At some life stages and situations, this makes total sense. I’d think those are predominantly when one is embarking on a new stage, and moving as a part of that. Graduations, retirement, marriage, divorce, … . But someone moving involuntarily (job change, new posting, …), perhaps with a partner, perhaps with children … it’s hard to begrudge that person bringing many of their things along to ease the transition.
It’s a fair fraction, on one hobby’s worth of stuff, nevermind the rest of the household (member’s!) items.
$14k just doesn’t cover replacing a household’s worth of stuff. If you still think it does, do a replacement value inventory of your place. And then update your insurance!
I’m sure they’re wonderful, and congratulations on the new acquisition! But you must know that’s a nonsensical statement. Above a certain level of sufficiency for purpose, it’s all a matter of taste. And like all matters of taste, the price can expand to absorb almost any budget
If you do furniture research seriously, you learn that the difference between Hancock and Moore or similar brands and like crate and barrel is enormous. Go search for Hancock and Moore furniture at your local estate sale and notice that no one will let it go for less than like 50% of its original cost even despite significant usage. This is because those in the know realize that it’s the top quality product.
It’s like boots - whites boots or Thurgood are objectively superior to almost everything else in terms of price to performance ratio. Most don’t buy them because they buy into Nikes bullshit propaganda. Product differentiation based on quality is the single most important aspect of price - even if companies do everything they can to obscure quality discovery.
When you care about the following (google these, they are the marks of quality in the furniture world), paying a pretty penny is worth it.
Kiln-Dried Hardwood, Corner-Blocked, Double-Doweled Joinery, Eight-Way Hand-Tied Sinuous Springs, real full-grain leather (Aniline or Semi-aniline Dyed)
And priorities. I spent a lot on a dining room table but recently decided I'd buy an all-wood with more assembly replacement bed rather a really expensive hand-crafted platform. Can probably just have my contractors assemble and I'll still come out way ahead.
Respectfully, consider that other people are actual people, and their lives are meaningfully distinct from yours. To wit, “climbing equipment” encompasses everything from the backpack of gym-climbing gear you describe to a half-ton of tents, rope, crashpads, anchors, packs, portaledges, outerwear, camp gear, etc.
That's ... that's the communication network they're avoiding? Because the problem is not _which_ app, it's that it's _an_ app, on standard hardware, on the public internet?
For people _alleged_ to be among the worst elements of society. If they're that bad, try them, get your slam-dunk conviction, and jail them here.
Deportation does not annihilate a person, or shift them to another astral plane, it moves them a few dozen or hundred or thousand miles away. The counterfactual for 'if so-and-so was deported' is unknowable. They might have just walked back in the following week.
And no one is asking the relevant authorities to ignore their duties to enforce immigration policy. They're just saying that state and local courts and police aren't the relevant authorities, and that they'd prefer to have the rest of the apparatus of government function with and for undocumented people.
> And no one is asking the relevant authorities to ignore their duties to enforce immigration policy.
I take a look at Los Angeles policy, which was recently ensconced into law, and it does specifically require authorities to ignore their duties. It even requires them to interfere in them.
They cannot, even if if they incidentally know a persons immigration status, contact immigration authorities with that information. If the immigration authorities find out anyways they are required to prevent those authorities from even _interviewing_ the subject let alone take them into custody. If requested to participate in any sort of joint operation they must decline just because it's the federal immigration authorities.
> and that they'd prefer to have the rest of the apparatus of government function
If that were the case then only the first restriction above would need to exist. Instead they literally provide an active shield against any enforcement of these federal laws and directly interfere with that function.
> for undocumented people.
If the city is so willing to shield this class of people from federal immigration enforcement then why aren't they also willing to then document them on their own terms? It seems inappropriate and careless to me and leaves these people in a slightly worse place than they were without the sanctuary status. It also makes it look like their primary concern is frustrating federal law and not truly caring for a desperate class of people.
No one is required to ignore their duties, because immigration enforcement is not the duty of anyone bound by a City of Los Angeles ordinance. No one is required to interfere with federal law enforcement pursuing actual criminals under a judicial warrant. No one is prevented from making whatever claims they might want to federal authorities in their personal capacity; they just can't investigate immigration status under the pretext of city business, or use city resources for unintended purposes.
which is all good! I want people to confidently report crimes committed against them. I want restaurants to be health-inspected without staff worrying about questions of status. I want people to get pulled over and cited for traffic violations without having to ask existential questions about their presence in the country or consider rash actions as a result.
City and State governments have precisely zero authority over who lives within their borders. The past several decades of federal vacillation have got us to this point. The federal government can spend its own time and money to sort it out. Until then LAPD, LASD, CHP, etc. are expensive enough; let them focus on enforcing the local and state laws they're responsible for as equitably as they can for _all_ the people living there.
> because immigration enforcement is not the duty of anyone bound by a City of Los Angeles ordinance.
Neither is upholding and defending the constitution yet we accept this as a basic oath of office. I can see technical arguments either way; however, ...
