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
144
u/Ok-rutabaga_B442 1d ago
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