In addition to Korea being one of our most important military allies in the world, you need batteries for military drones, and the US is way behind in the development of a domestic manufacturing supply chain for next gen batteries.
So now we know clearly that nationalist xenophobia the true most important priority for this administration. Or at least, more important than either the domestic economic interests of their own base or strategic national security interests.
> nationalist xenophobia the true most important priority for this administration
It is a little more complicated than that. It is what around 40% of American population want. (Then another 9.5% or so voted for Trump based on the price of eggs, the fact that the other candidate was a woman, and so on).
Just because the people voted for Trump does not mean that the people don't want visa laws followed. Also, voting for someone does not give that someone carte blanche to do whatever the hell they please.
> “There was widespread anger across the political spectrum in South Korea at the behavior of the U.S. authorities"
Korean politics (like everywhere else) has gotten incredibly polarised in the last few years, but this incident managed to unite them for a little while before they devolved back to blaming each other as for why this had happened.
Stephen Miller has always seemed a bit freaky and fascist. Here's him last month:
>The Democrat [sic] Party does not fight for, care about, or represent American citizens. It is an entity devoted exclusively [his emphasis] to the defense of hardened criminals, gang-bangers, and illegal, alien killers and terrorists. The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization.
and possibly greatly reduced foreign investment for 3 years
“Other attorneys and I are hearing from companies in Asia and Europe who say, ‘Maybe we should hold off on big investments in the U.S. for at least three years.’”
Exactly. If I'm a foreign company thinking about setting up a factory in the US, I'd probably pass.
With the tariffs it's already going to be hard to get the equipment you need into the US without spending a significant amount of money. But now you run the risk of the US arresting and deporting all your skilled workers setting up and managing that factory? No thank you.
It's in the article, that's when they'll resume work on the plant.
> According to LG Energy Solution, construction at the plant will remain on hold until the first half of 2026, reported WJCL, delaying by several months when U.S. workers can begin jobs at the facility.
ICE took away the workers that were delivering and installing equipment, which introduced delays into the construction process.
That assumes that LG can find workers who want to risk going to the US.
The government of South Korea is forming a "task force" with the US embassy in Seoul to try to get visa procedures fixed so this doesn't happen again. "Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said the body will be led by director-level officials, emphasizing that its purpose is to facilitate practical consultations rather than political declarations."
The view from the Korean side is worth reading. [1] This may reduce Korean investment in the US.[2]
> the part that has been the most surprising is how stupid it is
Read The Wages of Destruction.
The Nazis were economically inept. This part of fascism’s history—its incompetence–is often overwritten by stories of gleaming German engineering and Italian timeliness.
What you do not understand is due process and innocent until proven guilty. You don’t just abduct people on the streets and deport them to a random country without at least making sure that they don’t have a residence permit. Well, you don’t in a civilised country, anyway.
Not just abduct people and deport them. Abduct people, put them into jail cells and block their release as a bargaining chip in order to backstab one of the closest allies.
We survived for decades with basically just that. People could come up from mexico to work the fields in the summer and head back for the winter with basically no friction at the border.
The question to ask is "what is the border actually protecting"? When you start to drill in the reasons for a strong border, they all end up being fabricated problems.
"To stop drugs". Well, most drugs are either being manufactured in america or they are brought in by US citizens not smuggled across the border.
"To stop human trafficking". The ironic part here is the most common human trafficking happens because of the strong border. "We'll deport you" is used to keep workers abused. A weaker border gives workers much more bargaining power.
"To stop crime". Most crime is done by citizens of the US, not immigrants. And, again ironically, overly punitive borders does exactly the opposite of stopping crime. When someone that's undocumented can't talk to the police they are far less likely to be a witness for a crime or to report a crime. It further encourages gangs. A lot of gangs spring up because people can't go to the cops. That's part of the reason the mafia flourished. It's the reason militant organizations like the Black Panthers were formed.
"To create jobs". This one might be a wash. However, it has to be said that more people means a higher need for services in areas which can in fact create jobs.
"To avoid spending on services". This just doesn't happen outside of maybe emergency room care. Undocumented workers are FAR less likely to use any public services because they don't want to be deported. And so what if they do? Is it really such a bad thing if a non-citizen gets an education here? Don't we want more skilled and educated residence?