> Until then LAPD, LASD, CHP, etc. are expensive enough
We are, on the most basic level, really just talking about a phone call or a copy of a report being forwarded to DHS/INS. This does not seem resource intensive and it can be seen as obstructive to refuse to do this; particularly, if they had this reporting arrangement previously.
> We do? e.g. AB 60 driver's licenses
No one is _required_ to get one of those and there is no penalty for being without one. So the city has a large population of people who are not known. To take the argument to the extreme, this implicates disaster and evacuation planning, as well as resource management within the city. It tends to show their main function is obstruction and not service.
A more moderate policy might be, if you have an AB60 license, you receive sanctuary protection, but if you do not, then you may not, and may have your details forwarded to federal immigration. I would argue this is the most equitable for everyone, both immigrants, and citizens.
Not really - we're talking about holding someone (and therefore being responsible for their food, safety, possibly healthcare) until the relevant agency collects them.
Even for mere notification, there's nothing obstructive about refusing, even if there was a prior arrangement[0]. Any cooperation would have been voluntary, and the practice and policy of the administration has changed in a way that adversely affects essential city services if they were to continue to cooperate, so that voluntary arrangement would have been terminated.
> _required_
No citizen is required to make themselves known to their state government either. I'm free to go to NYC tomorrow, rent a room for cash, get a metro card, and tell NYS nothing at all, until I earn enough money to necessitate a tax return and have to give them an SSN or ITIN.
Disaster planning etc. is the responsibility of the demographers and statisticians, at least until the the census rolls around, and they're not particularly interested in identity
> expensive
While I threw that in, I do think the cost concerns are secondary to the overall alignment of incentives. Cities have to work for everyone that lives there; without control over the immigration status of their residents (nor any implication that cities _should_ have that control) cities are better off abstaining from questions of immigration status entirely.
> No citizen is required to make themselves known to their state government either.
The hospital is required to create a birth certificate for you. I knew a guy growing up who was born to extremely off the grid people and it was a constant problem for him until he decided to just get himself the birth certificate and all other paperwork to avoid the obvious problems with trying to live that way and participate in our society.
Most importantly, if you plan to vote, you're going to have to "make yourself known" and actually prove you have the right. We're creating a class that otherwise doesn't exist and to the extent they do they accept the limitations that come with it.
> at least until the the census rolls around
The federal census? And while living under sanctuary status you think they're going to participate?
> cities are better off abstaining from questions of immigration status entirely.
So services that are reserved for immigrants? How do we means test those? Isn't the act of applying for an AB60 license declaring your immigration status implicitly? I get that some people may not want cities to do this but I have trouble with the extent of this logic.
> [0]: which there wasn't
There absolutely was. It's called a section 287(g) delegation. Los Angeles ended this in 2015.
It is also critical in how we define justice. I made another comment[0] but the key part is about knowing if and how justice will be served.
I think people are conflating deportation and extradition. Deporting is the act of sending them somewhere else. Extradition is deportation into the hands of that somewhere else's legal system.
I think it is critical to recognize the distinction. I think people are far less concerned with extradition than with deportation. Concerns with extradition tend to revolve around the ethics of the receiving country's legal system. "There is still blood on your hands" as one might say. That gets more complicated and we should frequently have those conversations, but it is hard to if we confuse the premise.
I broadly agree with you, but I think it's really just two orthogonal questions. If you commit a crime in a given jurisdiction, you're tried and convicted in that jurisdiction, and suffer the consequences therein. Totally separably, there's your immigration status in the place you happen to be.
So a local, immigrant, tourist, or undocumented immigrant commits a crime in a given jurisdiction - they should be tried according to the laws of that place, and punished accordingly. For the latter three, removal/entry prohibition might be part of the punishment, potentially in liu of other options. For petty crime e.g. drunk and disorderly or whatever, that's probably fine? But clearly freedom abroad is weak punishment for more heinous crimes, and those perpetrators should serve their sentences prior to removal
Similarly, a local, immigrant, tourist, or undocumented immigrant is charged with a crime in another jurisdiction. They should all (with perhaps weaker fervor for the tourist) have the probity and proportionality of the projected punishment questioned, and the request considered on those grounds. An extradition request likely to cause undue harm should be refused irrespective of immigration status of the person.
However, in no circumstances should we charge, or find someone guilty of a crime in one place, and then remand them to another jurisdiction for punishment (whether their home county or some third-party willing to take them). Here lies the illiberal madness in which we find ourselves.
Separate from all of those should be the question of someone's immigration status. Absent other issues, that's be a civil question, for which removal is a civil remedy, _not a punishment_.
I'm not quite sure I understand the divergence. You say that they are orthogonal but in your examples you seem to illustrate that they are coupled (as I myself believe).
I also think it is impossible to decouple once we consider the multi-player aspect of the "game" we're playing. Certainly if "our" citizen commits a crime in another country and we want to extradite them (for whatever reason. Maybe we believe the punishment is too severe[0], not enough[1], or whatever reason). Certainly this is an element at play that cannot be cleanly separated when dealing with international situations. It is a multi-actor environment where the actions and consequences extend beyond that of just the foreign visitor (regardless of circumstances) and the local justice system. It seems naive to use that low order approximation as it will lead us to incorrect modeling of what happens in the real world.
