Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 191 posts

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#111

Post by soco »

bulbar wrote: post #86
alistairSH wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they're not supposed to be here in the first place? Like any other system, the purpose is what the system actually does. Especially a system that's been around for decades. We let them in, so they can work our fields and process our meat and whatever else. We shouldn't be surprised they want to buy cars, own business, and do other completely normal things.

I mean it makes sense. Let them come and work illegally, which is much cheaper and enables proper exploitation and then blame them for all kind of things and frame them as the bad guys that exploit the society.

I see lots of finger pointing at the workers without permits, but zero, and I mean really ZERO finger pointing at their employers. So basically it's totally fine and dandy to exploit poor people, but a crime to be poor people. All the rest is technicalities.

In Europe it's the other way around: the businesses employing folks with no right to work get fined to death, with no direct repercussions on the workers (except they lose that income, which is another discussion)

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#112

Post by gruez »

maxerickson wrote: post #107
gruez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. So you'd agree that AI datecenter with 100 (or whatever) jet turbines merely "lacks a permit" rather than "not supposed to be there"? 2. Practically speaking, how many people lack a work visa (or similar documentation), but are supposed to be here?

It's borders that aren't supposed to be there, not people.

"There are no illegals on stolen land" and "abolish ICE" might be totems of progressives, but they're a slim minority. Only about 16% of Americans support no deportations whatsoever.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025...

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#113

Post by soco »

Lord-Jobo wrote: post #82
RunSet wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we want to stop illegal immigration, "not getting a car loan" and "harder to move money across the border" feel like the most humane ways to slow it down. I can think of a more humane way: Prosecuting the employers who break the law by hiring undocumented workers. The prospect of employment is what draws migrants here in the first place.

It’s the only effective method and they basically refuse to do it. Which is a clear sign: the goal is not to “effectively and efficiently stop illegal immigration”. It’s to “cruelly and brutally punish illegal immigrants”. You will see some overlap between those two, but not much. Which is why our Stephen Miller executive policy is the way it is right now.

I think it's rather, keep those people around as useful scapegoats for empowering whatever next unpopular policy the oligarchy needs enacted to round up their next trillion.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#114

Post by maxerickson »

gruez wrote: post #112
maxerickson wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's borders that aren't supposed to be there, not people.

"There are no illegals on stolen land" and "abolish ICE" might be totems of progressives, but they're a slim minority. Only about 16% of Americans support no deportations whatsoever. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025...

So what is your point? They are wrong.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#115

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

gruez wrote: post #85
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ability to work in a particular place and ability to repay a loan are not the same thing: 1) People get loans against assets literally all the time. 2) People can live and work in different places.

>1) People get loans against assets literally all the time. Typically in these cases, there's actually a source of income. You have to pay back the loan, after all. Otherwise I struggle to imagine why anyone without income but with plenty of assets would take out a loan, and having such documentation requirements would greatly inconvenience them. All this feels like a fig leaf for allowing workers lacking work visas…

> "Typically in these cases, there's actually a source of income."

You mean that there's a demonstrated ability to repay the loan, which isn't the same thing. I say this as a person who has taken many loans in my life, including ones while not working. Anyway that's up to the lender to sort out isn't it?

> "Otherwise I struggle to imagine why anyone without income but with plenty of assets would take out a loan"

Just because you struggle to imagine doesn't mean it isn't common for reasons you don't know or think about. I think this just shows some missing awareness about how things really work in the world more than anything else. Even Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, has billions of dollars in outstanding loans that he could repay today if he wanted to. I think a good place to start is to investigate why.

> "All this feels"

I get it. But I think we've established that you haven't considered the way these systems actually work, so your feelings probably aren't fully contextualized.

> "is this something that actually happens"

Given that I said that I did it personally, why is my story more contrived than the imaginary people in your head that you don't know anything about?

> "They can't get a loan in Mexico?"

I think this question is a non-sequitur. On what basis should someone's right to do something in place A have any bearing on their right to do something in place B?

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#116

Post by jst1fthsdys »

gruez wrote: post #25
kej wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...

Damn, what a waste of words. Does nothing but give brain dead examples while ignoring that the phrase is critical of systemic societal issues.

Law and order is the stated intention. The cops not solving crimes for the poor and them beating the poor is the system's purpose.

Instead of noticing that violence isn't applied equally, or that unequal resources are spent enforcing justice for the rich versus the poor, he compares it to carbon emissions from busses. Wow, how insightful.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#117

Post by gruez »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #51
gruez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. So you'd agree that AI datecenter with 100 (or whatever) jet turbines merely "lacks a permit" rather than "not supposed to be there"? 2. Practically speaking, how many people lack a work visa (or similar documentation), but are supposed to be here?

Anecdotally speaking, I've personally lived in multiple countries on multi-year-long temporary resident visas without the right to work, because getting the right to work is a separate process from being allowed to be somewhere. So have family members. And in case it makes a difference, which it might, one of those countries was the US. In fact, did you know, in Canada it doesn't count as work for visa purposes if yo…

>Anecdotally speaking, I've personally lived in multiple countries on multi-year-long temporary resident visas without the right to work, because getting the right to work is a separate process from being allowed to be somewhere. So have family members. And in case it makes a difference, which it might, one of those countries was the US.

Usually those long term visas (eg. student visas, I guess) require some sort of extra vetting to acquire (ie. they're not the tourist visas that get auto-issued at the border), and therefore are unlikely to be possessed by "people who aren't supposed to be here", so as a practical matter I agree they should be accepted in place of a "work visa".

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#118

Post by insane_dreamer »

sherburt3 wrote: post #108
bulbar wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some sectors depend on a cheap work force without any rights.

Perhaps they shouldn't

right; but the problem is that the gov spends billions on ICE instead of prosecuting companies that employ undocumented persons, so the problem doesn't really go away (but it makes for good show and gets GOP votes, which is the only reason for it in the first place)

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#119

Post by Ekaros »

palmotea wrote: post #106
Ekaros wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it clearly is double-standard. Excusing it with "cultural significance" is clear example of something being double standard. And it is one of the worst reasons to have. Genital mutilation of children of both genders is also of "cultural significance" so I take those supporting allowing it are also reasonable? Or is that a different category because it is not your culture? If keeping it illegal is not working clear…

> So it clearly is double-standard. Excusing it with "cultural significance" is clear example of something being double standard. And it is one of the worst reasons to have. Genital mutilation of children of both genders is also of "cultural significance" so I take those supporting allowing it are also reasonable? Or is that a different category because it is not your culture? No. Frankly, it just means you're being…

I don't think you are ready for constructive non-zealous open-minded discussion which objectively looks at whole thing without any previous biases or and wider understanding. So it is pointless to continue this discussion as you are not ready to take it honestly.

Re: The US tried to stop cartel money-laundering; devastated mom-and-pop businesses

#120

Post by insane_dreamer »

sherburt3 wrote: post #105
gamblor956 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they used the existing system of due process to investigate whether crimes were committed at Mar-a-Lago. They didn't claim national security to shut it down.

Oh ok you want the government to create an extrajudicial process to punish political opponents. Sounds kinda like Facism.

sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire :)
Post reply on HN