|
| Thread: Immigration policies and their effect on foreign and domestic nationals |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 27, 2014 04:52 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 16:54, 27 Jan 2014.
|
mvassilev said:
It's worth mentioning that prisons can have a desocializing effect, by putting criminals around other criminals (so they can absorb criminal norms from each other) as well as removing them from the workforce for some number of years (which makes it harder to get a job).
Those desocialising effects are likely to grow stronger the longer the person stays in a prison with no signs of getting out within a reasonable period of time.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 05:01 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Then what is the nature, or purpose, of prisons???
In my opinion their purpose is to keep criminals from committing more crimes. If there are strong reasons to believe that they wouldn't do that as free individuals then I see no point in keeping them locked in.
As for immigration, one of the greatest goals of the 21st century should be to gradually achieve universal free migration (the free movement within the EU is a first step). Individuals, not states, have rights so no government border should stop people from realising their dreams and ambitions.
lol, your pov is so cute, xerox. no offense, i'm sure i had the same ideas as you at some point, although mine were of a more malicious nature.
the problem with prison, is that when someone is locked up, they are mixed in with people of all criminal statures. it's like a college for criminals. sure, they're doing time, but for most of them, it's training time. they try to learn from the mistakes that put them in there, and not mistakes in the moral sense. you have to understand, many criminals have a set way of thinking, that's what got them locked up, because of how they think led to the events that led up to their arrest. that's not going to change when they go to prison, they have some version of counseling, but most cons just use it to take time off their sentence. the "i'm nice, see, you can let me back out, i'm playing by the rules, you can trust me" bull****. of course, not all of them are bad, there are people who genuinely learn from their mistakes, but you have to understand that there's a criminal culture, that's not going to go away, that is in fact, promoted in different ways.
now, take from that, the guys who only half-asses their commitment to "treatment". they get back out on the street, they're going to find themselves back in the culture that helped put them there in the first place. now, an honest job for these guys? think about it, in today's job market, how many employers are going to hire ex-cons? there's only one kind of job, off the top of my head, that i can think of, and that's physical labor(roofing, concrete, etc).
think about the pay, too, that comes with honest jobs, for people with no experience. now, compare that to how much money you can make dealing crack(specifically, here). do you know how much money crack dealers make? i'm not sure if you can find that info on google, but try it. i talked to some guys a decade ago, they were telling me how much they can make in one night, or on payday, or during a weekend. it's nothing to crack jokes about, it's serious ****ing money. we're talking $10,000 and up in a day/night(verified through other sources at the time, and since then). and that was a decade ago. crime is high returns, with equally high risk. many people stop caring about the risk, once they know how much there is to make.
but i'm getting off track here, so i'll stop with the prison bull****.
now, on to what is supposed to be discussed in this thread: immigration, it's laws, and how they affect the populace of different countries.
now, xerox, when you say that everyone should be free to roam, no borders to stop anyone, i agree with you, from the moral standpoint. i'm all for freedom. but it's just not do-able. in reality, you have diseases that get widespread fast, with no control over who goes where, and when. then, take into account that there is a supply/demand rate for food, water, housing, etc., that is documented as much as possible, so that there is always adequate supplies for the populace. if people were constantly coming and going, there'd be no way to gauge what is needed.
this isn't everything i can think of, but i'm done writing for now, as i'm becoming bored with it. i'll just leave off with:
xerox, if good people can come and go as they please, so can bad people. and everything that they can do to the populace, comes with them. kidnapping, rape, murder, etc., etc. no, the "free world" that you think of, would make it too easy for the bad guys. think of the terrorists, think of the drug cartels. ****, surveillance would be a nightmare.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 05:06 PM |
|
|
People are free to roam within the US, and no one thinks that's a problem, not even if criminals from Detroit move to wealthy neighborhoods in San Francisco. Why shouldn't the same be the case for the world as a whole?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 05:58 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
People are free to roam within the US, and no one thinks that's a problem, not even if criminals from Detroit move to wealthy neighborhoods in San Francisco. Why shouldn't the same be the case for the world as a whole?
well, i've already mentioned easier disease migration, increased ease of expanding criminal empires, lack of census, lack of "rationing"...
do you really want me to keep going? do you really think it will help you to mention the united states as an example for your side of this discussion? or are you just trying to get me to point out that the u.s. isn't that shining beacon of hope that elodin described it as? either way, i have discussed my thoughts on both fronts, many times over. humanity needs limits. they've crossed too many lines as it is. they have to get the "treating each other better" idea right, before they can move on to the "togetherness" idea. right now, humanity is up it's own ass, or in the doghouse, however you want to phrase it.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 06:01 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 18:07, 27 Jan 2014.
