[HN Gopher] ICE Deports 3 U.S. Citizen Children Held Incommunica...
___________________________________________________________________
ICE Deports 3 U.S. Citizen Children Held Incommunicado Prior to the
Deportation
Author : mandmandam
Score : 657 points
Date : 2025-04-26 08:49 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.aclu.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.aclu.org)
| clusterfook wrote:
| <<Insert Rage>>
|
| But for interesting HN discussion... anyone got any juice on why
| this is happening. Is there orders going down the chain of
| command from the president to do this sort of thing. Was this
| behaviour always there but less reported before? Are they more
| emboldened by the current environment?
| ohgr wrote:
| As my wise but now throughly dead German grandmother said:
|
| _"Do you think the nazis appeared out of thin air? No they
| were everywhere just waiting for someone to enable them with a
| label and an ideology."_
|
| I suspect something analogous is happening here and it's
| similarly not pretty. Hopefully it'll get nipped in the bud
| quickly.
|
| My fellow citizens scare me more than the government does.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| The interesting thing about this parallel, is that the "final
| solution" in Germany was final because it was not the
| original solution.
|
| Originally they wanted to, well, deport the undesirables to
| some far off country, initially to Madagascar if memory
| serves.
|
| Managing mass incarceration and deportation is a difficult
| task however, and these people (both then and now) are not
| exactly competent at anything beyond bravado.
|
| Watching this unfolding from afar is interesting, because I
| can do so with some healthy detachment. If I lived across the
| pond I would be pretty desperate right now.
| watwut wrote:
| The end goal was world domination, as in owning whole
| world. So, they would eventually come to Madagascar too.
|
| Majority of Jews killed in Hocaust were not Germans. They
| were from conquered countries.
|
| So, while there was some Madagascar plans floating and
| while they tried to deport as many German Jews (majority of
| who were atheists, considered themselves Germans etc) in
| first stages, they were aware there is going to be showdown
| later on anyway.
| afpx wrote:
| Unfortunately, if this follows history, the safest thing to
| do is to not do anything, blend in, and wait for external
| help. Afaik, only a handful of Germans who resisted
| survived. But, I don't see any help for us coming anytime
| soon.
| ohgr wrote:
| I suspect it won't come. The US embedded itself in
| everyone else's business and is now withdrawing so we all
| have our own problems to deal with.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Then honor demands that we die. I think there are still
| other outcomes possible but if that's how it is that's
| how it is.
| afpx wrote:
| Yeah, there are some possibilities. For example, if a
| strong resistance leader emerged. But, are there any good
| candidates for that role? I can't think of any.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Things like this are stopped by movements, not individual
| heroes. There are almost certainly organizations in your
| area already working against this. No one is coming to
| save us. But if anyone does it is the people who were
| already trying to, bolstered by people like you who see
| it now. Get in there.
| afpx wrote:
| (Edited based on comment below)
|
| I recognize the optimism, but realistically, without a
| strong and strategic leader, coordination will collapse
| into disorganization and infighting. Historical examples
| like Occupy Wall Street demonstrate that leaderless
| movements tend to self-sabotage and generate instability
| without achieving meaningful outcomes.
| SinjonSuarez wrote:
| While it may not have been your intention, the language
| in a couple sentences of your reply doesn't leave much
| room for a continued discussion.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-
| terminating_cliche
| afpx wrote:
| Oops - I'll update.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| The safest thing to do is GTFO before the masses rush to
| do it. The breakdown of separation of powers in the
| canary in the coal mine.
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| >Managing mass incarceration and deportation is a difficult
| task however, and these people (both then and now) are not
| exactly competent at anything beyond bravado.
|
| The holocaust also required mass incarceration and
| deportation, except that the huge undertaking of
| deportation was towards death camps in occupied territories
| instead of some foreign land. On the first point above, I
| caution against thinking that it would be much easier; it
| wasn't really, they just decided that they wanted to kill
| the people they considered undesirable after all.
|
| On the second point, it's worth noting that the efforts at
| expulsion partly failed because many other countries,
| despite knowing of the brutal repression being suffered by
| the jews (and others but the jews in particular) decided to
| stonewall most avenues of exit from Nazi domains.
| Deportation would have still been terrible, but at least it
| would have put millions of eventual victims outside the
| reach of gas chambers and death squads. Such as it was, a
| sort of tacit complicity of indifference didn't allow that
| to happen, by others who weren't even necessarily
| supporters of the Nazis.
|
| In either case, be careful about calling evil people
| practicing evil ends incompetent. In so many ways they were
| very competent at far more than simple bravado, and
| underestimating the capabilities of barbaric monsters is
| always dangerous for future lessons.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > be careful about calling evil people practicing evil
| ends incompetent.
|
| The Nazi were a mess, plagued with infighting, and
| completely incapable of measuring the strength of their
| opponents, which eventually led to their downfall.
|
| Incompetent evil people can still do a lot of harm until
| they screw up for good. This doesn't stop them being
| incompetent.
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| >The Nazi were a mess, plagued with infighting, and
| completely incapable of measuring the strength of their
| opponents, which eventually led to their downfall.
|
| no the Nazis weren't entirely a mess or completely
| incompetent.
|
| There was lots of infighting, partly deliberately
| designed to be that way by Hitler's tactics for
| organizing his own subordinate leadership levels, but
| there was also a massive amount of military, industrial
| and logistical competence and a robust amount of cohesion
| and careful, powerful cooperation on fundamental aims.
|
| Had there not been, the Nazi's never would have risen to
| power so effectively, formed their dictatorship so
| effectively or managed a colossal war against multiple
| enemies for so many years so effectively, and only been
| defeated at such a gargantuan cost in lives and
| resources. The Nazis underestimated the military strength
| of their enemies, but not nearly so badly as to not wage
| very effective war and pose a very, very serious threat
| to these enemies for several years.
|
| I really suggest a book called "The Wages of Destruction:
| the making and breaking of the Nazi Economy" by Adam
| Tooze, as a nice basic primer on how wrong these ideas of
| supposedly incompetent Nazis are.
|
| The above is all deviating a bit from the topic at hand
| but with this sidestep into a look at the Nazis, you're
| working from a simplistic caricature view of a more
| complex situation with complex evil people, and I fear
| that this is also all too common when many critics today
| view the Trump government. It's not staffed entirely by
| caricaturesque evil idiots. Many of its supporters are
| intelligent and cohesive in their guiding methodologies.
| (Also, no, the above isn't to compare the bad actions of
| Trump's government to the completely unrestrained
| monstrosities of the Nazis. I'm comparing defects of
| external analysis)
| sitkack wrote:
| I too have noticed the same language coming out of folks
| here, folks that have had accounts for over 10 or 15 years.
| They were always here, but now they emboldened and they are
| doing their best to make sure that overton window stays very
| very open on the right.
| ohgr wrote:
| I had a friend until recently. Really nice guy. Always
| looking out for people. Never said a bad word. In the last
| couple of years he turned into a nasty piece of work
| jumping on every politicised story out there and treating
| it as gospel. He alienated everyone around him.
|
| It turns out that some people don't have a mind of their
| own and are waiting for orders.
|
| Here is no exception. Look at the foaming at the mouth
| praise of the second coming of Microsoft when Satya took
| over. And where we are now? Look at the hype as well -
| blockchain, crypto and AI now. Mindless people slithering
| all over everything.
|
| In fact I find a lot of the people in the technology sector
| to either be entirely morally bankrupt or lack any kind of
| self or societal awareness of their speech of actions. It
| disgusts me. I've been on HN pretty much since day one but
| the accounts last perhaps 6 months before I tire of it.
|
| I moved out of the tech-first industry about 10 years ago
| and into a position of tech as a tool not a reason for a
| business existing and there are better people here.
| kentm wrote:
| I've been in tech for about 2 decades now, and the
| general culture has always been to disregard ethics and
| social impact. How many times have we heard "We're just
| building tools. Tools are apolitical and ethically
| neutral, it's how you use them that matters!" It turns
| out that is actually not the case.
|
| Plus the insistence that we can cordon off an area of
| life and designate it non political is incredibly common
| but also pretty naive (and dare I say privileged).
|
| That is to say, we in the tech industry often encourage
| this sort of moral bankruptcy and like to pretend we're
| above it all.
| ohgr wrote:
| I think a lot of that attitude is self-justification to
| proceed as they intend without moral compass. Personally
| I can't do that. Everything we do has a consequence.
|
| I've got a copy of Careless People sitting in front of me
| I'm scared to read at the moment.
| kentm wrote:
| "It is difficult to get a man to understand something
| when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
|
| It's definitely a factor (perhaps the dominant factor)
| and the easiest place to see it at play is on HN whenever
| the adtech industry is being criticized.
| stackskipton wrote:
| Since we are quoting, I quote FDR: "Democracy has disappeared
| in several other great nations--not because the people of
| those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown
| tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their
| children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of
| government confusion and government weakness through lack of
| leadership in government."
|
| True, we are not in bad shape like 1930s Germany or United
| States but as neoliberalism rot has really set in, people
| feel economically shaky, and government clearly is not
| responsive to them. Combined with Social Media warping people
| brain on what is "success" and "strong man" who will take
| care of things is clearly appealing. Many of them can also be
| turned around but it's going to take some doing.
| elmerfud wrote:
| Your last statement is correct. They are just emboldened by the
| current political environment. Any law enforcement has a
| problem where all they see is criminals all day everyday, now
| we know they aren't always criminals, but that's their view
| point. There should be sufficient checks and balances to ensure
| that due process is still upheld. What we're seeing now is the
| lack of checks because law enforcement feels they will never be
| held accountable for violating due process. This, while likely
| not a direct order of the president, it is an environment that
| his rhetoric has fostered. Even in the cases where the supreme
| court has said, unanimously, that people have been deported
| improperly this environment causes those in positions to
| correct it to ignore the courts.
|
| I support the general idea of expedited deportation of those
| here illegally, those without valid documents to be here, I
| don't automatically have a problem if there is greater
| restrictions on entering or issuing new visas, but I have a
| major problem with violating due process and these kind of
| mistakes that's are a result of lack of due diligence.
|
| The courts need to get more heavily involved here. It's easy to
| blame the president but short of some directive telling people
| to violate the law the blame is misdirected (until it's
| election time). The blame needs to be on those individuals
| doing this thing or seeing it and ignoring it. This is where
| the courts need to totally strip away default qualified
| immunity, especially for immigration officers. Because
| qualified immunity allows them to just say they were following
| orders without them having to evaluate if what they are doing
| is legal or not.
|
| I believe if qualified immunity was gone a lot of this nonsense
| would stop. They would make sure that anyone who was deported
| was meant to be deported.
|
| I have a friend who is here legally awaiting an asylum hearing,
| been waiting for 5 years. They were stopped by police for a
| valid reason and, from what was described the police had
| probable cause, but the charge itself is very minor. Because
| she's documented waiting asylum they contacted immigration, for
| no reason. There was no probable cause to think she was in
| violation of her immigration status, but they still contacted
| them and they requested she be held. So now she detained and
| there's probable cause to do so but it's immigration so they
| can.
|
| This is where no qualified immunity would make these officers
| think twice. They know they have no probable cause to continue
| to hold her beyond the initial charge. Without qualified
| immunity they would understand that continuing to hold someone
| after a judge has allowed their release means that they would
| lose their house their life their future. So I really think we
| need to end to qualified immunity across the board. Have the
| people who are supposed to protect us and be responsible for
| their actions.
| rsyring wrote:
| Without qualified immunity, no one in their right mind would
| want to work in law enforcement. LE would become an easy
| target for malicious litigation where the cost/effort to
| defend would, itself, be the weapon, regardless of whether or
| not the lawsuits were won.
|
| LE personnel would have to get insurance, like doctors, which
| would be crazy expensive and, considering their pay scale,
| unaffordable.
|
| I don't like some of the implications of qualified immunity,
| but I understand why it's there and needed.
|
| I think the only real solution to LE abuses is criminal
| accountability and prosecution. We already have the laws and
| processes in place to make that happen. It's hindered by the
| tribal nature of the human condition and I'm not sure you get
| around that very easily, at least, not at scale.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Your solution is what qualified immunity prevents.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| Yet other countries get by just fine without giving law
| enforcement qualified immunity. See Canada for example.
| stackskipton wrote:
| Canada does not have what they call "Qualified Immunity"
| but they have large scale immunity under the law already.
| (https://winnipegpolice.substack.com/p/trust-and-
| confidence-t...)
|
| "Qualified Immunity" comes from the fact Americans have
| independent judicial branch and can directly bring law
| enforcement into that judiciary. In most countries, any
| action against law enforcement for their official duties
| is limited to government/department so they have large
| scale defense anyways.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _LE personnel would have to get insurance, like doctors,
| which would be crazy expensive and, considering their pay
| scale, unaffordable._
|
| So pay would have to go up?
|
| There'd probably also have to be something where if they
| were following department policy, then the officer (well,
| their insurance) can turn around and demand reimbursement
| from the department.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| Scotland doesn't have the concept but we still have police
| officers. I think England is the same.
|
| You can't really claim that something is absolutely
| necessary when there are countries that don't have it.
| elmerfud wrote:
| Qualified immunity, as it is today, is far too broad.
| Because literally any action that an officer takes that has
| not been specifically ruled on by the courts is a defaulted
| as being immune to prosecution. Even when that officer is
| knowingly violating department policy even when they're
| reasonably aware they are a violating the law. They still
| retain qualified immunity.
|
| It's nice to live in that dreamland that we can resort to
| criminal prosecutions for officers who violate the law that
| does not happen as often as it should. As part of their
| job, what they are trained to do, is to be able to evaluate
| a reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Yet you
| regularly see officers violate those standards with
| impunity. The problem is when someone violates your rights
| by arresting you without sufficient probable cause there is
| nearly no recourse for the average person.
|
| If immigration took you and held you for 2 weeks, how
| disruptive would that be to your life? Would you lose your
| house, your job, more than that? If it was found that they
| had no probable cause to for an arrest what realistic legal
| recourse do you have, and how many years would it take for
| that recourse?
|
| So if you want to maintain qualified immunity because you
| believe it's a requirement for these people to do their
| jobs then where is the balance to that? Because right now
| there is no balance. If you don't want officers to be held
| directly responsible or to have to pay for expensive
| insurance policies somebody needs to pay because without a
| financial incentive things don't change. What about
| something that puts a strict financial incentive on getting
| things right at the first time. Obviously this would be a
| burden that the taxpayers share but when the taxpayers
| realize they're shelling out money for people who are not
| diligent in their work that will change very quickly. If
| someone is arrested and the courts find there was no
| probable cause for the arrest. How about $10,000 a day for
| every day that that person was held. That puts a meaningful
| financial burden on getting it right. Because then it
| becomes readily apparent which officers are problematic and
| which ones are not.
|
| The situation we're in right now is not working and there
| doesn't seem to be any plans to fix it. Because literally
| my friend where there is no probable cause for them to be
| arrested and held by immigration is being held by
| immigration. Like most people they live month to month. So
| if they're not working nobody pays their bills nobody pays
| for their apartment. If they're held for 2 weeks or a month
| or God forbid even longer before they're let go where is
| the actual financial recourse because they lost everything
| in their life? Because your suggestion doesn't solve for
| that problem and provides no incentive for immigration to
| follow the laws or even follow the courts.
|
| Because the interesting thing is with the original arrest
| they would have been released the next day on their own
| recognizance. Police that do not care about the
| constitutions or due process or the rights of individuals
| proactively contacted immigration and immigration requested
| that she be turned over to them. No reason given and
| there's no reason for the police to have suspected that a
| person with all the proper documentation and identification
| is in violation of any federal immigration law. So tell me
| honestly what is your solution if it's not to strip away
| qualified immunity and if it's not to place a heavy
| financial burden on these agencies in some way that directs
| back to the individuals that are willfully violating
| people's rights?
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Colorado very strongly limited qualified immunity for state
| cops. There are still state cops there.
| eviks wrote:
| All of the above?
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Because it's always been happening. If they didn't already have
| this sort of abuse practiced they wouldn't be so good at it.
| The ACLU used to write basically the same exact pieces about
| the DEA
|
| Maybe it's 10% or 20% more prevalent or worse, I can't say from
| my vantage point, but it's a difference of degree, not a
| categorical one. You read these stories and they read exactly
| like all the other stories of how all sorts of "criminals" have
| been abused by the system for years, especially when they have
| a political blank check to do do. Making it hard for people to
| get a lawyer, moving too fast for people to appeal anything or
| get outside scrutiny is exactly how these systems have always
| behaved when they feel like it.
|
| Now it's ICE and not DEA or whatever but this is basically the
| level of abuse with which the authorities have always treated
| with.
|
| It's nice that the public is paying attention now, but I have
| very little hope that it will actually lead to systemic
| changes.
| hartator wrote:
| Yes, nothing much changed law-wise.
|
| No due process at the borders is a shame both now and before,
| but hopefully this time there is a willingness to change
| things. Probably not at the next swing of power.
| ty6853 wrote:
| My guy will do better with the power they never destroy.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| It is genuinely an extremely difficult challenge to manage
| illegal crossings if every individual must be processed
| through the full U.S. legal system which has massive
| resourcing and backlog problems (3m+ cases).
|
| Voters across the political spectrum have made it
| unmistakably clear -- in poll after poll -- that they are
| deeply dissatisfied with the current rate of illegal and
| asylum-seeking entries.
|
| Is there a morally permissible way to enact their will?
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Congress could increase funding for the courts enough so
| that they could do their job. But that would go against
| the Republican quest for smaller government and lower
| taxes.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| This quest is a fig leaf. The expansion of the government
| has proceeded equally under both presidents. The
| republicans just choose to spend the budget on other
| things and are less willing to raise taxes to fund
| things. The current tariffs are an interesting PR
| workaround.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Admit that the current and past efforts to keep people
| out and quickly deport people failed. And then set up
| reliable systems of verifying people's citizenship before
| they can get a job and quickly deport those who should be
| deported.
|
| Make it easier to work here legally in the US like it
| used to be in the 90s, and threaten CEOs with jail time
| if their companies have a pattern of hiring ineligible
| workers.
|
| And let's be clear, a lot of this border security
| "crisis" is rooted in racism and Fox news alarmism. The
| GOP likes having the problem because it keeps the base
| angry.
| 0x5f3759df-i wrote:
| Immigration courts are already separate from the rest of
| the legal system so the implication here is wrong.
|
| Going too slow for you? Hire more immigration judges,
| which are executive employees not full article 3 judges.
|
| Voters across the political spectrum have made it clear
| in poll after poll the last few weeks that they do not
| approve of the way this administration is grabbing
| whoever they can and shipping them out of the country
| without any check or verification that they are deporting
| the right people.
|
| If the administration can declare you an illegal
| immigrant with no due process they can ship anyone they
| want out of the country. They could grab you off the
| street, ship you to and El Salvador torture prison
| intentionally or by mistake (as they have already
| admitted to) and there's nothing you can do about it.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Too bad.
|
| A world where the government gets to say "well it is
| annoying and expensive to follow the law give people
| rights so we just won't" is a horror show.
|
| If the people really want a world where people are denied
| legal process then they can build the popular support for
| a constitutional amendment. Until then, the government is
| going to have to pay for this shit.
|
| And we _did_ have a legislative effort to reduce the
| number of illegal border crossings. Trump scuttled it.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Purely hypothetically, blue sky solution space?
|
| If the law exceeds the government's ability to enforce
| it, relax it. It's de facto relaxed because of the lack
| of fundamental resources to enforce it... Put the reality
| on paper.
|
| Stop treating the southern border as a war zone and
| reopen it. It used to be more open. It was, in fact, more
| open in that magical America great period that MAGA
| ostensibly seems to be nostalgic for. Not only did the
| country survive the openness, it flourished.
|
| If the law is too hard to enforce, have less of it. Lower
| scrutiny. Hand out day passes. Welcome The stranger with
| a smile and a friendly wave.
| Terr_ wrote:
| In fact, that process is why deportation courts exist:
| The theory goes that you're not really _punishing_
| anyone, you 're just sending them straight back out the
| door they just came through, therefore, a lower intensity
| of process is acceptable.
|
| However that rationale becomes evil nonsense the moment a
| government starts "deporting" arrivals into a damned
| concentration camp, or back into the hands of people that
| want to kill them, seizing their property, separating
| them from their children, etc. since all of that is
| obviously punitive.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > Because it's always been happening.
|
| I don't like this kind of response because it's basically
| kind of an assumption, and you don't really give any evidence
| for it.
|
| On one hand, sure, abuses by people in positions of power
| have always happened, so if you're just making a general
| argument that enforcement authorities abuse power, I mean
| yeah, human nature.
|
| But this article is making some specific points:
|
| 1. Those who were deported were given basically zero access
| to even talk to a lawyer, and that in at least one case a
| habeas corpus petition was deliberately avoided by deporting
| the family at 6 AM before courts opened.
|
| 2. Multiple US minor citizen children were deported.
|
| So, no, without more evidence, I'm not willing to believe
| that it's just some minor increase of degree. While yes, I'm
| sure there have been abuses in the past, the current policy
| seems hellbent on deporting as many people as possible, due
| process be damned, and that was _not_ the policy in previous
| years. I 'd also highlight that the current President has
| said, explicitly, that deporting people without due process
| is his goal: https://truthout.org/articles/we-cannot-give-
| everyone-a-tria...
|
| In other words, I don't believe this is just an aberrant,
| abusive exception to the policy. It very much seems like this
| _is_ the policy now.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| No, this kind of deportation and treatment of
| prisoners/detainees has been happening forever. This exact
| behavior has been happening forever, not just a general
| idea of malfeasance. The current attention on it smacks of
| politics in a way that is also very inhuman. Remember the
| "kids in cages" saga?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > No, this kind of deportation and treatment of
| prisoners/detainees has been happening forever.
|
| Another assertion without any justification or data.
|
| > Remember the "kids in cages" saga?
|
| Yes, of course, and that's the point. There was huge
| outcry then, and that cruel policy was implemented by the
| same person responsible for this policy. It doesn't make
| sense to say "this has been happening forever" and then
| bring up an example from 2017-2020. We are all well aware
| of Trump's view on immigration and the rule of law. The
| whole point is that Trump's policies are a huge
| aberration from what any other administration, Republican
| or Democrat, has put forth in the past 50 years.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I almost completely agree with you here. But it _is_
| striking that they didn 't need to create any new
| agencies to do this. All the parts of it were in place.
| They were in place already for trump to use the first
| time, and they were still in place when he got back into
| power.
|
| Due process and transparency on border & immigration
| interactions has been alarmingly bad for a long time now.
| Has this _never_ happened before, hidden inside this
| apparatus? I 'm not confident of that. This is certainly
| different in its scale and ferocity. But I see where they
| are coming from too.
| margalabargala wrote:
| Much as I detest the current administration, the parent
| comment is correct. While things under both Trump
| administrations did get mildly worse than they were under
| his Democrat predecessors, they were plenty bad under
| Obama and Biden as well.
|
| You're talking about bringing up examples from 2017-2020;
| it turns out, plenty of the examples that were brought up
| back then, were in fact from the Obama years. Example: ht
| tps://apnews.com/article/a98f26f7c9424b44b7fa927ea1acd4d4
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Let's look at your own link:
|
| > The story featured photos taken by AP's Ross D.
| Franklin at a center run by the Customs and Border
| Protection Agency in Nogales, Arizona. One photo shows
| two unidentified female detainees sleeping in a holding
| cell. The caption refers to U.S. efforts to process
| 47,000 unaccompanied children at the Nogales center and
| another one in Brownsville, Texas.
|
| I don't know how else you're supposed to handle 47,000
| _unaccompanied_ children when there simply aren 't the
| facilities to hold them all, e.g. in foster homes. I
| think that is fundamentally different than deporting US
| citizens.
|
| And yes, when it comes to Trump's first term, I don't
| really see anything wrong with keeping unaccompanied
| children in detention centers, at least temporarily. The
| much bigger issue I had was the specific policy of
| separating families.
| margalabargala wrote:
| Yes, I fully agree with everything you're saying.
|
| My point is more that I'm not sure exactly how much of
| what ICE does can particularly be attributed to the
| administration, on account of the same _sorts_ of stuff
| happening under every administration, and the waters
| getting muddied by things being presented in false
| contexts, which is what I was trying to show with the
| link I posted.
|
| The family separation policy was horrible, but it was yet
| another piece of cruel dehumanization on the cruel
| dehumanization pile that was already there. Secretly
| revoking student visas and then snatching that person off
| the street by masked plainclothes officers like happened
| to Rumeysa Ozturk is cruel and awful, but also, the
| personnel who did that and their attitude did not appear
| overnight; ICE is has ICE has always been, and all that
| changes is the length of the leash given by the
| President.
|
| What I object to is the implicit framing of what was
| happening pre-Trump as being fine and correct, and it's
| only what Trump is doing that's beyond the pale. But I am
| glad that it's opening people's eyes to what is happening
| and hope that by shining light on it, perhaps post-Trump
| we can move to something better than pre-Trump.
| reseasonable wrote:
| The treatment part has happened for decades, Las Hieleras
| is one of many examples. But the deporting citizens part
| hasn't happened for about 70 years since Operation
| Wetback which was nearly an identical playbook of today.
|
| Mass visa revocations happened about 50 years ago since
| the Iran Hostage Crisis. And a few other events over the
| 20th century reflect well with today like Japanese
| internment camps. CECOT out does Gitmo and Angel Island,
| but damn, we just do a lot of fascist and unjust stuff as
| a nation.
|
| The 1880's resulted in us switching our attention from
| Native Americans to immigrants and we never really let
| off the gas on that front.
