2025-01-21 07:22:20 veltas: thanks 2025-01-21 13:00:26 KipIngram: generally Congress isn't allowed to make laws that abrogate the Constitution, for example by outlawing someone's mere presence on US soil (inconceivable at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, except perhaps as a punishment for a crime) and then punishing the child for the parent's "crime" by revoking their citizenship 2025-01-21 13:02:49 but certainly there seems to be a lot of public support for denying a significant fraction of the US population any legal rights, because it is profitable to exploit them economically in ways that were widespread before they were outlawed by the 14th Amendment 2025-01-21 13:03:59 it's illegal now, but still widespread 2025-01-21 13:07:00 most societies throughout history have separated different classes of people with different legal rights granted by accident of birth. Serfs, yeomen, and nobles, for example, or slaves and citizens. The US was founded to a significant extent on the rejection of such distinctions --- they held that "all men were created equal" --- but still accepted slavery and the subjection of women. 2025-01-21 13:09:25 It shouldn't be surprising that many people still don't believe in those foundational principles and want to maintain a permanent underclass without the same legal protections they enjoy themselves. That doesn't make it commendable. 2025-01-21 13:45:35 Basically I think the US has a right, like all states, to control who comes/goes, and who gets citizenship. I understand that on principle you disagree, but I don't think your reasons are that commendable either, for lack of being practicle 2025-01-21 13:45:50 practical* 2025-01-21 13:47:23 I've not read 14th in full, but based on the educated disagreement I don't think the precedent is clear-cut, and it does feel like if it is debatable how to interpret then it's an oversight of how it was written 2025-01-21 13:47:33 Rather than a principle 2025-01-21 13:48:25 And yeah the fact the 'founding fathers' had slaves means it wasn't really a fully liberal revolution 2025-01-21 17:16:03 ACTION watches lectures/talks on RISC-V 2025-01-21 19:14:40 veltas: I agree. Maybe there was an earlier time when there was no need for nations to maintain policies on immigration, but that day is gone - it's a basic right that I agree all nations should have. I also agree that ideally the Constitution would be crystal clear with no wiggle room, and maybe at the time it was written it was - the way words are used changes over time. I'm happiest when it's 2025-01-21 19:14:42 not murky in any way, but there are a lot of clever lawyers out there who seem to find a way to murk almost anything up. 2025-01-21 20:55:56 I don't think states have the right to control who comes and goes; freedom to travel is a basic human right, not a privilege granted by states at their pleasure. Moreover, the current system of border controls and passports only dates back to World War I; the freedom to travel was respected, in theory, for millennia before that, though of course there were highwaymen, slave-raiders, Thuggees, and the 2025-01-21 20:56:02 like. One of the principal objectives of the League of Nations was to eliminate the passport regime and restore freedom of travel. 2025-01-21 20:57:19 I'd go further and claim, with the Declaration of Independence, that states don't have any rights at all; it's human beings who have rights, and the existence of states is legitimate, if at all, only to the extent that they are necessary to protect the innate rights of human beings. 2025-01-21 20:58:59 I don't think the US Constitution is particularly difficult to understand, either. 2025-01-21 20:59:34 I don't have the message history, but there less formal (less transparent) border control systems in the past, often with high tolls etc. e.g. in England in 1484 they required lettersof denization to practice a trade etc. which were mostly just expensive documents. 2025-01-21 21:00:50 I think there's a significant difference between not having a printer's license in London and being clapped in irons if you tried to visit London 2025-01-21 21:01:16 veltas: When you say, "I don't think your reasons are that commendable either, for lack of being practical", you seem to be claiming that attempting to do difficult things that are likely to fail is "not that commendable." I don't see how anyone could really believe that. 2025-01-21 21:01:18 No, that's what would happen if you didn't have it. They passed it so they could deport a bunch of people (and cut off their thumbs) 2025-01-21 21:01:28 The guilds were very agressive 2025-01-21 21:01:36 Aha, I see. 2025-01-21 21:03:21 It might be useful to start from sovereignty and power, thinking of the holders of power who establish laws and states to reduce the intensity of conflict between themselves. They only let others in if they gain from it. This still holds today. 