|
fred79 said:
the problem with prison, is that when someone is locked up, they are mixed in with people of all criminal statures. it's like a college for criminals. sure, they're doing time, but for most of them, it's training time. they try to learn from the mistakes that put them in there, and not mistakes in the moral sense. you have to understand, many criminals have a set way of thinking, that's what got them locked up, because of how they think led to the events that led up to their arrest. that's not going to change when they go to prison, they have some version of counseling, but most cons just use it to take time off their sentence.
I doubt very much most criminals are slaves to some sort of innate predisposition towards committing crimes. Had that been the case, then shouldn't we see similar crime rates in all countries of the world? Now I'm no criminologist but I believe the risk of an individual commiting a crime is influenced by a combination of biological and social factors. The latter has a lot of potential to change but it's also (increasingly) possible to change biological tendencies (chemical castration).
Quote:
now, take from that, the guys who only half-asses their commitment to "treatment". they get back out on the street, they're going to find themselves back in the culture that helped put them there in the first place. now, an honest job for these guys? think about it, in today's job market, how many employers are going to hire ex-cons? there's only one kind of job, off the top of my head, that i can think of, and that's physical labor(roofing, concrete, etc).
Not all employers ask about your criminal career. But this also depends on what kind of labour market you have. If you have a labour market with high demands on the labour force then obviously ex-cons will have a harder time getting back.
Quote:
think about the pay, too, that comes with honest jobs, for people with no experience. now, compare that to how much money you can make dealing crack(specifically, here). do you know how much money crack dealers make?
I am aware of how lucrative the black drug market can be. Which is yet another crime reduction argument for legalising those drugs.
Quote:
xerox, if good people can come and go as they please, so can bad people. and everything that they can do to the populace, comes with them. kidnapping, rape, murder, etc., etc. no, the "free world" that you think of, would make it too easy for the bad guys. think of the terrorists, think of the drug cartels. ****, surveillance would be a nightmare.
you think drug cartels and terrorist organisations care about borders? a lot of honest people who are not members of criminal groups but just want to create a better life for themselves do though. I'm also having a hard time understanding the "rationing of supplies" argument. For one, that's not how economics work. There isn't a finite amount of supplies that must be distributed or else they run out and everybody dies. I also doubt my Swedish ancestors would have gone to America if they expected to starve to death there. Today people have way more information about living conditions in foreign countries than they had.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 06:31 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I doubt very much most criminals are slaves to some sort of innate predisposition towards committing crimes. Had that been the case, then shouldn't we see similar crime rates in all countries of the world? Now I'm no criminologist but I believe the risk of an individual commiting a crime is influenced by a combination of biological and social factors. The latter has a lot of potential to change but it's also (increasingly) possible to change biological tendencies (chemical castration). Quote:
it's not exactly a predisposition, i pointed out the factors involved. you need to remember, also, that different cultures produce different types of crimes, just as mentality plays a factor in how extreme the crimes can be. and not only those two reasons exclusively, i'm not saying they're limited to only those two factors.
xerox said:
Not all employers ask about your criminal career. But this also depends on what kind of labour market you have. If you have a labour market with high demands on the labour force then obviously ex-cons will have a harder time getting back. Quote:
obviously.
xerox said:
I am aware of how lucrative the black drug market can be. Which is yet another crime reduction argument for legalising those drugs. Quote:
lol, legalizing crack would have a devastating effect, even moreso than it does now. that's a very, very bad idea. like i said, the line has to be drawn somewhere with people. they'll self-destruct.
xerox said:
you think drug cartels and terrorist organisations care about borders? a lot of honest people who are not members of criminal groups but just want to create a better life for themselves do though. I'm also having a hard time understanding the "rationing of supplies" argument. For one, that's not how economics work. There isn't a finite amount of supplies that must be distributed or else they run out and everybody dies. I also doubt my Swedish ancestors would have gone to America if they expected to starve to death there. Today people have way more information about living conditions in foreign countries than they had.
it's not the drug cartels and terrorist organization's pov i have in mind, xerox. of course they don't care. but borders help slow down the things these guys can bring about. i was speaking from a security standpoint, not from a moral standpoint.
for christ's sake... economics, really? you didn't get what i was saying at all. reading the rest of this paragraph is painful. i'm gonna have to stop here. this miscommunication, and having to explain what i'm talking about constantly, is boring and frustrating the **** out of me. no offense, xerox. it's not really your fault; it's an amalgamation of miscommunication between me and just too many members of the human species that is off-putting.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 06:39 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
People are free to roam within the US, and no one thinks that's a problem, not even if criminals from Detroit move to wealthy neighborhoods in San Francisco. Why shouldn't the same be the case for the world as a whole?
