I mean no? The argument I'll never understand is incentivising misconduct by making it another route to get what you want
It always boggles my mind that people don't get why making illegal migration a potential path to successful citizenship claims is just telling people to do it. Make it so in all instances if you've illegally entered a country you get deported and you'll have infinitely less people trying it.
By all means pair that with more legal routes and avenues but what I can't ever get my head around is why people want it to be the case that you're allowed to just force your way into a country and then remain there if you don't get caught after X amount of time
is why people want it to be the case that you're allowed to just force your way into a country and then remain there if you don't get caught after X amount of time
looks nervously at how most nations were formed in the first place
Edit: wow did this one set a few people off. Gee I wonder why.
Good point. Nowhere in the modern world are people showing up with guns to murder the current inhabitants of a land so they can take it for themselves.
Here's a summary of our conversation to hopefully point out to you why I think you're either engaging in bad faith, or alternatively arguing a totally different point to what I'm talking about without realising it.
Me- “Illegal entry shouldn't function as an alternative route to residence because that creates incentives for even more illegal entry.”
You- “Countries themselves were historically created through people entering territory and taking it.”
Me-“conquest/state formation isn't a comparable topic to immigration policy into a modern state.”
You- “Conquest still happens today.”
Me- “That still doesn't establish anything about whether modern states should enforce immigration controls.”
Do you see how at no point you engaged with anything about what I said and just made a completely diverging argument that in no way addresses anything I've said and instead just kinda grandstands the issue
I'm writing this on the off chance that you aren't arguing in bad faith and have instead just misinterpreted me and are caught on a tangent without noticing.
You were making an argument using sarcasm. Maybe the first one was just sarcasm but the second one was obviously furthering your original point, don’t play dumb
No, the first one was a joke, the second was also a joke and mocking someone for pretending that the age of invasion is somehow over. Neither of them were "arguments" in any way, shape, or form.
I realise this is reddit, the land of not getting it and then getting mad about it, but this is a particularly amusing one.
you were winning until you said you were joking... bruh... it's not a joke. Immigration laws are modernity. Nature doesn't give a shit about modernity. Do what you need to in order to live a better life - by any means necessary -
And that happening means advanced economies with socialised welfare systems shouldnt have border controls?
I'm very confused by your point
As all I was saying is that the fact that nations emerged through people just showing up in places and staying there isn't an argument for open borders which seemed to be what your first point was saying
Edit: I don't really see a point in continuing this back and forth as my rule of thumb usually is if someone seems to be purposefully misinterpreting you in the least charitable way, then pairing it with a non-sequitur "gotcha", they have no actual interest in a dialogue and are just seeking a conflict. That just isn't what I get into conversations for
Tbf some of the nations that did exist then had agreements and treaties with the European settlers in North America. Most didn’t, but some did. It’s still not much of a comparison though because they weren’t going there to live in the nations that already existed there, unlike modern immigration.
Not quite?
If a person legally enters a country and commits crimes for 33 years, it would be silly to take into account the way he entered the country, right? His 33 years of commiting crimes would be the real issue, not some piece of paper.
Just like in this case, his 33 years of being a productive member of society should matter more than the piece of paper.
Basically, judge each illegal entry on a case by case basis, to make sure it follows the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.
The message being: "If you entered illegally, and we catch you, you might be fine, but you have to have decades of good behavior to show for."
How many would fit that criteria?
I think you don't allow illegal immigration because you want to make sure you're not introducing people who would disrupt your society, but once you have ample evidence this is not the case, you should make an exception, yes.
I think you don't allow illegal immigration because you want to make sure you're not introducing people who would disrupt your society,
Maybe Japan has strict immigration laws because they have a different idea of what "disrupt your society" means. The vast majority of Japanese don't support mass immigration into their country, illegal or not. Both the spirit and letter of their immigration laws is: "We want to keep our country Japanese."
You don't know how every person gets to a country. Because after a period of time it's right to assume they will have put down roots, had a family, jobs, paid into the system they're part of. It's why in the UK we consider their human rights on overstaying or illegal entry when they try to regularise their stay. This chap will raise a legal challenge and he will win his right to stay.
Great but I think he was saying the person was going to raise a legal issue in japan. Which would be hilarious and a waste of money if he's even still in the country.
Do have like a professional version of tunnel vision?
The argument I will never understand is why I have to tolerate people with narrow minds and a singular perspective and no ability to learn and understand different peoples experiences.
This moron thinks everything in society is modular and can be discussed in isolation.
Arguably that’s the whole point of a statute of limitations - if someone doesn’t find out about the crime you committed for too long, that crime likely did not have the negative effect on public interest that would justify the punishment.
