[EliRivers]

The only traits that illegal immigration selects for are desperation and a willingness to break laws and live on the fringes of society.

Alternatively, entrepreneurial go-getting risk-takers with the gumption to actively make better lives for themselves, planning ahead and investing in their own futures, able to prosper with minimal assistance from the state.

[amagaeru]

Any crime can be flipped to show "positive" attributes of the perpetrator, usually to downplay the crime.

A skilled thief could be described exactly as you have described an illegal immigrant. Plans ahead, "invests" in their own future, able to "prosper" with minimal assistance from the state. (In fact, assistance is explicitly avoided at times, it would complicate matters...)

Taking this further down the absurdity rabbit-hole, one could even suggest that a non-criminal lacks the necessary traits to succeed - companies should show preferential treatment to criminals, or at least certain types of criminals. (Who decides this? Also, in before white collar criminals.)

A lot could be said about the positive attributes of serial killers, if we want to go hyperbolic.

[EliRivers]

I very strongly disagree. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I think that thesis "criminals succeed in life and make good employees" is incorrect. I don't think you are proposing that thesis; I think you're engaging in the typical hacker news out-of-context nit-pickery.

I am not suggesting that illegal immigrants do well because they are criminals. I suggest they do well because they make sensible, long-term choices to build themselves a better future, and that people who want to do that and are willing to work hard within a society are a benefit to that society.

A lot of criminals do not plan well for the future. They repeatedly make bad choices, based on short terms gains that seriously jeopardise their longer term futures as they suffer the consequences of their criminal actions. Their crimes are frequently not sensible investments in their circumstances to build themselves a better future, but actually give them a worse future as they suffer the penalties of having attracted the attention of law-enforcement. They do not typically prosper; many criminals have low incomes and have damaged prospects.

one could even suggest that a non-criminal lacks the necessary traits to succeed

The evidence indicates otherwise. Non-criminals typically do better.

As an aside, it's interesting that I frequently see the argument "it's illegal" being presented against illegal immigration; when part of the argument against something is that it's illegal, rather than wrong or damaging, it's quite telling. Some people even lead with that argument; that the problem with illegal immigrants is that they broke a rule years ago by coming in without permission - not that there's an actual problem with what they're doing.

[amagaeru]

It is illegal precisely because it is damaging to the citizens of the country in which the person is entering.

> I think you're engaging in the typical hacker news out-of-context nit-pickery.

I think you dislike looking at your slippery slope.

>I am not suggesting that illegal immigrants do well because they are criminals. I suggest they do well because they make sensible, long-term choices to build themselves a better future,

At the expense of citizens.

>...and that people who want to do that and are willing to work hard within a society are a benefit to that society.

You are assuming that illegal immigrants will share both qualities, though the actions prove only one half of that.

No crime is a sensible investment, if you get caught.

>The evidence indicates otherwise. Non-criminals typically do better.

So illegal immigrants, criminals if you will, would do worse.

You have taken a crime, and made generalizations about the perpetrators, because at least a percentage of them 'mean well.' Would you at least agree that not every illegal immigrant has a desire to become a contributing part of the county they are entering?

[EliRivers]

At the expense of citizens.

I disagree. An economy is not a zero sum game and adding people to it, especially people ready, able and willing to start working now is a benefit. Compare with children of indigents, who take up to twenty years to start being a benefit to other citizens. Twenty years! If the problem is people being drains on society without contributing, there's the place to start looking.

So illegal immigrants, criminals if you will, would do worse.

I understand the evidence indicates that's not the case.

Would you at least agree that not every illegal immigrant has a desire to become a contributing part of the county they are entering?

I would, yes. I can only go on the general trends; the general trend is that immigrants are willing to take risks and work hard to make better lives for themselves, wanting the opportunity to live and work within the civil society they're moving to, and illegal immigrants are too. All we have is general trends; there will always be individuals who buck those trends.

As an aside, to me you seem very fixated on the idea of "crime" being a bad thing. Perhaps this is a difference we have. For you, me accepting this crime is slippery slope; crime is crime, accept one, you'll accept the next. For me, there's no slippery slope; just because something is crime doesn't actually mean it's bad or damaging, and if a person's crime is wanting to work hard and contribute to society, building a better life for themselves, that crime is less likely to lead to crimes that cause actual damage.

[amagaeru]

Your general trends and understandings are supporting redistributing resources from the children of citizens to illegal immigrants, because the illegal immigrants are near adulthood?

I did not argue a zero-sum game, this is a cooked book. There will always be losers until that is fixed, and this is more redistribution. At least according to my understanding of general trends.

As for the crime, it is the enforcement, not the act. You are arguing for not having a clear code of laws. I am arguing for the opposite, and for the revision of said laws as deemed necessary by the citizens. Without law, we cannot hold individual nor government accountable.