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| >I don't like this kind of response because it's basically
| kind of an assumption, and you don't really give any
| evidence for it.
|
| Whether you like it or not, it has indeed been happening
| for a long time, and under multiple administrations from
| either party. If you're interested in the tragedy of it all
| enough to care, then go look these cases up instead of
| first accusing someone of lying because they might be
| smearing a politician that you preferred, and who isn't the
| current orangutan in the White House.
|
| Trump's administration is notably and vocally hostile to
| illegal immigrants, to migrants and I suspect to immigrants
| in general, but it's mainly still using the tools and
| practices that have long since been refined by multiple
| federal agencies whenever opportunities for heavy-
| handedness presented themselves.
|
| Because it's Trump's administration, and enough of the
| major media system is unsupportive of him (still, for now),
| the matter is gaining more attention. This attention is a
| good thing, but it shouldn't cloud one from considering the
| possibility that the bureaucratic defects and authoritarian
| inertia of federal policing exist beyond the confines of a
| single type of administration.
| yuliyp wrote:
| I guess the question is how frequent it's been. A big
| part of Trumpism is taking sketchy practices that used to
| be exceptional and turning them into standard operating
| procedure, and then claiming "oh look others did this
| before"
|
| I mean, look at Hillary Clinton's emails, extorting of
| lawfirms, big tech, etc, his ignoring of court orders,
| etc. All are things that you can look at and say "he's
| not the first to do this" and be completely correct, but
| completely missing the point that he's doing it waay more
| aggressively.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > extorting of lawfirms
|
| When did that happen previously?
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| I actually mentioned this same worry in a previous
| comment on this post thread, and I don't think that i'm
| missing the point about Trump doing certain things in way
| more aggressive and possibly new ways. It's something
| that should be cause for lots of worry.
|
| However, as I explained above, the deportations of
| citizens are nothing new and though it's good that they
| now receive attention, they should be viewed from the
| wider context of decades of federal overreach and
| authoritarian practices by certain agencies.
|
| my other comment similar to what you mention
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43803664
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| This is like the third or fourth response I've seen that
| keeps making the same assertion with no evidence to back
| up their position. So I'll be very clear on what I think
| is new and not just "more of the same":
|
| 1. The deliberate attempts to deny due process by
| scheduling deportations before filed writs can be
| responded to in court.
|
| 2. The deportation of US minor citizen children _as a
| matter of policy_.
|
| If you have any evidence of the above by non-Trump
| administrations, again as a matter of policy, I'm all
| ears. Everything else is just "feels".
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| >If you have any evidence of the above by non-Trump
| administrations, again as a matter of policy, I'm all
| ears. Everything else is just "feels".
|
| I assume you know how to use the internet, so please go
| do a few searches, on Google or the search system of your
| choice, for the sake of informing yourself better.
| They're there, and if you care about the subject enough
| to make claims, you should be aware of wider history.
|
| Illegal actions, whether by policy or by bureaucratic
| inertia towards authoritarian tendencies, have been the
| case under multiple previous administrations. Under Obama
| these were even (in a very different context) taken to
| the level of outright killing American citizens without
| due process via drone strike. Under Bush II, they
| involved very illegal and repeated acts of
| "extraordinary" rendition to black sites. There are more
| examples, many involving deportations.
|
| Trump getting attention for things that have also been
| the case since before him poses the risk of making people
| think that it will all be okay if they just get rid of
| Trump, even if it's good that the attention is at least
| being given to this finally.
|
| None of this is to defend the Trump administration or
| ICE. The cases documented in the link in this post are
| grotesque, and deserve the full force of censure by other
| branches of government and the public, and the media, but
| that doesn't excuse simplistic examinations of a wider
| injustice.
| MegaButts wrote:
| JFC if someone asks you multiple times for a source then
| provide a fucking source, instead of continuing to be an
| obnoxious holier-than-thou "do your own research you
| ignoramus" asshole.
|
| You are so completely incompetent when it comes to
| discourse that I have to assume you are purposefully
| spreading misinformation. Either provide evidence or do
| everyone else the favor of shutting the fuck up you
| intolerable asshat.
| UmGuys wrote:
| It has not. We have never previously sent immigrants to
| foreign concentration camps. There were internment camps
| which were bad enough during the war, but we're now
| kidnapping people, sending them to El Salvador, and locking
| them up for life.
| queenkjuul wrote:
| People here really seem to like ignoring that part for some
| reason. That is a very real line that had not previously
| been crossed.
| freen wrote:
| Especially the part about "we imprisoned legal residents
| of the US in a foreign country without due process and
| now can't do anything about it, even though the Supreme
| Court told us we have to return them to the USA, because,
| whoops, they are imprisoned in a foreign country!" bit.
| vkou wrote:
| Can't do anything to bring them back, yet keep sending
| more people there.
|
| Here's a riddle for everyone. What do you call a prison
| where people go in without trial, never come out, and
| there's always room for more?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| The suffering is the point. The current administration thinks
| that by publicly treating anyone vaguely foreign horribly they
| will be able to end the allure illegal immigration. I guess the
| dirty secret is that this sort of stuff has been happening, the
| difference is that now the government wants everyone to know
| about it
| somenameforme wrote:
| Every day across the world thousands of people are removed from
| countries around the world for violating immigration laws.
| Except in cases of where it coincided with criminality, it's
| always going to be very ugly, because it means somebody had
| built up a life for themselves somewhere and that is now ended
| due to them having been born in a different place and then
| overstayed their permission, or never received such, to stay
| somewhere else.
|
| Like in this case, what do you propose as an alternative with a
| precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people? The
| parents were in the country illegally, and the children's
| citizenship was solely one of birthright. Any sort of
| "pleasant" outcome would effectively require turning birthright
| citizenship into defacto citizenship for the parents as well,
| at least if they can stay illegally for long enough. That's not
| only completely unrealistic, but also a complete slap in the
| face to the millions of people who try to migrate legally and
| are refused entry.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| > it's always going to be very ugly,
|
| It doesn't have to be as ugly as what is described in the
| article.
| apical_dendrite wrote:
| > Any sort of "pleasant" outcome would effectively require
| turning birthright citizenship into defacto citizenship for
| the parents as well, at least if they can stay illegally for
| long enough.
|
| No, there are lots of immigration statuses between "illegal"
| and "citizen". DAPA, which was the Obama administration's
| policy, gave parents of US citizens a status where they could
| get temporary renewable work permits and exemption for
| deportation. This was not citizenship, or even a status that
| could allow someone to eventually become a citizen.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Most of those statuses are called "visas" and they have
| been around for a while. Obama's innovation was giving a
| weird form of status ("we know you broke the law and we
| aren't enforcing it") to people who broke the law when
| crossing the border. Most people with a non-illegal and
| non-citizen status are supposed to apply for that status
| before crossing the border.
| sanderjd wrote:
| This gets at another portion of the answer to the "what's
| your alternative suggestion?" question: I'd suggest
| Congress pass laws, rather than presidents making stuff
| up, illegally. This is clearly not a partisan point!
| Every president in my voting lifetime - Bush, Obama,
| Trump, Biden - has made up immigration law while Congress
| sat on its thumbs.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Exactly. People forget, but the first selective
| enforcement edict (on illegal immigration) came from HW
| Bush.
| roamerz wrote:
| There have been many laws passed by Congress addressing
| immigration. It is against law to cross the border
| without authorization. This particular case exists as a
| result of not enforcing those laws. Pretty simple.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Despite past congresses passing laws, the system is not
| good. A major contributor to the problem of people
| immigrating illegally is that our legal immigration
| system is a total mess. This is why there have been a
| number of efforts at reforms over the past few decades.
| But none of them have worked, leaving us in this
| situation where presidents from both parties do all this
| illegal stuff by executive action.
| apical_dendrite wrote:
| I agree with you.
|
| I think there has to be a reasonable solution that gives
| legal status to the guy who's been here for 20 years and
| is making a positive contribution to society, but doesn't
| allow someone to show up and exploit loopholes to stay
| forever.
|
| I think a reasonable compromise would look something like
| this:
|
| * Make it much easier for people to get temporary visas
| for the kinds of jobs where we need migrant workers.
|
| * Provide a pathway to citizenship for people who have
| been in this country for a very long time and are
| contributing to society.
|
| * Make it very difficult for people to come to the US
| without a visa - e.g. make people apply for asylum
| outside of the US. Stop issuing temporary protected
| status to huge blocks of migrants.
|
| Unfortunately, political polarization has basically made
| it impossible for Congress to solve real problems.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Yep, the solution is pretty clear in broad strokes, as
| you described, but the bases of both parties advocate for
| radically opposed policy through executive action, which
| just makes the situation worse.
| jfengel wrote:
| It's not quite that Congress has sat on its thumbs.
| Individual Congressmen have been (figuratively) screaming
| at each other. Committees are at each other's throats
| trying to get some sort of legislation to the table.
| Nobody can stand the possibility of giving the other side
| what they want -- at the insistence of their
| constituents.
|
| The net result, of course, is identical to if they had
| all stayed home.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Yeah I think you just described what sitting on their
| thumbs looks like, for a legislative body :)
| apical_dendrite wrote:
| Sure, the point is that the poster I was responding to
| said that the only way to avoid putting US citizen minor
| children in a position where they have to either leave
| the country, or stay in the country without their
| parents, is to effectively grant citizenship to the
| parents. My point is that that's a false choice, it would
| be possible to grant the parents a temporary, conditional
| status that's based on having minor US-citizen children.
| It's not an ideal solution, but it protects the
| constitutional rights of US-citizen minor children
| without granting citizenship to the parents.
| sashank_1509 wrote:
| How is that any different from granting parents
| citizenship. In some sense you presume birthright
| citizenship doesn't make sense. Let us say an immigrant
| illegally comes into the country and becomes a robber. He
| in fact, just mugs people on the street. Clearly he's a
| net negative, someone you want to deport. Now he has a
| child. Now by virtue of him having a child, we can no
| longer deport him, because then we make the child who's a
| citizen less parent less. Also assume in this case the
| mother is some criminal too, to drive the point home.
|
| The simpler, logically consistent solution would be that
| the child's citizenship is only granted if the parents
| are citizens. (Or at least if parents are not illegal
| immigrants). Then when you deport the parents, you can
| legally deport the child too. It still is not a pleasant
| situation, there is no ideal solution here, except he
| should have never been let in at all, but once he is,
| these seem the only choices
| apical_dendrite wrote:
| It's completely different. A conditional work visa is
| just that, conditional. If you commit a crime you can
| lose status and be deported. In fact, DAPA eligibility
| was dependent on not having a felony record. That is not
| the same thing as citizenship. There's no reason to
| believe that because you give a temporary work
| authorization to someone that you have to then make that
| person a citizen.
|
| Citizenship by blood creates its own problems. I am
| eligible for Polish citizenship if I choose to pursue it
| based on where my ancestors lived. I have never been to
| Poland, don't speak the language, and don't really know
| that much about the culture or feel any loyalty or even
| much affinity to Poland. On the other hand, let's say
| that someone is born in Poland to immigrant parents.
| Culturally they are entirely Polish - they lived their
| whole life there, speak the language, were educated by
| the Polish school system and consider themselves entirely
| Polish - they've never lived anywhere else. Yet they
| would not have the same ability to become a citizen that
| I have. If I got Polish citizenship, I'd just take
| whatever benefits I could from it and contribute nothing
| to Poland. How is it logical that I could be a Polish
| citizen and this person couldn't be?
| sswatson wrote:
| The phrase "solely one of birthright" suggests the
| diminishment of the citizenship of certain people. That is
| not how citizenship works: no one is less of a citizen than
| anyone else.
|
| The most objectionable part here -- by far -- is not the
| deportation of the parents, but the deportation of _citizens_
| and the lack of due process.
|
| The alternative being proposed is that if ICE is going to
| deport the parents of US citizen children, the parents should
| be given the opportunity to seek legal counsel regarding how
| they're going to ensure care for their children.
| kadushka wrote:
| _no one is less of a citizen than anyone else_
|
| This is not true - a citizen by birth can become the
| president, a naturalized citizen cannot.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| that's true, so basically they deported somebody that one
| day could become President!
| lawn wrote:
| They deported someone with (supposedly) more rights than
| Elon Musk.
| V-eHGsd_ wrote:
| While true, I believe op was talking about with respect
| to the protections afforded by the law.
| threatofrain wrote:
| While true, one thing OP could be talking about is the
| spiritualism implied by that rule, and whether it finds
| catch in the American psychology.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| US hospitals do not have magical pixie dust to grant US
| citizenship.
|
| This is why birthright as a legal concept is a diminishment
| of citizenship for all those who hold it.
|
| Parents pass on the shared history, values, and national
| culture to their kids. Parents are those who give value to
| US citizenship.
|
| Not coming out of a belly, that happens to be inside a US
| hospital.
| Erem wrote:
| US constitution thoughtfully disagrees with you,
| elevating presence on the land at birth over bloodline
| wrt citizenship.
|
| "All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
| and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
| the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
| -US Constitution, 14th Amendment
|
| Quite literally, US hospitals do have that magic pixie
| dust because they are on the land of this country.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| >> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
|
| Will need to be resolved.
|
| Its not a coincidence that Switzerland is the longest-
| lasting democracy in the world by a factor of 4x, vs USA.
| Their framers had the foresight to enshrine their
| communities' common history, values, and culture.... over
| pixie dust.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| It has been resolved, for over 125 years of precedent.
|
| If you don't know US history, why bother to show your
| ignorance so visibly?
| Revanche1367 wrote:
| Ironically, his parents didn't do a good enough job of
| passing on the shared history, values, and national
| culture of the US.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
|
| Wax poetic about nativism all you like, it won't change
| the truth.
| roughly wrote:
| > Parents pass on the shared history, values, and
| national culture to their kids.
|
| Except our nation's shared history, values, and national
| culture is that we're a nation of immigrants, a melting
| pot of global cultures, a refuge for those in need, and a
| place where anyone can come to seek their fortune, so
| obviously American parents haven't been passing on those
| values to their children if we're still having this
| debate, and I think the only fair response to that is to
| deport all the children who don't meet your standards of
| citizenship, by which I mean the entire cohort that's
| arguing all this is OK.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| To be blunt, America's children are getting a lot more of
| their shared cultural values from Bluey than their
| parents, so I think we could stand to pump the brakes on
| concern about whether children born in this country are
| as American as children born in this country to parents
| who were born in this country.
|
| That way lies a very ugly argument about who is enough on
| the team. One that almost nobody who thinks themselves
| American wins, because the real winners of that argument
| should be the folks stuck into reservations by the alien
| ancestors of those who see themselves as "true Americans,
| born of Americans."
|
| For Americans in particular, the best strategy for not
| having their own legitimacy challenged is definitely
| _not_ to pull too hard on the legitimacy thread.
| roughly wrote:
| As maybe my favorite Twitter dunk of all time goes - "Ah
| yes, Jack Posobiec, of the Mayflower Posobiecs."
| kj4211cash wrote:
| Do you really believe this? I've never met anyone opposed
| to birthright citizenship for the US. Our shared history,
| values, and national culture are all about immigration so
| this isn't computing for me. Plus the law seems settled
| on this issue, or at least was before Trump 2.0. I
| genuinely don't understand how thinking people can
| support the current administration's policies on numerous
| issues. Tried going to r/conservative, watching Fox News,
| etc. but it hasn't helped much to date.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| It's pretty easy to understand, you only need to look at
| which subset of immigrants they have a problem with.
| There's one commonality with all of them, and it is (so
| to speak) only skin-deep.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The great irony of the American bigot arguing against
| "chain migration" is that their immediate forefathers not
| only allowed it as a compromise, but embraced it with
| open arms.
|
| In the fifties and sixties, those in America who deeply
| concern themselves with average skin tone saw a darkening
| country. They believed that fast-tracking immigration for
| family members would allow Europeans escaping the
| aftermath of World War II to immigrate rapidly to
| America, which would bolster the numbers and tilt the
| national average a bit, if you will, caucasian.
|
| ... what they fundamentally failed to grasp is that after
| the war, America sent her fighting boys (and girls) out
| to enforce Democracy over Communism at the point of a
| sword. Sen them to countries where the average citizen
| was not, generally, bothered by intense direct sunlight.
| And those boys fell in love. With people who distinctly
| _lacked_ a certain, shall we say, Innsmouth look that our
| bigot friends preferred in their fellow citizens. Plus,
| folks from geographically-adjacent countries who went
| through the arduous process of naturalization were able
| to bring their extended families in as well.
|
| The final consequence was a policy that had been
| supported on one side for mostly economic and "melting
| pot" reasons that was _also_ supported by bigots for
| decidedly bigot reasons... Turned out to make the country
| more diverse, not the less-diverse the bigots had hoped
| for.
|
| It's a feel-good self-own story.
| chasd00 wrote:
| What you're really saying is you want this family broken up
| for the rage bait. You want the picture of a child crying
| for their mother as the plane takes off for the views.
| sixothree wrote:
| Fairly clear that is not the argument here.
| EasyMark wrote:
| I don't think it was meant to devalue their citizenship,
| but citizenship doesn't trump their safety or need to be
| with their parents. The parents are going to be deported
| for being here illegally, would you have the child be
| separated and put in a foster/community home? Emotions are
| important but the only pragmatic solution here is to deport
| all 3, if your nation's policy is deportation for being
| here illegally. I agree with that policy in general but not
| with the US policy of Trump of manhandling illegal aliens
| or their children. Nor do I agree the lawlessness of what
| they're doing currently by sending off "suspected gang
| members" without due process to what amount to torture
| camps in El Salvador.
| lawn wrote:
| Sentencing children to die as they can't receive proper
| medical care when deported is not in any way the best
| solution.
|
| Unless of course your lack empathy and de-humanize people
| by calling them "aliens".
| sanderjd wrote:
| > _the children 's citizenship was solely one of birthright_
|
| Under the US Constitution, this is not a distinction. What
| you're looking for is just "the children's citizenship"
| without this qualifier that signifies nothing under the law.
|
| The better alternative is to aggressively enforce employment
| laws against _employers_. Immigrants come here and stay here
| to work.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Agree and proper border control which the previous
| administration failed to enforce. Step 1 is stop the
| influx.
| faster wrote:
| The data seem to show that at the end of Biden's term,
| ICE enforcement actions were very low. But for some
| reason, the stats page doesn't show Trump's previous
| term. https://www.ice.gov/statistics
|
| Looking at the most recent DHS yearbook (apples and
| oranges, but the best I can find so far) at
| https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook and
| scaling to match the curve at the ICE stats page, it
| looks like illegal immigration was way down at the end of
| Biden's term.
|
| So maybe the influx was already slowed dramatically. I
| don't think it's possible to stop people from wanting to
| go to the US, except by making it worse that the places
| people are leaving. I don't think that's a worthy goal.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| The question we have to ask ourselves is why was ICE not
| empowered to conduct enforcement ? Why were border
| crossings up over Biden's term and then when Trump is
| elected and comes into office they drop dramatically ?
| sanderjd wrote:
| I'm in favor of that too, but I think this insistence on
| it being step 1 is actually just a resistance to solving
| the real problem. (Which is that employers are happy to
| pay below market wages to illegally employ immigrants who
| are here unlawfully.)
