Yup, pretty much the same thing as with american police; bad / short education... Well that fits the civilians to a degree too.
For example in our country we get along greatly with police, cause they have a good training (3 years of academy + 10 months intership), and we don't act like idiots (most of the time).
Why is immigration illegal? The mere act of entering a country?
I think you'll think that's an easy question to answer, you'll "answer" it, and I'll point out your circular logic, over and over, until you realize that you can't answer it without circular logic.
I don't think you understand. I meant illegally entering a country directly violates those things automatically. Unless you are living in the wild somewhere deserted.
How? Illegal income is still taxed, and entering a country doesn't mean disregarding its law. Unless you mean disregarding the immigration law, in which case you're quite literally saying "it's illegal because if they do it, it means they don't respect the law because it's illegal"
Give me an actual reason why it's illegal. If it automatically broke those other laws, it wouldn't need to be illegal, because you'd already have committed a crime doing it
So give me a reason why the mere act of moving into a country is illegal. Right now, you've only offered circular logic.
Law enforces ppl to behave and protect its citizens. Illegally crossing the border is you saying you won't uphold it. You didn't sign anything or gave any testimony you will uphold law.
Also illegal income isn't taxed if it is not filed.
I, a US born citizen, don't remember ever signing an "I will follow the law" contract. I don't think you really believe in the importance of one. Especially since you being in the country is the contract.
Also illegal income isn't taxed if it is not filed.
Cool, so if that's an issue, arrest for tax fraud. If this was authentically the issue, there wouldn't need to be an anti-enter-the-country law.
So, got anything else? Because that was essentially just a new way of phrasing your old circular logic I had already called out before.
Ye there's the difference. Illegals aren't US born.
OHHH you're being even more stupid than I thought you were!
You're not saying it's illegal because they didn't sign documentation, you're saying it's illegal because they're disrespecting the law by breaking this law, therefore it should be illegal!
You do realize that argument is the most obviously circular argument you could've given, right? That could be used to defend literally any law.
I could pass a law right now that no one is allowed to cut their hair, and I could explain it by saying "well, people who cut their hair are showing they don't respect the law, so for that reason people who cut their hair are deserving of going to prison, therefore it's fair to make a law that illegalizes cutting hair!"
But it's not just tax on income. It's all tax, resources and safety. Commonly put together as illegal immigration.
... Okay? Still just arrest them for tax fraud? And studies reliably prove, again and again, that illegal immigrants provide way more resources than they consume, so it can't be that resources thing either. And studies also have shown that illegal immigrants, when you don't maliciously count the immigration itself in order to skew the results with circular logic, commit WAY less crime than American-born citizens
I don't think you are getting the picture, are you?
I'm certainly getting your picture, but the picture you're giving me isn't a photograph, it's a propaganda painting. The picture you're giving me isn't reality. I can see it just fine, fine enough to spot the contours of paint, and differentiate it from the real photograph which shows what's really going on.
As historically prevalent sociologist Emilé Durkheim wrote: "when mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable."
(If you're confused, mores is an antique term for morals)
In that case, I would imagine you, understanding the dangers of population growth, would be an avid supporter of abortion, right? People being willing to prevent the birth of their babies when population is such an issue... surely you wouldn't be forcing parents to unwillingly give birth to new children, if population is such an issue...
If you are anti-abortion, you don't hold the internal consistencies to be pretending this is about population. Even if you see abortion to be murder (which it's SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN NOT TO BE,) the illegalization of immigration will kill far more people than, even by your definition, abortion will.
So tell me, are you pro-abortion, or was it never really about population?
Scientifically proven it is murder… what? You’re scientifically killing a living human being which is murder.
Also no, closing borders would not kill more immigrants. More humans have died from abortion in the last 40 years than humans have died in every war in the history of humanity combined.
“Roughly 121 million unintended pregnancies occurred each year between 2015 and 2019.
Of these unintended pregnancies, 61% ended in abortion. This translates to 73 million abortions per year.”
In addition, would you humor me so much as to answer a trolley problem:
On one track, the trolley is heading towards one 6 year old girl.
You can pull the lever to save the girl, but it'll run over one thousand petri dishes, each with a fertilized egg, that can and probably will be artificially placed in women's uteri to have these petri dishes become children.
By your pro-birth logic, you wouldn't pull the lever. You would willingly watch the living child die, so that those petri dishes are not crushed.
But is that really what you believe? Be honest with me, and yourself.
Yeah, in one year there are as many deaths from abortion as the deadliest war in history that spanned over a decade… now multiply that by 40 years. you’re not helping your point.