Actually, almost everybody thinks it's a problem, but it's also a largely unavoidable one. I'd prefer not to have an arsonist for a neighbor.
Criminals / people of a criminal past can move around within the US because the US has no other choice. They're part of the citizenry and they're stuck with them and have to / ought to make the best of it. The state isn't allowed to just deport them to a foreign land (We're all out of vacant Australias), and you can't kill them. Even if you could, executions cause more problems for a highly developed state than they solve.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 08:37 PM |
|
|
Fred:
No one thinks disease is a valid reason to restrict people from Louisiana from moving to Alaska or vice versa. The same goes for criminal empires.
As for food and housing, something that can deal with that already exists - it's called "the market". As immigrants come and buy more food and housing, the price of food and housing increases, and as it increases, there is less of an incentive for immigrants to come. Meanwhile, higher prices encourage production, and the availability of cheap immigrant labor decreases labor costs, so more food is grown and more housing is built.
Blizz:
I mean, despite it being a problem (to the extent that it is), no one thinks that restricting migration within the United States is an acceptable solution. If asked, everyone will say that criminals from Detroit moving in next door is bad, but if you ask them whether everyone in Detroit should be forced to stay there, they would say no. But them being from "across the border" somehow makes it okay, according to mainstream positions on immigration policy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 09:17 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Fred:
No one thinks disease is a valid reason to restrict people from Louisiana from moving to Alaska or vice versa. The same goes for criminal empires.
what the hell, mvass. this is just a horrible attempt at trolling. you need some rest, your skills have sunk to a low i've never seen before. 
mvassilev said:
As for food and housing, something that can deal with that already exists - it's called "the market". As immigrants come and buy more food and housing, the price of food and housing increases, and as it increases, there is less of an incentive for immigrants to come. Meanwhile, higher prices encourage production, and the availability of cheap immigrant labor decreases labor costs, so more food is grown and more housing is built.
yet another banal attempt at trolling. i hope you're not losing your touch, mvass. 
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 09:28 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Blizz:
I mean, despite it being a problem (to the extent that it is), no one thinks that restricting migration within the United States is an acceptable solution. If asked, everyone will say that criminals from Detroit moving in next door is bad, but if you ask them whether everyone in Detroit should be forced to stay there, they would say no. But them being from "across the border" somehow makes it okay, according to mainstream positions on immigration policy.
For understandable reasons, because there is a reduced civil obligation towards a foreign criminal compared to a domestic one. Since the domestic criminal was raised in the culture within the state, funded in the state system, as a state citizen, it's the primary burden of the state to deal with it. There are no exit options that don't simply make things worse (like killing them or dumping them off somewhere and telling the foreign state "Here you go!"). If a state raises up a culture of vagrants and criminals, a foreign state reserves the power to say "No thanks" if certain people want to move in. Of course, these hurdles wan the more and more two countries socially blend (Americans and Canadians move around with minimal hassle).
Even for domestic criminals it cannot be said that they necessarily have full mobility. Child sex offenders can't move in next door to a school. Probation officers and civil servants keep tabs on various people. Court orders can limit a person's ability to be near other people.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 09:28 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:43, 27 Jan 2014.
|
Quote:
yet another banal attempt at trolling. i hope you're not losing your touch, mvass.
How is that trolling?
If that's all you can muster as a response to Mvass's posts then maybe I should reconsider with whom I spend time discussing OSM stuff with.
blizz: And even with free migraiton there won't be full movement for everyone, everywhere. Like if you are bunch of xenophobes, there's nothing preventing you from locking yourself up inside a gated community unless those are illegal.
So this notion that immigration creates more crime. Does it really matter considering that the crime will be evened out amongst a higher population?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 09:40 PM |
|
|
Blizz:
I'm not talking about criminals' freedom of movement, but about the freedom of movement of populations that may have a disproportionately large number of criminals. Even if Detroiters have an unusually large proportion of criminals, no one suggests building a fence around Detroit to keep everybody in (criminal or not), even though that solution wouldn't involve moving anyone anywhere.