| firesteelrain wrote:
| We should go after it all to include implementing
| E-Verify for all. Republicans are also in favor of the
| guest worker program to legally meet the demand. But we
| have to stop the flow
| sanderjd wrote:
| I agree that we should do those things. But what I've
| seen for the past couple decades that I've been voting is
| that Republican politicians pretend to want to do those
| things, but refuse to do them "until we've stopped the
| flow" or "but the border has to be step 1".
|
| This is a classic political tactic to be able to say you
| want to do something, but never actually have to do it.
| Politicians use this tactic when they don't actually want
| to do the thing for some reason. In this case, it's
| because it's really unpopular with business owners, who
| like to employ illegal immigrants.
|
| It's perfectly reasonable to say "we need to crack down
| on employers _in conjunction with_ aggressive border and
| deportation enforcement ". But I'm very skeptical of
| anyone saying "stopping the flow is step 1". I've heard
| that story before!
| laurent_du wrote:
| Not enough. Some immigrants come and stay to commit crimes.
| retzkek wrote:
| And then, what? Are citizens beating down the doors to do
| these jobs but getting out-competed by migrants? Are these
| the same citizens who are lining up to do sweatshop labor
| when manufacturing "returns" to the US?
|
| If undocumented workers are finding productive work in an
| economy with low unemployment then the problem is that the
| government is not facilitating them gaining legal status.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| The problem would be minimum wage and insurance
| requirements for employing citizens. There are plenty of
| citizens that would work those jobs but nobody would hire
| them because they cost too much. What you are arguing for
| is to continue allowing people to come here so employers
| can pay them less than a citizen is legally required to
| be paid. Once they become legal employers no longer want
| to employ them for the same reason they don't want to
| hire citizens.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| US citizens by and large don't want to go work in tobacco
| fields for $15/hr, in a state with $7/hr min wage. But
| mexican workers coming over legally, getting the work
| visas and all that... will.
| sanderjd wrote:
| What I'm arguing for is to _not_ let employers do that.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| or alternatively that the US doesn't have a guest worker
| program similar in scope to most of the developed world,
| and this is at least partially due to political concerns
| around birthright.
| conor_mc wrote:
| We do have a chicken and egg problem. I think the idea
| here is that it's a systemic issue and the enforcement is
| focussed on individuals. This is analogous to the concept
| of getting everyday people to recycle when the companies
| creating the products have greater control over how much
| garbage is produced.
|
| Employers need to stop taking advantage of undocumented
| workers at artificially suppressed wages. This has acted
| like a subsidy keeping these poor business models afloat.
| This has led us to the situation we are in now, where
| we've become dependent on undocumented migrants (food
| production etc), who we are being taking advantage of
| (lower wages, less rights), and also trying to villanize
| & deport them (the article above). All simultaneously.
|
| It's possible with careful coordination of industry,
| legislation, and immagration, we wouldn't be here. But
| now that we are, we need to either find a way to improve
| the situation or reverse it.
| sanderjd wrote:
| I don't think it's chicken and egg at all. I think lots
| of employers employ immigrants illegally, and then the
| immigrants take all the political heat. Anyone pissed
| about "all these illegals" should be at least just as
| pissed about all the businesses illegally employing them.
|
| We should stop letting employers do this, and then we all
| discover that we still really want to employ immigrants,
| we should enable that, legally.
| sanderjd wrote:
| I think then we would have an "oh shit" moment and
| finally reform the legal immigration system to allow
| immigrants to come do all these jobs legally.
|
| It would be a forcing function.
| DragonStrength wrote:
| The issue is some ability to fight. For instance, I don't
| think the child of a US citizen should be deported without
| consent of their citizen parent or a ruling against that
| parent. I'd like some assurance my own child won't be
| disappeared to another country without my consent.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > I don't think the child of a US citizen should be
| deported without consent of their citizen parent or a
| ruling against that parent.
|
| Think it should depend on custody. US courts don't just
| always favor the custody of the citizen parent.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| If only custody and other issues could have been
| determined h a court, not ICE ignoring the court while it
| expedited a flight out of the country then said "sorry,
| too late".
| UncleMeat wrote:
| > and the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright
|
| My citizenship is solely that way too, even though
| generations of my ancestors were also citizens.
|
| Unless you personally naturalized then your citizenship is
| solely by birthright. The vast majority of US citizens are
| this way. Insisting that this is somehow worth less in terms
| of legal protections is just frankly wrong.
|
| Imagine you said this for other circumstances. "Well, a
| parent going to prison is always going to be hard for the
| family - better imprison the whole family!"
| nikanj wrote:
| The previous time the big mad that Obama was (supposedly) not
| born on the US soil, now the problem is that someone was born
| in the US.
|
| Is there an acceptable way for POC to get citizenship
| anymore, if it's not by inheritance and it's not by being
| born in the US?
| tuan wrote:
| 5mil for a gold card and expedited path to citizenship I've
| heard.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Just like everywhere else.
| usernomdeguerre wrote:
| There are places that do not have pay-for-citizenship.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| A quarter of US citizens are not white. Maybe POC isn't the
| best term to use here.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| > Like in this case, what do you propose as an alternative
| with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most
| people?
|
| I like how nobody has actually answered this question yet,
| and have only harped on your birthright comment.
|
| The parents are in the US illegally, ICE deports people who
| are in the US illegally. Presumably the parents didn't want
| to leave their USC kids behind so they brought them.
|
| I guess possible options are
|
| 1. Allow illegal parents to designate USC kids a guardian who
| has legal US immigration status
|
| 2. Dont deport illegal immigrants who have USC kids
| (basically making birthright transitive to parents)
| Swizec wrote:
| > 2. Dont deport illegal immigrants who have USC kids
| (basically making birthright transitive to parents)
|
| Birthright is _somewhat_ transitive. US citizens can
| sponsor family members for a green card once they're 18.
| Volundr wrote:
| While plenty of people would prefer 2) there would be a lot
| less outcry if they were allowing 1) _especially in cases
| where the kid already has a legal USC guardian_ like the
| one discussed here where the father couldn 't even speak
| with the mother before her and his child was deported.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > The parents are in the US illegally
|
| No, the father is not. And when trying to get the mother
| legal help for her situation was cut off from her. Same
| when the court tried to get information, ICE ignored it,
| got her on a plane and then shortly after said "sorry, too
| late".
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| The question then is the mother the legal guardian of the
| kids and was she given a choice to hand off the kids to
| someone else? If the mother was the legal guardian and
| she decided to take the USC kids with her, that is her
| right.
|
| I think the details will matter here, it does seem like
| ICE skrewed the pooch here in not giving the family
| recourse to get the kids out of the detainee facility. If
| the USC kids were involuntarily detained that is a
| problem (despite it may be legal to do that according to
| US federal law).
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| First, the US needs to resolve its issue of citizenship. It
| has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always
| like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you
| were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise).
| For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly
| enforced for some time. Instead we defaulted to "anyone born
| in a US hospital is a citizen"
|
| Then, as welfare, lack of law enforcement and border grew,
| the broken citizenship process became a larger problem that
| now we have to deal with.
|
| To me, the answer to your question of what is the alternative
| is as follows: The sole act of breaking laws and cutting the
| line to come into the country, to then birth babies here for
| the pusposes of straightjacketing the host's own response
| seems like should not be allowed, full stop. The premise of
| becoming a US citizen cannot be grounded in 2 crimes being
| committed before you are a citizen (1 illegal entry, 1 lying
| about your asylum petition).
|
| We then have the issue of citizenship. It cannot be that
| because you come out of a womb that happens to be passing by
| a US hospital, you are a US citizen. US hospitals do not have
| magic pixie dust that grant american-ness. The Swiss have the
| right model that you actually have to come from at least 1
| national parent, to foster national unity. The Swiss have the
| longest-lasting democracy in the world for a reason. Ignoring
| this seems suicidal. In nature and history, no humans
| prospered without an organized tribe centered around shared
| history and values.
|
| Then there are the cases of people that came here, all
| legally, and found a life worth having by contributing to
| society. There should be a path for them to be citizens. What
| that path looks like, I dont know. But that's a conversation
| worth having soon since they are paying the price for the
| crimes and abuse committed by the 1st group.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Let's remind ourselves of the text of the 14th amendment:
|
| "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
| subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
| United States and of the State wherein they reside."
|
| > It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was
| always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen
| if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or
| otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been
| strictly enforced for some time.
|
| I think any clear reading of the 14th amendment shows that
| you are incorrect.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| IANAL, but interpretation of:
|
| "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
|
| seems critical to make a determination on whether you are
| correct or not.
|
| Take the act of a random french spy who goes to the UK
| for the purpose of defecting, without express permission
| of either government. Does that make him a subject to the
| UK crown? I think the historical outcome of such
| situation would be crystal-clear.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Are only people with at least 1 naturalized citizen
| parent the only people subject to the jurisdiction of the
| United States?
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| This is switching the topic.
|
| The 14th amendment discusses who is a citizen. It does
| not capture who is a subject to US jurisdictions, or not.
| That part is open to interpretation , likely because it
| is based in common law.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| e: You've now edited your comment to be consistent with
| what you originally said. Before edit, the commenter said
| that the jurisdiction clause meant that at least one
| parent needed to be at least a legal visitor to the US.
|
| Not only is that not in the text of the 14th, it's
| different from your original proposal two comments ago.
| If you really want to do this fine-grained reading to try
| to support your point, you might notice that 1. the
| subject to the jurisdiction clause is the baby, not the
| parents, 2. breaking a law does not mean you are not
| subject to the jurisdiction of the state you reside in.
| jf wrote:
| Please note that the 14th Amendment does not "discuss"
| who is a citizen, a better word would be "establishes" or
| "determines" - the "discussion" happened during the
| drafting and ratification processes and all of those
| records are available for you to read. Post ratification,
| the court system uses those discussions as part of their
| decisions on issues related to clarification of questions
| that arose after ratification. Those court decisions are
| also available for you to read.
| jf wrote:
| Your example doesn't make sense because the 14th
| amendment only applies to the United States and not the
| United Kingdom.
| mrj wrote:
| That's been a fringe legal theory for a while. But
| historically it's been understood that even if in the
| country illegally, somebody driving too fast is going to
| get a ticket, right? If they commit a crime they are
| thrown in jail. Clearly they are subject to jurisdiction.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| but they could very well be deported 1st. There's nothing
| stopping that, in fact.
|
| The only reason they go to jail is because de-facto that
| is is fair for the victimm in that he/she gets
| "Restitution" in the form of jail time for the non-
| citizen, and presumably, the foreign country may even be
| able to challenge that.
|
| The dejure interpretation may be he should be banished,
| although that would be unfair to the victim.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| How could they deport them? They're not subject to the
| jurisdiction of the authorities, right?
| vessenes wrote:
| SCOTUS ruled on this over a hundred years ago, in the
| case of a child born in the US of Chinese immigrants who
| went to China in his 30s, and was denied re-entry. Denial
| theory: Chinese citizens are subject to the Chinese
| emperor annd therefore aren't subject to the jurisdiction
| of the US.
|
| SCOTUS response: "LOL". 6-2 (1 abstention) in favor of
| him being a citizen. The majority assent lays out pretty
| clearly that the jurisdiction language was to except
| diplomats and Native American tribespeople who had
| different treaties and status.
|
| The Wong Kim Ark ruling is super, super, super clear that
| it would only be in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances that the
| 14th wouldn't apply. For instance, two people in an
| invasion force sent by King George to take back the
| colonies have a baby with each other on US soil: probably
| not a citizen. Even then, if those two were in prison and
| had the baby: probably a citizen. Baby of two diplomats:
| not a citizen (called out in the ruling).
|
| The dissent says: The 14th was really about Dredd Scott,
| and giving former slaves born in US soil full citizenship
| rights, and therefore "jurisdiction" is _obviously_ only
| for naturalized citizens: Mr. Ark didn't _seek_
| citizenship and therefore didn't have it, since he wasn't
| a former slave or child of a former slave, the 14th
| doesn't apply.
|
| The current attempt to reframe the 14th while including
| the Ark ruling relies on the _very novel_ idea that
| anyone in the country without permission is not "subject
| to the jurisdiction of the US". ICE's actions clearly
| bely that take. It's not a tenable angle to try and get
| rid of birthright citizenship, full stop.
| cyberax wrote:
| > "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
|
| It means that the parents must be immune from the US
| government actions. For example, if they are diplomats
| and literally can't be arrested even if they commit a
| murder in the plain sight.
| ivape wrote:
| The people that come here legally don't really build
| anything of significant value when you compare it to entire
| immigrant communities. Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Irish,
| you name it, they build vast amounts of culture and
| businesses that get integrated into America. Even if you
| give me 2 million of the smartest legal immigrants, they
| will pale in comparison to what large immigrant communities
| offer to the fabric of America. This is deeply American
| issue, you either get it or you don't.
|
| Just Apu from the Simpsons is only possible due to our
| immigration. Just the very fucking iconic cartoon
| character. This is not from legal immigration. Taco
| Tuesdays, every Irish pub, like, it sounds silly, but what
| they offer America is ten fold. I do not care about the
| best and the brightest, give us your tired and poor.
|
| The American right-wing reeks of elitism (soft language for
| racist/xenophobic) and it is the antithesis of the American
| spirit and dream. I'm not with it.
|
| This will be one of my final posts on this topic because I
| believe we are only in month five, and have 3.5 years to
| go. I pray the midterms are a landslide, and I pray the
| next Democrat grants Amnesty. See you all on the other
| side, because to me this issue is no different than the
| anit-gay marriage bullshit from the 2000s that we wiped the
| table clean of once and for all. We are a nation of
| immigrants and we will be so until eternity.
| generalizations wrote:
| > American right-wing reeks of elitism
|
| Common notion, but based in ignorance. I've found that
| the left wing is more idealistic, but in the sense that
| they have chosen not to learn from history and rely on
| immediate emotional values. The right wing sees second
| order effects and acts on them.
|
| Thus, you get the left calling the right
| heartless/immoral/racist, and the right calling the left
| idiots.
| Erem wrote:
| > The right wing sees second order effects and acts on
| them.
|
| It's hard to take this one at good faith. The right wing
| is very publicly melting down the CDC for glue while the
| second order effects of a preventable measles epidemic
| spreads through the country. Is there a more targeted
| claim you want to make?
| generalizations wrote:
| The right wing had a big problem with the role the CDC
| played in the authoritarianism of the COVID era. Now
| they're melting down a weapon of that authoritarianism.
| What's more important, preserving civil rights by
| preventing authoritarianism, or a single epidemic? Gotta
| think long term here.
|
| I suspect that you merely dislike the authoritarian
| things the government is currently doing; I dislike that
| the government is authoritarian. We are not the same.
| professor_x wrote:
| Learning from history and still ending up on the side of
| almost every issue that is considered unspeakably cruel a
| generation later.
|
| Slavery, segregation, women's suffrage, child labor
| protections, labor rights, Social Security, interracial
| marriage, homosexuality, civil rights legislation, same-
| sex marriage, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, prohibition,
| environmental protections, public education expansion,
| healthcare reform, voting rights expansion, immigration
| rights, disability rights, reproductive rights, minimum
| wage laws, workers' compensation laws.
| generalizations wrote:
| >> rely on immediate emotional values....Thus, you get
| the left calling the right heartless/immoral/racist
|
| > considered unspeakably cruel
|
| You're not disagreeing on any pragmatic basis, just the
| emotional one. Like I said.
| usernomdeguerre wrote:
| They gave you a whole list of pragmatic policy
| differences, are you ignoring them or in agreement?
| generalizations wrote:
| No, they gave a list of policy differences - and
| justified them with an emotional argument: "cruel". They
| said nothing about the pragmatic justification of them.
| Which is exactly my point: the left tends to operate on
| ideological emotional values.
|
| They could have said things like 'reproductive rights
| leads to X goods for the populace' or 'prohibition was a
| net positive in Y ways' or 'minimum wage laws are shown
| to improve GDP by Z amt on average' - but they didn't.
| They used an emotional argument. Like I said they would.
| kj4211cash wrote:
| "Not to learn from history"? We're in the twilight zone
| now. It's the right wing that is currently enacting
| tariffs, scapegoating immigrants, pushing for appeasement
| in Ukraine, etc.
|
| The Republican party traded logic for populism long ago.
| mayneack wrote:
| Why does the birthright status quo need resolving? Why is
| there magic pixie dust based on who your parents are? None
| of these are fundamental truths. The US and the Swiss just
| chose different laws.
| rs186 wrote:
| Exactly. Same for dual citizenship. I realize there is
| nothing right or wrong about whether a countries allows
| dual citizenship -- it's just two different ways of doing
| things. Although that's a bit of a stretch here.
| chasd00 wrote:
| > It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was
| always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen
| if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or
| otherwise)
|
| I like this a lot. That makes total sense and would take
| away the incentive to cross the border to give birth.
| mayneack wrote:
| > That's not only completely unrealistic
|
| I don't see how it's unrealistic.
| tomrod wrote:
| > what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent
|
| There is a moral answer, the practical answer, and two
| popular answers, none of which are particularly satisfying.
|
| The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is
| generally freer than people are, and people should be able to
| vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless
| all or a large bloc of countries allow it in reciprocity, or
| at least countries with an EU-like agreement. It would make a
| lot of sense for all of North America to have an EU-like
| agreement, economically, militarily, and legally.
|
| The practical answer: amnesty for parents of children who are
| born here, conditional on criminality aversion. Like a form
| of probation.
|
| The right-wing propaganda answer: immigrants somehow took
| jobs they are unwilling to do and therefore, while we might
| crack a few eggs making the omelette, all immigrants must go.
| Authoritarians love this view.
|
| The left-wing propaganda: all immigrants are noble victims of
| evil capitalist systems, and therefore any control over
| borders is inherently racist and fascist. This is clearly
| also unsustainable, and authoritarians love for their
| opponents to have this view.
| yubblegum wrote:
| > The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is
| generally freer than people are, and people should be able
| to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable
| unless ..
|
| A strong no on this being "the moral answer". If people are
| permitted to vote with their feet maybe people are also
| permitted to build pickets around communities. That sounds
| more "moral" to me than entirely ignoring the wishes of the
| chosen destination's "people". IFF the destination is happy
| to welcome people who think their community better than
| their own and want to move over, then fine, that is a much
| better candidate for "the moral answer".
| tomrod wrote:
| We already do this between states in the US and in the
| EU, so clearly it can work in practice. We don't normally
| look at it that way, but that is precisely how we
| structured things.
| yubblegum wrote:
| Someone moving from Virginia to California is moving
| within the same socio-political order and culture.
| tomrod wrote:
| Correct! It wasn't always that way, but isn't it
| wonderful that our laws and governance allowed such a
| flourishing!
| whimsicalism wrote:
| To what degree do we let the people decide how their
| republic is structured?
|
| Voters have rejected this sort of cosmopolitanism at the
| ballot box, repeatedly. To suggest that governments should
| open borders over the wishes of their citizens seems to
| simply be an object-level misunderstanding over the goals
| of statecraft.
| tomrod wrote:
| Repeating a bit, but we already do this between states in
| the US and in the EU, so clearly it can work in practice.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Because voters decided there was a common interest,
| cultural identity, etc. and mutually agreed on political
| integration. Voters clearly do not want a unified
| Americas.
|
| The purpose of a Republic is to be a stable entity that
| ensures the welfare of its citizens. It is not to have a
| single-minded obsession with global welfare at the
| expense of its own sustainability or the desires of its
| citizens.
| tomrod wrote:
| > voters decided there was a common interest, cultural
| identity, etc. and mutually agreed on political
| integration.
|
| I'm less confident that this was performed in either
| location due to direct democracy, and more because it
| made political sense and was expedient at the time that
| these locale enacted the governance structure.
|
| In other words, it's not a one-and-done-forever type
| discussion, and things (clearly) evolve over time.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| We don't elect an all powerful leader. The people did
| vote for Trump. But "well they voted for Trump" is not an
| excuse for him to do literally anything. If the people
| want legislative changed then they elect people in
| Congress. If the people want to change the constitution
| itself then they can seek that too.
|
| But "well Trump won so just have ICE kill them all" (this
| is what my aunt, a republican lobbyist, wants) is not a
| thing.
| exe34 wrote:
| "what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that
| you think could be agreeable to most people?"
|
| A fair trial in court for a start.
| p_j_w wrote:
| > what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that
| you think could be agreeable to most people?
|
| How about real actual fucking due process? Maybe they can NOT
| cut off communication when the citizen father tried to
| provide her with a phone number for legal counsel. Anything
| else is ghoulish. Keep defending it if you really don't give
| a shit about your level of humanity.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > Maybe they can NOT cut off communication when the citizen
| father tried
|
| Is father a US citizen?
|
| Based on https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour
| ts.lawd.21... assuming that's the right case it doesn't
| seem like he is
| jolmg wrote:
| Possibly meant "the citizen's father"
| rdtsc wrote:
| That could be, but I see other comments also indicating
| the father is a U.S. citizen.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > also a complete slap in the face to the millions of people
| who try to migrate legally and are refused entry.
|
| Yeah, it sounds like a completely unworkable situation.
|
| If only there was some way to make it easier for people to
| stay in the United States with much relaxed concern about
| their citizenship status or documentation.
|
| ... Oh wait, we could just do that. Because it's our laws,
| which means it's rules for a game we made up for ourselves.
| The universe does not care about the lines drawn on a map.
| People do. If the lines drawn on a map and the separation of
| human beings across those lines is becoming painful... Maybe
| we stop hurting ourselves?
|
| We could care less. We did care less in the past. It seemed
| to work pretty well.
| miltonlost wrote:
| > anyone got any juice on why this is happening.
|
| Because Trump is an abject racist with a white nationalist
| policy who ran on deporting what he finds to be undesirable.
| It's not hard.
| Larrikin wrote:
| >anyone got any juice on why this is happening.
|
| Their skin color and national origin is offensive to the
| president and the percentage of the country that voted for him.
| pge wrote:
| The current administration has set targets for numbers of
| people deported(which ICE is currently behind on). That creates
| an incentive to skip due process in order to get more people
| deported more quickly (and the awareness that there will no
| consequences for doing so probably contributes as well)
| scarface_74 wrote:
| And while trying to meet those numbers, they are being
| specifically told not to do mass raids of farms and other
| business in red states that will hurt Trump voters
| mgkimsal wrote:
| I suspect it's Trump donors they may be looking to spare,
| at least a bit. I don't get the impression they care about
| previous Trump voters very much, except to buy merch at
| this point.
