> Close is all that is possible with human systems. The alternative is giving up on all legal action, because every single one is fallible.

There are other alternatives. Many countries have rational immigration rules and enforcement.

> Would you forego all law enforcement in your own country because of a nonzero error rate?

A blatant false dilemma.

▲

s1artibartfast a day ago | parent [-]

What do those rational immigration rules and enforcement look like? From my perspective, the US is still more lax than most of Europe.

None have birthright citizenship. None have an ongoing global amnesty program like the USA. AFAIK, All have administrative deportations without jury trial. Some countries require dual registration of every resident by landlords and tenants to verify residence.

I think the republican right dreams of the type of immigration controls that are common in Europe.

>A blatant false dilemma.

The dilemma is forced if "close isn't good enough". It is a reasonable conclusion from the statement.

▲

TimorousBestie a day ago | parent [-]

> The dilemma is forced if "close isn't good enough". It is a reasonable conclusion from the statement.

If you believe this, then there’s nothing to discuss. In your ontology, my stance is equivalent to having absolutely no law enforcement whatsoever.

	▲	s1artibartfast a day ago \| parent [-]
		I have no clue what your stance is. I was responding to someone else. You are correct about the point I was making. If someone demands perfection or nothing, they are advocating for nothing.