The point where "Voters support deportations in the abstract but not the way it is right now" is where we need to take a seat back and look at how will actually functions.
I wrote an article where I dissected it into two components: needs and means. Voters have a better grasp of how a good country roughly should look like, but not so much of how to achieve that and what price we actually pay for things. In this case, deportations are a need of a second order because it's a mean for a exclusionary migration system. The question now is, is it actually possible to deport in the scale we need with appropriate means that don't violate, for example, limited damage to other human beings?
Migrants obviously don't want to be deported, so they try to hide themselves, but the more they hide, the more invasive has the government to be in order to actually achieve anything. The result is that more system-compliant migrants, which are more likely those that we want, are those who get deported first, while the deviant ones remain under the radar and refuse to interact with government systems in order to prevent leak of information about themselves. It also likely requires more violence to enforce those stricter rules.
My thesis, which can be wrong of course, is that any system which wants to minimize deviancy (aka make people interact with the system without the need to search them) needs to set an positive incentive first and does not punish for the sharing of true information in any way. This would, for example, mean, that the government needs to give people protection from deportation if they are going to the government and want to document themselves. But this goes against what the restrictive migration laws want to achieve.
Actually I notice that I write something that might belong in its own article lol
I'd be happy to take your poll, but the irony of a small number of vague categories is biting. I'm libertarian - how would you code that? I want lots of immigration but only with high assimilation - where does that fit?
Good point. My views are also kinda all over the place, so I did think about this a bit, but decided to go with a simpler option. My libertarian friends talk about being right and left, so it should be possible to answer even if it's not precise. Regarding immigration, I guess you'd be somewhat pro-immigration?
The point where "Voters support deportations in the abstract but not the way it is right now" is where we need to take a seat back and look at how will actually functions.
I wrote an article where I dissected it into two components: needs and means. Voters have a better grasp of how a good country roughly should look like, but not so much of how to achieve that and what price we actually pay for things. In this case, deportations are a need of a second order because it's a mean for a exclusionary migration system. The question now is, is it actually possible to deport in the scale we need with appropriate means that don't violate, for example, limited damage to other human beings?
Migrants obviously don't want to be deported, so they try to hide themselves, but the more they hide, the more invasive has the government to be in order to actually achieve anything. The result is that more system-compliant migrants, which are more likely those that we want, are those who get deported first, while the deviant ones remain under the radar and refuse to interact with government systems in order to prevent leak of information about themselves. It also likely requires more violence to enforce those stricter rules.
My thesis, which can be wrong of course, is that any system which wants to minimize deviancy (aka make people interact with the system without the need to search them) needs to set an positive incentive first and does not punish for the sharing of true information in any way. This would, for example, mean, that the government needs to give people protection from deportation if they are going to the government and want to document themselves. But this goes against what the restrictive migration laws want to achieve.
Actually I notice that I write something that might belong in its own article lol
I'd be happy to take your poll, but the irony of a small number of vague categories is biting. I'm libertarian - how would you code that? I want lots of immigration but only with high assimilation - where does that fit?
Good point. My views are also kinda all over the place, so I did think about this a bit, but decided to go with a simpler option. My libertarian friends talk about being right and left, so it should be possible to answer even if it's not precise. Regarding immigration, I guess you'd be somewhat pro-immigration?