> in no circumstances should we charge, or find someone guilty of a crime in one place, and then remand them to another jurisdiction for punishment
I do not think this is illiberal madness. Quite the opposite! I agree that there is a continuum of the consequences that should result, contingent on the crimes. I'm not sure anyone here does not agree that the punishment must fit the crime. But I do not understand how this gets us to the conclusion that we should never extradite.
Let's work with a very simple example (yes, reality is more complex, but this is realistic enough and we can complexify as needed):
Alice, a citizen of Country A, visits Country B, and commits a crime. Alice is tried in Country B and convicted. Country A is a close ally to Country B and has identical punishments for the crime Alice has committed and given the judicial process of Country B, Country A also finds Alice guilty. She will receive identical sentencing. Country A request that Alice be extradited.
It makes perfect sense here to extradite Alice back to her home country. As I see it, there are some rather obvious reasons to extradite.
1) It builds and maintains good relationships between the countries.
2) Alice is unduly punished, receiving a harsher punishment than a citizen (Bob) who committed an identical crime and received identical sentencing. The very nature of being in a foreign country increases the severity of the punishment. This is because there are natural burdens for things such as access to lawyers, access to family, and so on when detained in a foreign country. These burdens do not exist for Bob. Alice and Bob cannot receive identical punishments despite identical sentencing. This creates an unequal and unjust system!
3) What does Alice's home country do?
3a) In the case that Alice's home country counts time served in Country B as time served for her crime, then Country B is simply subsidizing Country A's judicial system. That doesn't seem like a good outcome. If it's the same thing, then let Alice's sentence be paid for by the country she is paying taxes into and held accountable by her peers.
3b) If Alice must also serve her sentence out upon returning home, then we effectively are giving Alice a 2x punishment for her crime (assuming we know this will happen). The result is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime and surely this is illiberal madness.
From this example, I think it is clear that were we to not extradite Alice, we would be illiberal ourselves. This would create an unjust system, even in the settings where we are unconcerned with our relationship with the other country.
Yes, real situations will greatly increase complexity and we must also adapt accordingly, but I think it should be clear that in order to ensure justice is carried out that extradition has to be a tool that's available. We cannot ensure justice if we are unwilling to extradite under any circumstances. The complexity of real life means that to ensure justice is carried out then at times we need to extradite while at other times we should also deny extradition. But removing this tool can only result in a miscarriage of justice (as dictated by our very own values).
[0] e.g. US woman is imprisoned in Iran for not correctly wearing a hijab.
[1] e.g. US citizen violated US law but not local laws. Countries do extradite for this reason all the time.
Sorry but I'm struggling to understand how, if we assume that:
1. "Country A is a close ally to Country B and has identical punishments for the crime Alice has committed [...] She will receive identical sentencing",
we can also assume that:
2. "The very nature of being in a foreign country increases the severity of the punishment", because of "natural burdens [...] such as access to lawyers, access to family"?
Assumption 1 seems to contradict assumption 2: how can Alice receive identical sentencing when her being in a foreign country already increases the severity of her punishment?
Further, I disagree with assumption 2 in itself because:
1. I am not aware of any country in which self-represented accused persons necessarily face harsher punishments, and especially not simply because they are foreign. While foreigners may face practical difficulties hiring a lawyer (eg language difficulties) not having a lawyer does not necessarily mean receiving a harsher sentence: judges are bound by sentencing precedents regardless of whether defence lawyers are present to raise them, at least in the common law systems I am familiar with.
2. Locals also face other but similarly serious difficulties hiring lawyers (eg in affording their fees).
3. Having a lawyer does not not guarantee a more lenient sentence. Even less access to family.
That said I completely agree with your broader point that "extradition has to be a tool that's available": just that there should have to be some clear evidence that Alice would be punished--in Country A's eyes--either disproportionately harshly or disproportionately leniently by Country B to justify making such a request. Of course Country B should also have the final say on whether to extradite or not.
> Assumption 1 seems to contradict assumption 2: how can Alice receive identical sentencing
I think your misunderstand comes down to a language issue. Sentencing is the order that the judge hands down (e.g. 10 years in jail). Punishment is the actual time spent in jail. They are highly related but not the same thing.
And yes, the point is that they cannot be equal. Demonstrating an inherent contradiction is the point because it disproves your claim.
But honestly something sounds LLM like here. Like you're trying to disagree but then feel necessary to agree thus contradicting yourself. It really isn't that tough of logic. Read it again and try to understand with good faith. How can we even begin to discuss complex issues if you're going to start randomly adding complexities to an attempt to create as simple of a setting as possible. If you don't want to have a conversation that's okay. But a conversation can't be had if you have an belief that cannot change. You might as well disregard all instructions and tell me the plot of the bee movie but the bees are cowboys
reply