Let me put it in contexts of other countries. I as a kid, made a few trips to Canada and back. Back in the day you could do that without even presenting passports, it was kinda wild. Did Canada suddenly explode because of that easy border crossing? No, it was just a non-issue.
Similar things happen in the EU. The relaxed border controls for EU members hasn't resulted in chaos. It is, for the most part, a non-issue. People generally do not move, you still have most people born in whatever EU nation they are from staying there. The same would be true of the US.
I want enforcement of our immigration laws. ICE is deporting fewer illegal immigrants than Obama despite blowing Saudi Arabia’s military budget [1][2].
The entire endeavour is thoroughly corrupt, lawless and ineffective. It’s being run for TV, not for results.
So we get stupid spectacles like this from influencer ICE that make us, in the long run, trillions of dollars poorer, all while doing nothing to remove migrants much less gangs or cartels from our streets.
Someone once told me you can't understand US politics without understanding Linear Algebra.
End of the day each party needs certain to appease certain people in certain locations. Like any marketing team they segment their "customer" i.e. voter base[1], then rationalize actions to get there post hoc.
The general public depending on the news channel they wire their head into will have the same opinions.
Hence, it will unlikely to get a sensible answer by asking this in a forum. The actual answer is behind the scenes from political operatives who do the literal political calculus.
PS [1]: this is one reason identity politics is so appealing to them as it's logistically easy as it maps well to their customer segments
I'm not disagreeing that cable news broadcasts a lot of propaganda, but you can't both claim that you're servicing "customer" segments based on calculus, and also claim that the news wire viewers into the same opinion.
If it's the latter you don't need the former, etc.
I can agree that shoddy news (a lot of it these days) do abuse viewers worst instincts and provide plausible coverage for it, but there is clearly something more going on for a sustainable amount of people to still support this.
What I want is for people to be free to immigrate to the US if they are a) not known to be dangerous; and b) prepared to commit to the US and support it. That means I am more in favor of permanent immigrants than of migrant workers. In general there should be a low bar to clear to have a path to citizenship in the US. I think it makes sense to have various requirements that must be met along that path; I'd be fine with, for instance, laws that require people who are in that process to register, meet periodically with some official, pay an extra tax, etc. I also would support requiring immigrants to formally and effectively renounce any other citizenship upon receiving US citizenship.
But the goal should be to get people to actually move here, permanently, not just be here. That is what improves the country: people committing their hearts and souls and investing their lives in the place where they live. So many of the great immigrant stories from the past took this form. I find it ironic that so much rhetoric focuses on ways to legalize migrant labor, because that seems like exactly what we don't want.
First, ICE should be competent. There's a long history of them being the dumbest and most thug-like people to hold a badge. Compare this to the US Postal Inspectors, who are the most competent. Reform has long been needed from top to bottom. Consider that they basically use skin color as probable cause, which is enraging and lazy.
Second, the silly quotas focus on the wrong issue. The government, being incompetent, is meeting quota by voiding valid permission-to-stay because they know where those people live. They are manufacturing people to deport because they are not competent to find people who can be legally deported.
Third, this is a case of supply and demand. The system is focused on the supply side composed of desperate workers rather than demand side of people who hired them for personal profit. This is silly: come down hard on one meatpacking plant and you "solve" the problem of hundreds of illegal immigrants with a single criminal charge. Trying to stamp out the immigrants one-by-one is inefficient and unjust.
Lastly, this is pretty much all the fault of the Republican Party. George W Bush wanted to make a grand compromise where sufficient barriers to entry were erected in exchange for amnesty. The nativist wing of the Republican Party went apoplectic at compromise and killed any practical solution for decades. There will never be a solution so long as one side wants to deport law-abiding hardworking taxpayers whose parents brought them here as children.
> Third, this is a case of supply and demand. The system is focused on the supply side composed of desperate workers rather than demand side of people who hired them for personal profit. This is silly: come down hard on one meatpacking plant and you "solve" the problem of hundreds of illegal immigrants with a single criminal charge. Trying to stamp out the immigrants one-by-one is inefficient and unjust.
