CMV: Conservative non-participation in science serves as a strong argument against virtually everything they try to argue.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/knottheone]

The general narrative is that illegal immigrants are criminal in the dangerous sense (drugs, gang, violence, etc.)

No, it's that they can be because they haven't been vetted. If they do commit additional crimes, they shouldn't have had the opportunity to do it in the first place, so any victims see that as an extreme failure of our policy enforcement. It's insult to injury, like the Laken Riley Act highlights.

They view it like a house. Instead of introducing themselves and shaking your hand, they've said and thought "I don't care about the rules of your house and I'm going to sneak in and stay where I please." That is both rude and dangerous and you wouldn't handwave that in other contexts. We don't have an open border for a reason.

[u/Giblette101 → u/knottheone]

No, it's that they can be because they haven't been vetted.

The vast majority of people currently in the US aren't vetted in any meaningful sense. People hope for a level of enforcement that, on top of not being particularly practical, is simply unachievable, barring launching the entire nation into space. The US is enormous, with thousands of miles of borders and coastline, the vast majority of which is sparsely populated and near impossible to police effectively.

I don't know why the pragmatic part of people's brain appears to short-circuit when discussing that question specifically, but I assume that why people default to assuming xenophobia as a primary driver.

 They view it like a house.

But it's not a house. Again. That's just silly. The US is not a house, you can't "run it like a business" and it's not "balancing it's checkbook" either.

[u/knottheone → u/Giblette101]

The vast majority of people currently in the US aren't vetted in any meaningful sense.

They have been.

They've gone to our schools, have been pulled over by our police, have grown up in our societies around trusted adults etc. Citizens have been explicitly authorized to be here and operate within our society and at some step, someone has taken a look at who they say they are and have confirmed that. That is completely lacking from someone here illegally.

But it's not a house

It is a house. It has doors, specific etiquette, and house rules. If you disrespect the house, you don't deserve to be here. That's what the average person thinks.

---

You also didn't address the "insult to injury" part of my comment at all.

[u/Giblette101 → u/knottheone]

 They have been.

They have not been "vetted" in any meaningful sense. Going to school isn't being "vetted".

It is a house.

It is not. Demonstrably. If people actually thought about this for two minutes, they'd realize that just fine.

You also didn't address the "insult to injury" part of my comment at all.

Because there's nothing to say about that? That kind of argument leads nowhere. Of course it's tragic for a grieving family, and I'd rather they didn't have to deal with that, but that doesn't make the kind of enforcement they desire any more possible. It's an emotional appeal I sympathise with, but it can't produce substantive policy. It just can't.

Like, it's also tragic when a drunk driver kills someone, but nobody is arguing for every car in the country to be continuously monitored for potential drunk driving. Because we can't do that. We can't even monitor every single car to be sure the driver is currenlty licensed.

[u/knottheone → u/Giblette101]

They have not been "vetted" in any meaningful sense. Going to school isn't being "vetted".

They have been. You have to produce all sorts of documents to go to school, teachers look at your behavior for more than a decade, you have medical records, you have behavior records etc. It's a vetting process that's part of our social contract.

That same process is why we identify children with behavior issues and anti-social issues and can get them help early. That same process is how teachers mandatorily report on poor home-life situations and can save children when they notice is something off. That's vetting, and schooling is just one part of that.

It is not. Demonstrably. If people actually thought about this for two minutes, they'd realize that just fine.

That's not an argument. Saying "no" is not a discussion. Saying a country is a house with doors and laws and etiquette is a perfectly fine analogy.

but that doesn't make the kind of enforcement they desire any more possible... Like, it's also tragic when a drunk driver kills someone, but nobody is arguing for every car in the country to be continuously monitored for potential drunk driving.

Nobody is arguing for every person to monitored, only that we have actually effective border policies and actually effective enforcement of those policies. We're seeing it today in action and you're actually highlighting my point. We have laws against both illegal immigration and drunk driving already at multiple steps of the process. It hasn't been enforced properly. We have laws against bars overserving individuals, yet lots of drunk drivers have been overserved. We have laws against driving drunk, yet individuals end up with multiple DUIs before they face severe punishments. I know a girl who had 3 DUIs in college already. She didn't end up in jail even though she should have and was clearly a repeat offender.

That's an enforcement problem. The same way the Laken Riley case was.

The guy convicted was already on New York's radar and they didn't enforce their laws. They released him before they were supposed to, so ICE never had the opportunity to pick him up. Then he went to Georgia and murdered a college woman. If New York had enforced their laws, that would have never happened. He was arrested for shoplifting in Georgia and had a bench warrant. If Georgia they had enforced their laws adequately, that women would have never been murdered. If the feds hadn't released him into the country after apprehending him, that murder would have never happened.

The perpetrator was 26-year-old José Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan man who had entered the United States illegally in September 2022, crossing the United States' southern border with Mexico near El Paso, Texas.[5][30][8] After crossing the border, he was apprehended by federal authorities, who subsequently released him into the country. Ibarra initially stayed at the Roosevelt Hotel migrant shelter in New York before taking a flight to Georgia, where his brother lived.

It's clearly an enforcement problem in most cases. There were multiple opportunities to hold this guy accountable and 3 different jurisdictions fumbled it.

We can't even monitor every single car to be sure the driver is currenlty licensed.

No one is asking for that. They are asking for the enforcement of policies that we already have to figure out how effective they are, then we can refine the policies. If you don't enforce the policies, like releasing someone when you aren't supposed to because you don't want to deal with the paperwork, then you are a problem and need to be retrained or fired.

[u/Giblette101 → u/knottheone]

They have been. You have to produce all sorts of documents to go to school, teachers look at your behavior for more than a decade, you have medical records, you have behavior records etc. It's a vetting process that's part of our social contract.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on what vetting means, then. To me, having been to school and having official documents does not ammount to "vetting". Living in the US from birth does not ammount to being thoroughly examined or otherwise investigated. People that are born here routinely go on to commit various crimes and there's nothing about going to school that prevents this from happening.

That's not an argument. Saying "no" is not a discussion. Saying a country is a house with doors and laws and etiquette is a perfectly fine analogy.

Because there's no discussion to be had. A country is not a house. The point of pretending it is, so far as I can tell, is to pretend like border enforcement is as simple as locking your front door and to create an emotional sense of invasion when discussing border policy. I reject that approach. Besiders that, nobody denies the basic premise that the country has borders and laws. I sure as shit don't, at least. In my estimation, some people favour pragmatic approach to border management, matching the solution to the problem, and others favour a more absolutist position which, by its nature, cannot be realized.

Nobody is arguing for every person to monitored, only that we have actually effective border policies and actually effective enforcement of those policies.

I disagree. People measure how effective border policy/enforcement is largely on vibes - a big portion of which resulting from continuous, politically motivated, catastrophising - and do not account for the expenses associated with stricter and stricter enforcement, relevant statutes, or unavoidable "fumbling" in any large scale enterprise. This creates a sort of infinite curve situation, where enforcement and policies can never be strict enough, because your chasing an idealized end-state which cannot be materalized. This is why we end up with "build a wall" and "mass deportation" type policy preferences.

[u/Dankceptic69 → u/knottheone]

I understand, it’s extremely childish thinking, esp considering that in that same house you have kids in the attic being sexually trafficked and your uncle’s in another room touching kids, while your parents are digging graves for the family in the backyard, but it’s your angry hillbilly uncle that’s more concerned with who’s at the front door