I am in favor of global free movement. Partly because I stand for freedom as an universal value for all humans.
Sadly, I would say that most of people around the word still value freedom as something "national, for us, for our group", thereby rejecting the individual and personal sovereignty, and demanding arbitrary and primitive measures.
Once I was at the meeting with European liberals in ALDE during 2019 and European Parliament elections. One of the messages was that "we need to defend European freedoms" by communicating more about border controls and security. People who do not act for freedom will end up in such conclusions and behaviours, leading to overall reduction for freedom. That is also part of the problem with phrases as "American values" = freedom for Americans, mixing liberalism with nationalism, rejecting"others".
I live in Stockholm area, capital of Sweden and the largest city in Northern Europe. There are different wages and prices in different parts of Stockholm. Still, there are no border controls, arbitrary preventions of free movement, nobody advocating "jobs in our municipality should go to us first"
I would like a citation for the claim that one million American citizens were wrongfully deported between 1930 and 2000.
Also, I am unpersuaded. If the US is not to have open borders, that means there must be some sort of screening process. That process will reject some percentage of applicants, call that number x. How would a decision to change from x to (say) 2x require "ratcheting up the instruments of control"?
Or is the argument that illegal immigration will persist anyway, so attempts to control it should not be made? (One could also apply this argument to any sort of illegal behavior, why should illegal immigration be singled out?)
I am SO TIRED of the sophistry on this site. Why will your writers not say clearly what they mean?
A citation to the original peer-reviewed work, not NPR saying "according to some estimates".
I am against marijuana legalization. Marijuana-growing warehouses have completely destroyed quality of life in a California town near me; the smell is horrific. (It was, of course, a relatively poor area that couldn't prevent the out-of-state capitalist robber barons from buying up struggling flower growers cheap and moving in). And the inability to test effectively for being high will undoubtedly result in increased traffic deaths; see data from Colorado. And tell the dead-from-a-heroin-overdose friend of my daughter's that marijuana is not a gateway drug: she'll be thrilled to know that, I'm sure.
The other activities you mention are private between consenting adults and have no consequences for others (like pollution and traffic deaths from marijuana).
You make a fool of yourself for presuming you know all my politics.
Yeah, "according to some estimates" published in a book by two historians that work in the field. If that's not good enough for you, what were you looking for, exactly?
Since you're against marijuana legalization, and it remains a schedule 1 law by federal statue, you support fully enforcing these laws? People should still be going to prison for life for dealing pot? If not why is dealing pot "singled out"?
I made no assumptions about your politics. Your argument is all laws should be fully enforced no matter what. I was following your logic to where it leads. I don't feel particularly foolish.
Everybody is whatever they say they are on the Internet. Feel free to buy the book and check their primary sources.
You asked why "illegal immigration" should be "singled out" as an "illegal behavior" that should not be controlled. It's pretty clear marijuana dealers have been singled out for lax or no enforcement of federal law.
Likewise, statutes banning miscegenation and sodomy were rarely enforced before they were finally invalidated. What made them special?
I am in favor of global free movement. Partly because I stand for freedom as an universal value for all humans.
Sadly, I would say that most of people around the word still value freedom as something "national, for us, for our group", thereby rejecting the individual and personal sovereignty, and demanding arbitrary and primitive measures.
Once I was at the meeting with European liberals in ALDE during 2019 and European Parliament elections. One of the messages was that "we need to defend European freedoms" by communicating more about border controls and security. People who do not act for freedom will end up in such conclusions and behaviours, leading to overall reduction for freedom. That is also part of the problem with phrases as "American values" = freedom for Americans, mixing liberalism with nationalism, rejecting"others".
I live in Stockholm area, capital of Sweden and the largest city in Northern Europe. There are different wages and prices in different parts of Stockholm. Still, there are no border controls, arbitrary preventions of free movement, nobody advocating "jobs in our municipality should go to us first"
One solution for empowering humans and increasing freedom would be creating a global citizenship, something that can also be done in a decentralised way https://www.opulens.se/global/free-movement-for-humans-is-not-only-about-the-economy/
I would like a citation for the claim that one million American citizens were wrongfully deported between 1930 and 2000.
Also, I am unpersuaded. If the US is not to have open borders, that means there must be some sort of screening process. That process will reject some percentage of applicants, call that number x. How would a decision to change from x to (say) 2x require "ratcheting up the instruments of control"?
Or is the argument that illegal immigration will persist anyway, so attempts to control it should not be made? (One could also apply this argument to any sort of illegal behavior, why should illegal immigration be singled out?)
I am SO TIRED of the sophistry on this site. Why will your writers not say clearly what they mean?
We'll get back yo you. Fair question.
Here ya go:
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/09/08/437579834/mass-deportation-may-sound-unlikely-but-its-happened-before
I take it you're against marijuana legalization? For statues outlawing sodomy and miscegenation?
A citation to the original peer-reviewed work, not NPR saying "according to some estimates".
I am against marijuana legalization. Marijuana-growing warehouses have completely destroyed quality of life in a California town near me; the smell is horrific. (It was, of course, a relatively poor area that couldn't prevent the out-of-state capitalist robber barons from buying up struggling flower growers cheap and moving in). And the inability to test effectively for being high will undoubtedly result in increased traffic deaths; see data from Colorado. And tell the dead-from-a-heroin-overdose friend of my daughter's that marijuana is not a gateway drug: she'll be thrilled to know that, I'm sure.
The other activities you mention are private between consenting adults and have no consequences for others (like pollution and traffic deaths from marijuana).
You make a fool of yourself for presuming you know all my politics.
Yeah, "according to some estimates" published in a book by two historians that work in the field. If that's not good enough for you, what were you looking for, exactly?
Since you're against marijuana legalization, and it remains a schedule 1 law by federal statue, you support fully enforcing these laws? People should still be going to prison for life for dealing pot? If not why is dealing pot "singled out"?
I made no assumptions about your politics. Your argument is all laws should be fully enforced no matter what. I was following your logic to where it leads. I don't feel particularly foolish.
What I was looking for, "exactly", is details of the statistical methodology that was used.
I am a scientist. "A scientist says" is NEVER a good enough argument. I want to know the details.
And I most definitely did NOT argue that "all laws should be fully enforced no matter what".
Everybody is whatever they say they are on the Internet. Feel free to buy the book and check their primary sources.
You asked why "illegal immigration" should be "singled out" as an "illegal behavior" that should not be controlled. It's pretty clear marijuana dealers have been singled out for lax or no enforcement of federal law.
Likewise, statutes banning miscegenation and sodomy were rarely enforced before they were finally invalidated. What made them special?
So you are against marijuana legalisation based on personal experiences, and not on arguments?