Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 January 21

= January 21 =

What happens if the rich country you're in can't tell exactly which country to deport you to?
If they know, do they at least give a choice of which port of entry to his/her country to be kicked though? I'm guessing they might not acquiesce if a national of say Mexico is caught in say Brownsville and asks to be dropped off in Tijuana. Do they have to deport a dual national 20,000km to his further country if he asks even if he has a passport for a country that's 1 mile away and deporters' own visa stamp suggests he last came in from there? Does he get cash like a released inmate? Deporting country's currency or his own or his choice? Is there a obligation to give enough to return to his hometown? If he lies limp and refuses to stand would they like handcuff him and take him out of the vehicle and leave him on the ground and remove the cuffs? Do they leave him past the other country's border post or in between them? (though still over the line probably). If he blocks traffic by forcing them to physically block his reentry all day what do they do? If it's an airport where do they leave him? (the runway is not safe) Has a non-diplomatically sensitive non-criminal ever had to live in the "non-customs protected area" of an airport or border crossing for ages because their country wouldn't take them? (maybe they lost their IDs and were able to convince only the deporting country that they belong there, lol). That would really, really suck if you're a first worlder and the only country that'd let your documentless self in was one with Ebola or something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a ton of questions here. A general answer is that deportation is rarely done unilaterally; the procedure follows either an existing general agreement between the two countries, or one specific to the case at hand. The agreement will spell out things like where the person is dropped off, to what authorities, whether he's just put on a plane or escorted all the way back to his country of origin, etc. This is also important to ensure the person has the appropriate documents to re-enter his country of origin; the deportation will usually not go ahead if the country of origin refuses to accept the person. The procedure can be as simple as driving the person to the land border and telling him/her to get lost, or require a coordinated handover to the receiving country's police in the case of a dangerous criminal, and anything in between. In some cases, the person is simply told he must leave the country by a certain date, and he has to figure out how to comply; if he doesn't, he's liable to be arrested, jailed, fined, etc. The person would not normally be given any money, but basic living expenses would be paid during the time he is in the deporting state's custody. And yes, if you're sentenced to be deported, but the authorities are not sure what your true country of origin is, you can stay in limbo for a long time, usually in some form of detention. Most Western countries will also not deport someone to a country where he faces significant danger because of war or unrest, so these people can also stay in a prolonged state of limbo. --Xuxl (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And on the specific case of living for a prolonged period in the "non-customs protected area" of an airport or border crossing as you put it, it has indeed happened. See Mehran Karimi Nasseri. --Xuxl (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In most Western countries, if it is physically impossible to deport someone (e.g. because there is no functioning government, they can't determine what country they are from, or the receiving country refuses to accept them), they would not even try to deport them. Deportations usually happens in one of two cases: one, because it is part of the punishment for a crime under the criminal law, or two, because they have lost their immigration status (whether because of a past crime or not). In the first case, the person would probably end up serving their sentence in the deporting country instead. In the second case, there would be no justification to lock them up, and if there is no reasonable prospect of deporting them, human rights law would probably require them to be released (possibly with some kind of reporting / control procedure, so that they can be deported if the situation changes). This would be the kind of "limbo" Xuxl refers to.
 * If the reason they can't be deported is some kind of specific targeted danger (e.g. war, or they would be persecuted because they have converted to another religion while in the deporting country), then it's likely that they would get some sort of temporary protection status, or (if they qualify) refugee status, in which case they are likely to be able to legally stay for a further period or even permanently - in which case the person would have escaped limbo. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See   for example of the problem the US faces deporting people because the country they're trying to deport them to won't accept them. In NZ, there's the fairly famous case of Ahmed Zaoui who wasn't accused of crimes in NZ and hadn't lived in NZ before he was detained, but who was released on bail while his case was decided  although other than suggesting you can't detain migrants indefinitely simply because you don't want them, nothing much was established in the end because the NZ SIS withdrew their objections to his being granted refugeee status . The case of of Thomas Yadegary was similar relating to whether indefinite detention for no crime, pending deportation is allowed  although that case also wasn't pursued to the fullest . There was another case which AFAIK never reached the bail issue as the person was granted asylum  . As mentioned there and here, there were plans to change the law but I can't recall what eventually happened. It seems to be similar in Canada  . However, although not indefinite, the Canadian case in particular but also the other cases establish you can be detained for a long time. I think the Thomas Yadegary in NZ and Canadian case highlight another issue namely that it can sometimes be problematic deporting someone if they completely refuse to cooperate. (As mentioned in the sources, the Canadian case the problem was only one airline would take him, but they required the deportee's agreement that he would cooperate. The sources don't make the NZ case clear but the Iranian authorities required an Iranian passport and so a passport application before they would accept the deportation  .) Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See Robert Jovicic for a real life example of an Australian who, to use your terminology, probably thought of himself as a "first-worlder", and then was suddenly dumped in Serbia with no money or even any knowledge of the local language. There are other examples of people who were deported from Australia to poorer countries in the "see also" section of that article (although, in the case of Sweden and Germany, only marginally poorer).--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There was also the case of a Chilean national who was an Australian permanent resident, having arrived very young in Australia, who was deported to Chile for a drug offence (I think). Similar cases also in the US: I have heard of a Khmer fellow in a similar situation, who had arrived in the US when he was about 1 year old, got involved in gangs, then committed some drug offences and consequently was deported to Cambodgia (after he finished his sentence) even though he knew nothing of that country and spoke no Khmer. In some continental European countries that could even happen to people actually born in the country as long as some strict version of jus sanguinis was the law (I don't think this is still the case). The argument against such practices is that this is a kind of an additional punishment, that citizens of the country are of course spared, and that this violates the principle of equality before the law. The question is though: why do those idiots never think of becoming naturalized citizens before they begin to get into trouble with the law? Contact Basemetal   here  13:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In many of those sorts of cases I've read about, they claim they assumed they had acquired citizenship at a very young age when their parents made the switch. But in that case, where's their Certificate of Citizenship that they would have needed on multiple earlier occasions? They wouldn't have been able to get onto the electoral roll without proof of citizenship, because their birth certificate would show they born outside Australia, so they could never have voted.  These days Permanent Residency does not entitle one to electoral enrolment, but it once did - see Australian permanent resident: They do not have the right to vote in federal or state/territory elections, unless they were registered to vote prior to 1984, but may vote in some local government elections. If that were the case, they would know that that was their status. Either way, it's virtually impossible not to know that you're not a citizen of the country you're living in. If that had ever bothered them, they'd have done something about it. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not everyone is interested in voting, and you get most of the benefits of a citizen as a permanent resident anyways. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In my country, it makes no difference whether you're interested or not. Voting is compulsory, for those who are enrolled.  Enrolment is also compulsory for those who are eligible to vote.   --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the serial killers and the comatose and the insane? Who decides who's too incapacitated to vote? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As with most things in life, ultimately the courts would if it comes down to that. However in all likelihood (again as with most things in life), the government would either not bother to fine, or will withdraw the fine themselves if a sufficiently good reason is given for not voting. It's my understanding, and this is supported by compulsory voting, enforcement can be a bit sporiadic anyway, especially the follow through if you just ignore the fine (although I presume it's still on record so could make problems). Somewhat like the case with the census in many countries where it's compulsory. Note that I'm not convinced "serial killer" would be enough to convince a court they are exempted from compulsory voting. However wary of headlines from Murdoch etc publications like "GOVERNMENT WANTS TO FORCE SERIAL KILLER TO VOTE", it's likely it'll never get that far if the person is a known serial killer. (It's funny to imagine someone going to court over their fine and getting up to explain that they didn't vote because they're a serial killer giving a list of the people, times and places, when it wasn't publicly known that they were a serial killer; but I think we can agree such a scenario is unlikely.) Of course, since Australia does currently practice Felony disenfranchisement, any prisoner currently serving a prison term 3 years or longer will not be able to vote but it doesn't matter if they are serial killers or something else. (Incidentally, that article looks like it needs. It means the High Court decision but not the law changes which lead up to that decision.) As a minor nitpick, I don't think JackofOz's claim above is quite correct. implies that such prisoners still have to enrolled, but can't vote. Interesting the wording used there is "can" rather than "must" (or similar) for those in prison who are still eligble to vote. I wonder if this is simply a poor wording choice or compulsory voting is generally not enforced for prisoners.  Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (I have added a brief note that the total disenfranchisement of prisoners was enacted in 2006, before the discussion on Roach. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC))
 * My post was a statement of the general situation. Of course there will always be exceptions.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Philosophers who write without jargon
I realize that it is debatable and subjective what does and what does not constitute jargon. I also recognize that philosophy is a discipline where precision of ideas and arguments is crucial and, as such, a certain amount of philosophical/academic jargon is probably necessary (as it would be in math or economics or many other fields where you have to prove or provide support for claims).