| morkalork wrote:
| Also, businesses caught employing illegal immigrants
| seemingly don't face any punishment either. Migrants
| wouldn't enter the US illegally if they couldn't find
| employment, and they wouldn't find employment if businesses
| were harshly punished. As it is, everyone is incentivized
| to keep this cat and mouse game going.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| THe FBI/ICE sure cam after a judge that helped an illegal
| immigrant. I'm sure the FBI/ICE is using the same zeal to
| go after employers who helped them.
| tomrod wrote:
| I'm a bit hazy on the story, but wasn't ICE interfering
| with her court?
| Terr_ wrote:
| And without any (actual, real, judicial) warrant.
|
| So in principle not that different from a biker gang that
| claims they "just want to talk to" someone who just
| finished being a witness.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Unless it's Tyson chicken and the undocumented workers are
| getting a bit "uppitty" about OSHA stuff, then coordinate a
| raid but when the workers talk about the printed
| instructions they got from Tyson about how to fill out
| paperwork if you are undocumented, and what you plan to do
| about that, "we have no plans to investigate the company".
| chairmansteve wrote:
| Yep. Their rabble rousing lies are meeting the hard reality
| that the country depends on these workers. They can't
| deliver without destroying the food and construction
| industries. So it's random German tourists at the border.
| briffle wrote:
| They are also trying to push for an end to birthright
| citizenship.
| masklinn wrote:
| The administration has also been "defending" their absence of
| due process and trying to work around judge orders to stop,
| shaving as close to the letter of judicial orders as they
| could when they don't just ignore them entirely.
|
| ICE taking that as _carte blanche_ to smash and grab is
| perfectly logical given that agency is ICE.
| chairmansteve wrote:
| Explains the deportation of Canadian and European tourists.
| They need to get their numbers up.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Previously with the family separation policy it was part of an
| aggressive campaign led by Stephen Miller personally. There are
| now a few more people who want to do this as much as he does,
| all in the administration. It was Trump who hired those people,
| and then it was Trump who rescinded family separations and
| fired Neilsen over it, because it made bad media. The public
| has a template for exactly how to stop it. All that said, this
| is what the Republican base wants.
| UmGuys wrote:
| Are you serious? Trump campaigned on spreading cruelty to these
| people and he's doing it. There's financial incentive to keep
| people in private prisons, and we're paying to send them to
| concentration camps, so it's not money. It's just bigotry.
| yibg wrote:
| Deportations have always happened of course. But details
| matter. What's making this administration different are:
|
| - sloppiness and seeming cruelty of the process, intentional or
| not
|
| - disregard for judicial rulings
|
| - pushing boundaries with regards to who (those with legal
| status) and how (sending people to foreign prisons)
| globalnode wrote:
| theyve started arresting judges too, rip.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Bondi -- an outrageously partisan hack who is destroying the
| DOJ -- reached peak irony when she stated that "no one is above
| the law" in talking about that case.
|
| Donald Trump and his administration are on an absolute crime
| spree[1]. Insider trading, launching shit-coins and engaging in
| self-dealing, _completely_ disregarding both the constitution
| and the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.
|
| The US is currently a lawless banana republic with the dumbest
| autocrat in history. That's the one saving grace: This herd of
| absolute imbeciles are so catastrophically stupid -- a cluster
| of plastic-faced Fox news clowns -- that they are bound to
| destroy everything so completely that they are overthrown out
| of necessity. Will the US survive this? Given that it voted for
| this rapist, charity-stealing moron twice, hopefully not. The
| fractured nations that come out of this hopefully have a better
| path.
|
| [1] Ignoring that he is giving the most laughably corrupt
| pardons in history, to outrageously guilty thieves, fraudsters
| and human effluence. Trump's grotesque abuse, and quite literal
| selling, of pardons should be the impetus for whatever husk
| remains of the dissolved United States to abolish presidential
| pardons.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I try to not let it get to me by telling myself they all are
| just victims of lead poisoning
| tartieret wrote:
| I absolutely love your summary
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > when she stated that "no one is above the law" in talking
| about that case
|
| My reading is that the judge lied to the FBI in order to help
| the subject escape, AFAIK this is a felony (obstruction?) and
| anyone else would be charged - so why isn't it equally
| applicable to a judge? I think people are assuming the judge
| has some form of power that she doesn't.
|
| Not going to discuss Bondi or Trump, on a GBA basis.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| >the judge lied to the FBI
|
| These were ICE "agents" with an administrative warrant. Nor
| did she "lie", she refused them entry to an operating
| courtroom -- which she was 100% right to do.
|
| So nothing you said is accurate.
|
| There is a _100%_ chance she will be completely exonerated,
| but of course this clown administration -- full of in-the-
| open criminals of the worst kind -- doesn 't care about
| that, they just care about intimidation. Which is precisely
| why they brought up charges without a grand jury, which is
| basically unprecedented, because a grand jury would never
| have levied such a charge, and then arrested her in public
| with a perp walk with a photographer at the ready. And they
| _know_ it won 't stick. But because they're an
| administration of criminal garbage they just want to put
| the judiciary in its place, while supplicants and smooth-
| brains cheer them on.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| Apologies, It was the FBI that arrested her, but may not
| have been to whom she lied; This is described as:
|
| "Obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department
| or agency of the US"
|
| -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/d62bd73e-a370
| -40e4-...
|
| My understanding is that even in the case of an ICE
| agent, can also be a felony:
|
| https://www.birdsall-law.com/legal-implications-of-
| interferi...
|
| The agents are described by the FBI agents as "Agents
| from [DHS], [ICE ERO]" without scare-quotes - are you
| implying that they weren't legitimate agents? That said,
| FBI and CBP agents are also described as being present,
| so the distinction between ICE/FBI, and a
| judicial/administrative warrant seem unimportant.
|
| > Nor did she "lie", she refused them entry to an
| operating courtroom
|
| She appeared to co-operate (leading them away to talk to
| the Chief judge), while actually helping the subject
| evade arrest (returning and actually instructing them how
| to escape).
|
| The first part, the deception, is what makes the lie
| rather than a mere upfront refusal.
|
| > which she was 100% right to do
|
| obstruct the agents? In which case they are right to
| arrest her.. I'm not sure what your angle here is.
|
| > nothing you said is accurate.
|
| Seems to me your own corrections are just as inaccurate.
| The above should clarify.
| zarzavat wrote:
| "Deports" is wrong word for removing a citizen. "Expels" would be
| more appropriate.
| estebarb wrote:
| There are already words for that: banished, disappeared, forced
| exiled, concentration camp victim... just reuse terms already
| used to describe crimes done by nazis and other fascist
| goverments.
| bryant wrote:
| > "Deports" is wrong word for removing a citizen. "Expels"
| would be more appropriate.
|
| While this is true, the use of what's technically the wrong
| word highlights that the wrong action is being applied.
|
| The action is a deportation. The targets are people who
| must/shall _not_ ever be deported. Therefore the headline
| immediately gets attention for concisely describing a
| violation.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| I think what happened here is that the parents were here
| illegally. The children just had to accompany the parents. I
| find it quite possible that the children will be allowed back
| in once they no longer have to depend on their parents.
| davorak wrote:
| The reports of no due process or little to no due process
| for citizens[1], that is the main point to my
| understanding. Due process for [1] would at least include
| making sure the proper documentation was in order so they
| could easily return in the future, making sure any health
| care needs could be meet in Honduras or any other critical
| needs, (not all the details are in but) the father in [1]
| wanted the child to stay in the US, but they were deported
| anyway.
|
| I am not seeing all the details I want, but given the
| reports of 4 year olds having to defend themselves without
| representation it is easy to believe these reports of no or
| little due process for child citizens.
|
| [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-
| deportat...
| macinjosh wrote:
| You are correct. People watch too much TV and think this is
| out of the ordinary. If the children were kept here we'd be
| weeping about kids being separated from their parents.
| acdha wrote:
| This just dishonest. In the past, the rule of law
| applied. The law is not perfect or kind, but there was a
| process where people could defend themselves and
| egregious violations of U.S. law like this would be
| avoided. It wouldn't be the child being "separated from
| their parents", it would be the family choosing to go
| together OR the family choosing to have their child live
| with relatives.
|
| The case we heard about yesterday illustrates the
| difference. A judge Trump appointed raised the alarm not
| just because due process is being violated but because a
| two year old's father was pleading with the court to let
| his daughter live with him. Prior to this administration,
| nobody would have blinked an eye at a U.S. citizen
| switching custody to a U.S. citizen parent, and it'd save
| the government a lot of money to let that happen.
|
| https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-
| deportat...
| OutOfHere wrote:
| That's an unfortunate incident. As per my understanding,
| the father can technically go get the child back while
| the child is under the age of 16, using just the child's
| US birth certificate, but only through the land border. I
| understand that this can be difficult since traveling
| from Honduras to a US-Mexico land border crossing could
| not be too easy.
| sanderjd wrote:
| It's not just "unfortunate", it's also illegal.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Yes, because expelling citizens is illegal, and
| separating children from their families is tragic. Just
| being sarcastic and cynical about it doesn't change this.
| sanderjd wrote:
| What does this "had to" mean? Was it "forced to" or was it
| "chose to"? Seems like the former.
| tomrod wrote:
| > here illegally
|
| I have to wonder what horrors and shames ones pathway of
| life must have taken to think a person existing in a space
| is summarizable as illegal. A person cannot be illegal.
| They cannot exist in a space illegally. They could enter a
| space illegally. They could be unauthorized to be in a
| space. But by simple fact that they exist in the world, if
| the law makes them illegal to exist, then that law is
| unjust and should be considered void ab initio based on the
| very few common similarities among coherent moral
| frameworks.
|
| From a practical perspective, as parents and tutelaries of
| children who have citizenship, they should be allowed to
| stay as guardians and join the US society. We have so many
| who thumb their nose at culture in the US, whether the
| right wanting to commit genocide against the outgroup under
| the guise of MAGA or the left self-shaming because they
| know the US can be morally better, but of all people,
| immigrants, especially undocumented and unauthorized
| immigrants who risk everything and worked outside standard
| pathways just for the chance to be at the periphery of US
| society, vulnerable to the predators and outlaws that
| inhabit that domain, they should be given extraordinary
| respect and consideration -- which is what we grant all
| persons who are in the United States and subject to its
| jurisdiction (which is geographically defined).
| pessimizer wrote:
| > A person cannot be illegal. They cannot exist in a
| space illegally.
|
| I don't know if this is true, it seems more like a
| situational demand that you're making but giving it the
| tone of a fact that you're pointing out.
|
| If you break into my house, and I shoot you while you're
| doing it, I won't go to prison. So either you're illegal,
| or I've become so extraordinarily _legal_ that I can
| shoot people with impunity. Whatever has happened in that
| hypothetical, I do not think it is unjust. If you also do
| not, you don 't agree _with your own premise._
|
| Maybe if you make it rhyme, it will slip past people's
| reasoning skills better.
|
| > I have to wonder what horrors and shames ones pathway
| of life
|
| You don't know anyone here. Your self-regard is off the
| charts.
| tomrod wrote:
| > You don't know anyone here. Your self-regard is off the
| charts.
|
| Ironically, I know myself fairly well and quite a few
| folks in all political persuasions, and thus remain
| confident in my priors. But I could see how one could
| mistake empathy for egomania.
|
| Calling people "illegal" is a hallmark of steeping in
| rightwing/authoritarian propaganda as it is about
| "othering" others. Self-abuse should be discouraged
| whether it is physical (cutting, suicide, etc.) or mental
| (losing one's capacity and faculties for reasoning to
| authoritarian propaganda).[0,1,2,3]
|
| [0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3
| 934064
|
| [1] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9
| 7810031...
|
| [2] https://www.biblio.com/book/fox-effect-how-roger-
| ailes-turne...
|
| [3]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad
| chasd00 wrote:
| Can I exist in your bedroom while you sleep tonight? Your
| argument is ridiculous.
| tomrod wrote:
| My bedroom constitutes the entirety of the US border?
| Your argument is reductive.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think this is the rhetoric that drove the country to
| this point. They are here illegally. They can exist
| elsewhere legally.
|
| Respect for law is critical, and valorizing the breaking
| it undermines the very concept of society.
|
| If you want more immigration, work to increase legal
| quotas and update the law.
| tomrod wrote:
| I cannot fathom being so far removed from facts on the
| ground as this comment suggests its commentator is.
|
| 1. "respect for the law" requires both due process, for
| both citizens and people in the geographical jurisdiction
| of the US, and respect for the courts. Anyone who works
| around due process and court orders does not respect the
| law. This is a general statement regarding the treatment
| by the current regime, using ICE, towards immigrants and
| anyone they think is associated to it. Literally -- this
| article is about deporting of US citizens held
| incommunicado and without legal representation, and
| people are already protesting judges being arrested and
| legal residents being exiled without due process.
|
| 2. "this is the rhetoric that drove the country to this
| point" would more appropriately be attributed the
| othering of immigrants and groups MAGA doesn't agree with
| - how many Haitians ate dogs and cats in Ohio? Maybe more
| than 0, but certainly not the unmoored groundswell of
| false-flag horror that crested at the rightful mocking of
| Trump's debate performance.[0] Ref: the moral teachings
| on motes, beams, eyes, Golden Rule, etc. across time and
| religions of all stripes. I reject the notion that me
| expressing empathy for immigrants and the xenophobists is
| rhetoric driving the country apart. It's calling a spade
| a spade.
|
| 3. "If you want more immigration, work to increase legal
| quotas and update the law." This is sort of one of those
| feel-good statements that have no meat or content in
| them. We had a perfectly cromulent immigration reform
| ready to go until Trump threw a tantrum and got
| Republican legislators to vote against their own
| interests because it would hurt his presidential chances.
| We could go back to that, it had some good political
| will, instead of the authoritarian nonsense chaotically
| deployed. Of course, you wouldn't want me to be the
| authoritarian -- we'd come out of things with an open
| border and trade agreement across the Americas because
| that's more efficient and morally justifiable than
| military intervention at a mis-named "invasion" at the
| border (almost as poorly named as DOGE). So rather than
| enabling groups to work towards coherent immigration
| strategies, we have a tyranny of the majority assumed to
| be the will of the land.[1]
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNbhpkJ69ts
|
| [1] "It is abundantly clear that many activist judges
| around the country have been acting politically in order
| to sabotage President Trump's agenda, and disenfranchise
| the 77 million Americans that voted for him." - Rep.
| Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisc.) (This is 100% political
| grandstanding, since polls show that most people now
| disagree with Trump's agenda, [1a])
|
| [1a] https://archive.ph/T7yVp, especially the immigration
| section is now underwater
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| If respect for the law is critical, why is this
| administration and ICE ignoring and actively working to
| evade court orders?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| They shouldn't be, and we should work to hold everyone
| accountable to the laws.
| int_19h wrote:
| Respect for law, like any other kind of respect, has to
| be earned.
|
| If you pass nonsensical, or worse yet, outright evil
| laws, not only will they not be respected, but one can
| reasonably argue that it is a moral duty to disrespect
| them and assist in their breaking. The Underground
| Railroad is a prominent historical example of this.
| sanderjd wrote:
| No, deporting means sending someone back to their country of
| origin. You can't "deport" someone from their country of
| origin to some other country.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| > "Deports" is wrong word for removing a citizen.
|
| In fact I looked this up recently, and "deportation" has
| historically been used in the sense of "dispossession", i.e.
| expelling citizens. For example the notorious deportation of
| defeated Jews to Babylon.
|
| But nowadays that "deportation" so often connotes
| "repatriation" we'll need to make those distinctions. And
| people seem to be completely unaware: we're in a Year of
| Ordinary Jubilee!
| rsoto2 wrote:
| Trafficked*
| rsoto2 wrote:
| These people are being sold to El Salvador. They are being
| trafficked.
| k310 wrote:
| Why the deliberate atrocities?
|
| I read an article that starts with this proposition [1]
|
| > The real question, however, is not how America lost its way. We
| know the mechanics of it. It lost its way in large measure
| because Donald Trump, a Pied Piper of malice, led it astray,
| though one can't lay all of that or even most of it on Trump. The
| American people, nearly half of those who voted, in their
| infinite wisdom empowered Trump to do so. They were looking for a
| Trump, yearning for a Trump, to do so.
|
| > They wanted a Trump to destroy the nation. They hoped he would
| destroy the nation both by sowing chaos and discord and by
| supervising a demolition of our institutions and values. So the
| real question we should be asking is why so many of our fellow
| Americans desired this, and what deep proclivities Trump drew
| upon to prompt the nation, at least a good part of it, to self-
| immolate. What does Trump give them?
|
| Having read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich as a young
| person, this is reminiscent of a fascist playbook.
|
| Except that it seems that social media are in effect creating a
| culture of resentment, projection of weakness and failure onto
| others and driving it for profit with unfiltered echo chambers.
|
| The cause and effect seems to be playing to a vengeful base in
| order to keep legislators in line until their branch and the
| judicial branch are rendered impotent.
|
| Exploring the parallels with Nazi Germany, the amassing of data
| was paramount.
|
| > DOGE is building a master database for immigration enforcement,
| sources say [2]
|
| Further,
|
| > TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TEXTED COLLEGE PROFESSORS' PERSONAL PHONES
| TO ASK IF THEY'RE JEWISH [3]
|
| > The school later told staff it had provided the Trump
| administration with personal contact information for faculty
| members.
|
| > The messages, sent to most Barnard professors' personal
| cellphones, asked them to complete a voluntary survey about their
| employment.
|
| > "Please select all that apply," said the second question in the
| Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, survey.
|
| > The choices followed: (including) "I am Jewish"; "I am
| Israeli"; "I have shared Jewish/Israeli ancestry"; "I practice
| Judaism"; and "Other."
|
| Data?
|
| IBM provided Germany with tabulating equipment to manage
| "undesirables" [4] [5]
|
| The notion of cultural supremacy resonates with some in Silicon
| Valley, land of big and targeted data.
|
| 'Reboot' Revealed: Elon Musk's CEO-Dictator Playbook [6]
|
| Silicon Valley Whistleblowers Warn Elon Musk 'Hijacking'
| Republicans to Control Entire US Government [7]
|
| PDF of their letter. [8] 630K
|
| [1] https://whowhatwhy.org/culture/the-agonizing-work-of-art-
| tha...
|
| [2] https://www.yahoo.com/news/doge-building-master-database-
| imm...
|
| [3] https://theintercept.com/2025/04/23/trump-eeoc-barnard-
| colum...
|
| [4] https://allthatsinteresting.com/ibm-nazis-ww2/3
|
| [5] https://allthatsinteresting.com/ibm-nazis-ww2
|
| [6] https://www.thenerdreich.com/reboot-elon-musk-ceo-
| dictator-d...
|
| [7] https://bylinetimes.com/2025/02/07/silicon-valley-
| whistleblo...
|
| [8] https://america2.news/content/files/2025/02/Musk-NRx-Memo-
| Fe...
| stevenwoo wrote:
| When they separate undocumented children from their families in
| the first Trump term and did not bother to leave a paper trail
| so that these families could be reunited so it would take years
| if ever for these children to be returned to their parents, not
| one person in the entire chain of command was punished for it.
| When there are zero consequences for doing wrong, we should not
| be surprised the wrong doing continues. Same with Bush Jr using
| private servers to hide his administration's emails - now every
| GOP administration is going to use this tactic with whatever
| technology permits it like Signal is being used to bypass laws
| for record keeping today because no one holds them to account
| and no one will.
| k310 wrote:
| Crimes and atrocities will continue to be committed as long
| as there are no consequences for them. Period.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| [delayed]
| jaybrendansmith wrote:
| I weep for my once great, free, and democratic country.
| xtiansimon wrote:
| Of course the administration was lying when it said they would
| only target "criminals".
|
| Of course it's impossible to know who "really" is a critical
| mastermind. (Comic book lives) /s
|
| Everyone should pay attention and amplify these stories of
| targeted non-criminal families, because the "radical left" is
| next. Joking/not-Joking
|
| Here's another family in Washington state,
|
| "A high schooler stays back as his family, separated by
| deportation, returns to Guatemala"
|
| APRIL 26, 2025 WEEKEND EDITION SATURDAY
|
| https://www.npr.org/2025/04/26/nx-s1-5330896/a-high-schooler...
| croes wrote:
| The target only criminals, they just didn't tell who they see
| as criminal.
| thrance wrote:
| Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/3081/
| asimpletune wrote:
| The purpose of this evil is to spread fear, provoke a response
| and get publicity, push and prod the system for weakness/loyalty,
| condition their supporters to accept these atrocities as normal
| and necessary, and to communicate the blueprint by example, as it
| gets repeatedly acted out in public. The message is this is how
| we're operating, so if anything looks weird to you, trust the
| plan because we're on the same team (wink wink). I wouldn't be
| surprised if we start seeing domestic terrorism and public
| lawlessness go unpunished if it's directed towards immigrants,
| journalists, judges, and other 'enemies'.
| sophacles wrote:
| It's already started. Remember all those pardons for the Jan 6
| terrorists?
