Is it racist to oppose illegal immigrants?
-
So clearly you didn't fully read my comment, so why should I expend the effort typing out a response? It would be a waste if you're just going to read part of it and then ask questions I've already given the answer to.
ask questions I’ve already given the answer to
You have given a vague idealistic vision, not an answer.
ending imperialism and colonialism
And how exactly would that happen? Id like you to elaborate if you have any ideas
-
What. Are. Your. Arguments?
Put them into words. Dont send me a video.
-
Without a one world government that could police people cross border, wouldn't it be all to easy walk in to a country, do a bit crime, and then walk to the next one? Not to mention human trafficking problems if no one was tracked how they travel across countries.
Knowing that the system as it is now is wrong does not make me an expert on how we could prevent issues. But some people being able to "do a bit of crime" easier is probably better than the human rights violations that are occurring now. And even otherwise, open borders doesn't inherently mean nothing with no one checking people. Just means you can freely travel. But also, Europe doesn't seem to have an issue of people popping cross the border to "do a bit of crime" and go home to get off scott free. Because that's not how borders and laws work.
And human trafficking is a problem with the world as it is currently. So that's not stopping anything. And hell, it makes "illegal" immigrants easier targets of this kind of exploitation. Can't really get much help if you're in the country illegally and your family member is kidnapped.
-
Even if the law bars say only pedodiles from entry? Just hung up on the word anyone here. I'm guessing there are some number of people we can all agree should be kept outside of a given sect of people. Even back in the day there would be exile's.
Then if we say some number of people should be bared there would be a "right" way.
I'm not saying immigration policy is good now. Far from it.
Who decides if someone's a pedophile or not? How are you going to track that? Force people to take a test or something? Hell, currently we're in a world where queer people, especially trans people, are called "groomers" and "pedophiles" for the sheer act of being trans. So you call people you don't want to come in pedophiles and then they can't come in. Nope, no trans people allowed because we're all "pedophiles" according to the government.
Okay what, you're going to limit it to people who've been convicted of child sex crimes. Well, then they make the existence of people who they don't like count as sex crimes. Again, as is happening to trans people. Existing in public as yourself is a crime so you're charged and treated the same as a pedophile.
So we've already covered why your logic is completely broken and this idea is stupid. But let's push all of that aside. For the sake of argument, best case scenario, we are only talking about actual genuine pedophiles. Have they committed a crime? Are they in prison? Then they're not crossing any borders since they're incarcerated.
What if they haven't committed a crime yet? Well then we'd have no way of knowing they're a pedophile unless they admitted it themselves. And no these people shouldn't be punished just for having those sexual desires. For one, most people are able to control themselves despite sexual urges. Cases of rapes and sexual assault are the result of power dynamics, not random uncontrollable urges. And two, these people should be given help given this could cause genuine mental distress.
What if they've committed a crime but served their time? Well, what justification is there to stop them? What if they harm another child? Well what if they do it in their own country? That's not going to make a difference. And this also goes into the complex issue that is the prison system and how it's largely useless at doing anything other than containing people as a punishment rather than actually attempting to help reform people.
Anyway no, I don't think there's any justification for restricting any kind of "undesirable" from entering a country. Beyond anything else, it just ends up a loophole to punish any group of people you don't like by branding them as that undesirable. Same for every human right. If it doesn't apply to everyone then it applies to no one.
And if you're a special kind of dumbass who'd say "well what about nazis/the kkk/etc", the answer is that ideologies that are inherently intolerant of other people just for existing do not get the benefit of tolerance themselves.
-
Thanks for a well-written reply. Here's some quick responses:
1... as mentioned the primary costs here come from increased crime which is hard to document. In high trust societies (which social welfare countries usually are) this has a disproportionately negative impact on the economy. Also, in several Scandinavian countries everyone has a right to emergency healthcare, regardless of their immigration status.
2... I believe you're correct when it comes to countries with less social welfare such as the US, however, this isn't the case in countries with robust social welfare systems. As recently as 2023 Denmark assessed the net contribution of migrants and their descendants on the public finances and published the results. The sum total effect of migrants was negative (-19B DKK). Per capita the average Dane had an impact of (22k DKK) per year and the average migrant (-21k DKK). Some migrant/migrant descendant subgroups were better or worse than others (best 52k DKK, worst -109k).
3... Sure, I assume this accounts for other societal costs such as law enforcement and crime?
4... See the response to #2. The taxes don't cover the costs.
Thanks for your response. Your argument is convincing and I have no refutation, I appreciate you taking the time.
The only thing I would say is I bet this is still fixable with policy without having to ban or restrict immigration. But alas, that's a different discussion, and your point that there are valid non racist reasons to criticize immigration is correct. Thanks again!
-
What. Are. Your. Arguments?
Put them into words. Dont send me a video.
You asked for an example
-
Lol, that's for legal migrants
You can apply online for a change to your conditions if your financial circumstances change and you:
- have permission to stay on the basis of your family or private life
- have applied for permission to stay on the basis of your family or private life
- have permission to stay with a close relative with protection status as a child
- hold a British National (Overseas) visa
- have permission granted on any other immigration route and you want to apply on a discretionary basis because your circumstances are particularly compelling
Note the permission thing.
They only let you stay with your family if you're earning at least £29k
-
Thanks for your response. Your argument is convincing and I have no refutation, I appreciate you taking the time.
