For months, lone vibe coder Rafael Concepcion has obsessively built tools to counter the federal immigration crackdown—pivoting as he’s been outmatched. He’s also lost his job and become a target.
"That will wildly hallucinate" feels wildly hyperbolic considering how fast models are improving in their abilities, especially with proper safeguards built into the model harness.
Respectfully, in my opinion, you have not explained anything. You've just made a series of statements without qualifiers, which is not convincing. Are you a pure utilitarian or do you believe in principles that go beyond that? Do you believe governments have restraints on their powers towards persons under their care regardless of citizenship status?
The point of government is universally debatable and changes based on new knowledge or new principles/needs; governments are continually evolving and there are many different types of governments. If a government has jurisdiction over persons and those persons misbehave, that government is still responsible for those persons and does not get to discard them without violating human rights as they are understood today (and most constitutions and courts subscribe to the position I am describing).
You keep iterating your belief in how governments should work but you have not defended that belief in a convincing way (with either historical examples or justifying the seeming abuses other than saying "they can do this"). I believe governments should and/or do support universal human rights and defend human rights (as enlightenment thinkers believed).
What you're describing, if I understand correctly, is in violation of those universal principles of human dignity (some persons are lesser than others under the law, which is not true no matter how you try to justify it).
The whole reason we have international courts is countries can violate the rights of persons under their jurisdiction. Your claim that governments can do whatever they want to non-citizens, flies in the face of that idea. Are you against international courts that try to protect persons from the governments that have jurisdiction over them against abuses?
I'm not saying we should have unlimited immigration or open borders. Countries can and do have immigration rules. My problem is with using nationality as a stand-in for a person's personal/individual character, beliefs, or ability to live/assimilate in a society.
Just because there are differences in public attitudes between groups or nations does not mean you can look at one applicant and assume they personally believe whatever the average person in that culture believes.
Most immigrants are not a random sample of the country they come from, they may be educated, secular, religious minorities, political dissidents, LGBT themselves, liberal, etc.
If you're worried about a particular belief or ideology then make that the standard for the applying individual and do background checks, interviews, security screening, civic knowledge, etc, rather than a blanket country of origin ban.
It is inherently discriminatory to take group-level generalizations and turn them into blanket exclusions of individuals.
As for the "destination country becomes like the origin country", that is far too simplistic and reductive of a take. Selection effects, institutions, education, intermarriage, generational change, laws/culture of the host country, all matter in shaping behaviors of immigrants in society. Immigrants affect a society but the society also affects immigrants.
I'm not saying that non-citizens have identical political rights to citizens or that temporary residence can never end.
What I'm saying is that persons legally present in a country should not be penalized as a group based on nationality, religion or any other broad cultural polling/averages rather than individual conduct and due process of the law.
Citizenship can allow for some distinctions but it does not make non-citizens mere guests whose rights can be revoked at will. A state can regulate immigration but it still has the moral/ethical and legal duties to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of all persons under its jurisdiction, especially toward people it has already admitted lawfully.
There should never be 'second class' persons under the law and rights should not be "subject to changing political winds" as you seem to be suggesting, because that would mean there are no such thing as universal human rights which would put all persons (citizen or otherwise) in danger of losing their rights at the whims of the state or the majority.
I have not called you racist anywhere in our conversation. I've simply asserted that a policy may be discriminatory.
I also don’t see how universal human rights leads to “nation-states should not exist". A state can have borders, put limits on immigration, and prioritize citizens while still being limited by due process, equal protection, and non-discrimination.
The part I'm against is treating individuals as suspect mainly because of group averages, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc, rather than their own conduct.
If your position is just that states can favor citizens in some respects, I think there is no argument there. Where I disagree is with using that rationale as a way to justify broad disfavor toward legal residents or non-citizens as an entire class (whether administratively practical or not).
I think we may be talking past each other a bit here.
I’m not saying countries are inherently unjust or that Sweden must have open borders. I’m saying there’s a difference between choosing future immigrants and changing the status of people already legally present (which to my understanding the party being discussed in this thread openly considers, but I could be misunderstanding their position).
I think the private-home analogy does not work in the instance of nation-states. States exercise legal power over people in ways private individuals do not, so due process and equal treatment matter more than an individual's personal preferences.
The concern should rest on someone’s actual beliefs or conduct rather than with the entire group to which they are born or reside. I’d rather see that addressed directly rather than be inferred from nationality or broad group averages (based on imperfect polling).
Practicalities matter but so does fairness to individuals.
I believe in universal human rights and equality/fairness in application of laws. You seem like you don't and you're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify discrimination and unethical behavior towards other humans.
Legally in Sweden means they fall under the protections of Sweden's legal system and should be granted protections under the law, so it is a distinction without a difference.
Your context changes nothing: it's just one long "the ends justify the means" or "that's the way it is" and fails to address any of the ethics of the statements being made.
>> "When it comes to immigration policy, a nation has no obligation to discern incoming immigrants true views for compatibility."
Why? All immigration systems I know take the person's views into consideration (for obvious reasons).
>> "They can set whatever policy they want regarding who to let in. If the widespread views or cultural traits of some population renders immigration from that population more risk than reward, that is to no fault or demerit of the host nation."
They can't do that without disregarding the equality of all humans as a universal principle. And no, it very much is the fault of the nation/people making a discriminatory policy, not the fault of those being discriminated against because of that policy.
>> "Immigration as policy is exclusively for the benefit of the existing citizens. Anything more is purely at the courtesy of the host nation, to be revoked at will."
Is that an ethical/moral position? Does that conform with belief in universal human equality?
You just made a bunch of statements about what they can do and failed to address if the behavior is moral/ethical or otherwise... so it isn't even worth engaging with in a discussion since you just made a bunch of statements with no ethical rationale surrounding them.
All you're saying is "this is how it is or should be" which tells me nothing about whether those positions are discriminatory/unethical (but it seems clear they are unjust and arbitrary discrimination and unethical).
Of course I am talking about people legally in Sweden (if they weren't there legally, this wouldn't be a conversation).
>> "In isolation that would be unjust discrimination."
You could have just stopped there. It is unjust discrimination no matter how you try to justify it (legally, practically, ends support the means, or otherwise).
The discussion isn't about what a person or country CAN do, the discussion is about what is fair and ethical behavior.
I know of no progressive that supports unlimited immigration with no screenings, that is a right wing talking point based on nothing factual.
I do see a lot of people on the right, some conservatives, and some libertarians calling for blanket bans on entire groups of people based on dubious claims and hypotheticals.
It's a hard argument to make that banning an entire country from opportunities/immigration is "treating everyone as an individual".