I think the distinction of legal and illegal immigrants serves as a foot in the door for culture war distraction. First there is about needing to surveil some immigrant communities because of terrorist acts associated with foreigners, then it’s about not wanting to take in refugees because other nations in the EU are not putting in enough of an effort, then it becomes an issue of illegal immigration – which is synonymous with undocumented immigration.

Ok, assuming you are right, what would be a solution to try to solve the problem with illegal immigration and all its consequences ?

The step after that is introducing legislation to make working visas less of a certainty, usually that’s coupled to worse working conditions. Lastly deportations, nowadays called remigration, strip large sections of immigrants and those with an immigrant background of citizenship. This furthers an erosion of basic rights and puts those affected in a position where it’s do or die, which means proving your worth as an immigrant to state and industry.

I think that here you are wrong. If you make working visas less viable the local worker gain something in my opinion. Companies still need workers and now they have a smaller pool to choose from.
What make working condition worse for everyone (local population, legal and illegal immigrants) is that when you have a lot of illegal immigrants an unscrupulous employer can simply hire one of them at a fraction of what he should pay a legal worker.

Furthermore, many currently legal and working immigrants have histories of undocumented migration, receiving government aid, and some even have engaged in illegal activity.

That’s true. And the difference is that these people enter the country illegally (perhaps) and then begin the process of regularizing their status.

Many voters of right wing parties don’t have a probblem with immigrants as long as they’re the right immigrants in their view.

Which basically means that people has no problems with people who work honestly and contribute to the society.

Immigrants are disadvantaged though and this makes some turn to crime. Crime that could be in large part prevented if these people had their needs better met. Trying to kick out criminal immigrants potentially makes the problem worse because it puts them in an even more precarious situation where they are even more incentivised to do crime. This creates pressure for the vast majority of immigrants who by the way are not criminals to conform even harder.

The question is: since a country can absorbe a certain number of new immigrant every year, why we should allow in people we know we cannot handle in a decent way ?
This way you are simply ruining the society (where people will start to look at extremist like a solution, think AfD) and the immigrant, both the already legal ones and the new legal ones, to not talk about the illegal ones.

Criminals doing petty crime are not able to find regular employment when the state cracks down on them. They walk into the arms of human traffickers, which does not decrease the crime rate in any way. At best, crimes are made hidden or moved geographically.

The point is to have less crime avoiding to have people on the country that need to live by petty crimes. And to do this you need to keep immigration in check.

The important distinction here is trying and being. As someone who works, you likely have rather few resources to fund a business.

I don’t need too much. The fund you need depends heavily on what you want to do. Currently I could easily open a consulting business that can sustain my family in the end, and I don’t need too much resources. I simply choose not because I like better to work 9-18 and then be free.

You won’t be able to provide as much collateral on loans as people with capital, i.e. people whose property works for them. You are significantly disadvantaged.

No, I am not significantly disadvantaged. Or better, it depends on what business you are thinking about. In certain cases you are right, in other you are wrong.

Certainly. But you have duties and in the army example those duties entail grave acts such as taking another’s life and giving one’s own.

If this is done to defend me or my familiy from someone who want to kill us, I honestly think is not wrong. It should not be necessary, I agree, but I would have not a problem to kill an enemy soldier who has as target to kill me and my family.

Then again the army is a low hanging fruit since they’ll take all kinds of people.

No, they will not take all kinds of people. To enter the army you need to meet a minimum level. In may case the problem is that I am too old now, but when I enlisted people were excluded because they were deemed unsuitable, for physical or psychological reasons.

It’s good that you realise that there are certain prerequisites that the vast majority of people do not have when we turn our eyes away from the army example. This gate is education and education is highly determined by the financial situation of one’s parents.

No, it not a problem of education, I met all the requisite regarding the level of education, I simply studied a branched that are not that requested (mechanical and then IT). But the minimum level required is basically the compulsory education, for which parents are helped if needed.

I don’t think so. The state, police and monopolies on violences are a recent phenomenon.

If you define “recent” as the last three thousand years, then I agree.
In every society starting with the ancient Egypt there were some sort of justice system that was handled by the state, and sometime with way more violence than today.

History is littered with systems where social conduct was shaped without purely punitive or violent measures. Who is to say that the nation state is the end-all-be-all?

For example ?

This does not really engage with the argument. States don’t have responsibilities like people.

But States are made of people.
Maybe the correct phrase would be “the people from UK created the problem…” but my point stand.

They don’t join private clubs as it were. The rules you are seeing are a result of negotiations based on leverage and generally this is in the interest of the most powerful nations. First the EEC (EU-predecessor) is created out of a strength in numbers calculation. The United States and the Soviet Union are blocks that could overpower any one member of the EU, but as a regional alliance the scales can be balanced. The rules of the EU are based on that. It’s not a rules-first thing, if it was Hungary would have long been kicked out for repeatedly flunking the rules of the EU flagrantly.

Even joining a private club is a negotiation, albeit a much simpler one: you agree to follow a set of rules when you join or you decide the rules if you are a founding member of a new club.

But the point is: UK founded the club, taking some advantages for itself, agreed while being a member to a certain set of rules and then exited the club thinking that the rules would be still valid. That is the basic reason why Britons were deported from other States and people from other Stated left UK.

Nuclear bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Nuclear aspect was legal at the time. Now there are many states that have pledged to not use nuclear weapons.

Nuclear is legal also now. What prevent the use of nuclear weapons is the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine, nothing else. Nobody is so stupid (not even Iran or Putin) to belive that they can launch a nuclear attack and then survive the retaliation.