The News Thread

[Dak]

Collectively administered, yes--and some people (many, in fact) in the national community might not have a problem with opening those spaces to immigrants, especially since many of them obtain their own private property through entirely legal and taxable means.

Sure, legal immigrants. We're talking about illegals and anchor babies. That sort of conflation between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants is part of the reason why Trump is sitting in the White House. More and more people are fed up with it even if they can't label it quite accurately, explicitly. I can, it's a lie of omission, and it's what makes Fake News, fake news.

 

[Einherjar86]

Marxists don't know the meaning of the phrases 'sovereign nation', 'national security', or 'border control'

I actually do know the meaning of all those things. Maybe Marxists don't, but I wouldn't know.

Sure, legal immigrants. We're talking about illegals and anchor babies. That sort of conflation between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants is part of the reason why Trump is sitting in the White House. More and more people are fed up with it even if they can't label it quite accurately, explicitly. I can, it's a lie of omission, and it's what makes Fake News, fake news.

You've accused me of conflating legal and illegal immigration before. That's not what's happening here.

Committing one illegal act doesn't automatically render all your other acts illegal. An immigrant can enter the country illegally (according to U.S. law) and then proceed to act lawfully (also according to U.S. law).

In another respect, there are global rights and there are national rights. In the case of immigration, these are inextricable domains.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It renders their entire existence illegal as long as they continue to illegally occupy a nation that isn't their own.

If there is a global rights issue, the UN or whoever should invade Central America and nip the problem in the bud. The problem is only inextricable when several layers of bureaucratic bullshit make it impossible to do anything about the issue.

 

[Einherjar86]

It renders their entire existence illegal as long as they continue to illegally occupy a nation that isn't their own.

Entirely untrue. No one's mere existence is illegal, no matter how heinous the act they committed.

Illegal immigration refers to the act of illegal entry, not illegal occupation. If a person steals a television set, they aren't arrested for watching it. They're arrested for stealing.

If there is a global rights issue, the UN or whoever should invade Central America and nip the problem in the bud. The problem is only inextricable when several layers of bureaucratic bullshit make it impossible to do anything about the issue.

Well, it would be great if things were that simple.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Their existence within our borders is illegal. It's a continuous violation of law. Same as trespassing.

Things can be simple, they're just intentionally made complex in order to prevent any resolution of the issue. Deporting illegals was no problem at all when Hoover and Eisenhower did it.

 

[CiG]

The house is only private property so long as the commie mongs like Mort don't get their way and abolish the very concept of private property.

 

[The Ozzman]

 

[Einherjar86]

Their existence within our borders is illegal. It's a continuous violation of law. Same as trespassing.

No, it's not. Trespassing can only be against private or otherwise prohibited territory. A country doesn't fall under this category.

Things can be simple, they're just intentionally made complex in order to prevent any resolution of the issue. Deporting illegals was no problem at all when Hoover and Eisenhower did it.

We also don't live in the 1950s anymore. Simplicity isn't always desirable.

 

[CiG]

No, it's not. Trespassing can only be against private or otherwise prohibited territory. A country doesn't fall under this category.

Tell that to the sovereign Native American tribal nations, see how fast they laugh and boot your ass out.

 

[Einherjar86]

Tell that to the sovereign Native American tribal nations, see how fast they laugh and boot your ass out.

Native Americans were supplanted and displaced by invading colonial forces. Immigrants aren't supplanting anyone; they're merely trying to become part of the U.S.

I'm sure Native attitudes would be entirely different if Europeans were like "Hey hey, we love your community and want to join!"

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, it's not. Trespassing can only be against private or otherwise prohibited territory. A country doesn't fall under this category.

We also don't live in the 1950s anymore. Simplicity isn't always desirable.

Trespassing is more analogous to illegal immigration than television theft, and it's not simply about the instance of entry, as "elud[ing] examination or inspection by immigration officers" (8 U.S. Code § 1325) states.

It's close to always desirable. It's certainly always more desirable than a system of laws so complex and ambiguous that they're applied and enforced arbitrarily according to however the interpreting power at the moment feels like interpreting them, which is hardly a system of laws at all.

 

[CiG]

I'm sure Native attitudes would be entirely different if Europeans were like "Hey hey, we love your community and want to join!"

They'd say "okay do it within the bounds of our laws."

Native Americans were supplanted and displaced by invading colonial forces. Immigrants aren't supplanting anyone; they're merely trying to become part of the U.S.

I'm talking about Native Americans today mate. Nobody gives a shit (outside of some ethno-nats) if immigrants actually come to their country legally. Conflating immigration with illegal entry is such a typical slimeball leftist thing to do, and you keep doing it as if nobody sees through it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Trespassing is more analogous to illegal immigration than television theft, and it's not simply about the instance of entry, as "elud[ing] examination or inspection by immigration officers" (8 U.S. Code § 1325) states.

Trespassing isn't analogous at all. That's the problem.

Immigrants who purchase their own private property aren't trespassing against anyone because they haven't invaded anyone else's private property. The scales of occupation totally change the application of laws.

Eluding inspection isn't the same as occupation. You want to extend particular violations to the entire existence of illegal immigrants, but that's not the case. It doesn't render all their actions illegitimate.

Some disclaim the weak “You wouldn’t let an immigrant sleep in your bed” private property arguments, but insist that as a collective, the nation privately owns its land and can exclude non-citizens at will. In this version of the argument, the nation as a collective owns its public spaces, and morally may exclude foreign nationals from these public spaces.

This more sophisticated version of the private property argument falls flat for a different reason: it holds public stewards of law and order to the same bar as private property owners. In this telling, a democratic majority, or democratically-elected government, may exclude anyone from public spaces, because they are acting as private property owners.

