Sure, not as bad. Woohoo.
Sure, not as bad. Woohoo.
Planning, attempting to, or helping people escape (not stay) was the #1 reason for Stasi arrests.
Specifically, the most frequent Stasi arrest charges were Republikflucht ("fleeing the republic") and Fluchthelfer ("helping others flee")
Also, the Stasi ran on roughly 1 informant per 60–180 residents. Your network of friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors would have several. They officially criminalized private speech, correspondence and travel. The US surveillance system is bad, but the Stasi informant network and set of official consequences was at such a level as to cause constant fear and dread for everyone.
- as a citizen, being arrested for trying to leave
- as an illegal alien, being arrested for trying to stay
Those are literally structural opposites of each other.
The actions differ, the consequences are the same.
Iceland and the UK in particular. They wouldn't even let me in at London Heathrow without a printed out return ticket (I had to run over to the British Airways desk to get a copy).
Either way - I was not allowed to stay longer than a few weeks.
That's not a wrong thing, it's very normal. If you want to stay, you have to apply for residency.
By 1) relying on such labour and 2) denying either lawful entry or any plausible path to permanent status for the vast majority of these workers and their families, not to mention many, many, many broken promises along the way (asylum, DREAM Act, don't get me started on Native American treaties), the U.S. has de facto maintained a legally-underprivileged and disadvantaged working class long after the statutory prohibition of (most) slavery and indentured servitude.
Yes, there are also economic and political circumstances within the US geopolitical orbit which encourage inward migration. That too cannot be separated from long-standing U.S. foreign, economic, and military policies within the region.
This needs to stop.
Both have seen repeated attempts at repeal by the GOP and present US Administration, and effective status rescinded.
The GOP has embraced the historical Democratic position with enthusiasm. The Democratic party has stood for civil rights since the 1960s, with former segregationists and white nationalists first joining, then taking over, the GOP. See: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49402261>.
Attempting to resurrect long-dead, long-irrelevant, and now fully-reversed political descriptions can be taken as a prima facie declaration of bad faith.
Do better please.
Not so fast. The victimhood/systemic-inequality mentality has a perhaps counterintuitive effect: while on the surface it does seem to help individuals, collectively it perpetuates an underclass.
25 years ago, no one thought twice if a minority member or person of color was in a prestigious position. Now, many people silently wonder if the desire to manipulate the distribution of various previously-protected categories contributed to the decision to hire that person.
"Among black students in colleges and universities, those admitted under lower standards face a higher failure rate and those admitted under the same standards as other students graduate with their credentials under a cloud of suspicion because of double standards for minority students in general." -- Thomas Sowell
There are very few if any country that does not enforce immigration rules. Let any American try to live illegally in Canada. Sure, they can live under the radar like you can in Mexico too, but if they catch up to you, goodbye. Mexico doesn’t even treat its own returning citizens well. If you have not been a taxpayer you have to assume many things tax paying Mexicans get for free like education and healthcare. People act like we’re an aberration for enforcing immigration laws. We’re not. Go check out South Africa and see how they treat illegals.
The one place where any hard working person was welcome.
What is the protectionism even for? The US doesn't have a great social system that can be exploited.
Those"illegals"? They were making sandwiches and cleaning toilets, and this is their reward.
Yes we can have legal immigrants that fill skills gaps. Thats not an issue for 95% of Americans so long as it’s done justly (and not simply a way to pay workers less).
Immigration has an official legal process to follow.
Why is that so bad? If the law needs to change - fine, change it. But allowing people to break the law is to enable collapse of the rule of law.
Forgive my comparison, but it illustrates the problem.
The law cannot be allowed to become lawless itself, depriving the people of their rights to fast track the pre-determined punishment.
None of those are needed for enforcing immigration law. This is a choice, supported by a lot of people who should have known better.