I watched a South filled with black servants serving everyone's food and doing all the hard work, turned into a South filled with black people who have $0 worth outside of the equity in their cars, and all of that (horrible shit-)work being completely closed to them because they didn't speak a foreign language. At the same time, especially in the north, I watched tons of terrible jobs filled by the barely English speaking Indian "relatives" of the people who opened franchises, and who kick back half of their checks to these "uncles", another quarter of that check goes back in remittances, and they get to live like kefala Emerati slaves. It is dystopic to consider this the compassionate choice. It's purely a matter of trend following when the people who profit from this stuff also do the media work to set the trends. The "left" were against all of this in the 90s as a central principle. Cesar Chavez gave speeches about the "wetbacks" being brought in to undercut striking workers. As a Black person born in Chicago, I was part of the Great Migration that was brought in to undercut European immigrants who were fighting for their labor rights. It doesn't make me "bad," or my family "bad." The accusation that people who object to it are demonizing immigrants is an intentional distortion and a marketing strategy for consistent hypercapitalist laissez-faire politics. I miss when "liberals" didn't have Reagan's policies. But they're a natural consequence of their having become extraordinarily wealthy from them.
- tootie 1y ago
  You're reading way too much into the word "welcome". I don't mean we should be more polite, just more intentional. Data says immigration is generally good for the economy but certainly within some parameters. I don't think any data says immigrants hurt black Americans but please cite something besides your personal observation. It does seem pretty specious to blame the least powerful people in society for the downfall of the next least powerful and not the massive wealth concentration at the top. The fact that immigration is being demonized by the same crew who want to ban discussion of racism or diversity is not a coincidence.
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
<< The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is essentially arbitrary. Most lines are. It is a line we agreed on as a society. Just for a quick comparison, 21 is a legal drinking age in US ( going after less incendiary example just to prove a point ). But, and here is my subtle point, either those are real lines or there are not. If they are real, they should be enforced and if they are not, they should be nulled. << We can and should welcome far more people than we do. Before I offer a reflexive response, I think it is worth to task a simple question: why? << Deporting people who are not violent and contributing to the economy because they have incorrect paperwork isn't a win for anyone but politicians and racists. That is amusingly neat way oh framing it, but if it only it was that simple. I want to argue against this framework, but not before you give me an idea about how you justify the why in previous section. I struggle to understand this particular perspective.
- crooked-v 1y ago
  > why? Because without immigration, the population of the US will objectively shrink over time, and that's bad for both the country in the abstract and the personal welfare of the average middle class person as they reach old age.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    Interesting, you do think the local populace is not capable of breeding? If so, can you point to the why? I might be leading you a little, but I promise only a little.
    - crooked-v 1y ago
      The US has a fertility rate of 1.6 (https://apnews.com/article/fertility-rate-us-low-cdc-replacement-532c4f43f420f29b32212db9cfa0e0af https://apnews.com/article/fertility-rate-us-low-cdc-replace...), i.e., 1.6 kids per 2 parents. Better social services and social safety nets would likely increase this some, but it would still probably be under 2, since that's the general trend for wealthy countries.
yesiamracist 1y ago
[flagged]

crooked-v 1y ago

The South Korean nationals that ICE arrested were already allowed to enter the country without a visa (for trips under 90 days) and perform business activities (such as overseeing construction and factory layout planning). That's not even targeting based on corruption, it's just trying to fill quotas without giving a shit about the rest of the country.