But private property owners aren’t accountable in the same way that a public government is. The organs of the state are not the private property of a democratic majority. Public institutions do not belong to their citizens in quite the same way that I own my personal computer or refrigerator. I can do whatever I like with my personal property. Governments cannot do whatever they like with the organs of the state, even if a majority of citizens approve.

https://openborders.info/blog/confu...sical-private-property-argument-open-borders/

It's close to always desirable. It's certainly always more desirable than a system of laws so complex and ambiguous that they're applied and enforced arbitrarily according to however the interpreting power at the moment feels like interpreting them, which is hardly a system of laws at all.

Simplicity is only desirable to those whose perspective is simple. That's not a value judgment, just a contradistinction. Complexity isn't prima facie better than simplicity, but neither is it prima facie worse.

Also, simplicity favors those who make the laws. We have layers of "bullshit bureaucracy" because, thankfully, we live in a modern world that acknowledges global disparity.

They'd say "okay do it within the bounds of our laws."

As we tell immigrants, you mean...?

I'm talking about Native Americans today mate. Nobody gives a shit (outside of some ethno-nats) if immigrants actually come to their country legally. Conflating immigration with illegal entry is such a typical slimeball leftist thing to do, and you keep doing it as if nobody sees through it.

Sovereign tribes today are historical products of colonial displacement. Their entire organization in modern American culture is one of constant defense and suspicion toward the national government; and their status is closer to that of immigrants than white Americans, which is why they're on constant defense. In other words, American objection to illegal entry isn't comparable to Native tribes' objections to non-Native peoples living on their land.

And I've only been talking about illegal entry. Not one of my examples has been about, or implied, legal immigration.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Trespassing isn't analogous at all. That's the problem.

Immigrants who purchase their own private property aren't trespassing against anyone because they haven't invaded anyone else's private property. The scales of occupation totally change the application of laws.

More intentional definition obfuscation and goal-post moving.

Eluding inspection isn't the same as occupation. You want to extend particular violations to the entire existence of illegal immigrants, but that's not the case. It doesn't render all their actions illegitimate.

Never said that all of their actions are illegitimate, but all of their actions are committed while simultaneously illegitimately residing within our country.

Simplicity is only desirable to those whose perspective is simple. That's not a value judgment, just a contradistinction. Complexity isn't prima facie better than simplicity, but neither is it prima facie worse.

Also, simplicity favors those who make the laws. We have layers of "bullshit bureaucracy" because, thankfully, we live in a modern world that acknowledges global disparity.

I'm curious what your position is on the benefits of single-payer vs multi-payer healthcare. I'm fairly certain that most legitimate businesses would strongly disagree that simplicity is not desirable. (Illegitimate businesses, e.g. complex fraudulent investment schemes, would side with you, however.) Every scientist starts with a complex network of data and tries ideally to derive a simple model from it. The reason you believe that simplicity isn't desirable is because you don't seek understanding of the world, you just engaging in philosophical windowgazing and write fiction about it. Story-telling is the only legitimate profession I can think of where complexity sometimes wins out.

If simplicity favors those who make the laws, why has American legal code exploded in complexity over the last several decades? Global disparity has nothing to do with unenforceable laws being written. If addressing global disparity was the main issue, any sympathetic politician could easily draft a simple bill that drastically raises our current immigration cap, or that repeals the existence of immigration laws entirely.

 

[CiG]

Sovereign tribes today are historical products of colonial displacement. Their entire organization in modern American culture is one of constant defense and suspicion toward the national government; and their status is closer to that of immigrants than white Americans, which is why they're on constant defense. In other words, American objection to illegal entry isn't comparable to Native tribes' objections to non-Native peoples living on their land.

Is this another case of the left projecting their bigotry onto other whites in defense of minorities or do you have actual examples that "their status is closer to that of immigrants than white Americans, which is why they're on constant defense" is true?

Also, I think it's pretty healthy to live with a consistent suspicion and defensiveness towards the national government. This is a big reason why so many people fight to uphold their right to bear arms while the tankies lick the state's balls and try to disarm everybody.

Native Americans are very intelligent in that case.

But I disagree, Native American sovereign nations opposing illegal entry in 2018 is completely comparable to Americans opposing illegal entry into America, I really don't give a shit about your progressive stack worldview and neither does anybody else.

 

[CiG]

Whitey Bulger died after apparent beating in West Virginia prison, sources say.

Holy fuck.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... awesome news. That snitch should have been snuffed out a long time ago tbh.

 

[CiG]

Yeah good riddance.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

https://www.theonion.com/god-confirms-whitey-bulger-sent-to-hell-for-snitching-1830111656

Lol

 

[Dak]

Trespassing isn't analogous at all. That's the problem.

Immigrants who purchase their own private property aren't trespassing against anyone because they haven't invaded anyone else's private property. The scales of occupation totally change the application of laws.

https://openborders.info/blog/confu...sical-private-property-argument-open-borders/

This article is a prime example of missing the point, which I was certainly guilty of at one point when I accepted these arguments. Few "confuse the public and private square", so the author does little more here than strawman. Then the author objects to the "more sophisticated" (ie, the actual) version of the collective property defense argument not by saying it's illegal or unprecedented, but that it's unjust. What's his moral argument for this?

I think

Private property rights exist within the bounds of the borders of the jurisdictional authorities which secure those rights, which is something you've certainly argued before, although not explicitly in this application; there are no inherent rights. You (and I mean both you yourself and other US citizens) have no private property rights in Mexico, or China, etc. In practice, you don't even have personal property rights in most other countries. You have rights in this country as a citizen. Illegal immigrants are not citizens, and therefore have no rights other than that which may or may not be granted by said authorities. If you're arguing for the degree of rights which may/should be granted based on moral grounds, that's another matter/argument.