But even taking the above statements into consideration, which very notable philosophers have a reputation for using relatively less jargon than their peers? They can be from any historical era.

Not looking for figures like Ayn Rand whose followers consider her a philosopher but whose work has found little acceptance in mainstream academia (besides, she uses tons of her own jargon, at least in my opinion).--Captain Breakfast (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Descartes, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, Letters from a Stoic by Seneca, Essays by Montaigne, essays of Bertrand Russell, Plato, among others. Indeed, there is lot of philosophy which is pretty accessible for an educated and interested person.--Llaanngg (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Henri Bergson. Contact Basemetal   here  13:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * More simple language Stoicism from Epictetus. I'm not that well read in philosophy, but I've never read a Roman philosopher who did not use fairly simple language. My vague WP:OR is that the thing where one word is supposed to stand for a whole page of concepts didn't get started until much later. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think what really makes some philosophers unreadable is not that there are a bunch of technical words and phrases whose meaning must be understood before you can usefully attempt to read their works. So long as those are defined, or at least that their definition can reasonably be analyzed from the context. And that doesn't necessarily mean that you need to assimilate a whole dictionary of philosophical terms first. The deduction of the technical meanings can also be achieved through repeated exposure to their works, to the works that they depend on (they assume known and are responding too) and so on. For example thomism, or scholastic medieval philosophy in general, or neoplatonism, or analytical philosophy, or Kant, require a fair amount of assimilation of technical terms. Mathematics, or logic, or sciences, do too. But what makes things really hard is when language itself becomes really alien as a whole. You don't know if the language is still a "denotational" means to convey some explicit underlying meaning or if the language is the message, if you're reading some kind of poetry, or if the guy is pulling your leg, or if he is deluding himself thinking he's saying something really profound, or if there really is something profound to what he's saying and you're too stupid to get it. Try for example some Michel Foucault and you'll get a sense of what I mean. I started reading "Les Mots et les Choses" long time ago but gave up after 10 pages. Maybe it is a matter of getting into that guy's language, that guy's conceptual world. But life is short. Why take the risk that you'll find after 400 pages and hours of excruciating painful efforts that you still don't get it, when there's so much philosophy out there that you can, if not immediately get, at least immediately enjoy exploring, which, incidentally, increases the chance considerably you'll end up getting it. Anecdotally that kind of difficulty is usually, as far as I know, thought to have started with the Germans, specifically the guys who immediately followed Kant, i.e. German idealism. Not all German philosophers are like that (for example I've actually greatly enjoyed what little Schopenhauer or Nietzsche I have read; and let's not forget that analytical philosophy too was initiated by German speakers) but it is considered to be a trademark of German philosophy and of the French who have tried hard to ape them (pushing, incidentally, the French language in a pretty unnatural direction if you compare with the 17th c. and 18th c. and the trademark brevity and clarity of French writing French writers used to hold as a most desirable goal, "ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement" and all that). In the 20th c. they would be Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, etc. I was told even by some (otherwise pretty literate) native speakers of German that even they are not sure there's there such depth that it's simply beyond their grasp or if those guys are not pulling our collective leg. Contact  Basemetal   here  17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've always found the works of Marcus du Sautoy accessible. I know he's a modern philosopher but still worth a look. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * John Dewey is very readable and I find his writings still applicable, even though most are over 100 years old. He writes in plain language, about philosophical solutions to real world issues (like living in a democratic society, or how to properly educate children to be active participants in a modern liberal democracy, etc.)  I highly recommend him.  -- Jayron 32 20:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I find Richard Rorty quite readable and light on jargon. Aristotle, in translation, is also light on jargon. Marco polo (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Russell literally wrote "Philosophy for Laymen". I've only skimmed it. Seems a little wordy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * David Hume is admirably clear, as is William James. At his stylistic best (he used a lot of technical language in the work that makes him a first-class philosopher), Charles Saunders Peirce, notably in How to Make Our Ideas Clear.
 * A contemporary classic, well-written, and fairly short exploration of the subject is Brand Blanshard's 1953 lecture, On Philosophical Style. He names names, quotes exemplars good and not so well received, posits reasons for both. Recommended reading. PDF -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Benjamin Franklin.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mohéli
(From Talk:Main page)

Mohéli: ''On 11 August 1997, Mohéli seceded from the Comoros, a week after Anjouan. Mohéli's secessionist leaders were Said Mohamed Soefu who became President, and Soidri Ahmed, who became Prime Minister. Mohéli quietly rejoined Comoros in 1998.''

Does anyone know the exact date of the reunification? I did not find any information in the various language-articles in Wikipedia, and I also couldn't find the exact date via Google.--31.17.156.195 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like the declaration of independence was always rather limited - more about giving Mohéli's politicians more bargaining power than a serious desire for sovereignty. There was slow reconciliation over the next year, which culminated in Mohéli agreeing to the Antananarivo Agreement on Comoros's territorial integrity probably on the 23 April 1999 (which was eventually signed on 7 July 1999). Smurrayinchester 15:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sin cleansing
Do all religions have a sin cleansing ritual, repent and confess for Christians, Tashlikh for Jewish people, Kumbh Mela for Hindus? --Scicurious (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that Satanism doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing you could be guessing wrong. There is such a thing as sin in Satanism.--Scicurious (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * But there's no such thing as an afterlife there. No real reason to repent, and unless you were sure whoever you were confessing to cared to hear it, you'd be breaking Rule Two. If you complain about something you needn't subject yourself to (those nine sins), you've broken Rule Eight. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Our article on this topic is Ritual purification. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Erm, Tashlikh doesn't cleanse any sins at all. It's entirely symbolic and is supposed to help the participant enter the right frame of mind and do the right actions for proper repentance, which is altogether rather more tricky than saying a few words and perhaps throwing some crumbs in a river. Sadly, our article on Tashlikh isn't very good. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)