Hacker News Reader

Comment by anovikov | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

This will be your opinion right up to the second your own life or family is the one in danger and you need to break a law or cross a border to save it. So this comment only indicates a complete lack of empathy.

A drowning person is extremely dangerous because the animal instinct in them will cause them to push a rescuer underwater so the victim can climb on top. We don't blame the drowning person, we know that humans will do terrible things when they're in mortal danger.

So perhaps the rich countries that caused much of this pollution can find a way to incorporate all the people who will need a new place to stay, making them productive citizens. Instead of destroying their land and then machine gunning them at the border.

Well, people will be forced to save themselves. Other people will be forced to defend. What's weird about it? It doesn't have to be personal. It can be electric fence. Mines. Whatever.

> So perhaps the rich countries that caused much of this pollution

This cuts both ways. Without all the civilization and tech brought by the rich countries Central America (or Africa, etc) would not be able to reproduce at the problematic rates they are today. If that is also the rich countries responsibility we should be immediately cutting off all aid or enforcing birth limits.

We also need that in our own countries, but our naturally dwindling birth rates seem to have that covered for now. We should codify sustainable reproduction rates.

What a black and white viewpoint to have, I feel bad for you. Should we also execute (on the spot, no less) jaywalkers, children with unlicensed lemonade stands, and people who ask for water cups but then get a fountain drink? Consider a little empathy once in a while. Do you think you might be willing to break a law of you were in fear for your life? Illegal immigration, like many "large-scale" issues in society, is a multifaceted social phenomenon that there is no silver bullet for, pun intended.

Well, a secure border is what defines a country (or at least a country where it is by some weird quick unconstitutional to check papers within it, and anyone born inside is automatically a citizen). A country is a body of people that is able to pick who to include into the club and who not. If it is unable to, or refuses to do so and allows anyone to join, it ceases to exist.

Even in war-torn countries, most humans are uncomfortable with the bloody realities of actually killing - at scale, ongoing for years - desperate civilians. Especially since governments seem relatively poor at sorting out who's "illegal", and who's not.

Then there are the physical realities - borders are not magical unbroken fences. Most (of the interesting ones, for migration) have huge quantities of legal people and goods moving across them. If the "migrants" are numerous, and there are plenty of "legals" who know how lucrative the people smuggling trade can be...

Try breaking inside Russia. They have less than half the number of people and much longer border in much harder terrain. Chances of slipping in are around 10%, most of the time, you just get a bullet. They managed to keep it this way (ok maybe a bit less secure, but still mass infiltrations were impossible) even they they were literally a failed state in 1990s. So i don't agree this is somehow difficult. It's a matter of political will and people obeying the law. Just make what's already illegal, illegal indeed.

Sorting who's illegal? Inside the country, sure, it's not obvious. But at the point of entry? Any crossing outside of the designated point of entry - you get a bullet, no questions asked. No one will check if you are a citizen or have a right to enter. Simply a sign "use of deadly force is authorised" and armed patrols 24/7 with enough ammo to stop even large infiltrations.

At the point of entry? You gotta have a passport and a visa. No need for violence. You are just denied entry. Price of mistake is a bus ticket back. What's hard about it?

As for refugees, sure this is a good concept but they should be by invitation only. You escape to whatever country you can escape, then prepare and file papers in the embassy and wait. If there is more perceived propaganda value ("North Korean official escaped Kim regime") or factual ("Russian submarine designer with a suitcase of blueprints") of inviting you than perceived costs of threat, sure welcome, otherwise, why?

Refugee status (just as ANY immigration) exists for the benefit of accepting country. Not for the benefit of the refugee or immigrant themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com