The only thing I would say is I bet this is still fixable with policy without having to ban or restrict immigration. But alas, that's a different discussion, and your point that there are valid non racist reasons to criticize immigration is correct. Thanks again!
No worries. I think the more interesting discussion that I'd like to have at some point is how a good system for immigration actually looks. It's not a trivial problem to solve and can't be done in isolation either. Societies are systems where everything is interlinked in one way or another.
-
Who decides if someone's a pedophile or not? How are you going to track that? Force people to take a test or something? Hell, currently we're in a world where queer people, especially trans people, are called "groomers" and "pedophiles" for the sheer act of being trans. So you call people you don't want to come in pedophiles and then they can't come in. Nope, no trans people allowed because we're all "pedophiles" according to the government.
Okay what, you're going to limit it to people who've been convicted of child sex crimes. Well, then they make the existence of people who they don't like count as sex crimes. Again, as is happening to trans people. Existing in public as yourself is a crime so you're charged and treated the same as a pedophile.
So we've already covered why your logic is completely broken and this idea is stupid. But let's push all of that aside. For the sake of argument, best case scenario, we are only talking about actual genuine pedophiles. Have they committed a crime? Are they in prison? Then they're not crossing any borders since they're incarcerated.
What if they haven't committed a crime yet? Well then we'd have no way of knowing they're a pedophile unless they admitted it themselves. And no these people shouldn't be punished just for having those sexual desires. For one, most people are able to control themselves despite sexual urges. Cases of rapes and sexual assault are the result of power dynamics, not random uncontrollable urges. And two, these people should be given help given this could cause genuine mental distress.
What if they've committed a crime but served their time? Well, what justification is there to stop them? What if they harm another child? Well what if they do it in their own country? That's not going to make a difference. And this also goes into the complex issue that is the prison system and how it's largely useless at doing anything other than containing people as a punishment rather than actually attempting to help reform people.
Anyway no, I don't think there's any justification for restricting any kind of "undesirable" from entering a country. Beyond anything else, it just ends up a loophole to punish any group of people you don't like by branding them as that undesirable. Same for every human right. If it doesn't apply to everyone then it applies to no one.
And if you're a special kind of dumbass who'd say "well what about nazis/the kkk/etc", the answer is that ideologies that are inherently intolerant of other people just for existing do not get the benefit of tolerance themselves.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not sure where the vitriol is coming from. Did I do something to personally offend you? I'm guessing you are just not fully comfortable with your ideas.
Force people to take a test or something?
"Would you have sex with this child holds up picture of child?" "Yes..." "Well, you are not allowed in." Yeah, I would be okay with that tbh.
anyone
“well what about nazis/the kkk/etc”, the answer is that ideologies that are inherently intolerant of other people just for existing do not get the benefit of tolerance themselves.
Oh so we agree as I said in my original post "Just hung up on the word anyone here" you would prevent some amount of people from coming over... So it's not inherently racist to make nazis/kkk immigration illegal?
-
Not sure where the vitriol is coming from. Did I do something to personally offend you? I'm guessing you are just not fully comfortable with your ideas.
Force people to take a test or something?
"Would you have sex with this child holds up picture of child?" "Yes..." "Well, you are not allowed in." Yeah, I would be okay with that tbh.
anyone
“well what about nazis/the kkk/etc”, the answer is that ideologies that are inherently intolerant of other people just for existing do not get the benefit of tolerance themselves.
Oh so we agree as I said in my original post "Just hung up on the word anyone here" you would prevent some amount of people from coming over... So it's not inherently racist to make nazis/kkk immigration illegal?
Ah so you are that special kind of dumbass.
-
I wonder how old you are. Seems you're missing the population issue. I can go on and on, but I'm 54 and I've seen demographics and population change radically. Fine with the demographic changes, but I can see some being alarmed that "their" country is being taken away. Don't agree, but I get the sentiment.
As I've seen the planet's population more than double in my life, seen the countryside paved over for strip malls, I'm screaming, "NO MORE FUCKING PEOPLE!" Who's to blame? Can you see how it's easier to blame the "other"?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Well the population itself is not even 1/100th 'at capacity' in the US. The distribution of the population is certainly a cause for concern, and infrastructure is sorely in need of upgrade, but those are management problems. These are arguably exacerbated by the the fear of 'who' the increased infrastructure would be for, but it is in no way driven by lack of resources or space. We have huge swathes of crop land subsidized into non-food crops, crazy amounts of unoccupied land, ready access to transportation if we had drivers. Maybe the most restrictive resource is water and workforce. No magic fix for the former, but immigration would directly fix the later.
You may not want more towns/cities, and additional building should be done with pollution in mind, but it really comes down to 'not in my backyard'-ism. There are a lot of people that exist, through no fault of their own, and to say they should live in even more cramped and dangerous environments than you just so you can afford more elbow room is exactly my point. It's not legal or logistics reasons the US doesn't want more immigration, it's primarily culture and racism. Good or bad, i'd be willing to bet when someone moves in down the street with a German accent most people will think, at worst, it's kind of interesting, but if they are dark skinned or speak Spanish, a whole bunch of people that didn't bat an eye at the German immigrant, legal or otherwise, will suddenly have concerns about 'over population'.