2025-01-21 21:03:21 You can make demands of human rights etc. but the question is why would the powers that be honor them? How do you accumulate/wield power so that they will respect you in such ways? Depending on your politics and goals, that's wealth accumulation, rubbing elbows with the right people, organizing the workers or or or 2025-01-21 21:03:22 Anyway, the winds shifted and we see e.g. the UK giving up sovereign territory so I suspect you've already somewhat won (it just takes a while) 2025-01-21 21:04:00 veltas: Abolishing slavery, preventing the spread of Communism, stopping Hitler from conquering Europe, gaining independence for the US, gaining independence for Switzerland, gaining independence for India, etc., were also "not practical", until they were actually achieved 2025-01-21 21:06:29 veqq: It's true that to formulate a political strategy for achieving some political end, you need to understand the existing power structure and evaluate different candidate strategies for achieving your ends in that light. But here we aren't discussing how to achieve an agreed-upon set of ends; we're discussing what those ends should be. 2025-01-21 21:07:48 Out of curiosity, how did this come up in a Forth chat? 2025-01-21 21:09:19 For example, should people who have been living in the US for decades without committing any crimes be allowed to continue living there, or should they be arrested by surprise in the middle of the night, taken from their homes, imprisoned, separated from their families, and forcibly returned to the country where they were born, never again to see their friends or family? Ethically, this doesn't seem like 2025-01-21 21:09:25 a difficult problem to me. 2025-01-21 21:10:09 I think it was my fault, veqq 2025-01-21 21:10:27 here's the short version: 2025-01-21 21:10:37 14:50 < BVMR60880> Hey guys... Joe Biden here. I've decided to step down from the White House to focus on other projects. Billionaires are a threat to democracy, so check out https://BidenCash.st to put them in the bullseye. Keep an eye on the CNN inauguration for a promo code! 2025-01-21 21:10:41 14:52 -!- BVMR60880 [~BVMR60880@200.68.188.211] has quit [Read error: error:0A000119:SSL routines::decryption failed or bad record mac] 2025-01-21 21:10:44 15:06 < xentrac> oh yeah, it's Trumpday 2025-01-21 21:10:47 15:06 < xentrac> fuck 2025-01-21 21:10:49 15:06 < zelgomer> why? 2025-01-21 21:10:52 15:09 < xentrac> zelgomer: it's Trumpday because the people in the US voted for him 2025-01-21 21:10:55 15:09 < zelgomer> i know that, why did you follow it with "fuck" ? 2025-01-21 21:11:15 16:46 <+KipIngram> Example of the media slanting things as hard as they can, Trump identified as a problem the practice of illegal immigrants slipping across the border and having their baby on U.S. soil, and then claiming that baby is a citizen. I do think that's an undesirable practice, though I'm not sure if the Constitution is worded in a way that makes it "bannable." But the media presented that as 2025-01-21 21:11:21 Trump 2025-01-21 21:11:24 16:46 <+KipIngram> trying to "overturn birthright citizenship," which made it sound a lot more broad than it actually was. 2025-01-21 21:11:54 18:25 < MrMobius> KipIngram: what is birthright citizenship other than what you described? 2025-01-21 21:12:12 20:52 <+KipIngram> It is what I described. What the Constitution says is that if you are born here, you are a citizen, and I think it says that in pretty plain language just like the 2nd amendment. No one has a problem with that idea in general - it's the way the country has always worked. The discomfort comes when someone "sneaks in" just in time to drop their baby, with the deliberate intent of 2025-01-21 21:12:18 making that baby 2025-01-21 21:12:21 20:52 <+KipIngram> a U.S. citizen. I think what people by and large feel is that the mother should need to be here legitimately at the time of birth. It's the exploitation of the rule that (some) people dislike. 2025-01-21 21:12:25 20:54 <+KipIngram> I haven't given it a lot of thought yet, since it hasn't formally come up, but I'm not even sure I'd demand that the mother be a citizen - just that her presence here be legal. I'd be willing to listen to debate on that, though. One or the other. Being here illegally shouldn't count. 2025-01-21 21:12:30 20:54 <+KipIngram> That's how I feel about it, at least. But the wording of the constitution may not make it easy to split that hair. 2025-01-21 21:13:19 12:07 < xentrac> most societies throughout history have separated different classes of people with different legal rights granted by accident of birth. Serfs, yeomen, and nobles, for example, or slaves and citizens. The US was founded to a significant extent on the rejection of such distinctions --- they held that "all men were created equal" --- but still accepted slavery and the subjection of women. 2025-01-21 21:13:25 12:09 < xentrac> It shouldn't be surprising that many people still don't believe in those foundational principles and want to maintain a permanent underclass without the same legal protections they enjoy themselves. That doesn't make it commendable. 2025-01-21 21:13:56 (end of abridged summary) 2025-01-21 21:14:38 my original question was about how I didnt agree with KipIngram that saying "overturn birthright citizenship" was the media making it sound more broad than it was. people misunderstood what I was asking so I let it drop since I dont want to start a whole big thing. im happy to get back to Forth 2025-01-21 21:17:13 Oh no, it's fine. Just unexpected! 