If I want to invite someone to live in my house, the state has no legitimate authority to tell me that I can't. My house is my own property, not the state's, so I may do whatever I want with it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 09:45 PM |
|
|
Unfortunately a lot of people perceive the state as some kind of collective living room that they can ban other people from entering.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 09:45 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
How is that trolling?
If that's all you can muster as a response to Mvass's posts then maybe I should reconsider with whom I spend time discussing OSM stuff with.
it's trolling because he's stating something that would be obvious to anyone, while at the same time baiting me into an argument. he knows how much i hate people using up resources, and he uses this discussion to act like it's ok for things to get worse. if he's not trolling, then he's just not thinking. but i give him more credit than that. i would hope that he has the presence of mind to see the glaring faults in "his pov", and want to change them, as the evidence of that way of thinking surrounds society, and worsens society, daily.
you can discuss with him, if you want. won't hurt me none, and i think you two will have a lot to agree on. even if i don't think what he states is authentically his personal thoughts. the stuff you post, on the other hand, is just naive(which again, i don't hold against you. i don't hold mvass's trolling attempts against him, either. they're entertaining, in their own way).
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 09:49 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Blizz:
I'm not talking about criminals' freedom of movement, but about the freedom of movement of populations that may have a disproportionately large number of criminals. Even if Detroiters have an unusually large proportion of criminals, no one suggests building a fence around Detroit to keep everybody in (criminal or not), even though that solution wouldn't involve moving anyone anywhere.
If I want to invite someone to live in my house, the state has no legitimate authority to tell me that I can't. My house is my own property, not the state's, so I may do whatever I want with it.
Sorry I wasn't paying attention to the earlier pages of the thread. I might have originally quoted you out of context.
For one thing: you can't do whatever you want with your property. Also, how does this relate to immigration policy? There are no mainstream positions that say "Mexicans cannot move to the US", they just do background checks on individual immigrants as they submit their application is all, which is universal.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 09:49 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Quote:
Does it really matter considering that the crime will be evened out amongst a higher population?
xerox, go move into the country. less population. also, less crime. then, move into the city. more population, more crime. your sentence made no sense. what i state is fact. you will always have a higher rate of crime with more people involved. it's statistically guaranteed.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 09:56 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:00, 27 Jan 2014.
|
I agree with the notion that immigration creates more potential criminals, as does any increase in population (which means, using the same logic, you could argue that we need to stop people from having more than one child since child birth increases the population which increases crime rates). However, that doesn't necessarily equate to higher crime rate since with a higher population there's also more potential victims. If 1000 people out of a 10 000 population commit crimes then that's not a higher crime rate than 100 people commiting crimes in a population of 1000.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 10:10 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I agree with the notion that immigration creates more potential criminals, as does any increase in population (which means, using the same logic, you could argue that we need to stop people from having more than one child since child birth increases the population which increases crime rates). However, that doesn't necessarily equate to higher crime rate since with a higher population there's also more potential victims. If 1000 people out of a 10 000 population commit crimes then that's not a higher crime rate than 100 people commiting crimes in a population of 1000.
actually, i 100% think that everyone should stop having children immediately, i wouldn't disagree with your applied logic there. i've said it before, and i still mean it. the human race has a lot of figuring out to do(and maturing to do), before they should be allowed to have any more children. besides, life doesn't improve on the whole when another child is born. if enough of them are born daily, you're going to eventually run into problems, which is what has been happening for years now.
yes, i understand the semantics and angles of what i said about crime in relation to population increase, i was just underlining the basic truth that more people will equal more crime. i fully understand the concept, i think we've all covered it in the osm countless times.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 01:01 AM |
|
|
Guys, please stop with the ad hominem attacks. And let me decide who is trolling and who isn't. Thanks.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2014 01:32 AM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
For one thing: you can't do whatever you want with your property. Also, how does this relate to immigration policy? There are no mainstream positions that say "Mexicans cannot move to the US", they just do background checks on individual immigrants as they submit their application is all, which is universal.
If I can't do whatever I want with it (as long as I don't violate other people's property rights), it's not my property. If the government can tell me what I can do with it, the property belongs to it, not to me. Here's what it has to do with property rights. Suppose a homeowner sells a house to a foreigner. The foreigner needs the government's permission to live there, which is a violation of property rights. Suppose I'm an employer and want to hire a foreigner. I need the government's permission to do so. Does it own my business, that it has this authority?
There are no mainstream positions that say that any Mexican should be free to move to the US, even after passing a criminal background check.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