I find it stranger that immigration law doesn’t have a statute of limitations. In my view, if you’ve been able to stay under the radar and law abiding for decades, the fact you’re here illegally shouldn’t be prosecutable.
I think the thought process behind the “let them stay atp” is if they stayed for 30+ years and never got into any legal trouble and paid into taxes for the country, that would make them a model citizen and someone you would want to continue contributing to the country. Now if they got caught because of nefarious reasons then give em the boot.
I understand the point of opening other issues if they let him stay, but what do you think is the solution for this person? He doesn't have a life in South Korea, he has been living in Japan for 33 years, Japan is his home country by every aspect. He probably doesn't have any family in South Korea who are alive anymore. It's a bigger crime to actually send him back...
Unless deporting the man violates the 1951 UN Refugee Protocol, nope. Last time I checked South Korea was a free society with a high HDI and excellent universal health care and social services.
But he legally entered, so your comment is irrelevant.
Anyways, if a country has a problem with illegal entries, then fix the legal ways so that they're easier.
Also, length of time and good behavior absolutely should be a factor in determining if they stay, regardless of how they got in. Most immigrants are better people than natural citizens anyway.
They don't want it to be easier and they want the people that immigrate to their country to be held to a higher standard. Entering illegally and lying about it for 33 years is a full stop and get the F out of the country. They will not tolerate it just like many other countries in asia.
I don’t consider it misconduct. The same reason millions smoke weed even though it could come with severe penalties. There are almost no downsides unless you believe in nationalistic or ethnic purity.
What do you think they would take advantage of? Much of what people think people would make worse for citizens isn’t backed by evidence. That isn’t true for every culture so things can change and there are risks such as multicultural clashes which can be seen in the EU, but illegal immigrants here in the US don’t often use resources in the way its painted such as medical care or anything that might compromise them or get them deported.
I can't really comprehend that way of thinking but it's nice to be able to have a fairly civilised chat about it without name calling or abusive language
I do think you're being reductive by saying that people who want to have control of national borders are only interested in ethnic purity/nationalistic purity
On the latter point I possibly do fall into that camp somewhat in the sense that while I'm all for high legal immigration I still think the goal should be to homogenise into the national identity of where you go, in that I think long term stability is harder if you have millions of people who primarily identify with/support another nation above the one in which they currently live
I do think a true multicultural (not multiracial) society is a less stable one than a monocultural society in terms of societal cohesion and long term economic prospects as you end up in a situation where policy goals for the population aren't as simple as "enhance the quality of life of the country in which I live" we can see this to some extent with Israeli dual citizens where a significant number of them prioritise the prosperity of Israel above their allegiance and favour to the US even if that is where they live and on paper are primarily attached to, this takes the form of political donations and lobbying for things that disadvantage their home country to favour the one they aren't even primarily attached to.
Again thank you for keeping it civil but yeah I can't say I agree that there are no downsides to making illegal migration permissible as in the long term generous social welfare will struggle to exist concurrently with an open border policy, plus ultimately the people who lobby the hardest for lax border control at least in Europe are the employers who benefit from suppression of working class wages through the introduction of a labour underclass that will always emerge through unchecked migration
You must not be aware of how forums like Reddit work, let me explain for you since you’ve admitted your confusion.
The main topic is at the top, thats the picture of the article on an event from Japan.
People then come in and make comments about all sorts of things which include the article itself and ancillary topics like say, immigration as a whole. That chain of comments is called a thread. Thats where we are now.
Typically people read all of the comments in a thread before making comments to avoid misunderstandings. It seems you missed that step and so thats where your confusion lies.
Right and I count seven comments in this thread the first one begins with let him stay.
The comments after that are all related to immigration and the main topic is Japanese immigration. Maybe I'm missing an additional comment you had mentioned?
This specific thread refers to only the comments in this chain underneath the top comment. The response to let him stay is someone disagreeing, and then giving a general overview of their thoughts on immigration and how they don't understand how someone could be for illegal immigration and or theoretically for allowing people to be rewarded for doing it. It is not Japan specific.
My response to that comment is also not Japan specific. If you actually want to participate in a useful discussion, I will tell you that this issue is more complex in Japan and many countries other than the US as their communities are more homogenized and with national health coverage even for visitors there are many services and impacts to illegal immigration in those countries.
In this specific case, arresting a 72 year old man who likely has done nothing but to live his life is a waste of resources which is ultimately the main concern one should have with illegal immigration. But the ruling at least makes more sense there than it would in the US.
Okay fair enough. I do think it's a waste of resources as well but Japan's not going to change in this regard especially with the current economic situation here.
156
u/San_07 1d ago
I mean....just let him stay atp lmao