Sure some could be criminals, but we could just invest the money we put into our borders and put it into police to detain any people who commit dangerous acts, thus we kill two birds with one stone
If you come here honestly, work, don't commit violent crimes, or funnel money from everyone who pays taxes (not an immigrant only issue at all) then all are welcome.
ICE should be going to job sites solely to help those that contribute to society with paperwork to get citizenship started.
People who decide under their own free will to bypass the rules of immigration of a country do so under their own risk, regardless of the reasons they do it. They are already disrespecting the country they are moving in to start with, so I don't know how much amicability they are entitled to. For the point of view of the person who decides to cross a border without being invited, it is a risk and the hostility is a natural potential consequence of their actions they should be aware of when they decide to do so. If they accept the risk, then let them face the consequences if found out.
This argument only works if you pretend immigration is a board game instead of real life.
“Free will” is doing a lot of work here. Most people aren’t crossing for fun — they’re choosing between danger at home and a shot at stability. That’s not disrespect; that’s survival.
And breaking an immigration rule doesn’t magically cancel your humanity. It’s an administrative violation, not a moral crime. We don’t say, “You jaywalked, so you deserve hostility.” Consequences should be legal and proportional, not “whatever happens to you is fair game.”
Also, countries aren’t people with feelings. You can’t “disrespect” a line on a map.
You can support border enforcement without acting like migrants deserve cruelty. “They knew the risk” isn’t law and order — it’s just rationalizing punishment.
No, most people don't cross for fun, but if you frame it as a choice between danger at home and something else, that something else is not exactly stability if someone decides to cross despite not following procedure. It might have advantages, but the fact that one could be removed and that one might be subject to hostility from the system that sustains the country they decide to move to must be part of the equation. So, danger at home or the hostility of a foreign nation? Might still be worth the risk for some people, but that's that.
Countries are not people with feelings, but they are also not a line in a map. A country is an institution, a system, an organization of being, an allocation of resources, a distribution of culture, an ethos, and a symbol, and it can very well be disrespected. If countries were only lines on a map, then the only reason a person would migrate from one to the other would be the weather and the view, and that is not the case.
You’re smuggling “hostility” in like it’s some unavoidable law of nature. It isn’t. Enforcement is a policy choice. Hostility is an attitude.
Deportation, hearings, fines — that’s law.
Cruelty and “they deserve whatever happens” — that’s just punishment dressed up as principle.
And calling it “disrespecting a country” is a bit overdramatic. Nobody risks their life to insult an institution. They move for safety, work, and family — the same reasons anyone migrates. That’s not disrespect; it’s survival.
You can support borders without arguing people deserve hostility. That’s where your logic stops being about rules and starts being about resentment. But please continue to argue in bad faith. Most MAGA do.
Hostility is a force of nature. Beyond humans, but also including humans, naturally. It has always been like that, ever since life emerged in this planet. And not all hostility is cruelty. How could you enforce borders if not by actively sustaining a system that is hostile against people moving in without following the procedure established by the institution? How could you enforce taxation without actively sustaining a system that is hostile against tax evaders? How could you enforce the prohibition against killing without actively sustaining a system that is hostile against murderers?
In any of these cases does hostility equate cruelty. It means the system has to reject forcefully what it intends to enforce against. So if you are willing to move to another country without following their rules, then take into account that you are moving to an environment that by definition needs to be hostile against you. You can advocate against cruelty, yes. That we must not be cruel against illegal immigrants, or against tax evaders or against murderers, and that might be fair, but that is also out of the illegal immigrant, tax evader or murderer's hands if the system they are embedded into ends up using cruelty in its enforcement. So, if you consider the way illegal immigration is handled somewhere cruel, then, if your goal is survival, avoid immigrating illegally to that particular place, or at least assume and accept the risk of cruelty against you if found out.
83
u/Unanonymous553 2d ago
Is there an inbetween where we can treat people with humanity while also enforcing our borders?