There is no restriction on helping illegal immigrants (a lot of charities do this); the issue is paying them for work done since they don't have work authorization.

aren't you "harboring" them, as far as the law is concerned? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

https://www.disciplesimmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

"Harboring is conduct that substantially facilitates an immigrant’s remaining in the U.S.illegally and that prevents the authorities from detecting the individual’s unlawful presence. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)

Harboring includes affirmative conduct such as providing shelter, transportation, direction about how to obtain false documentation, or warnings about impending investigationsthat facilitates a person’s continuing illegal presence in the United States. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)

Harboring is conduct tending to substantially facilitate an immigrant’s remaining in the U.S. illegally. (U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) Harboring is conduct that clandestinely shelters, succors, and protects improperly admitted immigrants. (U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Sixth Circuit)

Harboring is conduct that provides or offers a known undocumented individual a secure haven, a refuge, a place to stay in which authorities are unlikely to be seeking him. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit)

Harboring is conduct that affords shelter to undocumented individuals. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)"

(Could always say didn't know-- don't ask don't tell)

Rephrased for my understanding: as long as my non-profit don't pay them for work and we just give them money to help them out, that is okay. Thanks.

Sounds like I should start that nonprofit, it is exactly what I wanted. Thank you.

There's no prohibition to helping out illegal immigrants as long as you're not paying them for work whether in the form of cash payments, assistance with housing, etc. There are some wonderful charities that do this kind of work by the way.

This comment and what you're doing brings me joy.

They should ask their country's embassy or consulate for help getting home. In many cases, travel assistance is available. They would then be in a fully legal status without all the trouble/stress/fear of hiding from the law and never knowing when they might be caught.

Are you implying that because something is illegal, it is also unethical?

If you are a lawyer, yes.

Any lawyer? The obvious question: what about a lawyer in Nazi Germany?

If you say of course not in that case, you acknowledge that there are unethical laws. If you say of course even Nazi lawyers are acting ethically, your absolutionist viewpoint doesn't exactly fit in with the messy real world.

Giving money to undocumented immigrants isn't illegal.

Establishing a non profit to direct money to undocumented immigrants isn't illegal.

What was the illegal activity you were talking about?

Why are you calling them undocumented, and not illegal?

Because the concept of an illegal human is philosophically and ethically absurd.

What do you find absurd in “someone who illegally entered on the soil of a sovereign state”? Because it seems to me then that you find the very concept of law absurd.

Law? No. Borders? Certainly. Is this as uncontroversial as you assume? My conservative friend was laughing earlier this week when he found out he can't go to Canada anymore because it's closed to Americans. He pointed to the woods north of his yard and said "the border is an invisible line buried in there somewhere."

This is also unrelated to the terminology of "illegal immigrant," insomuch as an immigrant is a person and so therefore the equivalent phrase is "illegal person" which is again, absurd, how can a person's existence be "illegal?"

It’s clearly not his existence but his presence at $CURRENT_LOCATION because he immigrated illegaly. In my view you get an absurd result because you exchanged two words in a context where it is absurd to do so.

Everything is clearer if you find borders absurd, but I personally find difficult for the exact same arguments to not find private property absurd, which is of the same nature and as abstract (why couldn’t I go on your lawn or drink the juice in front of me event if you have this so-called ‘property’ of it?).

My take on the issue is this: a territory is the possession of the moral person which is the state or the macro entity called ‘country’. Like a cell, it survives because of its borders, and it is as a real entity superior to the sum of its of inhabitants as you are superior from a random arrangement of cells / atoms.

In my view they form “macro”-organism and war for example are battles for resources. Territories are to human groups the same as to herds of cows. Just at a much larger scale and with precise and written conventions between the herds.

> private property absurd

It kinda is though.

> (why couldn’t I go on your lawn or drink the juice in front of me event if you have this so-called ‘property’ of it?).

Sort of for similar reasons you can't cross an invisible line - though the argument falls apart if you start taking juice out of my hand.

Your argument is interesting, but of course I disagree that the "moral" possessor of the property (nearly every nation on earth) is inherently moral (or even more moral than immoral).

> it survives because of its borders

The issue being that we've described some cells as "good" and some cells as "bad" based on whether they're inside, or outside, the borders, which isn't good enough. Obviously there are good humans outside the USA, and bad ones within. The borders failed to do the job. They're a bad solution.

Also, what definitions of "survive?" There were relatively "borderless" nations in the past, such as roving warbands and the like, that many would argue "survived" just fine (of course, like all nations, they ended or "died" eventually, but all nations do this).

You have a pretty interesting take on that matter however I have to disagree with you. Firstly you can’t compare nations of the past where the horse or the boat where the fastest means of transportations and where the vast majority people were often bounds to some lands. There are few examples of peaceful long term human migration between established states at the scale of what is happening right now in the US.

Secondly, considering that property, unless of immediate usage, is absurd and immoral is a pretty bold claim. I know literally no one, even monks, who live at the full extent of what it means. Basically ascetism is the only real way of achieving it. Unfortunately I consider one’s opinion meaningful only if one has skin in the game related to it.

> Unfortunately I consider one’s opinion meaningful only if one has skin in the game related to it.

When it comes to a woman's right to bodily autonomy (right to abort a pregnancy), I'm pro-women's right to choose.

Considering I'm a man it's impossible for me to have skin in the game. So, my support is meaningless? My calls and letters to my representatives, invalid?

Very curious viewpoint. I would imagine the angle you're going for is "you can't be a communist software engineer working for FAANG" or something? "If you really believe that, why don't you give away all your things?" I hope that's not what you mean as that'd be very bad faith.

That’s not what I meant. What I meant is that if you want to convince others of opening borders and if you want to engage in political activities to promote policies that fit your moral compass but in which your fellow citizens will also share the consequences you should first live by them.

I had my share of colleagues in STEMS who are cynically pro-open borders and pro-immigration only because they are wealthy white dudes with valuable degrees and thus suffer little from the consequences but benefits from it on the sexual market (usually when going after asian or indian girls in the EU, add also hispanic girls in the US) and help them to work abroad in exotic destinations (Singapour, Taipei, Tokyo, ...).

And yes I generally consider that about abortion a woman’s opinion is more valuable than a man’s on that topic for obvious reasons and I am personally in favour of abortion in most cases.

Ideally we could discuss a topic without needing to take eachother's personal situations into account. The discussion space is large enough that drilling down to me as an individual seems a pointless distraction.

For what it's worth, I wasn't always a rich programmer. There may be a very specific reason I empathize very well with the plight of the proletariat ;)

That sexual advantage bit is really interesting to hear about. It drove me from Taiwan the first time I was there. Too many 40 year old white dudes preying on foreign women in the bars. Didn't want to become that, stuck as an English teacher. I'll chew on this new analysis.

Perhaps some those illegals are descendants of American citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation

400,000 to 2,000,000 "Mexicans" (including their American-born children, technically US citizens) living in territories annexed by the US were "repatriated" (put into buses and sent to Mexico). In other words, this is ethnic cleansing.

Some of them owned land and properties, and were forced to abandon them with no compensation.

Racists don't give a shit about legal immigration. If all those people of Mexican descent were legal immigrants, they would still find a way to discriminate them. It's just the excuse of the day.