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| Yeah the judge pardoned after stealing money meant for a slain
| officer's memorial and used that money on her own plastic
| surgery was pardoned by Trump too
| switch007 wrote:
| The value of citizenship is being eroded each year, with
| governments increasingly keen to strip people of citizenship [0].
|
| First they came for the terrorists, then they came for the dual
| citizenship lesser criminals.
|
| We're getting a glimpse of who's next. The Dutch government
| wanted to strip citizenship from people convicted of a crime with
| an "antisemitic element"
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/26/how-idea-of-st...
| harvey9 wrote:
| "First they came for the terrorists," Probably the least
| thoughtful appropriation of Niemoller's speech I've ever seen.
| djoldman wrote:
| From what research I've seen, the phrasing here should be that
| non-citizens were deported and chose to bring their US citizen
| children with them. The children themselves were not deported.
|
| This in no way excuses any of the other issues like not allowing
| contact with legal advocates / attorneys.
| nessbot wrote:
| You got a source for that? I've hear otherwise about some of
| the parent's decisions for their US citizen children.
| evv555 wrote:
| You got a source for that?
| rsfern wrote:
| The habeas petition for VMS (the two year old) indicates
| the father (who was not detained at the time of the filing)
| transferred provisional custody rights to a US citizen
| relative, and that communications with the mother (who was
| removed along with their US citizen child) were cut off
| when he tried to share their lawyers contact info
|
| PDF: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.l
| awd.21...
| lostdog wrote:
| ICE is supposed to keep records, and the courts are supposed
| to create a transparent record in the case of a dispute.
|
| But ICE hid the evidence and prevented the courts from
| looking into it.
| afavour wrote:
| Difficult to describe them as _choosing_ to do anything:
|
| > ICE held the families incommunicado, refusing or failing to
| respond to multiple attempts by attorneys and family members to
| contact them. In one instance, a mother was granted less than
| one minute on the phone before the call was abruptly terminated
| when her spouse tried to provide legal counsel's phone number.
|
| What would they do, leave their child in an ICE facility and
| hope that somehow word gets back to family to go get them?
| gpm wrote:
| They would transfer custody to an individual who was allowed
| to remain in the US. This _had been organized_ in the case of
| at least one of the US citizens deported (expelled?) here.
| Volundr wrote:
| How do you arrange this when not allowed to speak with
| anyone?
| gpm wrote:
| The mother and child were in custody, the father was not,
| and was prompt in acquiring legal counsel, arranging
| this, and suing, leading to exceptionally clear
| circumstances in this case. This is the docket for the
| lawsuit:
| https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-
| harper...
|
| The mother was also technically able to speak with the
| father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and
| they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a
| number for the attorney to the mother.
|
| To be clear, I'm not defending _any_ of ICEs actions
| here, I 'm saying that they kidnapped this child who had
| arrangements made to remain in the US despite ICEs best
| (also almost certainly illegal) attempts to prevent that
| from happening.
| op00to wrote:
| You do seem to be defending the actions by asserting that
| it was the parents decision rather than an action forced
| by ICE.
| gpm wrote:
| I don't see how you come to that conclusion.
|
| I am arguing by pointing to the most clear and egregious
| violation of the law and human rights, that isn't meant
| to excuse any other violations.
|
| I am not asserting that ICE followed _any_ of the parents
| decisions, so I don 't see that I could have possibly
| accidentally implied that ICEs actions were ok because
| they made the parents make an impossible choice and then
| followed it.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| > The mother was also technically able to speak with the
| father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and
| they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a
| number for the attorney to the mother.
|
| Based on your wording alone, would it be safe to say the
| mother was unable to avail herself of counsel before
| making a decision?
| gpm wrote:
| To the extent that they let the mother make a decision,
| which is itself unclear, I would say all evidence points
| to that.
|
| We only really have the father's and judge's account of
| events here.
| chasd00 wrote:
| > We only really have the father's and judge's account of
| events here
|
| Given that, then this whole thread is pointless. I just
| assumed people were more informed based on what they're
| claiming.
| gpm wrote:
| The fact that there's a lawsuit here with briefs
| describing what happened in detail, and rulings from a
| judge with detailed timelines, means we have a great deal
| more accurate information than most news stories provide.
| If you're not willing to make a judgement off of this
| information, when it is so unambiguous, you're never
| going to be able to make a judgement in time to react to
| anything.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The point of due process is to construct such a record.
| The fact that due process is being denied in these
| circumstances is one of the reasons that so much of the
| public discussion is rumor and innuendo.
|
| And this is actually one of the many things that this
| executive doesn't seem to grasp about the fundamentals of
| how this England-inherited, American-modified government
| functions. Due process doesn't just protect the people.
| It protects the king from rumors abounding about his
| tyranny that eventually lead to his beheading, because if
| there is no record to show then there is no record to
| justify the actions of the crown either.
|
| The Magna Carta has stood for about a thousand years. But
| it has stood because every monarch who tried to place
| themselves above it found themselves much shorter by the
| end of their reign.
| chasd00 wrote:
| If the mother is not a us citizen is she entitled to
| counsel? Or entitled to anything else? Curious to know to
| what parts of US law apply to non citizens and what parts
| do not.
| dharmab wrote:
| Yes, the sixth amendment is very clear on this.
| Zak wrote:
| In noncriminal matters such as deportations, there's no
| right to counsel at public expense. The broader rights to
| due process of law and habeas corpus have generally been
| held by the courts to apply to immigration detention and
| deportation, and people are certainly free to hire
| counsel at their own expense in such proceedings.
|
| It gets tricky when a deportation is completed before a
| court can hear the case. Attempting to prevent a detainee
| from communicating their location and situation to
| someone who could bring a legal action on their behalf
| doesn't appear to be explicitly illegal, but it's
| certainly an attempt to subvert due process and probably
| ought to be illegal.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| > In noncriminal matters
|
| It's interesting how the administration always talks
| about these people being here illegally and that they're
| all criminals but then leverages the non-criminal aspect
| of the proceedings to their advantage.
| tomrod wrote:
| I agree with the substance of your point. I'd argue that
| it is less "interesting" and quite horrifying to be on
| the receiving end!
| wslh wrote:
| Easy to explain, traumatic to experiment.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Especially when the same politicians and agencies pushing the
| whole cruel scheme have a past history of _permanently losing
| hundreds of children_. [0]
|
| "Leave your 2-year-old with the angry government man who will
| _totes_ ensure they are reunited with your spouse " is not a
| choice that exists.
|
| [0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/16/us-lasting-harm-
| family-s...
| miltonlost wrote:
| Oh wow, what a choice! Imagine, having a gun to your head and
| saying "but i had a choice!" In no way can you say that these
| people, given no legal advocates, chose to bring their
| children, or at least freely chose.
| koolba wrote:
| Being eventually forced to decide whether to leave your child
| behind or take them with you out of the USA is a direct
| consequence of the choice to illegally enter the country.
|
| Are you suggesting we never deport parents under any
| circumstance? Having a citizen child is not some get-out-
| deportation-free card.
| exe34 wrote:
| Did a judge rule on this alleged "illegally"? Elon Musk
| also entered the country illegally to work by pretending to
| be a student, and somehow he got given the keys to the
| treasury.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| No one is saying parents cannot be deported. Rather that
| ICE clearly engineered the circumstances to ensure the
| child and mother were deported without any practical
| opportunity for the child to stay.
| lokar wrote:
| Entering the US without permission is a civil offense, not
| a crime in the way most people think of them.
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| You're thinking of visa overstay (a civil offense).
| Unauthorized _entry_ is a criminal misdemeanor. Re-entry
| after deportation rises to a felony.
| kjksf wrote:
| Is it, though?
|
| > Entering the United States illegally is not classified
| as a civil offense; it is a criminal offense. Under U.S.
| law, specifically under Title 8 of the U.S. Code,
| unauthorized entry into the country is considered a
| misdemeanor. The specific statute is 8 U.S.C. SS 1325
| oblio wrote:
| Americans are extremely cruel.
|
| The real solution to this is to end jus solis.
|
| Separating children from parents is incredibly cruel,
| inhumane, even.
| tomrod wrote:
| > The real solution to this is to end jus solis.
|
| No, that's a step down a terrible return to pre-Civil War
| policy. We should be actively fighting against
| enslavement and for due process, not throwing our hands
| up and saying "well, guess we can't [bring them back from
| El Salvador, have a sane policy with respect to families,
| have people's rights to citizenship and legal residence
| respected]".
| datameta wrote:
| This is like claiming that getting conscripted into the
| Russian Federation Armed Forces is a direct consequence of
| entering illegally
|
| So is their life forfeit now, and the respective goverment
| absolved of responsibility?
| tomrod wrote:
| Such a society that chooses that has no respect for the
| rights of an individual.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Conscription was, and probably still is in places around
| the world, a consequence of illegal entry or for a number
| of different offenses. It isn't here in the United States
| so I'm not sure what your point is.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Actually yeah, I think having a minor citizen child should
| probably automatically make you a citizen, or at the very
| least a legal permanent resident (but that's stupid, let's
| just stick to citizen).
| ajross wrote:
| > From what research I've seen, the phrasing here should be
| that non-citizens were deported and chose to bring their US
| citizen children with them. The children themselves were not
| deported.
|
| That seems deliberately Orwellian. What's the "not deported"
| scenario you're imagining? Literally abandoning your child in a
| jail somewhere?!
|
| It's not like these folks are in hotels, or have access to
| phones or family.
|
| I mean, yikes. Is that really what we've come to in the
| discourse on this site? Putting scare quotes around "deported"
| to pretend that it's only "other issues" that are problems?
| ModernMech wrote:
| Not ironically, yes, that's where we are. I remember when we
| would say such things about a school of children being gunned
| down. "Really?? That's where we are now as a society? How did
| we let this happen?"
|
| We let it happen by not saying "enough" when the last thing
| happened. If a school of kids gets gunned down and a society
| lets that slide, that society becomes one _more tolerant_ of
| violence against children. We said we were powerless to stop
| that, so here we are now, bringing violence against children
| as a matter of federal policy.
| eastbound wrote:
| The US has decided they do not want the mother in US, because
| she's not citizen. I don't understand why it's Orwellian, it
| was written all over when she illegally entered the US. And
| she was given the choice to get separated or keep the child.
|
| The only Orwellian thing is she was lied to by Democrats that
| she could lead a safe life in the US. That's on you.
| ajross wrote:
| > And she was given the choice to get separated or keep the
| child.
|
| Representing that as a "choice" is precisely the Orwellian
| part. I'm guessing you don't have kids.
| eastbound wrote:
| You're taking the rest of the world hostage with the
| child.
|
| The crime was that she was allowed here in the first
| place, whether by the people who made her believe it was
| possible, or by her breaking the laws as the act of entry
| in the country.
| sixothree wrote:
| It is hard to distinguish a lack of empathy from pure
| evil.
| tomrod wrote:
| The Lumineers nailed it. The opposite of love isn't hate,
| it is indifference.
| chasd00 wrote:
| > The only Orwellian thing is she was lied to by Democrats
| that she could lead a safe life in the US. That's on you.
|
| This cannot be overstated. I wish I had a thousand up votes
| to give you. Democrats made a promise they knew would never
| hold up just for the votes. Now the chickens are coming
| home to roost and these people who were lied to by
| Democrats are the ones paying the price.
| jmull wrote:
| What's the logical train of thought here?
|
| It's OK for a citizen to lose their rights if a political
| party exists that espouses views you don't agree with and
| it's possible someone related to that citizen may (or may
| not) have listened to those views?
| ajross wrote:
| I think the steelman version would be that the rights in
| question shouldn't exist. In that world view, the
| birthright citizenship granted by the 14th amendment is
| an inconvenience to be worked around; and the business
| here about forcing a "choice"[1] where the parents will
| "deport" their own citizen children is in fact the
| desired policy result and not a humanitarian horror.
|
| [1] Which of course isn't one, thus the Orwellian point
| upthread.
| tomrod wrote:
| Yeesh. Even the steelman is grossly immoral!
| const_cast wrote:
| The tired trope of blaming all bad Republican actions on
| Democrats because they "let it happen" is lame.
|
| No, the democrats are not secretly worse because they're
| watching evil happen. The people doing the evil are
| worse, actually. That's just how that works.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| What promise was that, exactly? Do you have a quote?
|
| If not, and you mean "promise by inaction", then could we
| say then that Trump made a promise to racists, neo-nazis,
| crypto criminals, the Russian government, etc?
| low_tech_love wrote:
| Honest question, does it have to be done this way? Or could
| they wait maybe 2 extra hours until the child was safe? It
| seems to me that they are cowards who prey on those weaker
| than them and are too afraid to face those of their "own
| size".
| tomrod wrote:
| This is not accurate, though I have found that people who steep
| in rightwing propaganda tend to repeat these type of talking
| points.
|
| The Rawlsian veil ethic applies here.
|
| EDIT: RE - the knee-jerk downvotes. I appreciate that people
| pointing out authoritarianism can be painful if you are
| embracing it. Cognitive dissonance is never a fun thing to work
| through, and having done it a few times I sympathize with the
| struggles you face or may be facing.
| mariodiana wrote:
| I'm not going to downvote you. But Rawls never applies. Rawls
| is a big scam. At root, it is relativism wrapped up in the
| august raiment of state-of-nature social contract theory,
| whatever his protests to the contrary; and the relativism in
| this case is what "feels right" to him and his fancy
| neighbors living in Cambridge.
| tomrod wrote:
| Rawls is just an extension of the golden rule, and anyone
| who is against treating others how they themselves would
| wish to be treated is probably someone who shouldn't have
| authority over others.
| gpm wrote:
| In at least one of the cases here:
|
| The father explicitly did not want the child deported with the
| mother, had informed ICE of that, and initiated legal
| proceedings to that effect [1].
|
| The mother and US citizen child were held largely
| incommunicado. They were not given access to a lawyer, and
| communication with the father was monitored, and upon the
| father attempting to give them the phone number for an attorney
| the phone was taken from the mother. Then promptly put on a
| flight out of the country
|
| When a judge attempted to contact the mother, while the mother
| and child were still in US custody: The US did not respond for
| an hour presumably so that it could remove the mother and child
| from US custody prior to responding.
|
| > The Government contends that this is all okay because the
| mother wishes that the child be deported with her. But the
| Court doesn't know that. [2]
|
| And that's a quote from the Trump appointed very Trump leaning
| [3] judge.
|
| All actual evidence we have here is that the child was
| intentionally deported (expelled?) against the parents wishes.
| Certainly against one of the parents wishes.
|
| [1]
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21...
|
| [2]
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21...
|
| [3] See prior rulings:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_A._Doughty#Notable_rulin...
| chasd00 wrote:
| A mother's wish, written/formal or not, for her child will
| always override that of a father. Fair or not, that's what
| happens in the US courts.
| gpm wrote:
| Actually what happened in the US court here is the US court
| attempted to intercede while the mother and child were
| still in US custody and ICE ignored the court until they
| had successfully removed the mother and child from US
| custody. As a result the court never got to learn the
| mothers wishes at all.
|
| (Also not true, but that's besides the point)
| ffsm8 wrote:
| While true, kinda irrelevant?
| lokar wrote:
| She was initially unaware the child could remain. When she
| found out she wanted the child to stay.
|
| Or at least that is what some reports say. It's confusing.
| Fortunately we have a system to due process to figure these
| issues out.
|
| Unfortunately the current regime has decided that all due
| process is subject to their discretion.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| > Fair or not, that's what happens in the US courts.
|
| That's also not actually true. Mothers tend to get custody
| because both parties are more likely to agree to give them
| custody (or the father is more likely to cede custody).
|
| If it comes to an actual legal battle, fathers are actually
| more likely to win custody than mothers.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Note that it's advised for a single parent traveling
| internationally with their children to carry an letter from
| the other parent granting permission, because it may
| otherwise be interpreted as an attempt at international
| kidnapping and you may be prevented from traveling. The US
| government itself says this: https://www.usa.gov/travel-
| documents-children
|
| Yet here they are deliberately moving a child internationally
| against the express wishes of at least one of the parents.
| rsfern wrote:
| One thing I don't understand is how this is even a choice the
| parents have the legal right to make, assuming their US citizen
| children do not have passports (I don't know if the answer to
| that is publicly known). Can a child legally be taken out of
| the country without a passport and some kind of verifications?
| pessimizer wrote:
| I think the US government seizing the birthright citizen
| children of undocumented immigrant parents is an extreme
| position.
| rsfern wrote:
| That's a strawman argument that I would never advocate, and
| completely ignores my question.
|
| Alternatives include arranging legal custody for the child
| and to stay in the US with a relative (as one family was
| attempting), or finding a legal way for them to leave the
| country with their parents.
|
| Instead, it seems the government is rushing to illegally
| remove these children before the courts can intervene
| exe34 wrote:
| > it seems the government is rushing to illegally
|
| That's the last 4 months really.
| bee_rider wrote:
| What's the non-extreme option, if the plan is to kick out
| the non-citizen parents of US citizen children?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Delay deporting the non-citizen parent _at least_ until
| the citizen children have reasonable accomodations to
| remain in the country? "The plan" isn't sacred. Humans
| rights are sacred.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| They can have the same accommodation as other US citizen
| children abandoned by their parents.
| jedberg wrote:
| The government has a duty to protect its citizens. So in
| this case, that would mean finding suitable childcare for
| the citizen child before making them an orphan.
|
| But ideally we wouldn't be making them orphans.
| oblio wrote:
| End jus solis. Allow all current parents to stay.
|
| There ya go, the humane solution to this.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| Can someone who down voted this comment please explain
| why? Is this because you do not agree with his general
| stance or because it simplifies and doesn't contribute to
| the debate?
| tomrod wrote:
| Not sure who downvoted, but simply ending jus solis
| because authoritarians want to make people's lives
| miserable is an extreme position with an awful BATNA.
| wat10000 wrote:
| I would not consider a radical change to how US
| citizenship has worked for at least a century and a half
| to be "non-extreme."
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| I think birthright citizenship is one of the few examples
| of America doing something strictly better than most
| other countries.
| bee_rider wrote:
| "End Jus Soli" would require a constitutional amendment
| and would be universally opposed by at least one party.
| So, it is bringing the conversation in the direction of
| ridiculous out-there topics.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Birthright citizenship is explicitly included in the
| 14'th amendment of the US constitution. Technically the
| constitution could be amended again. But if we include
| wildly controversial constitutional amendments that one
| of our parties would be completely opposed in the list of
| possibilities, the conversation will quickly get silly.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Foreign citizenship is being subject to a foreign power.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I don't see any connection here.
| AustinDev wrote:
| What happens is a single parent is sent to prison? The
| state takes care of the children.
| codr7 wrote:
| Takes care, interesting choice of words there.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| They look for other relatives to take the children first.
| mc32 wrote:
| The same happens to US citizens who have/bear children in
| other countries. Moreover some will do much as assume the
| children do not have local citizenship but US citizenship
| despite being born in that non-US country.
| 47282847 wrote:
| Only few countries give birthright to children born on
| their territory.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
| tomrod wrote:
| One of which is the US,and would require a constitutional
| amendment to change.
| mc32 wrote:
| Rather a different interpretation of the XIV. It was
| intended for slaves and the children of slaves (there
| were few non-British foreigners in the US) at the time.
| However, over time, it was interpreted to mean anyone not
| only the descendants of slaves/ex-slaves). That could
| very well be re-interpreted.
| wat10000 wrote:
| "All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
| and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
| the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
|
| This seems pretty clear to me. How else could you
| interpret it?
| remarkEon wrote:
| The entire interpretation of that amendment turns on this
| phrase:
|
| >and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
|
| And if you go back and read what the drafters of that
| amendment stated they meant on the floor of congress,
| they did not intend it to mean Jus soli. The idea was so
| ridiculous at the time that no one thought it worth
| writing it down. Pity. The controlling Supreme Court case
| spends a lot of time talking about English Common Law and
| what "subject to the jurisdiction of the King" meant. It
| is not hard to believe, at all, that the current SCOTUS
| may have a different interpretation than "anyone who
| happens to be born across this line on the map is a US
| citizen and is granted all rights, responsibilities, and
| privileges thereof".
| wat10000 wrote:
| Do you have more info about what they said they meant?
|
| Certainly that clause has weight. It excludes diplomats,
| members of occupying armies, and members of Native
| tribes. But it seems strange to apply it to others,
| unless you're also going to say that they have immunity
| from our laws as well.
| remarkEon wrote:
| It's not that they have "immunity", it's about whether
| the US Government has jurisdiction over them, meaning
| they can conscript them in time of war, collect taxes and
| so on, and that there isn't another foreign power that
| can do or already does this.
|
| Howard, who introduced the Amendment, said this[1]:
|
| >This amendment which I have offered is simply
| declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land
| already, that every person born within the limits of the
| United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by
| virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the
| United States. This will not, of course, include persons
| born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who
| belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign
| ministers accredited to the Government of the United
| States, but will include every other class of persons. It
| settles the great question of citizenship and removes all
| doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the
| United States.
|
| >Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons
| born in the United States and not subject to some foreign
| Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the
| committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be
| considered as citizens of the United States ... If there
| are to be citizens of the United States entitled
| everywhere to the character of citizens of the United
| States, there should be some certain definition of what
| citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen
| as between himself and the United States, and the
| amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I
| know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than
| the fact of birth within the territory of the United
| States, born of parents who at the time were subject to
| the authority of the United States.
|
| Doubly funny that he added a line in that speech where he
| thinks all ambiguity is gone.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#Speech_
| on_the_...
|
| [2] https://archive.org/details/the-congressional-
| globe-39th-con...
| wat10000 wrote:
| Thanks. Dude couldn't even make his own statements
| unambiguous. And he can't seem to make up his mind about
| whether the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause refers
| to the child or the parents.
| remarkEon wrote:
| One of the disadvantages of the overly verbose style
| common at the time.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Having read the Senate debate on the amendment to grant
| citizenship to what would become the 14th amendment, I
| can't disagree more.
|
| They were absolutely aware that is what it. Indeed, they
| stated it outright:
|
| _> The proposition before us ... relates simply in that
| respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in
| California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall
| be citizens. ... I am in favor of doing so. ... We are
| entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this
| constitutional amendment, that the children born here of
| Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution
| of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and
| to equal protection before the law with others._
|
| - Senator John Conness (R-CA), May 29, 1866 during Senate
| debates on citizenship amendment introduced by Senator
| Jacob Howard (R-MI)
|
| The only real change came when they worried that
| citizenship would be extended to Indians in tribes we had
| treaties saying we wouldn't do just that leading to a
| change that excluded them.
| Aloisius wrote:
| _> there were few non-British foreigners in the US_
|
| People born in the Germany made up about 3.5% of the US
| population (1.11 million) in 1860. While they were one of
| the largest groups, many states/territories had large
| percentages of other non-British people like California,
| where 9% of the population was born in China. Then you
| have territories like New Mexico where most of the
| population had been born in Mexico.
|
| Regardless, the debates for the 14th Amendment make it
| _absolutely_ clear they understood they understood a
| child born to, say, Chinese parents in the US would get
| citizenship.
| 47282847 wrote:
| The point was that its not wrong to assume you will not
| get local citizenship, since in most parts of the world
| you won't.
| wat10000 wrote:
| If by "only a few" you mean "almost every country in the
| Americas, plus some more."
| 47282847 wrote:
| Yes. As per the article, 33 countries. Of ~195 in total.
|
| Or, in population: 13%.
| wat10000 wrote:
| "A few" means, like, 3-5.
| mc32 wrote:
| I've known children of US citizens who were presumed
| Americans though having been born in a south American
| country. Government kicked them all out for being
| personae non grata Americans --children not excepted.
| wat10000 wrote:
| What's your point? Other countries also engage in
| lawlessness to remove people they don't like?
| mc32 wrote:
| Well, people are acting like it's uniquely an American
| thing to do.