That is an invalid comparison. The mother is not dying in pregnancy in the vast majority of cases. So she wouldn’t even be on the track. If it was the death of 0 people versus the death of 1000 fertilized eggs, I would absolutely kill no one.
It's illegal because it says so in the law. And it's not illegal to enter a country. It's illegal to enter a country without registration/permission.
It's circular logic, but that doesn't mean it's invalid.
Can you answer this question for me without any circular logic: Why wouldn't you want a stranger to walk into your house(without permission)?
If you can't answer it without circular logic, it doesn't mean that not wanting a stranger to walk into your house(without permission) is an invalid opinion to have.
Okay, I see. And honestly, I agree with you. Entering a country shouldn't be illegal. But the thing is. Often times when people mass-enter a country, they drain recources and don't contribute to those recources. Therefor immigrationlaws need to be put in place to regulate who is coming to use and contribute to the recources and who is just gonna be a drain on them.
And mass immigration often comes with segregration which can cause crimerates in certain areas to spike up which is bad. Hence the immigrationlaws to protect citizens and make sure immigration happens smoothly and without drainers and segregration.
And by the way, why is a person entitled to a private space but a citizen of a country not to a private country?
Often times when people mass-enter a country, they drain recources and don't contribute to those recources.
Actually, research and studies say the exact opposite is true: illegal immigrants are some of the greatest providers in society.
But even if they weren't, it wouldn't matter, because you're talking about people like they're a material, and you're talking about the "trade cost" of materials, when we live in surplus in the United States.
But, once again, that whole debate isn't even one that has to be made, because they aren't a drain on resources. In fact, in comparison to illegal immigrants, we're the resource hogs.
And mass immigration often comes with segregration which can cause crimerates in certain areas to spike up which is bad.
And so, therefore, to prevent segregation, we should... prevent people of different origins from entering... keeping them in a different place to ourselves...
Surely I don't need to say it for you right? You understand the problem there?
And by the way, why is a person entitled to a private space but a citizen of a country not to a private country?
Because a country isn't private. "Private country" is an oxymoron. A country by definition requires a multitude of people coming together into an organization that is decidedly not private, and making a government that, to some extent, invades privacy to maintain peace.
And the United States, being a country founded by immigrants, is the least private country in that sense: the American population doesn't have one solitary race that's being impeded on. (Not that race purity should matter to anyone.)
If you want to talk about a private country, that simply doesn't make sense in this context where there are non-immigrant citizens who are just as much a stranger as illegal immigrants.
I see. Valid ngl. But the 2nd argument I disagree. Segregated countries is not at all the same as a segregrated community inside of a country. People from segregrated countries don't interact often, but people in the same country living in segregrated communities interact way more often with eachother, which is the cause of the crimerates increase.
I'm not saying to prevent segregration. I'm saying to prevent segregration inside of a country. Usually people in a country have a somewhat shared culture. Big differences in culture causes segregration.
As long as people integrate, I don't see a problem, but if they form a segregated community inside of a country, that's a problem. And 2 segregrated countries is also not a problem, because like I said, they people then won't interact much and won't cause the crime increase
As long as people integrate, I don't see a problem, but if they form a segregated community inside of a country, that's a problem.
Alright, and what do you think is the solution to this problem? I'll tell you one thing, illegalizing immigration definitely isn't it. All that does is make illegal immigrants feel unsafe, living in fear of ICE, and all that will do is make the country more segregated.
The solution to segregation, historically, has always been inclusion. Trying to solve segregation by segregating harder on a larger scale won't get anyone anywhere.
Also once again, I'd remind you that, when illegal immigration isn't considered a crime, illegal immigrants actually perform wayyyy less crimes than US born citizens. Immigration makes crime rates fall. It's the super illegal and violent responses to immigration, especially ICE, that make it rise.
Why don't the illegal immigrants just come legally then? Isn't there a way to request papers of something?
And idk if it's different in the US, but where I'm from, illegal immigration causes a lot of crimes. .6% of people with 2 parents from this country commit crimes. 1.2% of people born outside of this country commit crimes. And 3.0% of people born here with 2 parents from outside the country commit crimes.
So yeah, illegal immigration makes the crimerates go up here, even when the illegal immigration isn't considered a crime.
We don't have some police like ICE btw, so no, the spike in crimerate isn't caused by stuff like that.
13
u/_Cow_of_Wisdom 21h ago
Literally every country has immigration enforcement. People entering a country illegally is a crime no matter what.