For me there's a lot of contradiction within your own comment, but don't worry, I'll give you more than merely talk about its own contradictions.

> We can't go whole hog on security. Nobody can make you safe. Danger is an innate part of life that can only be partially controlled.

We can improve our security, the state has to make us safer, it is possible because danger can be partially controlled, which is exactly what you say.

You also that laundering has never been crushed, and can only be reduced. I also agree with that, and because we can reduce it: it is our moral duty to do what we can to reduce it, giving up "because we can't crush it" is not an option for a person of honor.

If this was just a quick trick to get me to tell my opinion about refugees in general, let me cut it short: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640944 And let me add to that: we can't keep on taking 400k a year in our little 67m inhabitants country, we already have enough troubble with those we have here (please don't ask me for solid evidence, or if you do, please do so in a dedicated comment)

Anyway, very interesting comment indeed, I'll gladly discuss off-topic as I already have: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640299

Of course, I could just burry it by calling it a syllogism, "cheese has holes, holes are air and not cheese, as such, the more cheese you have the less cheese you have", but as you have figured, I'd rather face the game and risk myself than hide, in the worst case I will have learned something which is positive for my own development, more than whatever shame it can bring on me: it's a basic cost/benefit analysis.

As a matter of fact, I found your comment so interesting that I've been discussing it with left leaning friends I met back when I was into AML, who are still active in it, the discussion being over I'm back to reply (an hour ago, I'm proof reading myself for once).

First things first: AML's impact is transversal, it has a lot more impact than you might think. It's the basic tool we have against corruption. And because it prevents crimes, "I will not take this shady deal because it won't bring me useful money", it's impossible to prove that crimes would have happened without it. While you can still measure it's impact on corruption, you'll say it's very hard to measure corruption, fine, that's true.

But it turns out there is actually a lot of documentation about crimes that AML targets, the O'Mecanismo series describes what enormous corruption systems it fights, but you can read about how useful it is against THB (Trafficking in Human Beings) in the OSCE paper https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/8/121125.pdf or the Arachnys case study if you're more into videos https://www.arachnys.com/webinar-identifying-human-trafficki...

Mind you, there's more I want to disagree on in your comment. You're saying it "makes it hard for refugees to get bank accounts", I don't see this, at least, not in France which takes 400k so-called "refugees" per year, which is the equivalent of a city like Paris every 5 years, which corresponds to the president mandate.

I will just quote the law here: "Every person living in France, without a bank account, has the right to the opening of such an account in the bank of his choice or in our service", this is article L.312-1 of the Monetary and financial code of law. Even they can't, indeed, open a "normal" bank account, because they have burnt their own papers, say, because they are wanted by the police and want to go incognito, they can still open a "Livret A" where the minimal deposit and withdrawal is 1.5€ https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/migrants/demandeurs-d-asil...

Then, the state (we, tax payers) even gives them 426€/month, or, ~850€/month if they are old enough, as stated by left leaning media: https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/12/01/est-il-vrai-q...

I'd like to conclude by "sorry", I'm sorry that it's a problem for your friends making "large donations" to be inspected by the state, but that's how it's going to be because we know now for a fact that it does happen that "activists" turn out to actually be human traffickers, a traffik that is worth ~10 billion USD per year, well, not all of them of course, there are also true activists, but these are in bed with the traffickers who tell them exactly when a boat leaves the coast, who knows if they don't get their share ? https://www.cnews.fr/monde/2021-03-15/migrants-un-rapport-po...

And of course ... perdon my french! And thank you for the respectful discussion, always appreciated!