| wat10000 wrote:
| They are? Where?
| low_tech_love wrote:
| That's because, for a while, the USA has been seen as the
| main exponent (although obviously not the only one) of
| western ideals such as freedom, democracy, human rights,
| etc. So yeah it's logical that people would expect that
| the "leader of the free world" does not act like some
| other random country.
| neither_color wrote:
| It's not a few. It's the majority of two continents.
| mc32 wrote:
| It's the great minority of countries in the world.
| neither_color wrote:
| Well then it's a good thing historical context matters
| more than numerical consensus when analyzing why the
| majority of two continents settled by Europeans in the
| last 500 years nearly all opted for one broad form of
| conferring citizenship over another. If you were to
| redact the name of all 195 countries, but list ten facts
| about them and draw random names, you could accurately
| predict which ones will have birthright citizenship just
| by looking at other properties.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Should it be removed for the USC children? Can they return
| freely without visa?
| tailefer wrote:
| And I suppose Sophie had a choice too.
|
| The actions by ICE in this and other cases are beyond
| defensible. If they have a case, let it be heard in open court
| with adequate counsel. Stop playing the silly reindeer games
| with people's lives.
|
| That would be one way to make America great again.
| jmull wrote:
| You are detained and a guard brandishing a machete presents you
| with a choice: he'll either cut off your right hand, or cut off
| your left.
|
| Being right handed, you choose your left, and he lops it off.
|
| Was it really your choice to have your left hand cut off?
| tomrod wrote:
| Aye. BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement) is a
| framework to evaluate this with.
| gradus_ad wrote:
| Illegal aliens must be deported to maintain rule of law. Their
| anchor babies will not and should not save them.
| freen wrote:
| I seriously doubt you are of sufficient "in group" status to
| avoid the gulag.
|
| I hope that it is never decided that you are a
| terrorist/enemy combatant/whatever and shipped off without
| due process to an American concentration camp. (Auschvits
| wasn't in Germany either).
|
| Oh, you are a citizen? "Home Grown" so to speak? Trump
| explicitly said that he needs five more concentration camps
| in El Salvador just for people like you.
| tomrod wrote:
| The rule of law requires due process and following court
| orders.
|
| Declaring a fake 'invasion' and implementing authoritarianism
| under the guise of emergency powers was already done in Rome,
| and decidedly is not the rule of law.
| wat10000 wrote:
| We don't consistently enforce speed limits but the rule of
| law held up fine. Why does this have to be enforced
| absolutely?
| darksaints wrote:
| I sincerely hope people like you get sent to a Salvadoran
| torture gulag the next time you drive over the speed limit.
| Because we absolutely understand no circumstances can afford
| a breakdown in the rule of law.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| I'm so tired of how when fascists operate in the open, the
| attempt to throw back their rhetoric to them is always
| perceived as "weak", "beta", and incompetent from the
| public at large. Feels like some SCP object of right wing
| reaction exists in this country.
|
| There's never any kind of "extreme" movement designed to
| stamp this shit out in the USA. It ends up being kids
| wearing red who have never done pushups or other hard
| exercise before, mixed with a healthy dose of spooks making
| absolutely sure that these organizations never gain any
| real power.
|
| A whole lot of authoritarian bootlickers in this thread who
| are ready to sell out their countrymen to CECOT themselves
| deserve to spend some time in a torture prison like that -
| because there is nothing else in this world that will
| convince them of the utter inhumanity of such a place.
|
| But you know, "so much for the tolerant left" and all that.
| Fuck this stupid, tyrannical, authoritarian, reality.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the attempt to throw back their rhetoric to them is
| always perceived as "weak", "beta"_
|
| You're literally calling "the left...beta" in this thread
| [1]!
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Der_Einzige
| lostdog wrote:
| February 29th, 2027, the so called "Hacker News" is declared
| a criminal and illegal site. The wartime powers delegated to
| the Supreme President allow him to imprison domestic enemies
| and remove them. Gradus_ad is right in the middle of
| explaining the difference between "begging" and "panhandling"
| to the hobo he is harrassing, when disguised agents grab him
| off the street for commenting on a criminal site. He is
| whisked off to a correction facility in Hungary (it is now
| illegal for this publication to call them "gulags") and never
| heard from again. Luckily the agents who disappeared him say
| everything was handled legally!
| ridgeguy wrote:
| There are more egregious cases, of course.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/us/politics/us-citizen-de...
|
| A post elsewhere about the details said ICE found the two-year
| old was unable to 'describe her status in full, intelligible
| sentences', so deported, even though her father (not deported
| and not consenting to his child's expulsion) wanted her left
| with him.
|
| From my experience with two-tear olds, I guess ICE was
| technically correct.
|
| edit - typo
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _phrasing here should be that non-citizens were deported and
| chose to bring their US citizen children with them. The
| children themselves were not deported_
|
| This is what ICE alleges. They're a uniquely uncredible witness
| among government agencies [1][2].
|
| A judge found the father's allegations worthy of meriting
| "strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S.
| citizen with no meaningful process," an act which is itself
| illegal [3]. _That_ is far more credible.
|
| [1] https://www.aclu.org/court-cases?issue=ice-and-border-
| patrol...
|
| [2] https://apnews.com/article/ice-immigration-arrest-trial-
| cont...
|
| [3]
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21...
| andsoitis wrote:
| While the 3 minors are US citizens, their parents are not and the
| parents can be deported because they are in the country
| illegally.
|
| That means you have the following options:
|
| a) deport nobody, i.e. you don't apply the law
|
| b) deport just the parents. What do you do with the minor
| children? Separating them from their parents (different
| countries) would be cruel.
|
| c) deport the entire family, including the US minors. Since they
| have US citizenship, they can always return to the US.
| miltonlost wrote:
| DEPORTING US CITIZENS is the logical choice? Logical to deport
| children to someplace they have never been and they don't have
| citizenship to? It's still illogical, evil, unconstitutional,
| and cruel.
| tomrod wrote:
| Its post hoc logical, if you want to justify the actions of
| an autocratic regime and don't have an ethical foot to stand
| on.
| otde wrote:
| Why is a) bad? Have you considered d) pass a different law? Why
| are you pretending the law is some immutable thing that we
| always need to follow, regardless of the situations an unjust
| law might place someone in if followed?
| samlinnfer wrote:
| Instead of processing immigration applications fairly for
| everyone, we just should let people who break the rules get
| away with it?
|
| Having deportation as an actual threat, reduces the amount of
| people who attempt to break the rules since they know there
| are consequences.
| undersuit wrote:
| What about the threat of jail? Is the US punitive system
| not effective? In many ways I'd rather be an immigrant than
| a citizen if the punishment for crimes is deportation
| rather than detention... as long as I'm not being sent to
| country that has also suspended their constitutional right
| to due process.
| samlinnfer wrote:
| First, I don't believe this crime rises to the level of
| jail. Second, it doesn't make sense here because if the
| parents are jailed who will take care of the children?
| I'm also not sold on putting more people into the meat
| grinder of US judicial system. When they deported at
| least they will be free. Ironically, compared to the US
| judicial system, this is the more human approach.
| undersuit wrote:
| You said "break the rules". If you meant border crossing
| say it next time. Also they aren't free if they are
| deported to, like I already said, a country that has also
| suspended due process.
| otde wrote:
| Why does the consequence have to be deportation? Can we
| imagine a form of deterrence that doesn't necessitate the
| cruelty of familial separation? Do we at least agree that
| what is happening _right now_ , to this family and to
| others, is deeply unjust?
| nelsondev wrote:
| Until a new law is passed, the government and courts have a
| duty to follow the current law.
| kccqzy wrote:
| You have misunderstood what it means to follow the law. The
| law guarantees liberties, but doesn't guarantee
| prosecution. Obama has DACA, which gives young illegal
| immigrants a deferral on their prosecution. More generally
| there's the concept of prosecutorial discretion. Have you
| ever for example driven a car badly, been pulled over, but
| the cop let you off with just a warning?
| thfuran wrote:
| Or, for that matter, driven a car badly but not been
| pulled over at all? Surely in the interest of absolute
| lawfulness they then proceeded to the nearest police
| station to demand to be ticketed.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Surely you understand the difference between a cop
| declining to issue a speeding ticket and a federal
| "discretionary" policy that makes it de facto legal to
| violate standing immigration law at scale.
| kccqzy wrote:
| There is no difference. People often complain during the
| pandemic that the San Francisco police department has
| seemingly instituted a "discretionary" policy that makes
| it de facto legal to violate traffic law at scale, you
| know, including speeding, not stopping at stop signs, not
| yielding to pedestrians. https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfran
| cisco/comments/11nbnxw/san_f...
| remarkEon wrote:
| Maybe you are misunderstanding. A single cop deciding
| "okay today I'm letting you off with a warning" is quite
| different from the President directing the entire Federal
| bureaucracy to not enforce existing immigration law. If
| for some reason a large jurisdiction, say maybe the state
| of California, decided that it was policy to let everyone
| off with a warning for speeding infractions, then, if I
| squint hard enough and ignore a wide range of second and
| third order effects, then yeah maybe they are similar.
| healsdata wrote:
| d) Give them access to legal counsel and a judge who can all
| help make this decision on a case-by-case basis and in
| accordance with the law.
| tomrod wrote:
| d) Follow due process and allow the immigration judge to
| determine
|
| e) Amnesty if living here for awhile and not causing a
| ruckus.[0] US is huge, it needs more people not less.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control...
| harvey9 wrote:
| E was what the Democrats have offered and it lost them the
| last election
| tomrod wrote:
| Nah, lies, propaganda, and an incoherent strategy for Biden
| leading to limited window with Harris lost the last
| election.
|
| There was a perfectly cromulent immigration plan ready to
| be voted on by Congress before Trump threw a tantrum
| because it would have hurt his election chances.
| harvey9 wrote:
| They threw Harris a hospital pass, and other variables
| also matter, but ultimately the party that was positive
| about migration lost the vote.
| 0x5f3759df-i wrote:
| E was what notable bleeding heart... Ronald Reagan chose
| during his time in office.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Cont
| r...
| gedy wrote:
| > US is huge, it needs more people not less
|
| Would be nice if we had more housing for that.
| tomrod wrote:
| A tangent, but a welcome one for sure! NIMBYism has led to
| some pretty terrible outcomes. I recommend giving the work
| of the StrongTowns organization a read for a critical
| review of current policy and upcoming issues associated
| with it, as well as reasonable recommendations for how we
| can make stronger communities.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Except that's not the situation here and you left a key option
| out.
|
| D) the child remains with the legally resident / citizen parent
| or their immediate families
|
| In these cases they have legally resident parents, just not the
| one who the child was with when snatched without due process.
| They're being denied the ability to coordinate the handoff of
| the child to the other parent or family who can take
| responsibility. ICE is not allowing the families to coordinate
| the child's care - they're isolating the parent from their
| broader families, denying due process, access to legal
| representation, and unilaterally deporting US citizen children
| who have other options but were denied the ability to access
| them.
|
| In the United States our constitution assures -all people- due
| process and basic human rights. There is no carve out that if
| you're visiting the country or otherwise not a citizen that you
| can be summarily detained, deprived of liberty, and handled
| however the government chooses including extraordinary
| rendition to third countries for indefinite imprisonment
| without recourse. Nothing that is happening is allowable, or
| even defensible because however you feel about immigration -
| every action being taken could be taken to tourists, students,
| or other guests if allowed under the premise only citizens
| enjoy protections.
|
| And in these cases, even citizens are being given no deference
| - and the fact they're toddlers should be even more
| frightening.
|
| Here's a quote from the release that basically implies ICE is
| murdering one child summarily:
|
| """a U.S. citizen child suffering from a rare form of
| metastatic cancer was deported without medication or the
| ability to consult with their treating physicians-despite ICE
| being notified in advance of the child's urgent medical
| needs."""
|
| So, the headline as written dramatically understates the
| situation, and the proposed dichotomy is false. There are many
| other options, spelled out in the law and regulation and
| requirements - even constitutionally - and they're being
| ignored as an apparent matter of political policy.
| harvey9 wrote:
| Your option d looks to be much like the option b in the post
| you replied to
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Except it's not, because it's not the parents but "a
| parent" being deported, and b) was phrased fallaciously to
| imply the child would be left alone without legal care
| givers.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > In these cases they have legally resident parents, just not
| the one who the child was with when snatched without due
| process.
|
| Is that true? I re-read the article (but didn't google for
| other sources), but nowhere could I see that definitively
| stated.
|
| It would be interesting if the deportable mother of one of
| these minors (e.g. the one who is pregnant) decided to leave
| them with other family in the US rather than stay together as
| a family, but it is of course her right to make such a
| decision.
| rsfern wrote:
| In the case of the two year old who was removed with their
| mother, they have US citizen family that the father is
| trying to transfer custody (it seems he doesn't have legal
| status, but I haven't seen a definitive source)
|
| PDF: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.l
| awd.21...
| AIPedant wrote:
| "you don't apply the law" is a really dishonest way of phrasing
| this, when "hit them with a small financial penalty for the
| civil immigration violation and fast-track their green cards"
| is also an option.
|
| Illegally immigrating to the US is a civil violation, not a
| criminal one, and far less of a threat to US safety than going
| 5mph over the speed limit or running red lights. It is entirely
| lawful for the executive and judicial branches to use
| discretion and compassion in cases when under-18 US citizens
| are involved.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Illegally immigrating to the US is a civil violation, not a
| criminal one
|
| It can be both, depending on the situation:
|
| * First-time illegal entry into the U.S. (like crossing the
| border without inspection) is a criminal misdemeanor under
| federal law (8 U.S.C. SS 1325).
|
| * Unlawful presence (like overstaying a visa) is usually a
| civil violation, not criminal. It can lead to deportation but
| not criminal charges.
| AIPedant wrote:
| I understand this is splitting hairs, but that law applies
| equally to US citizens. And formally people aren't deported
| for crossing into the US illegally, they are deported for
| being there without a valid visa/etc. (Informally there is
| more leeway for overstaying a work visa, of course.)
| rsoto2 wrote:
| Maybe if your labor is exploited by a capitalist hiring you
| illegally you should be legalized instead of humiliated and
| your life destroyed with a possible death sentence in a
| concentration camp. Meanwhile all the money you paid into this
| system is repatriated among "good just legal" citizens like
| yourself.
|
| You benefit from this monstrosity that takes advantage of
| people and leaves them destitute and you know it deep down. If
| yall support this don't ever delude yourself into thinking
| you're a good person.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _c) deport the entire family, including the US minors. Since
| they have US citizenship, they can always return to the US_
|
| I mean sure. But let's let the next Democrat who's in charge
| determine that kidnapping or maybe even voting wrong are crimes
| that merit summary deportation. After all, if they're good
| citizens, they can always return.
|
| The history of suspending _habeas corpus_ is strikingly one
| way. Maybe we 'll be the first society to defy that trend. But
| the end game we're heading to is mass political violence.
| chris_wot wrote:
| So this is what America voted for.
| beloch wrote:
| Let's do a time warp.
|
| It's 2018. Children are being separated from their parents and
| kept in cages[1]. It's really important to notice that the
| pictures in this article are not from reporters, leaks or
| anything of the sort. They were released by Customs and Border
| Protection and, no doubt, make things look better than they were.
|
| What has changed since Trump's first term? Yes, there is now a
| stronger sensitivity to separating children from their parents,
| among the public at least. One solution is to simply deport child
| citizens along with non-citizen parents and claim it was by
| choice.
|
| What solutions are we _not_ seeing in the media though? How many
| photos are being published about conditions in ICE facilities,
| Guantanamo bay, etc.? What 's going on that we just don't know
| about this time? If some judge ordered the release of photos of
| current conditions in ICE facilities, they'd be ignored or even
| charged with some made-up crime.
|
| I see a lot of people here trying to reason this away, but it's
| going to be worse than last time and, eventually, the truth will
| get out. I know it's tough to care about this while Trump is
| simultaneously tanking the stock market, waging trade wars,
| threatening multiple countries with invasion or annexation, etc..
| That is by design. Even Americans who cannot spare any sympathy
| for immigrants need to _make_ the time to care about how their
| government is treating American children.
|
| [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44518942
| AustinDev wrote:
| Let's do another time warp.
|
| It's 2000, Bill Clinton is about to wrap up his second term and
| has deported more people in that term than any president ever
| at nearly 7,000,000 deportations. Trump barely had 2,000,000
| deportations in his first term. Trump's first term was the
| lowest level of deportations for any administration since
| Carter. Obama, Reagan, Both Bushes, Clinton and Biden all
| deported more people every term of their administrations.
|
| This has been going on for a long time. I doubt Trump will beat
| Clinton's 2nd term. I'd be willing to bet on it if anyone wants
| to take the other side.
|
| There is so much lack of context in all these discussions. The
| 'Maryland Man' that everyone is extremely concerned about was
| first deported by Obama admin in 2009. Remigration is an ugly
| business, but it has to happen if you want to live in a
| sovereign nation under the rule of law.
| dweinus wrote:
| Oh cool, horrendous things like this have been done for
| years. I guess it's fine then, human rights violations aren't
| real if someone else did them too. /s
| 0x5f3759df-i wrote:
| "We're incompetent and can't achieve our goals by following
| the same laws and due process previous administrations used
| so we're just going to perform as many random acts of evil
| and right violations to the people we can grab and hope that
| makes up the difference "
| AustinDev wrote:
| I know, right? The incompetence is mind blowing. At least
| they stopped letting people in, but they'll never reach
| their stated goals. To be fair though 'due process' via a
| hearing isn't that common in deportations in this country.
|
| "The Obama administration has prioritized speed over
| fairness in the removal system, sacrificing individualized
| due process in the pursuit of record removal numbers.
|
| A deportation system that herds 75 percent of people
| through fast-track, streamlined removal is a system devoid
| of fairness and individualized due process."[1]
|
| 3/4 of Obama era deportations were 'nonjudicial removals'
| meaning that there was no hearing in front of an
| immigration judge before removal. People just didn't care
| as much then I suppose.
|
| [1] https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-
| fairn...
| elliotec wrote:
| How many of those included US citizens and legal residents?
| AustinDev wrote:
| Best data I can find says it's been on the order of >20
| <100 per year over the last ~30 years. Which seems
| relatively reasonable given the size the denominator.
| Wrongly deporting legal residents and citizens is obviously
| awful but there is no such thing as a perfect process.
| umvi wrote:
| Hard to tell since the legacy media has historically leaned
| left (and has tended tend to look the other way on stories
| that make democrat administrations look bad), but I would
| not be surprised if, out of 7 million, some % of corner
| cases slipped through due to human error.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| Saying "there is no such thing as a perfect process" when
| discussing the unconstitutional deportation of LITERAL
| American citizens on an overnight, including a child with
| cancer deprived of medication, isn't a reasonable position.
| It's an attempt to normalize extreme rights violations.
|
| > Remigration is an ugly business, but it has to happen if
| you want to live in a sovereign nation under the rule of law.
|
| god, what enemies do you have?? I don't know how you go from
| "give them due process" to "the west has fallen" unless you
| mean restricting migration by law, which Biden proposed and
| Trump rejected last year. I'm actually curious - are you
| aware of that law? Did you hear about it?
| AustinDev wrote:
| >Saying "there is no such thing as a perfect process" when
| discussing the unconstitutional deportation of LITERAL
| American citizens on an overnight, including a child with
| cancer deprived of medication, isn't a reasonable position.
| It's an attempt to normalize extreme rights violations.
|
| As I've mentioned in other comments non-judicial removals
| (no immigration hearing) are in fact very common accounting
| for nearly 75% of all removals. Deportation of American
| citizens has happened, and it is wrong. It's been happening
| every year in small numbers for the last 30 years. In the
| OP case in particular the children were deported with the
| parents at the parent's request according to a DHS
| statement. So this was not a mistake.
|
| >I'm actually curious - are you aware of that law? Did you
| hear about it?
|
| Of course, you're talking about The Emergency National
| Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. The 'immigration
| amendment' wasn't really necessary and you could argue the
| better electronic communications outlined in the bill
| actually could increase immigration efficiency. It was a
| very popular lie that legislation was needed to stop
| millions of illegals from entering the country during the
| Biden administration. Border crossings have dropped ~95%
| since the new administration took over. Probably for two
| main reasons, no more parole while waiting for a hearing
| and NGO funding drying up.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| If you think it's wrong then it certainly does not 'has
| to happen if you want to live in a sovereign nation under
| the rule of law'
|
| If you can't criticize the overall objective (large-scale
| depopulation of America because so-called undesirables
| don't meet arbitrary legal criteria) then at least
| criticize the approach - don't call it an ugly but
| necessary business.
|
| Call it a completely unnecessary violation of civil
| rights and due process that it is! Don't make up garbage
| about sovereignty.
| AustinDev wrote:
| My argument was that remigration is never going to be
| pretty however it is necessary to enforce your
| immigration laws as a nation to be fully sovereign.
| Deporting citizens was never part of that argument. It's
| obviously wrong, it's been happening at a small scale for
| decades. If that number changes and we see even a 2-3x
| growth in the number Americans mistakenly deported, I'll
| be the first in line to call for regime change. It's
| unacceptable just like the talk of sending US Citizens to
| foreign prisons, it's just insane.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| At this point I mostly agree with you, but I kinda want
| to keep going on the sovereignty thing. Prosecutorial
| discretion and state incapacity to prosecute every crime
| has existed... literally forever. Sovereignty only means
| "supreme power or authority" - I don't see how migrants
| threaten it, it's not like they're trying to lead an
| insurrection or anything.
| AustinDev wrote:
| Sovereignty may have been an imprecise word choice for
| sure. However, I do not think having 10's of millions of
| people in the country without legal status who can be
| easily abused is 'a good thing'. I also don't think
| amnesty is a viable solution. So mass remigration is the
| only real solution I see. As we approach a post-labor
| economy over the coming decades how many more people do
| we actually need? I don't know I'm not an economist but,
| my gut tells me not a whole lot.
|
| You didn't ask but what's my ideal immigration solution?
| I'm not an expert but this seems common sense to me,
| maybe it's extreme let me know. RICO the NGO's who funded
| the mass migration. Offer a check and a plane ride for
| anyone that wants to self deport. Stiff penalties and
| permanent banning and deportation for those that don't
| take the offer. On the legal immigration side cancel all
| non-tourist visa types and let existing visas expire.