A major reason ICE and a strict border exist is to depress wages and enable employer abuse. That's why this is never the approach to solve immigration problems.
Being able to say "behave or we'll deport you" is exactly the point. If you flip it around you'll quickly find a bunch of employers that cry about how wonderful these workers are and that we need to "have a heart".
Undocumented workers won't, for example, form a union or make complaints to OSHA.
This is not a serious question. Nobody, including the Koreans, has been been arguing that ICE should have just ignored it. The objections are twofold: that instead of raising the issue administratively with the company they just rolled in and arrested everyone in sight (including people with valid visas), and that they engaged in egregious human rights violations.
> What do you want for the USA? Completely open borders? Closed borders, but we don't enforce it very well? Something else?
The 2024 bipartisan border bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_b...) seemed like a good compromise to me. Of course, it wasn't brought to a vote by the house (for reasons that I won't elaborate on), so it's mostly a hypothetical.
And, if I had to choose between the two, I'm more supportive of the Biden era immigration policy than I am of the current Trump policy.
I want ICE to go after the drug traffickers and violent criminals they claimed were so common and such a problem. When drug trafficking and violent crime is completely stopped, then we can talk about the best way to handle skilled workers with minor paperwork errors.
“too much immigration literally suppresses wages, all other arguments are secondary and not imp enough imo” - this argument is more in line with removing billionaires from existing more than immigrants.
I believe that I have the right as a human being to travel wherever I wish, or move to wherever I am the most happy. I don't believe the government should have the power to limit my right to travel. And I believe all people should have the same rights I do.
That sounds like an awful lot of people who will want to buy food, houses, televisions, mobile phones, automobiles, ziploc bags, photocopiers, vinyl siding, and so on.
Where would we find the people to build all those things, and do all that work? Why, we’d need like 1 billion more people to do all that!
And what would that do to our GDP? Multiply it by 4 or 5? How horrible!
I think you do understand. But for the record, here's the boring centrist bougie liberal take on immigration policy:
1. If we have jobs available, people should be able to immigrate to do them.
2. Changes in enforcement policy should be just. If people are here doing jobs, we should assume that they have jobs worth doing. Norms are norms for a reason.
3. If someone breaks those rules, sure, arrest them and deport them. But not to a gulag in El Salvador.
I'd just push back on the deportation. Why would we want to deport someone that commits a crime? If someone kills someone do we really want to trust that the government we deport them to will jail them? Especially since they have pretty much no way to actually investigate that murder?
Imagine you are canada, A canadan citizen kills an american while visiting. The US immediately deports that person because "they are a murder". What do you do as the Canadian government? Do you just take the US's word that "this person is a murderer"?
For a serious crime like murder you want to imprison them for their sentence and then deport them. You obviously don't want the most serious consequence for a foreigner coming to the US to murder someone to be deportation.
But for a minor crime like shoplifting maybe just tossing them out is fine. Is it worth locking them up for a couple months when you can just wash your hands of them?
For clarity: yes, criminal law would take precedence for domestic crimes. I'm saying that if one presupposes a justly and reasonably administered Immigrant Work Visa program, that it's reasonable to arrest and deport people who sneak in without having such a visa.
But now you are talking about upending people's lives over misdemeanors. Should we deport someone for speeding?
I just don't see a work visa program as having any benefit. Anyone working in the US should be protected by workers laws the same as if they have a visa or not. Why should we put limits on who can work for who and be employed by who. Who actually benefits from such limits?
People who work. It's just an economic argument. The US (and any other targets of net immigration, really) has a higher wage level than the regions from which the labor is arriving, more or less by definition. That's why the labor force is moving.
So if you allow completely unlimited population motion at zero cost, the system will seek to a state where all wages for a given job are the same, everywhere. And that means that we highly-paid Americans end up poorer.
Now, is such a world more just? More fair? Maybe! But it's worse for us, and that makes it a politically infeasible solution to argue for. You'll never convince people to live poorer for the benefit of others.
A feasible/reasonable/moderate/boring immigration policy would simply ask the question "How much immigration is needed to fill existing jobs (good for growth) without depressing wages (bad for workers)?", and allow that much.
