Be that as it may, observe that the directions are opposite.
Planning, attempting to, or helping people escape (not stay) was the #1 reason for Stasi arrests.
Specifically, the most frequent Stasi arrest charges were Republikflucht ("fleeing the republic") and Fluchthelfer ("helping others flee")
Also, the Stasi ran on roughly 1 informant per 60–180 residents. Your network of friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors would have several. They officially criminalized private speech, correspondence and travel. The US surveillance system is bad, but the Stasi informant network and set of official consequences was at such a level as to cause constant fear and dread for everyone.
So it's not the same unless it's the exact same? Like, with such good technology now, why would they waste time on so many informants? A Flock camera can replace several informants.
To repurpose an old epigram: “the man who pushes the old lady into the way of an oncoming bus, and the man who pushes the old lady out of the way of an oncoming bus, are both people who push old ladies around.”
Have you ever traveled internationally? Every country I've ever been to especially in Europe had strict rules about how long I could stay.
Iceland and the UK in particular. They wouldn't even let me in at London Heathrow without a printed out return ticket (I had to run over to the British Airways desk to get a copy).
Either way - I was not allowed to stay longer than a few weeks.
That's not a wrong thing, it's very normal. If you want to stay, you have to apply for residency.
U.S. reliance on immigrant labour is key to this discussion, and strongly colours all elements. It is a direct legacy of early slave labour (Blacks in the East, native Americans in the West) as well as indentured servitude. Importation of an underprivileged labour class dates to the first days of the Republic as well, and includes the Germans, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Chinese ("coolies"), Mexicans ("Braceros"), and in the post-WWII era an increasing number of Central and Latin American immigrants.
By 1) relying on such labour and 2) denying either lawful entry or any plausible path to permanent status for the vast majority of these workers and their families, not to mention many, many, many broken promises along the way (asylum, DREAM Act, don't get me started on Native American treaties), the U.S. has de facto maintained a legally-underprivileged and disadvantaged working class long after the statutory prohibition of (most) slavery and indentured servitude.
Yes, there are also economic and political circumstances within the US geopolitical orbit which encourage inward migration. That too cannot be separated from long-standing U.S. foreign, economic, and military policies within the region.
Two of the most notable recent status enhancement laws in the US have been DREAM (previously mentioned) and DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals). Both were passed under and with the strong support of Democratic administrations.
Both have seen repeated attempts at repeal by the GOP and present US Administration, and effective status rescinded.
The GOP has embraced the historical Democratic position with enthusiasm. The Democratic party has stood for civil rights since the 1960s, with former segregationists and white nationalists first joining, then taking over, the GOP. See: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49402261>.
Attempting to resurrect long-dead, long-irrelevant, and now fully-reversed political descriptions can be taken as a prima facie declaration of bad faith.
Not so fast. The victimhood/systemic-inequality mentality has a perhaps counterintuitive effect: while on the surface it does seem to help individuals, collectively it perpetuates an underclass.
25 years ago, no one thought twice if a minority member or person of color was in a prestigious position. Now, many people silently wonder if the desire to manipulate the distribution of various previously-protected categories contributed to the decision to hire that person.
"Among black students in colleges and universities, those admitted under lower standards face a higher failure rate and those admitted under the same standards as other students graduate with their credentials under a cloud of suspicion because of double standards for minority students in general." -- Thomas Sowell
As others point out, in the DDR one could not LEAVE. The main reason we have to have large sweeps for people coming here illegally is because administrations other than Obama and Trump turned a blind eye and did little enforcement. The Biden admin went to far as being negligent in their enforcement, so now there is a lot of backlog.
There are very few if any country that does not enforce immigration rules. Let any American try to live illegally in Canada. Sure, they can live under the radar like you can in Mexico too, but if they catch up to you, goodbye. Mexico doesn’t even treat its own returning citizens well. If you have not been a taxpayer you have to assume many things tax paying Mexicans get for free like education and healthcare. People act like we’re an aberration for enforcing immigration laws. We’re not. Go check out South Africa and see how they treat illegals.
I prefer the Japanese way and the Swiss way. Their citizens come first, foreigners come second. The needs of citizens come before the need for cheap labor. Every job is a decent job. No job is so bad that they can only get illegals to do them.
Yes we can have legal immigrants that fill skills gaps. Thats not an issue for 95% of Americans so long as it’s done justly (and not simply a way to pay workers less).
What country does not have immigration laws? We’re not unique in having them nor in enforcing them. Check out Taiwan, China, Singapore, Japan, Egypt, South Africa, Chile, Peru, Canada, etc.
Well, if previous presidencies hadn’t been derelict in their duties (e-verify, timely removals, ineligibility to benefits etc) we would not have been in this pickle. But, especially the Biden admin they _removed_ existing barriers, worked with NGOs to up the numbers of migrants arriving, many ending up illegal, means that there is a large backlog that normally would not need those measures had previous admins not been derelict. In the last 30 years only Obama and Trump enforced immigration laws.
Sure, not as bad. Woohoo.