There's no such thing as "coming to the US illegally" if you cross at a border checkpoint with a valid stamp or visa. There are only visa or stamp overstays, which is a civil matter. Your analogy to Australia is specious because the vast majority of people being rounded up and detained came here legally on a visa, and then stopped meeting the requirements of that visa. Australia's law is specific to people who bypassed our border checkpoints, since you would have needed a visa or a stamp to get through in the first place.
It is a matter of your opinion whether court proceedings are "frivolous." We have a common law system here in the US which allows a judge some latitude in their decisionmaking, up to and including issuing a ruling contrary to established precedent when the precedent doesn't make any sense in the specific situation we're in. If we want to continue having trials, we have to allow even trials which we consider cut and dried so that the truth may be examined and an informed judgement rendered. This is the heart of our civilization and if you throw that away then you will see how brutal things can get without our system.
"Australian law requires the detention of all non-citizens who are in Australia without a valid visa (unlawful non-citizens). This means that immigration officials have no choice but to detain persons who arrive without a visa (unauthorised arrivals), or persons who arrive with a visa and subsequently become unlawful because their visa has expired or been cancelled (authorised arrivals). Australian law makes no distinction between the detention of adults and children."
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.
> 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?
> 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.
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.
Oh no, immigrants! What a terrible issue. Let’s worry about that rather than the problems created by wealthy people who are citizens of this country. Every person who cares deeply about immigration unknowingly signals that their priorities are bullshit.
Exactly. And now that labor's bargaining power has been thoroughly smashed for good, the problem they've perpetuated and grown serves as a convenient excuse for the need for lawless terror gangs and concentration camps to keep disempowered and desperate people in their place.
I'm frankly amazed at how people can look at the capital strike orchestrated with the AI narrative, protests being attacked by the aforementioned jackboots, the big tech authoritarians taking the gloves off, and a corrupt pay-to-play administration looting our country, and then conclude that any of this will somehow lead to everyday citizens being more enfranchised.
Sure, immigration reform could have achieved this twenty years ago. But powerful business interests didn't let it happen then, so it behooves you to start questioning why they are outright championing it now!
> People who think immigration isn't important are just ignorant about culture and the reasons some societies are more successful than others.
I'm sorry, friend. You're announcing yourself as the worst kind of USA person. No one is less than us. Our success is a lot of luck (Europe destroyed post-WWII), not because we were special.
“One of the points I want to make is a lot of the big institutions we think about, like Western law or representative government, actually flow, in part, from the way people think about the world. It wasn’t that people invented these institutions first and then they began to think about the world differently. Rather, this was a kind of evolving process where people began to think about the world a little bit differently because their families had been transformed, so they tended to adopt different kinds of laws and think about new kinds of laws to account for this. As European societies became increasingly dominated by monogamous nuclear families in the High Middle Ages, for instance, the laws being created centered increasingly on the individual and on their intentions, rights, and obligations as separate from their kin groups. Those laws then shaped the world that they subsequently grew up in even more, and you had this kind of coevolution between our psychology on one hand and our social norms and institutions on the other.”
That’s in the Harvard Gazette from September 2020! The book was covered in the New York Times and Psychology Today. So what’s with the innuendo?
I'm sorry, buddy. I recognize your name. I don't know if that's because your comments are high quality or low quality. But these posts are low quality. I find your arguments absurd.
America is a nation of immigrants, including Stephen Miller's grandparents. People have tried to make this sort of argument in the past when they didn't want poor Irish, Germans, Italians, Asians looking for opportunity, not to mention there's always been a Latino immigrant population.
You can't invoke America's track record of immigration without noting that, the last time the foreign born population hit present levels, the country pumped the brakes on immigration through restrictive immigration policy that dropped the foreign-born population from 15% in 1920 to under 5% by 1970. The country also aggressively pushed immigrants to abandon their cultural identities and assimilate into Anglo culture.
You also can't overlook that prior waves of mass immigration also caused decades of negative consequences in the meantime, from the emergence of nationality-based political machines in major cities to the Italian mafia. And you can't overlook that mass immigration changed the culture of parts of the country permanently, in many cases for the worse. Immigrants that formed enclaves in New Jersey never fully adopted the American attitudes towards civic society, the role of government, the rule of law, etc., that still exist in pockets of the country like New Hampshire.
You missed the part where a racist asshole gets to abuse people who aren't white.
I lit my relationship with my mother on fire because she voted for the man responsible for hurting people a third time. Once, you were fooled. Twice, you were dumb. Three times, you're racist.
If I were steven miller [doesn't deserve caps], I'd be having a great time.