2025-01-21 21:17:39 xentrac: Entering the United States without permission is a crime 2025-01-21 21:19:18 veltas: no, actually it isn't. 2025-01-21 21:20:03 I wasn't sure so I googled it before posting 2025-01-21 21:20:11 Even if it were, many people entered as minors, sometimes babies. And certainly being born somewhere isn't a crime in any reasonable legal system. 2025-01-21 21:20:20 You guys are arguing about the definition of crime here. You both know the other's argument already 2025-01-21 21:21:17 actually, I didn't realize the US had made a criminal law against "improper entry into the United States" 2025-01-21 21:22:21 But before it was a misdemeanor, which is still a crime. Like it wasn't "legal" 2025-01-21 21:22:22 I'd still argue that that law is illegitimate. And overstaying a visa in the US is also still not a matter of criminal law 2025-01-21 21:23:01 Well it's clear you disagree with the law, although I find it interesting even under the Democrats it was a crime 2025-01-21 21:23:16 e.g. Obama deported loads of people 2025-01-21 21:23:23 yeah, the Democrats and the Republicans are almost indistinguishable 2025-01-21 21:23:38 Honestly I think the Democrats are playing the left for fools 2025-01-21 21:24:09 as I said above, Biden pardoned Liz Cheney 2025-01-21 21:24:18 I guess you could say the same about the Republicans... prove me wrong, Trump 2025-01-21 21:25:26 But in principle I think it's good to actually enforce laws, I deal with fallout of laws not being enforced every day 2025-01-21 21:26:12 And the question of laws like this is certainly a question of politics, I don't think it can be about principle unless you believe in open borders, and are essentially an anarchist 2025-01-21 21:26:23 I think it depends on the laws. Enforcing unjust laws is an injustice. 2025-01-21 21:26:33 Yeah 2025-01-21 21:26:35 I do believe in open borders, yes; I explained why above. 2025-01-21 21:26:44 I don't think that entails anarchism. 2025-01-21 21:27:01 You are an anarchist then, or you lack foresight 2025-01-21 21:27:16 You're in good company though, lots of intelligent people advocate for this 2025-01-21 21:27:22 I just don't really think it's a realistic policy 2025-01-21 21:27:26 We had open borders (modulo the kinds of abuses veqq was describing) for several millennia 2025-01-21 21:27:52 All of my ancestors who immigrated to the US immigrated there when it had open borders 2025-01-21 21:28:00 So I think it's an eminently realistic policy 2025-01-21 21:28:45 Countries are not supposed to be open-air prisons. That's not the basis for Westphalian sovereignty. 2025-01-21 21:28:57 some natives have invented fake passports to travel elsewhere 2025-01-21 21:29:30 Open borders are actually written into our Constitution here, although that's not enforced. 2025-01-21 21:29:49 I think it's good to enforce laws like ... cyclists ignoring red lights, and cycling on the pavement. And cars speeding, etc. 2025-01-21 21:30:02 You could argue it's freedom of movement, I don't really agree 2025-01-21 21:31:03 I think my society was better for stricter enforcement, and is worse off now we're more interested in Twitter nasties than policing the streets 2025-01-21 21:31:19 I don't think giving cyclists tickets for running red lights is the same kind of infringement on human rights as breaking into somebody's house in the middle of the night and sending them to a country their parents took them away from as a child 2025-01-21 21:31:46 Plausibly giving cyclists tickets for running red lights *protects* human rights 2025-01-21 21:31:52 Who's fault is that? The parents. 2025-01-21 21:32:09 Kids also might not like what would happen if their parents are pulled over for speeding 2025-01-21 21:32:15 I blame the parents, not the police 2025-01-21 21:32:51 I think also you've exagerrated this "breaking into somebody's house in the middle of the night", I wouldn't advocate that kind of enforcement 2025-01-21 21:32:57 If you read about European immigration to Spanish America, there wasn't a lot because only people from one region were allowed to leave. And to enter, you had to get approval from some office. They didn't have a good way of checking but would e.g. send you to Spain for prosecution when finding out 2025-01-21 21:33:08 It's not exaggerated at all. ICE raids are very ugly. 2025-01-21 21:33:17 Well maybe that needs reform 2025-01-21 21:33:17 In liberal societies, kids don't get imprisoned if their parents commit murder, unlike in, for example, ancient Hebrew law. 2025-01-21 21:33:33 You'll be taken more seriously with ideas to reform ICE if you don't advocate for open borders 2025-01-21 21:34:27 Fundamentally the problem is that what ICE exists to do is profoundly unjust, a perversion of the values the US was founded on. 2025-01-21 21:34:33 Likewise I think people who vote Republican are more likely to be swayed by admitting that uncontrolled immigration isn't actually sound policy, but pointing out that humans by default deserve dignity and respect 2025-01-21 21:35:05 The good ones, I mean. Not the other values the US was founded on like racism, slavery, and the subjection of women. 