The border thing is kind of interesting as an exercise in boring misdirection about preferences Going to pick at this and kindly note that I have no opinion about immigrationhttps://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1126621769522003968?s=19 …
-
-
I guess I ultimately see it as a design issue with some amount of disingenuousness, assuming people are being rational which ok let's pretend for a moment
Show this thread -
Specifically, the main issue is that illegal immigration will occur when the expected economic value of immigrating illegally exceeds the expected economic cost of immigrating illegally Here I mean economic not in the strict (eg financial) but decision theoretical sense
Show this thread -
If you want to reduce illegal immigration, in this model, you need to either increase the cost or reduce the value of immigrating. Most policy levers at the government's disposal affect the cost. It's difficult to reduce the value from status, esp with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Show this thread -
Well, this isn't quite right--you can reduce the expected value by reducing the probability of success, but as we'll see these levers mostly have the same issue as cost levers.
Show this thread -
The problem with these levers, from an anti-immigration perspective, is that many of them are quite cruel; and the resulting suffering typically occurs within the US (where people care about it, vs idk let's say Yemen which is too far for empathy to apply apparently).
Show this thread -
So, anti-immigration forces are kind of stuck. The only levers easily available are the kind of cruel that is unpopular, so they can limit (to some extent) immigration only by playing monsters. Meanwhile, pro-immigrant forces can play a double game.
Show this thread -
The first advantage is that they don't have to defend immigration per se, which might be unpopular (idk who looks at data even its 2019). Instead, they can simply point out that anti-immigration methods are cruel, and increase immigration in this way.
Show this thread -
The second advantage is that policy changes that can be implemented by executive fiat are relatively blunt and cruel compared to a broader program. So, pro-immigration forces can actually make further progress by blocking relatively not-visibly-cruel levers in the legislature,
Show this thread -
leaving anti-immigration advocates with the option of only (i) quitting the field, or (ii) calling their bluff and generating visible cruelty. If (ii) occurs this is in some sense worse for a genuine pro-immigrant platform than cooperating on finding non-cruel methods,
Show this thread -
but in practice it's not a loss because (i) it hurts the outgroup by making them look bad and (ii) the people who end up in cells for months aren't members of Congress so fuck em amirite
Show this thread -
I don't really see a way out of this. Neither side wins by backing down. Good luck!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.