FWIW, that's not strictly true. We deport non-criminal foreigners for diplomatic reasons all the time. I think it's very reasonable to imagine an enforcement regime (not the one we have) where legitimate workers (and their families, yada yada) have easily-available and auditable visa and citizenship documentation. And so if you find someone who doesn't, there's no failure of due process to simply deport them. Done right, there won't be many cheaters anyway as employers will have easy access to documented labor instead.
Part of getting past the wonderfully comfortable "restate anyone else's differing opinion in the weakest and most easily attacked strawman form" fallacy is taking the time to think about and engage with the best and most thoughtful form of the other opinion you could imagine that person holding, not just with the weakest and least thoughtful version.
Should you still disagree with the best form of their likely opinion, you'll be much better equipped to engage in an actual dialogue that can lead to actual intellectual growth and change, commonly on both sides.
People aren't mad about legitimate exercises of due process initiated by actual law enforcement agents acting within their normal mandates. People are mad that Miller's wannabe-SS abducted a mixed group of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors with visas, chained them together, and forced them to lick water out of dog bowls.
> B-1 covers meetings, training, after-sales service. It does not cover productive line work. If that’s what happened, the class mismatches.
Meetings like one of the men mentioned in the article was in when they arrested him? He wasn't doing "productive line work", whatever that means for a factory that isn't even operating.
I care about being humane. I care about due process. I care about not assuming someone is an illegal immigrant just because they have darker skin or speak a language other than English. I care about people getting their time in front of a judge before they're flown off to some country that they may not have even set foot in before in their lives. I care about elected officials -- the people who represent me, regardless of whether or not I voted for them -- treating people like people, and not like animals.
To answer your questions, though, I do think we should have open-er borders. I think we should have easier paths to residency and citizenship, for people who want it. I'm sick of the isolationism and xenophobia. It's disgusting. It's unamerican.
>Serious question for people who oppose ICE enforcing immigration law:
People want ICE to enforce the immigration law without violating other laws and the Constitution. Unfortunately the current government and their supporters (and you seem to belong to that group) spin the insistence that ICE to not violate laws and the Constitution as the opposition to enforcement of the immigration law.
This nation does now and always has depended on immigrants. This recent ICE nonsense is capricious (no public plan), punitive (targets mostly political opponents), and illegal (targets skin color).
This is utterly disingenuous. Do you really think "enforcing immigration laws" is what ICE is doing? Since when sending people to foreign countries without due process is a proper way to enforce laws?
planned economies, rat tails and cobras breeding, lines of code counts, etc. the history is abundant with examples. There is a popular saying in Russia (originated by a famous for his "language skills" Prime-Minister from the 90-ies - Chernomyrdin) - "We have never had such a thing happen, and it has just happened again".
In addition to Korea being one of our most important military allies in the world, you need batteries for military drones, and the US is way behind in the development of a domestic manufacturing supply chain for next gen batteries.
So now we know clearly that nationalist xenophobia the true most important priority for this administration. Or at least, more important than either the domestic economic interests of their own base or strategic national security interests.
> nationalist xenophobia the true most important priority for this administration
It is a little more complicated than that. It is what around 40% of American population want. (Then another 9.5% or so voted for Trump based on the price of eggs, the fact that the other candidate was a woman, and so on).
40% of the voting population*
Just because the people voted for Trump does not mean that the people don't want visa laws followed. Also, voting for someone does not give that someone carte blanche to do whatever the hell they please.
> “There was widespread anger across the political spectrum in South Korea at the behavior of the U.S. authorities"
Korean politics (like everywhere else) has gotten incredibly polarised in the last few years, but this incident managed to unite them for a little while before they devolved back to blaming each other as for why this had happened.
Stephen Miller has always seemed a bit freaky and fascist. Here's him last month:
>The Democrat [sic] Party does not fight for, care about, or represent American citizens. It is an entity devoted exclusively [his emphasis] to the defense of hardened criminals, gang-bangers, and illegal, alien killers and terrorists. The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization.
Hope they don't try to ban it.
The US is way behind in battery technology. This was a badly needed technology transfer into the US. And now it's broken, for at least six months.
and possibly greatly reduced foreign investment for 3 years
“Other attorneys and I are hearing from companies in Asia and Europe who say, ‘Maybe we should hold off on big investments in the U.S. for at least three years.’”