2025-01-21 21:35:08 Well good luck, I think that's a very hard stance and will not sway most normal people. You know more than I though, I don't live in the US 2025-01-21 21:35:15 Neither do I 2025-01-21 21:35:28 Oh okay I just assumed from context 2025-01-21 21:35:54 I immigrated to Argentina 18 years ago 2025-01-21 21:36:32 I don't equate deportation and imprisonment 2025-01-21 21:37:03 Do you live in BA? I have some friends who moved there a few years ago who could use some friends 2025-01-21 21:37:03 There are kinds of deportation that do not involve imprisonment. 2025-01-21 21:37:26 Yeah, I'm in the suburbs of Buenos Aires, veqq. I was downtown today. What are your friends like? 2025-01-21 21:39:36 veltas: if you try to resist deportation unsuccessfully, at some point you are held down by multiple police officers, handcuffed, hogtied, loaded into a police car, and taken to jail to be held until they can arrange transportation for you. That's imprisonment. 2025-01-21 21:39:44 The main one is personable, politically curious, interested in space, nanotech etc. learned a fair bit of Spanish. He's from Russia. I'm not good at describing people :D 2025-01-21 21:40:27 it's true that if you cooperate sufficiently you can sometimes be permanently removed from your home, friends, and family without ever actually spending any time in a prison cell in the process 2025-01-21 21:40:40 Did you see the Top Gear Argentina special? 2025-01-21 21:40:42 but you are still not free to move around as you wish during the process 2025-01-21 21:40:53 Here is an example of an Italian noble doing ethnographic research in Mexico in the 1700s, who got arrested (after some years) for not having a passport or something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Boturini_Benaduci 2025-01-21 21:40:56 no, was it about the Dakar rally? 2025-01-21 21:41:06 Well that's the risk you take with entering a country illegally 2025-01-21 21:41:20 veqq: interesting! 2025-01-21 21:41:54 veltas: as it happens, I *didn't* enter the country illegally. What happened is that my company failed. 2025-01-21 21:42:14 Sorry I'm not implying you entered illegally 2025-01-21 21:42:16 Fortunately I am no longer an illegal immigrant. 2025-01-21 21:42:36 But I've been living with this kind of threat hanging over my head for years and years. 2025-01-21 21:42:47 You were deported? 2025-01-21 21:42:58 I thought after 3 years in Arg. there you just get citizenship 2025-01-21 21:42:59 Nope, and I probably won't ever be. 2025-01-21 21:43:22 But you overstayed after visa expired? I'm sorry anyway, that sucks! 2025-01-21 21:43:25 veqq: that is the law, but the government consistently violates it unless forced to obey by a lawsuit 2025-01-21 21:43:37 veqq: Where does the main one live? how about the non-main one? 2025-01-21 21:43:40 I'm just trying to understand what you mean by 'threat', maybe I'm misunderstanding you 2025-01-21 21:44:36 The threat was that at any point I might be presented with a letter from Migraciones giving me two weeks to justify why I shouldn't be deported. And then two weeks later I would be, and never again see, for example, my girlfriend. Now wife. 2025-01-21 21:44:53 That is the big thing that puts me off getting a work visa 2025-01-21 21:45:00 I don't know. There's a park with many statues of e.g. poets they seem to often walk by (based on shared pictures) 2025-01-21 21:45:16 Well also I don't really think the grass is greener on the other side 2025-01-21 21:45:20 Now I have a "residencia temporaria precaria" and hopefully in the next couple of months I'll get permanent residency. 2025-01-21 21:45:33 veqq: maybe the Jardín Botánico? 2025-01-21 21:45:34 Good luck with that 2025-01-21 21:46:12 Argentina is dramatically less abominable on this count than the US. As I said, we have open borders literally written into the Constitution. In the Preamble, in fact. 2025-01-21 21:46:19 There are apparently lawyers who will start the lawsuit as soon as you enter. At leas tthat's what they're all banking on 2025-01-21 21:46:59 veqq: As soon as you enter, eh? That's surprising. 2025-01-21 21:47:08 There was a Russian family in front of me at Migraciones on Friday. 2025-01-21 21:50:40 If you have teleram, he is @shaoron If you're not interested, no worries, it's pretty random on my part :D 2025-01-21 21:50:53 But you can discuss immigration law 2025-01-21 21:51:36 nope, no telegram 2025-01-21 21:53:12 No worries 2025-01-21 22:03:26 I couldn't find the message where he shared his lawyer 2025-01-21 22:04:15 But there were a few with long case history of starting with the lawsuit immediately and getting the passport a few months after that point 2025-01-21 22:05:57 cool 2025-01-21 22:10:13 Well xentrac respect to you for having a civil debate about this 2025-01-21 22:10:49 As I think that is important as well 2025-01-21 22:19:56 veltas: I agree! I hope I didn't offend KipIngram 2025-01-21 22:20:12 because I did disagree pretty vehemently with his opinion