| Replace them with a simple employer sponsored visa with a
| ~400k/year (inflation adjusted) payroll tax and let any
| company that wants to pay the tax sponsor as many people
| as they want. The free market would sort out who is the
| best and brightest and bring them over. Provide these
| people and their immediate families with an easy path to
| citizenship over ~5-10 years. Probably need some solution
| for allowing in seasonal farm workers.
| dghughes wrote:
| How much do you want to bet legal US citizens deported will still
| need to file for US taxes since you can never outrun the IRS.
| diabllicseagull wrote:
| US tax code do be like that
| pembrook wrote:
| Of course they do. The hilarity of the US's uniquely draconian
| global taxation system collides with its incomprehensible
| schizophrenic immigration system.
|
| Complexity is the root of all evil.
| nharada wrote:
| Feels like this conversation is full of people getting hung up on
| arguing the technicalities and exact phrasing of this situation.
| Is that really important to the broader conversation?
| whoknowsidont wrote:
| When you're a sheltered suburbanite nerd (yeah, even the
| "rural" ones) who will never have to truly worry about being in
| this situation, this is just an exciting news story to squabble
| over and smugly flounder about on your keyboard.
|
| Deplorable.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I feel more disgusted by the Americans who know this is wrong
| but do nothing. I have no patience for evil people, but the
| truly damned are all the Americans who know and sense better
| but do not or cannot act properly.
|
| If deporting U.S. CITIZEN CHILDREN does not send you to the
| streets with fire and fury, you are well and truly lost. So
| much damn talk over the decades I've been alive about
| patriotism and liberty from America, but when a moment
| unquestionably calls for action, it turns out Americans were
| just unserious cosplayers the whole damn time.
| wat10000 wrote:
| It's worse than that. Far too many of us want this stuff.
|
| I understand the basic idea of how you fight an oppressive
| regime everyone hates. I have no idea how you go about
| fighting one that half the country supports. Protests
| aren't going to fix that.
|
| Last time around, I could at least soothe myself with the
| idea that he only won because our electoral system is
| idiotic, and a lot of voters didn't understand what they
| were voting for. This time? He won the most votes, and
| everyone had every opportunity to see what they were
| getting. I can only conclude that my countrymen are fucked
| in the head.
| mystraline wrote:
| > I understand the basic idea of how you fight an
| oppressive regime everyone hates. I have no idea how you
| go about fighting one that half the country supports.
| Protests aren't going to fix that.
|
| In reality, around 22% of the US populace (not just
| voters, but everyone) voted for Trump. Similar voted for
| Harris.
|
| The rest didn't vote. I refuse to attribute
| justifications, since they are too numerous.
|
| But that is correct, _peaceful_ protests like 50501 aren
| 't going to do much. Their value is more networking and
| mutual aid creation/management.
|
| What does work, especially historically, is violence. As
| a historian, when you look at pivotal points in history,
| changes were only won after a LOT of violence was
| applied.
|
| The trick is that groups like 50501 are absolutely needed
| for a different reason. The governments cannot negotiate
| with 'terrorists', but can save face by negotiating with
| 'peaceful groups'. We see this recently with MLK and
| Malcolm X, Sinn Fein and IRA, Ghandi and dozens of
| separatist factions.
|
| I'm not publically advocating violence, but the more
| fascist they become, well, that will be inevitable.
| Different people and groups have different lines in the
| sand.
|
| We're already talking about breaching medical records for
| 'defectives' (autism) list, turning trans folk into non-
| humans, kidnapping/disappearing people off the street,
| tattle-tale emails and phone#s to report people,
| lebensraum (Canada, Greenland, etc), off-country
| concentration camps (CECOT), and more. And we're only 3
| months in of 4 years.
|
| If I had the ability to get out, I would have. But I'm
| guessing that even the better off here also don't have
| the ability.
| wat10000 wrote:
| I think you're counting people who aren't even eligible
| to vote. Among eligible voters, it was about 1/3rd to
| each of Trump, Harris, and staying home.
|
| I don't give a lot of credit to those who stayed home.
| They also knew who Trump was and decided to let others
| make the choice on their behalf.
|
| I'm not confident that even violent action would change
| things when so many people are in favor of or at least ok
| with what's going on. You're not going to win a fight, so
| is the idea to win hearts and minds? I don't see that
| working.
| mystraline wrote:
| > I think you're counting people who aren't even eligible
| to vote. Among eligible voters, it was about 1/3rd to
| each of Trump, Harris, and staying home.
|
| Oh, I absolutely am counting every human in the US, and
| not registered voters. Total counts are like 45% of the
| whole population voted.
|
| I chose total counts to get a better idea of density vs
| political affiliation since we have those at the district
| level.
|
| > I don't give a lot of credit to those who stayed home.
| They also knew who Trump was and decided to let others
| make the choice on their behalf.
|
| Perhaps. Perhaps not. Usually, the back and forth between
| statist democrat and statist republican weren't that much
| diverging, although campaigns would portray the other
| side as baby-eaters.
|
| This is different. And even just 3 months, I'm seeing
| apolitical people come out of the woodwork and actually
| start being political. And even though I do vote, I get
| the idea of 'as long as politicians do decent, I don't
| care'.
|
| > I'm not confident that even violent action would change
| things when so many people are in favor of or at least ok
| with what's going on. You're not going to win a fight, so
| is the idea to win hearts and minds? I don't see that
| working.
|
| I'm not seeing a fight ala lines of militia lining up
| firing in lines. I'm thinking what we're headed towards
| is much much more like Luigi. Or more historically, what
| we saw in France during WW2 - sabotage and hit-n-runs.
|
| And the battle lines are also pretty defined as well. Its
| going to be a fight between rural and cities.
|
| Like I said, if I had the ability to leave until the
| situation here comes to some semblance of sanity and
| stability (along with respect for human decency), I would
| leave. But at the moment, that is not an option for me.
| So instead, its a "what can I do to safeguard me and
| mine, for the foreseeable future?"
|
| (So far, my answer is: grow my own food, get to know
| local farmers and pay/trade, connect with local mutual
| aid orgs, become more self-sufficient, canning and food
| preservation. That sort of stuff. Goal is to just blend
| in, and help non-violently where I can.)
| whoknowsidont wrote:
| >but the truly damned are all the Americans who know and
| sense better but do not or cannot act properly.
|
| MLK said it best: "the moderate who is more devoted to
| order than to justice, who prefers a negative peace which
| is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the
| presence of justice"
|
| And even now you have people that think showing up with
| clever signs around the downtown parks / public areas on
| the weekend when all the government offices are closed are
| somehow going to get their message across. It's not enough.
| It was never enough. It wasn't enough for Vietnam or Iraq.
| It's definitely not going to be enough now. Americans are
| going to have to choose to do some uncomfortable and maybe
| even risky things to demonstrate our disapproval.
|
| Or we have to admit that for many of us, this is who we
| actually are as a country. It certainly is a good bit of
| the voting public. I don't think it's a mistake that in
| basically one generation we lied to the world about Iraq
| then elected a fascist twice. And at that point I don't
| think stern dissent is an effective or even morally correct
| course of action.
| thechao wrote:
| I've been in the get-out-the-vote space for 25 years,
| now. I've been politically active against gerrymandering
| nearly as long. My wife was tooth-and-nails in the
| redistricting fight (in Texas; Texas!) for ~10 years.
|
| Here's my hands-on experience: at least half the people
| you meet are defective, to a scary extent, functionally
| in terms of empathy. Probably two thirds have serious
| executive functioning deficits. That means they can
| neither understand the plight of their fellows; and, even
| if they could, they could not generalize their own
| situation into a policy to help everyone in the same
| situation.
|
| EDIT: most people don't vote. A disproportionate number
| that do are both empathetic, and high have high levels of
| executive functioning skills. The flip side of the coin
| are activated people who are missing one-or-the-other
| skills, but are voting out of some other errant ideology.
| I want to be clear that the distribution of voters is
| "both sides": there are disgusting and enlightened voters
| on both sides of the spectrum. We're _all_ trapped in the
| box, together.
| jml78 wrote:
| My FIL has been a conservative his whole life and has
| never voted. He immediately recognized the nazi talking
| points from Trump. Said Trump was going full Nazi. But it
| wasn't enough to get him to register to vote and vote
| against a nazi
| camgunz wrote:
| I grew up working class in Indiana, and can confirm. My
| in-laws were reeling after the 2016 election and they
| just couldn't understand how people could vote for Trump,
| basically. My answer was "you're polite, highly educated,
| upper middle class people, most people everywhere are not
| like you. That doesn't make them bad or less than, but
| they make bad decisions basically constantly. This is
| just one in a long stream of them."
| nineplay wrote:
| > MLK said it best: "the moderate who is more devoted to
| order than to justice, who prefers a negative peace which
| is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is
| the presence of justice"
|
| Are you a moderate who has a better plan? I ask that
| sincerely, if I've given up its not because I prefer
| peace but because I know a losing battle when I see one.
| We don't have a charismatic leader like MLK. The
| democratic party is in shambles. They're afraid of
| fighting the tariffs and alienating the working class.
| There is no one in the party who is broadly likeable, who
| has any chance of bringing the voting public together.
| Voters on the left still cling to their own personal pet
| peeves and insist they will never vote for anyone who
| doesn't specifically address whatever they think is the
| _real_ problem.
|
| The sad reality is that Trump's policies are still really
| popular and if people are unhappy they are only unhappy
| with the execution. You see that in this thread. People
| see the this news story and see it as an unfortunate side
| effect of a basically good policy. They think illegal
| immigration is hurting our economy, they think 'anchor
| babies' are people taking advantage of a loophole that
| should be closed.
|
| They think this country suffers because of tariffs and
| maybe they think Trump got carried away but they still
| support the idea. They are sick of Ukraine and think it's
| time we walked away. They think DEI means a black women
| will be hired over a white man under any circumstances.
| They think DEI in schools means our kids are being taught
| that the US is full of horrible backwards racists and
| sexists who need liberal saviors to make it better. They
| think that government agencies are overpaid and over
| bloated and full of people who don't do anything but get
| a fat paycheck.
|
| These beliefs cut across people of all genders, of all
| colors, of all ages, of all states and cities. We can't
| even blame the boomers anymore and insist the younger
| generations will save us. No one will save us.
| weaksauce wrote:
| > Are you a moderate who has a better plan?
|
| stop supporting moderate politicians that appeal to no
| damn person. find someone with charisma like obama. there
| is no magical moderate voter that the dems keep hoping to
| appeal to. they already have been the center right party
| for decades now.
| nineplay wrote:
| > stop supporting moderate politicians that appeal to no
| damn person
|
| I think you are right but I think half of democratic
| voters think the party has gone too left ( abortion,
| gender politics ) while half thinks it has gone too far
| right. The democratic party is trying to have it both
| ways and utterly failing, but in their defense I don't
| think fully embracing either side will be enough for them
| to win. The problem is largely the voters who absolutely
| refuse to compromise on their personal hill to die on.
| Republican voters will unite on anyone as long as they
| piss of the left.
|
| > find someone with charisma like Obama
|
| That person does not exist, or if they do they are too
| smart to support the shambling mess that is the
| democratic party.
|
| I think the party is gambling that Trump makes such a
| hopeless mess of things that voters will have no choice
| but vote blue. I'm not sure they will win that gamble.
| camgunz wrote:
| > Are you a moderate who has a better plan?
|
| I wouldn't say I'm a moderate, but I do have a better
| plan: https://runforsomething.net/
| neilv wrote:
| Additional reasons for inaction:
|
| 1. They don't know what they can do that will be effective.
|
| 2. They don't want to be targeted as dissidents or non-
| loyalists to the regime.
|
| 3. They're drained by their individual economic situations
| and worries.
|
| 4. They're drained by severe disappointment in large swaths
| of the electorate, and in the failure of checks and
| balances.
|
| 5. Events are so upsetting that they're in denial or
| consciously avoiding it.
|
| It might be reassuring to see huge protests, but I wouldn't
| encourage individuals to do that anymore, because most of
| those people will be identified by the various surveillance
| technologies that we've built. (Half of the surveillance
| built by techbros, incidentally.) The identified can then
| be further suppressed with automation, and the barriers to
| doing that are much lower than mass physical roundups and
| concentration camps.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Answering for myself, I don't see a movement that is
| strictly for due process, law, and order.
|
| Each side is so encumbered with baggage that I don't want
| to support them.
|
| One is breaking law and processes in egregious ways. The
| other thinks that law should not apply to illegal
| immigrants and even legal deportations are a due process
| violation.
| whoknowsidont wrote:
| >The other thinks that law should not apply to illegal
| immigrants and even legal deportations are a due process
| violation.
|
| Where? Who? You're just making this up.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Im entirely honest. There are many in this thread
| suggesting amnesty or non-enforcement. If I dont want to
| take part in an open boarder or anti-enforcement protest,
| where do I go?
|
| What do you think? Should all illegal immigrants be
| deported?
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Americans have long since been lost. Some of their biggest
| protests in recent history have involved wearing vagina
| hats. They are an unserious people.
| generalizations wrote:
| Either the technicalities matter, or our legal system runs on
| vibes. I think it is important.
| ridgeguy wrote:
| Our legal system has always depended on vibes to mitigate
| technically correct unjust or catastrophic outcomes. It's
| broadly labelled "prosecutorial discretion", and operates at
| every level of the justice system.
|
| IMHO, it's essential.
| nickff wrote:
| Prosecutorial discretion hasn't meant much to me since the
| Bond got prosecuted for violating a chemical weapons
| treaty, and Yates got prosecuted for fish-shredding.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014
| )
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States_(201
| 5...
| Misdicorl wrote:
| Sometimes the vibes are wrong, and things go haywire.
| This is why zero tolerance policies have to be instituted
| in schools. That doesnt mean the general idea is wrong.
| Strict adherence to written law will always fail justice.
| The world is too nuanced and too fractal to handle every
| edge case well.
| noelwelsh wrote:
| Every system fails sometimes. The only interesting
| question is whether it is systemic or not.
| timewizard wrote:
| > has always depended on vibes
|
| Jury trials do. Administrative trials never have.
|
| > It's broadly labelled "prosecutorial discretion",
|
| Federal DAs win 98% of their cases. This discretion is not
| what you think it is.
|
| > IMHO, it's essential.
|
| Well, unless they're J6 defendants, or any other group
| labeled by the media as undesirable.
| generalizations wrote:
| Good vibes, or bad vibes? The technicalities of the law
| keep both in check. Vibes don't just allow us to "mitigate
| technically correct unjust...outcomes" - they also let
| people in power "mitigate technically correct
| _just_...outcomes " to achieve their own desired ends.
| intermerda wrote:
| I assume you believe it's important that the federal agents
| should raid every marijuana dispensary in the US and for the
| DOJ to prosecute dispensary owners and individuals who smoke
| and participate in weed consumption in each state. Is that
| correct? After all, technicalities matter.
| the8472 wrote:
| The flip side is unevenly enforced laws, with parts of the
| government having discretion onto whom they bring down the
| monopoly on violence.
| rsoto2 wrote:
| It was once legal to own people so what the fuck do you think
| it runs on
| ithkuil wrote:
| Laws != Legal system
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| The broader conversation is impossible to have. "What policies
| do we need to ensure due process without compromising the
| effectiveness of immigration enforcement?" Even trying to start
| the conversation feels like a troll, because when the system
| looks like it does today who's going to concede the premise
| that immigration enforcement shouldn't be compromised?
| exceptione wrote:
| I think the one who derailed the conversation did not do that
| on purpose, but yes, throwing in a technicality to us/the HN
| crowd is like throwing red meat to the lions.
|
| It seems we as technical people give little reason for giving
| us a leading role in society. I admit that the media doesn't
| help as they keep the big picture out of frame, but then again,
| we are very easily cornered with minor details.
|
| Anne Frank's house is not far from where I live. I bet that the
| term "forcefully" in a sentence like "She was forcefully
| deported" could have been up for debate too, who knows, but in
| the end it would not have really helped the girl.
| perihelions wrote:
| C-f "citizenship"--55 results
|
| C-f "metastatic cancer"--1
|
| There's a poor child that's being withheld access to their
| medication and to their oncologists, and the adults in the room
| --adults in uniforms, adults with guns, adults in suits and
| adults in black robes--all of these adults are doing their
| adult things with their adult words, and the sum total of all
| that is the child still is without their cancer medicine.
|
| What good can we be, if *this* result is the sum total of our
| good intentions?
| freen wrote:
| The purpose of a system is exactly what it does.
|
| This IS the point, the goal, and the purpose.
| mindslight wrote:
| The assumption of "good intentions" is not really warranted
| at this point. This movement is mainly driven by people who
| feel they have been marginalized by our society, and they
| want to lash out and see other people get hurt, period.
|
| Regardless of the ways they have been marginalized, and how
| much marginalization they have done to themselves by failing
| to engage with the complexity of the world and following
| malicious leaders instead, this is where we are at. We need
| to stare this bare reality in the face lest the supporters,
| enablers, and fence-sitters continue soothing themselves with
| rationalizations.
| watwut wrote:
| Not all of those adults have good intentions. In fact,
| situation happened because of adults who have bad intentions,
| managed to execute them and are happy about the result.
|
| And they have been giving benefit of the doubt too many times
| already. At this point, it is absurd to pretend there are
| good intentions in the core of this.
| slg wrote:
| >There's a poor child that's being withheld access to their
| medication and to their oncologists, and the adults in the
| room--adults in uniforms, adults with guns, adults in suits
| and adults in black robes--all of these adults are doing
| their adult things with their adult words, and the sum total
| of all that is the child still is without their cancer
| medicine.
|
| People like to blame these sort of situations on leadership
| and systems, but every individual involved in this is making
| a personal choice to let this happen.
|
| Even if you agree with the general motivations and principles
| behind these, do you not have the humanity to realize the
| absurdity and cruelness of what is being done in some of
| these examples? No special accommodation can be made to get
| the kid with cancer their medicine while they are in custody?
|
| I genuinely don't know how those questions can be answered
| any other way than "cruelty is the point" and if that is your
| response, I don't know how you sleep at night.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| Every individual involved in this is doing it because there
| is something to be gained. The system is basically saying
| "the more you deport, the more numbers you generate, the
| more funding you get and the less I will check what you do
| with it". We can blame the individuals sure, but if they
| keep getting showered with money for doing the wrong thing,
| of course the system has a big responsibility. Why should
| the people involved not do this if they are being
| explicitly encouraged by their employer to do it?
| int_19h wrote:
| Based on some interactions I have had with CBP and ICE in
| the past as a legal immigrant, I'm confident that many of
| those people aren't doing it because of any sort of
| monetary gain or career advancement, but simply because
| it gives them an outlet to realize their sadistic
| tendencies.
|
| And because is tolerated and even encouraged, these jobs
| attract exactly those kinds of people. Which is how you
| end up with an organization with an internal culture that
| revels in human suffering.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _every individual involved in this is making a personal
| choice to let this happen._
|
| To be fair, you and I are involved. I'm on vacation in
| Mexico. You're presumably also doing something comfortable.
| We've had, in the span of days, a judge arrested in her
| court room and multiple U.S. citizens--children, no less---
| illegally detained and deported.
|
| It's blowing my mind to say this. But the right is clearly
| using violence as a political tactic. That means there is
| not only legitimacy, but necessity, in the opposition to
| begin deploying violence as a political tactic as well. (By
| this I mean disrupting infrastructure, interfering with law
| enforcement, disrupting lawmaking, _et cetera_. Break their
| cars. Hack their systems. Block their streets and maybe
| cause damage to their buildings. Under no circumstances do
| I mean causing physical harm to anyone.)
|
| ICE "abruptly terminated" a phone call with the detained
| mother "when her spouse tried to provide legal counsel's
| phone number". The brown shirts [1] are here.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
| int_19h wrote:
| Remember Willem van Spronsen?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Tacoma_immigration_det
| ent...
| belorn wrote:
| Things are moving closer and closer to a civil war.
| Occupying and destroying government property is where the
| military get called in. Shots will be fired and that will
| be the flame that ignites the powder keg. A lot of
| children will die, and even more will grow up in an
| endless cycle of death.
| andrepd wrote:
| You are wrong in assuming good intentions. This child is on
| the eyes of some people "less than human".
| egberts1 wrote:
| As evidenced by some 291,000 undocumented children whose
| administrative paperworks are lost.
|
| https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2024-08/
| O...