Exactly. If I'm a foreign company thinking about setting up a factory in the US, I'd probably pass.
With the tariffs it's already going to be hard to get the equipment you need into the US without spending a significant amount of money. But now you run the risk of the US arresting and deporting all your skilled workers setting up and managing that factory? No thank you.
Absolutely braindead move.
What happens in six months?
It's in the article, that's when they'll resume work on the plant.
> According to LG Energy Solution, construction at the plant will remain on hold until the first half of 2026, reported WJCL, delaying by several months when U.S. workers can begin jobs at the facility.
ICE took away the workers that were delivering and installing equipment, which introduced delays into the construction process.
That assumes that LG can find workers who want to risk going to the US.
The government of South Korea is forming a "task force" with the US embassy in Seoul to try to get visa procedures fixed so this doesn't happen again. "Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said the body will be led by director-level officials, emphasizing that its purpose is to facilitate practical consultations rather than political declarations." The view from the Korean side is worth reading. [1] This may reduce Korean investment in the US.[2]
[1] https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20250916/korea-u...
[2] https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/09/south-korea-v...
Good will is the kind of thing that when you lose it once, you never get it back. The Koreans, and various others, will take it to their grave.
Are we all just going to let fascist lubricant flow over clearly defineable facts?
What is the fascist lubricant you refer to?
Most of us only know knew fascism from history books. But I think the part that has been the most surprising is how stupid it is.
Basically, fascism creates a system where people are promoted based on political loyalty rather than competency.
The most loyal people will be the people who lack skill since they only have the position due to the higher ups ensuring loyalty.
That's a good insight.
Inept authoritarianism - the worse of both worlds.
One could argue that incompetent authoritarianism is better for the country than competent authoritarianism.
It's just too bad those are our only choices at the moment.
> the part that has been the most surprising is how stupid it is
Read The Wages of Destruction.
The Nazis were economically inept. This part of fascism’s history—its incompetence–is often overwritten by stories of gleaming German engineering and Italian timeliness.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
What you do not understand is due process and innocent until proven guilty. You don’t just abduct people on the streets and deport them to a random country without at least making sure that they don’t have a residence permit. Well, you don’t in a civilised country, anyway.
Not just abduct people and deport them. Abduct people, put them into jail cells and block their release as a bargaining chip in order to backstab one of the closest allies.
Absolutely this.
For me, open borders with easy documentation.
We survived for decades with basically just that. People could come up from mexico to work the fields in the summer and head back for the winter with basically no friction at the border.
The question to ask is "what is the border actually protecting"? When you start to drill in the reasons for a strong border, they all end up being fabricated problems.
"To stop drugs". Well, most drugs are either being manufactured in america or they are brought in by US citizens not smuggled across the border.
"To stop human trafficking". The ironic part here is the most common human trafficking happens because of the strong border. "We'll deport you" is used to keep workers abused. A weaker border gives workers much more bargaining power.
"To stop crime". Most crime is done by citizens of the US, not immigrants. And, again ironically, overly punitive borders does exactly the opposite of stopping crime. When someone that's undocumented can't talk to the police they are far less likely to be a witness for a crime or to report a crime. It further encourages gangs. A lot of gangs spring up because people can't go to the cops. That's part of the reason the mafia flourished. It's the reason militant organizations like the Black Panthers were formed.
"To create jobs". This one might be a wash. However, it has to be said that more people means a higher need for services in areas which can in fact create jobs.
"To avoid spending on services". This just doesn't happen outside of maybe emergency room care. Undocumented workers are FAR less likely to use any public services because they don't want to be deported. And so what if they do? Is it really such a bad thing if a non-citizen gets an education here? Don't we want more skilled and educated residence?
Let me put it in contexts of other countries. I as a kid, made a few trips to Canada and back. Back in the day you could do that without even presenting passports, it was kinda wild. Did Canada suddenly explode because of that easy border crossing? No, it was just a non-issue.
Similar things happen in the EU. The relaxed border controls for EU members hasn't resulted in chaos. It is, for the most part, a non-issue. People generally do not move, you still have most people born in whatever EU nation they are from staying there. The same would be true of the US.
