Charlie Stross wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:48:27AM -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > BTB: I just noticed they found a truck with 48 bodies in it in England. Will
> > those be classified as 'accidental' deaths or is someone actually going to be
> > prosecuted for it? Will they now be passing a ban on trucks due to their role as
> > tools of mass murder?
>
> 58 bodies. The two survivors are under police guard while the cops
> try to track down the gangsters they believe were running the illegal
> immigration ring and thought packing 62 people in an airtight container
> in a heat wave was a good idea.
>
> You'll note that the dead were illegal immigrants trying to get into the
> UK. It's also worth knowing that more people emigrate from the UK every
> year than immigrate. Do I need to make the obvious point about
> immigration laws being inhumane and a generally bad idea?
So the immigrants agreed to be a) packed into a hermetically sealed compartment
with 61 other people, and b) were trying to immigrate to a country that is not
known for being attractive to immigrants.
Frankly I don't find immigration laws to be inhumane. Why are they a bad idea? I
suppose what you actually mean is immigration laws that are made to prevent
immigration in general, not just to manage immigration? I don't want to hear sob
stories about Mexican immigrants. As discussed a few days ago, the problems of
Mexico include a population programmed by the Catholic Church to reproduce. Free
immigration is merely the externalization of the bad family planning policies of
one society on another society that does responsibly constrain its reproductive
urges. Just as polluting industries should have to pay the cost of their
pollution, societies that produce excessive numbers of people should pay the
costs of those problems themselves, not pawn them off on others.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:53 MDT