I want enforcement of our immigration laws. ICE is deporting fewer illegal immigrants than Obama despite blowing Saudi Arabia’s military budget [1][2].
The entire endeavour is thoroughly corrupt, lawless and ineffective. It’s being run for TV, not for results.
So we get stupid spectacles like this from influencer ICE that make us, in the long run, trillions of dollars poorer, all while doing nothing to remove migrants much less gangs or cartels from our streets.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-b...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...
Someone once told me you can't understand US politics without understanding Linear Algebra.
End of the day each party needs certain to appease certain people in certain locations. Like any marketing team they segment their "customer" i.e. voter base[1], then rationalize actions to get there post hoc.
The general public depending on the news channel they wire their head into will have the same opinions.
Hence, it will unlikely to get a sensible answer by asking this in a forum. The actual answer is behind the scenes from political operatives who do the literal political calculus.
PS [1]: this is one reason identity politics is so appealing to them as it's logistically easy as it maps well to their customer segments
I'm not disagreeing that cable news broadcasts a lot of propaganda, but you can't both claim that you're servicing "customer" segments based on calculus, and also claim that the news wire viewers into the same opinion.
If it's the latter you don't need the former, etc.
I can agree that shoddy news (a lot of it these days) do abuse viewers worst instincts and provide plausible coverage for it, but there is clearly something more going on for a sustainable amount of people to still support this.
I'll take your question in good faith.
What I want is for people to be free to immigrate to the US if they are a) not known to be dangerous; and b) prepared to commit to the US and support it. That means I am more in favor of permanent immigrants than of migrant workers. In general there should be a low bar to clear to have a path to citizenship in the US. I think it makes sense to have various requirements that must be met along that path; I'd be fine with, for instance, laws that require people who are in that process to register, meet periodically with some official, pay an extra tax, etc. I also would support requiring immigrants to formally and effectively renounce any other citizenship upon receiving US citizenship.
But the goal should be to get people to actually move here, permanently, not just be here. That is what improves the country: people committing their hearts and souls and investing their lives in the place where they live. So many of the great immigrant stories from the past took this form. I find it ironic that so much rhetoric focuses on ways to legalize migrant labor, because that seems like exactly what we don't want.
Due. Process.
Just because someone isn't white and speaks english as a second language does not make them illegal or a criminal.
There used to be the presumption of innocence. This is no longer the case.
That's what I want. Simple rule of law in the us the way it is supposed to be.
What I would like:
First, ICE should be competent. There's a long history of them being the dumbest and most thug-like people to hold a badge. Compare this to the US Postal Inspectors, who are the most competent. Reform has long been needed from top to bottom. Consider that they basically use skin color as probable cause, which is enraging and lazy.
Second, the silly quotas focus on the wrong issue. The government, being incompetent, is meeting quota by voiding valid permission-to-stay because they know where those people live. They are manufacturing people to deport because they are not competent to find people who can be legally deported.
Third, this is a case of supply and demand. The system is focused on the supply side composed of desperate workers rather than demand side of people who hired them for personal profit. This is silly: come down hard on one meatpacking plant and you "solve" the problem of hundreds of illegal immigrants with a single criminal charge. Trying to stamp out the immigrants one-by-one is inefficient and unjust.
Lastly, this is pretty much all the fault of the Republican Party. George W Bush wanted to make a grand compromise where sufficient barriers to entry were erected in exchange for amnesty. The nativist wing of the Republican Party went apoplectic at compromise and killed any practical solution for decades. There will never be a solution so long as one side wants to deport law-abiding hardworking taxpayers whose parents brought them here as children.
> Third, this is a case of supply and demand. The system is focused on the supply side composed of desperate workers rather than demand side of people who hired them for personal profit. This is silly: come down hard on one meatpacking plant and you "solve" the problem of hundreds of illegal immigrants with a single criminal charge. Trying to stamp out the immigrants one-by-one is inefficient and unjust.
A major reason ICE and a strict border exist is to depress wages and enable employer abuse. That's why this is never the approach to solve immigration problems.
Being able to say "behave or we'll deport you" is exactly the point. If you flip it around you'll quickly find a bunch of employers that cry about how wonderful these workers are and that we need to "have a heart".
Undocumented workers won't, for example, form a union or make complaints to OSHA.
This is not a serious question. Nobody, including the Koreans, has been been arguing that ICE should have just ignored it. The objections are twofold: that instead of raising the issue administratively with the company they just rolled in and arrested everyone in sight (including people with valid visas), and that they engaged in egregious human rights violations.
> What do you want for the USA? Completely open borders? Closed borders, but we don't enforce it very well? Something else?
The 2024 bipartisan border bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_b...) seemed like a good compromise to me. Of course, it wasn't brought to a vote by the house (for reasons that I won't elaborate on), so it's mostly a hypothetical.
And, if I had to choose between the two, I'm more supportive of the Biden era immigration policy than I am of the current Trump policy.
I want ICE to go after the drug traffickers and violent criminals they claimed were so common and such a problem. When drug trafficking and violent crime is completely stopped, then we can talk about the best way to handle skilled workers with minor paperwork errors.
Im an immigrant and I think it’s something that needs to be done.
The people responsible are the ones who let this happen. The solution is gonna be ugly no matter what.
too much immigration literally suppresses wages, all other arguments are secondary and not imp enough imo
“too much immigration literally suppresses wages, all other arguments are secondary and not imp enough imo” - this argument is more in line with removing billionaires from existing more than immigrants.
both can be right
The solution is gonna be ugly no matter what.
That's bullshit. This notion that human rights don't matter in law enforcement matters is cancer.
I believe that I have the right as a human being to travel wherever I wish, or move to wherever I am the most happy. I don't believe the government should have the power to limit my right to travel. And I believe all people should have the same rights I do.
If 1 billion people from other countries want to come to the USA tomorrow. Should they be allowed?
If they can get here, sure.
I don't think it's logistically possible for 1 billion people to migrate in a day.
That sounds like an awful lot of people who will want to buy food, houses, televisions, mobile phones, automobiles, ziploc bags, photocopiers, vinyl siding, and so on.
Where would we find the people to build all those things, and do all that work? Why, we’d need like 1 billion more people to do all that!
And what would that do to our GDP? Multiply it by 4 or 5? How horrible!
[dead]
I think you do understand. But for the record, here's the boring centrist bougie liberal take on immigration policy:
1. If we have jobs available, people should be able to immigrate to do them.
2. Changes in enforcement policy should be just. If people are here doing jobs, we should assume that they have jobs worth doing. Norms are norms for a reason.
3. If someone breaks those rules, sure, arrest them and deport them. But not to a gulag in El Salvador.
I'd just push back on the deportation. Why would we want to deport someone that commits a crime? If someone kills someone do we really want to trust that the government we deport them to will jail them? Especially since they have pretty much no way to actually investigate that murder?
Imagine you are canada, A canadan citizen kills an american while visiting. The US immediately deports that person because "they are a murder". What do you do as the Canadian government? Do you just take the US's word that "this person is a murderer"?
IMO it sort of depends.
For a serious crime like murder you want to imprison them for their sentence and then deport them. You obviously don't want the most serious consequence for a foreigner coming to the US to murder someone to be deportation.
But for a minor crime like shoplifting maybe just tossing them out is fine. Is it worth locking them up for a couple months when you can just wash your hands of them?
For clarity: yes, criminal law would take precedence for domestic crimes. I'm saying that if one presupposes a justly and reasonably administered Immigrant Work Visa program, that it's reasonable to arrest and deport people who sneak in without having such a visa.
But now you are talking about upending people's lives over misdemeanors. Should we deport someone for speeding?
I just don't see a work visa program as having any benefit. Anyone working in the US should be protected by workers laws the same as if they have a visa or not. Why should we put limits on who can work for who and be employed by who. Who actually benefits from such limits?
> Who actually benefits from such limits?
People who work. It's just an economic argument. The US (and any other targets of net immigration, really) has a higher wage level than the regions from which the labor is arriving, more or less by definition. That's why the labor force is moving.
So if you allow completely unlimited population motion at zero cost, the system will seek to a state where all wages for a given job are the same, everywhere. And that means that we highly-paid Americans end up poorer.
Now, is such a world more just? More fair? Maybe! But it's worse for us, and that makes it a politically infeasible solution to argue for. You'll never convince people to live poorer for the benefit of others.
A feasible/reasonable/moderate/boring immigration policy would simply ask the question "How much immigration is needed to fill existing jobs (good for growth) without depressing wages (bad for workers)?", and allow that much.
If being undocumented is a crime, people accused of it are entitled to trial by a jury of their peers.
FWIW, that's not strictly true. We deport non-criminal foreigners for diplomatic reasons all the time. I think it's very reasonable to imagine an enforcement regime (not the one we have) where legitimate workers (and their families, yada yada) have easily-available and auditable visa and citizenship documentation. And so if you find someone who doesn't, there's no failure of due process to simply deport them. Done right, there won't be many cheaters anyway as employers will have easy access to documented labor instead.
So your position is people should be able to come to the USA to work any possible job, but not to not work?
> So your position is ...
Part of getting past the wonderfully comfortable "restate anyone else's differing opinion in the weakest and most easily attacked strawman form" fallacy is taking the time to think about and engage with the best and most thoughtful form of the other opinion you could imagine that person holding, not just with the weakest and least thoughtful version.
Should you still disagree with the best form of their likely opinion, you'll be much better equipped to engage in an actual dialogue that can lead to actual intellectual growth and change, commonly on both sides.
People aren't mad about legitimate exercises of due process initiated by actual law enforcement agents acting within their normal mandates. People are mad that Miller's wannabe-SS abducted a mixed group of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors with visas, chained them together, and forced them to lick water out of dog bowls.
They claim they arrested a group who were violating the terms of their B-1 Visas[1]. Do you disagree with this, and why?
[1] A B-1 visa is a U.S. nonimmigrant visa for temporary visits for business.
> They claim they arrested a group who were violating the terms of their B-1 Visas
Has any evidence been presented by the government for this claim?
B-1 covers meetings, training, after-sales service. It does not cover productive line work. If that’s what happened, the class mismatches.
> B-1 covers meetings, training, after-sales service. It does not cover productive line work. If that’s what happened, the class mismatches.
Meetings like one of the men mentioned in the article was in when they arrested him? He wasn't doing "productive line work", whatever that means for a factory that isn't even operating.
Imagine a sort of "process" for adjudicating these claims.
Has the government presented any evidence that that's what happened?
Is Hyundai a business?
You're asking the wrong questions.
I care about being humane. I care about due process. I care about not assuming someone is an illegal immigrant just because they have darker skin or speak a language other than English. I care about people getting their time in front of a judge before they're flown off to some country that they may not have even set foot in before in their lives. I care about elected officials -- the people who represent me, regardless of whether or not I voted for them -- treating people like people, and not like animals.
To answer your questions, though, I do think we should have open-er borders. I think we should have easier paths to residency and citizenship, for people who want it. I'm sick of the isolationism and xenophobia. It's disgusting. It's unamerican.
>Serious question for people who oppose ICE enforcing immigration law:
People want ICE to enforce the immigration law without violating other laws and the Constitution. Unfortunately the current government and their supporters (and you seem to belong to that group) spin the insistence that ICE to not violate laws and the Constitution as the opposition to enforcement of the immigration law.
serious question: let's just shut down everything and see what could go wrong? let's also stop reading. get rekt
Serious answer — Bunny Colvin’s “Paper Bag” speech in The Wire — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2fV-_eiKxE
This nation does now and always has depended on immigrants. This recent ICE nonsense is capricious (no public plan), punitive (targets mostly political opponents), and illegal (targets skin color).
> I sincerely really don't understand.
This is utterly disingenuous. Do you really think "enforcing immigration laws" is what ICE is doing? Since when sending people to foreign countries without due process is a proper way to enforce laws?
I'll answer, but first I want your best guess.
planned economies, rat tails and cobras breeding, lines of code counts, etc. the history is abundant with examples. There is a popular saying in Russia (originated by a famous for his "language skills" Prime-Minister from the 90-ies - Chernomyrdin) - "We have never had such a thing happen, and it has just happened again".