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Americans don't trust the press.
|
| A lot of these technicalities are parsing "what did the press
| actually say" which is the first step in dealing with an
| untrustworthy source of truth.
| intermerda wrote:
| The distrust of the press has been cultivated intentionally.
| A POTUS saying "What you're seeing and what you're reading is
| not what's happening" would have been seen too farcical for a
| comedy. And yet here we are.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| When you read article after article that imply one thing,
| but actually say something else, how should we respond?
|
| Parsing out what the article says is necessary.
|
| It's how articles are written, and how reporters and
| editors ask they be read.
|
| "John Doe committed a terrible crime, the FBI said" does
| not mean the press is reporting the John Doe committed a
| terrible crime.
|
| I wish the press would respond to cultivated mistrust by
| committing to high standards, but they have not.
| foxglacier wrote:
| Absolutely. And this whole idea of demonizing
| misinformation just makes it worse by implying that true
| information presented in a way that intentionally and
| actually misleads readers is somehow OK.
| lazide wrote:
| The 'press' has been clear bullshit (for me) since Gulf War
| 1.
| timewizard wrote:
| > The distrust of the press has been cultivated
| intentionally.
|
| Yea, by the press itself, or, do you honestly believe the
| billionaire owner class of this form of media has done an
| excellent job reporting truthfully over the past 30 years?
|
| Pull yourself back from your politics and genuinely
| consider this.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| When reading an article, how do I figure out what the
| "good reporter" is trying to say, and distinguish it from
| what the "bad owner" is trying to say?
|
| The best way I know is to carefully parse the text in its
| most literal form. That is what the "good reporter" is
| saying. The "general idea" of what is being said is
| probably what the editor wants.
|
| Owners and editors want "wow" articles. Journalists know
| most of what they report is just "somebody said
| something."
| timewizard wrote:
| The point I'm replying to is that this was "cultivated
| intentionally." I understand the mechanism we're trying
| to determine the source.
|
| You also seem to forget that journalists sometimes leave
| and become owners in their own right. Where does that
| blurry line begin and end, actually?
|
| Means, motive, opportunity. It's always the same triad
| and you can't avoid applying to all parties involved.
|
| Given that and the importance of broadcast media I can't
| imagine why anyone thought they were getting the truth.
| Or even if they were somehow not a highly selected and
| edited version of it. Designed to manipulate and control
| not to inform.
| watwut wrote:
| The press has way better track record then right wing
| personalities systematically villyfying it.
| ithkuil wrote:
| But yet, due to the nature of asymmetric warfare, it's so
| easy to discredit a reputable institution that holds itself
| to some standards which sometimes are not met. All you need
| to attack it is to not have any such standards but just
| flood the zone with shit and when you say something wrong
| just lie or claim "I never claimed to be an expert, I hate
| experts, I'm just a comedian/or something like that"
| cryptoegorophy wrote:
| What's the conversation? Separating kids from parents or
| deporting them with parents because we don't want them to be
| separate? There is no question about breaking the law by
| parents. Question is do you let children be with their
| mothers(who apparently asked to do so) or no.
|
| As someone who came legally to Canada and went through thorough
| screening of 4 years before coming I just don't get how people
| are ok with "cheaters" gaming the system.
|
| "Think of the children" works when you are in a super white
| rich neighborhood, if you never lived in slums you won't
| understand the abuse of the system by "think of the children",
| you just don't see it from the other side.
| bodiekane wrote:
| > just don't get how people are ok with "cheaters" gaming the
| system.
|
| This is a story about citizens being deported without due
| process, without access to lawyers, without access to
| healthcare.
|
| You don't have to be "ok with cheaters" to still want those
| people to have basic human rights and to see the system have
| legitimate judicial review.
|
| The punishment here is far worse than the crime, and it's
| directed at children who didn't commit the crime, and it was
| doled out in a horrifyingly abusive totalitarian police-state
| style. Maybe you're not seeing things from the right side?
| watwut wrote:
| A dad of a kid was literally fighting for the kid to stay. He
| is an American. I read about one case and that was the
| situation.
|
| Maybe stop making hypotheticals designed to excuse what
| happened and fake concerns. There was no attempt to keep
| family together oe do right by the kids.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _dad of a kid was literally fighting for the kid to stay.
| He is an American_
|
| Are you saying he's figuratively American, or that the
| father is a U.S. citizen. Because VML's petition for writ
| of _habeas_ [1] doesn 't mention the latter.
|
| [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/1/v-m-l-
| v-harp...
| gopher_space wrote:
| > As someone who came legally to Canada and went through
| thorough screening of 4 years before coming I just don't get
| how people are ok with "cheaters" gaming the system
|
| We grew up with the idea that America was a beacon, not a
| whites-only gated community.
|
| There's no reason for us to think less of someone just
| because they want to be here. Our ancestors did exactly the
| same thing.
|
| It sucks that you're here complaining about the Statue of
| Liberty.
| neither_color wrote:
| >I just don't get how people are ok with "cheaters" gaming
| the system.
|
| I usually steer clear of talking about these issues but
| there's something in the framing of this issue that maga has
| intentionally made people misunderstand: People do not say
| "I'm going to risk my life crossing a desert, and then when i
| have kids I'll be untouchable!" The actual "cheaters" are the
| birth hotel operators, whose clients are wealthy
| international elites who fly in while pregnant, then
| immediately leave to raise their US citizen babies abroad:
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-l-
| maternity-h...
|
| These instances of people actually and deliberately cheating
| the system require a completely separate system of
| enforcement that does not need to target desperate people who
| happened to get pregnant over the course of living life and
| making ends meet and whose children for all intents and
| purposes will grow up as regular English-speaking Americans
| who will go to school, work and pay taxes just like everyone
| else. Immigrants on dual-intent visas(e.g forever h1b but not
| yet green card), asylum seekers, etc do not get pregnant to
| "cheat the system".
| thephyber wrote:
| Have you seriously not gone through the thought exercise of
| why some thoughtful + well-informed people would oppose your
| opinion on the subject?
|
| (1) in previous centuries, the US accepted as many immigrants
| as could arrive "on Ellis Island" and it only took a few
| weeks. All of the immigration barriers that you overcame were
| added by American legislators many centuries after my
| ancestors came to America. I don't view "illegal immigrants"
| any different than I viewed my own ancestors who came to
| America in the 1500s.
|
| (2) US law affords legal pathways to residency/ citizenship
| for refugees and political asylum claimants. Just because you
| used one slow legal workflow doesn't mean you should look
| down on people who used a faster legal workflow. They aren't
| "gaming" the system -- they are using the fast lane that was
| installed purposefully. If anything, we should use the
| legislature to revisit the fast lane (the refugee and
| political asylum claims)
|
| (3) an infant didn't have any volition in this situation.
| Maybe they were born here as an "anchor baby" (which the
| Trump Admin is trying to redefine as not-a-citizen, breaking
| with all of the jurisprudence). If they were pushed over the
| border by their parents or someone else, we have a duty to
| make sure their life is handled with care, not malice.
|
| (4) there are political and media interests in making "legal
| immigrants" like you hate other immigrants. It makes native
| born Americans feel like they have cover for their hatred of
| immigrants. You should sit with the thought experiment of
| whether it's actually relevant to the conversation that you
| "spent years getting here the hard way" or whether the
| conversation would be more productive without it.
|
| (5) the reason the "immigration system is broken" is because
| there are multiple factions in America who can't agree on
| what kind of changes to make to it. Famously Obama tried to
| force Congress to deal with it around 2013, but the "Gang of
| Eight" couldn't come up with even broad guidelines for
| changes that both parties would agree to. There are simply
| too many people who have strong opinions and yet believe
| untrue things about American immigration. Are you perhaps in
| this category?
| remarkEon wrote:
| Re point (5), the "gang of eight" bill would've been the de
| facto process (illegally entering, having children or
| marrying, attempting to bring family over via chain
| migration) the de jure one via advertising to the rest of
| the word that violating US immigration law does not matter.
| We ended up running an experiment over the course of the
| last 4 years to see what that looks like and the results
| are grim.
|
| >There are simply too many people who have strong opinions
| and yet believe untrue things about American immigration.
|
| You appear to be operating from a different premise than
| people who are skeptical of past efforts to "reform"
| immigration law. "Permanent legal mass migration" is not
| the bargain the country wants to make, and thus far every
| attempt to "reform" immigration operates from that initial
| premise.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Our economy, ability to feed ourselves, and ability to
| sustain our population is fundamentally dependent on
| "Permanent legal mass migration."
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Wages are too low to incentivize investment in automating
| these jobs, precisely because of illegal immigration.
| mariodiana wrote:
| Exactly. Children belong with their parents. And if their
| parents don't belong here, then Q.E.D.
| 3vidence wrote:
| This is what HN has felt like for the past ~year ish. Makes me
| realize this community has a lot of "bike shedding" types who
| easily miss the forest from the trees.
|
| Slowly stopped looking for insight here on any topic that
| involves even a small amount of larger picture thinking, really
| quite sad.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Is that really important to the broader conversation?_
|
| _Habeas corpus_ predates the Magna Carta [1]. A U.S. citizen
| 's right to _habeas_ has been wilfully abrogated by the state.
| If this stands, I 'm absolutely for taking all the pardoned
| January 6th nutters and sticking them in Guantanamo or wherever
| come 2028 or 2032.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Origins_in_Engla...
| santoshalper wrote:
| I think a couple of things are important to remember in a time
| like this:
|
| 1. This behavior, whether legal or not, is profoundly inhumane.
|
| 2. No law, statute, or rule requires us to treat anyone
| inhumanely. The people behaving this way are doing it because
| they want to. These are not people you want to have access to any
| power.
| blinky81 wrote:
| I cannot for the life of me understand why Americans have such a
| problem with other people coming here to seek a better life. Half
| this country has been tricked into seeing hardworking immigrants
| as a threat to their safety and livelihood -- but by all metrics,
| immigrants are a net positive to society.
|
| I also take issue with the idea that this extreme exclusionary
| mindset is somehow new to America. A lot of people frame what's
| happening as if it's the first time this country has gone through
| this. There is a long and storied tradition of otherizing,
| deporting, and imprisoning. Going back to our very foundation --
| America was born out of a process of expelling Native people from
| their lands. Then there's the Great Migration period and the
| intense reaction to it, the Palmer raids, FDR's internment camps,
| Eisenhower's deportations, McCarthy era "anti-communism", mass
| incarceration as a reaction to the Civil Rights Act,
| Islamophobia, and now this aggressively right wing anti-
| immigration sentiment.
|
| The people of America, unfortunately, are prone to drastically
| evil actions when they are tricked by opportunistic political
| actors into believing their way of life is somehow under attack.
| This cycle has been going on for a long time.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| > The people of America, unfortunately, are prone to
| drastically evil actions when they are tricked by opportunistic
| political actors into believing their way of life is somehow
| under attack.
|
| All people are like this. When the economic prospects for you
| look bleak, it's very aggravating to see someone you believe is
| an outsider is succeeding. We see microcosms of this in the bay
| area where people blame tech workers for driving the cost of
| living up and making it hard for regular people. In reality,
| housing policy has done that, but people get mad seeing new
| outsiders enjoying the life that has become harder and harder
| for them to afford.
| anon7725 wrote:
| > When the economic prospects for you look bleak
|
| This is the richest nation on earth with a roughly 4%
| unemployment rate we're talking about here.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| People are buying groceries on credit.
| koolba wrote:
| > I cannot for the life of me understand why Americans have
| such a problem with other people coming here to seek a better
| life. Half this country has been tricked into seeing
| hardworking immigrants as a threat to their safety and
| livelihood -- but by all metrics, immigrants are a net positive
| to society.
|
| I have no issue with _legal_ immigration. Far from it, I'm in
| favor of attracting the best, brightest, and most hard working.
|
| But knowing people overseas that want to come to the USA but
| are respectful enough to want to do it legally, I take issue
| with anyone that enters the country illegally. They're cheating
| the system and showing immediate disdain for our system of
| laws. The second order effects of funneling money to smugglers
| and coyotes are bad as well.
|
| Every country has a right to decide who can visit or immigrate.
| That's the right of any sovereign state.
|
| If the people of America want more immigration then have them
| petition their representatives to change the laws to all for
| it.
| darksaints wrote:
| They deported a US Citizen. A child. Kept from contact from
| her US Citizen father.
|
| If that's the sort of way that you believe we should treat
| legal immigrants, you have no basis to claim any support for
| them.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > A child. Kept from contact from her US Citizen father.
|
| Is that true?
|
| If this is the correct case link it doesn't seem like the
| father is a US citizen?
|
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.2
| 1...
|
| > father executed a Provisional Custody by Mandate under
| Louisiana Revised Statutes
|
| It seems odd that he would give provisional custody to
| "family friend" then?
|
| Then this doesn't add up then
|
| > Respondent Harper later sent an email further evincing
| her refusal to release V.M.L. to her custodian, see Exh. 2,
| and stating that she would instead require V.M.L.'s father
| to turn himself in for detention and deportation,
|
| So they wanted to deport the US citizen father?
|
| It's possible that I am looking at a different court case
| perhaps.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _They're cheating_
|
| "Of course, 'It is illegal and unconstitutional to deport,
| detain for deportation, or recommend deportation of a U.S.
| citizen.' See Lyttle v. United States, 867 F.Supp.2d 1256
| (M.D. Ga. 2012) (citing Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Immigration &
| Naturalization Serv., 533 U.S. 53, 67 (2001) (affirming that
| a citizen has the 'absolute right to enter [the United
| States] borders'); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629
| (1969) ('This Court long ago recognized that the nature of
| our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal
| liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel
| throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by
| statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or
| restrict this movement.')" [1].
|
| To the extent someone is unequivocally cheating, it's ICE.
|
| [1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd
| .21...
| koolba wrote:
| If you read the complete sentence you'd realize I'm
| referring to cheating against every other potential
| immigrant to come to the USA.
|
| > To the extent someone is unequivocally cheating, it's
| ICE.
|
| So what exactly is ICE supposed to do if they are deporting
| the illegal alien mother and child is a citizen? Forget the
| possibility of a deported father. Say a single mother with
| no legal status is being deported.
|
| Does she not get the option to take her child with her?
|
| If she didn't take the child the same people would be
| likely be screaming about ICE separating families.
|
| Kids are not a get out of jail free card.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you'd realize I'm referring to cheating against every
| other potential immigrant to come to the USA_
|
| I know. I'm pointing out that the mother's illegal
| immigration is outweighed by ICE's illegal detention,
| deportation and wilful abrogation of legal and
| constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen.
|
| > _what exactly is ICE supposed to do if they are
| deporting the illegal alien mother and child is a
| citizen?_
|
| Follow the law. In this case, that would involve
| transfering the child to her designated custodian [1].
|
| > _If she didn't take the child the same people would be
| likely be screaming about ICE separating families_
|
| Not an excuse for breaking the law!
|
| [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/1/v-m-
| l-v-harp...
| madcadmium wrote:
| > by all metrics, immigrants are a net positive to society.
|
| What about wage suppression?
| mikeyouse wrote:
| In study after study, immigrants actually raise the wages of
| citizen workers by taking the lower paying jobs while
| citizens can then be more productive. The idea they suppress
| wages is just another form of the 'lump of labor' fallacy.
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/41426727
|
| https://www.dagliano.unimi.it/media/12-Ottaviano-
| Peri-2008.p...
| annexrichmond wrote:
| You are really twisting things to make your argument sound
| plausible in the general case. More supply means less
| wages. Why focus on low paying jobs? Are you seriously
| suggesting that if we import every software engineer from
| India that wants to come here that my salary will increase?
| If so, that's very interesting why tech CEOs are lobbying
| so hard for this.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| Your "more supply equals lower wages" argument is
| demolished by top economic research. A recent NBER study
| calculated that "immigration, thanks to native-immigrant
| complementarity and college skill content of immigrants,
| had a positive and significant effect between +1.7 to
| +2.6% on wages of less educated native workers" between
| 2000-2019.
|
| The economy isn't zero-sum. As Milton Friedman noted,
| "most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to
| assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain
| only at the expense of another." Immigrants create demand
| for housing, food, education, entertainment, and
| specialized services that natives often provide.
|
| Historical evidence consistently disproves the fallacy:
| When women entered the workforce, it didn't cause massive
| job losses among men. When segregation was abolished,
| Black workers didn't cause mass unemployment among
| whites. The vast majority of Americans descend from
| immigrants who contributed to economic growth.
|
| Research on H-1B visas shows that firms that get
| immigrant labor end up "hiring more tech workers and
| paying them more, because they become more efficient and
| sometimes scale up." In fact, studies show each H-1B
| worker creates approximately 1.83 jobs for native-born
| Americans.
|
| The UK's Migration Advisory Committee, after reviewing
| studies from 2003-2018, concluded that "immigration had
| little or no impact on average employment or unemployment
| of existing workers" and "little impact on average
| wages."
|
| The overwhelming consensus among economists is that
| immigration grows the economic pie rather than merely
| redistributing slices. That's why America's most
| immigrant-rich cities consistently have the highest
| wages, not the lowest.
|
| PLEASE, I am begging you. Spend 15 minutes reading actual
| economic research before posting confidently incorrect
| Econ 101 oversimplifications. The "immigrants take our
| jobs" fallacy has been debunked by virtually every
| reputable economic study for the past 30 years. This
| isn't some fringe academic view. It's the overwhelming
| consensus of actual economists who study this for a
| living. Your intuition about "more workers = lower wages"
| seems logical but falls apart when tested against actual
| economic data. The real world is more complex than a
| supply-and-demand graph from an introductory textbook.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Nowhere in the economic research does it explain what you
| are so confidently stating, that wages are, somehow, the
| _only_ thing in all of economics where positive supply
| shocks do not matter. The arguments that tend to be made
| are that, on a long enough time horizon, mean wages
| increase because overall economic output goes up, and
| mean economic output goes up because there is a higher
| supply of available labor.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| You're fundamentally misunderstanding both the economic
| research and my argument. No one is claiming wages are
| "the only thing in economics where positive supply shocks
| don't matter."
|
| The research shows that labor markets aren't simple
| supply-demand curves because of complementary
| productivity effects and gains from specialization,
| selection effects, and, of course, demand generated by
| the immigrants. If you have general labor size increase,
| in general equilibrium with a responsive central bank
| interest rates will lower to keep employment tight.
|
| This isn't about "long enough time horizons" - studies
| find positive or neutral effects in the short and medium
| term too. The fundamental issue is that your model
| assumes a fixed economic pie that immigrants simply
| divide into smaller slices, when in reality immigrants
| help grow the pie overall.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Okay. Which other things don't see effects from positive
| supply shocks? You're just restating my premise about
| time horizons. The pie grows, with time, if a bunch of
| other things happen in the right order. Wages haven't
| grown in two decades in the UK, your original example.
| So, how are you defining short and medium term? Three
| decades?
| JackYoustra wrote:
| man idk, maybe it was the long conservative rule after
| the crash? Maybe it was the long austerity? Maybe it was
| the huge mass of natives that voted to crash out of an
| agreement with a bloc that handles over 80% of their
| trade?
|
| More seriously...
|
| - for US: The newest NBER IV estimates put the wage
| effect of all 2000-19 US immigration at +2 % for non-
| college natives. Show me a UK study of similar vintage
| that finds anything near -2 %.
|
| - for UK: UK real wages tracked productivity one-for-one
| after 2008; BoE and NIESR pin that on capital deepening,
| Brexit and austerity. Not on immigration, which the MAC
| finds moved wages by _at most_ -1% (aggregate, not
| yearly!) and the final report was ~0.1%, basically a null
| finding.
|
| - We've already been through lump of labor, so I don't
| know why you've been banging on equilibrium.
|
| And to finally address your time horizons: Short-run?
| Mariel-style shocks still show null effects. Medium-run?
| 2009-20 UK data flips positive. Long-run? Productivity
| wins. Pick your horizon. Immigration is at worst a
| rounding error next to TFP, which is positively
| associated with migration.
|
| Happy to dive deeper, but at this point the burden of
| proof is on anyone claiming large negative wage effects.
| The best evidence, across multiple methods and countries,
| just isn't there.
| annexrichmond wrote:
| Strawman. You're talking about wages and jobs in
| aggregate which wasn't my argument at all. Nothing you
| said addresses how _my_ salary is affected in the
| industry the person is joining.
|
| Sure, in total, other jobs may be created and growth is
| increased -- it's essentially a tautology.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > I cannot for the life of me understand why Americans have
| such a problem with other people coming here to seek a better
| life.
|
| They do not come legally. That's the problem. Plain and simple.
| nineplay wrote:
| I'm surprised you single out Americans who on the whole still a
| lot more welcoming than a lot more countries in Europe and
| Asia. The last few months have torn that reputation apart of
| course, and there is loud group who would happily shut the
| borders, but there are a lot of citizens who are happy with
| legal immigration, sympatric to illegal immigration, and still
| embrace the melting pot.
|
| My conversations with H-1B visa holders is that whatever
| aggravations they may have in the US, they can still get into
| the US. Other countries just don't have that pathway
| rsoto2 wrote:
| I'm an "illegal."
|
| Physics degree. Magna cum laude. Engineer. Homeowner. If you
| heard me speak you would never guess I was not American. I have
| been here 30 out of 32 years an I have no legal pathway to
| residency or citizenship.
|
| I guess I should have helped poison our cities with black tar
| heroin via a shitty PHP website running in the tor network like
| Ulbritch, maybe then I could get a pardon from the orange
| moron.
| remarkEon wrote:
| It's many different things, but scale and time horizon is
| certainly one of them. The scale of immigration over just the
| last 30 years is truly unprecedented, and will have political
| impacts for the next 50. The share of the population that is
| foreign born is up to 15% (likely much higher, since it's
| difficult to actually count illegal immigrants), which is the
| first time since the mid 19th century it's reached that level.
| Qualitatively, seeing e.g. a childhood neighborhood turn into
| something that resembles a (very) foreign country is ...
| jarring. I'd also submit that your brief summary of American
| history is wrong, and is part of the problem. It very slyly
| changes the foundation of the nation from something heroic to
| something that we should be ashamed of, and that mass
| immigration is the only way to do penance for that sin. It's
| fine to advocate for people coming here to seek a better life,
| but it's wrong to describe America as a "nation of immigrants",
| when the reality is closer to a "nation of settlers" who built
| up a largely empty country. I also tend to roll my eyes when
| people invoke "Islamophobia", since the United States is a) not
| a Muslim country and therefor does not have to defer to Islamic
| interests, and b) that term is typically invoked in an attempt
| to bully someone into agreeing with a more extreme position
| since, well, you don't want to be Islamophobic now do you.
| int0x29 wrote:
| And one child deported without cancer meds. At that point you are
| just trying to kill people
| umvi wrote:
| I don't think it's intentional, but rather collateral damage
| from trying to do deportations quickly and at the "millions"
| scale
| intermerda wrote:
| It's intentional. The cruelty is the point.
| watwut wrote:
| It is intentional to discourage others and to make people
| afraid. It is even openly intentional.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| [delayed]
| pjmlp wrote:
| Remember Night of Broken Glass from 1938, eventually it will be
| too late if there isn't a major stand-up movement.
| righthand wrote:
| > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
| privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
| shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
| without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
| jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
|
| The states are responsible for providing equal protection of the
| laws to everyone here. The states need to stand up and fight ICE.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _states need to stand up and fight ICE_
|
| We honestly need a Democrat governor to grow a pair and begin
| arresting ICE agents unlawfully detaining and kidnapping
| people. Then let the FBI and Bondi escalate it into a full-
| blown states' rights issue.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| I'm so tired of how pussy democrats are. The moderate wing is
| so dominated by corporate money that they'll never do it and
| just let American fascism happen.
|
| The left in America is ran by geriatrics (Bernie) or
| unelectable young people (AOC). None of them have the guile
| to do what you've said (or rather to pressure and call for
| the governors to do that).
|
| The left has a pussyfooting problem. The left is beta, and
| has surrendered the aesthetics of power to the right again
| and again throught history (and the only times that they keep
| it they end up becoming as bad or worse than what they are
| fighting)
|
| Basically we are fked.
| guywithahat wrote:
| How come every time I see a headline like this it's totally
| wrong? Last time the pitch was some illegal immigrant who was
| covered in MS-13 tattoos wasn't MS-13. I wouldn't be surprised if
| in a few days we learn neither of their parents are citizens and
| they're foreign nationals.
|
| All that aside, this has nothing to do with startups or tech and
| doesn't belong here.
| lostdog wrote:
| You are posting blatant misinformation. The MS-13 tattoos were
| painted into an existing picture.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| The tattoos don't even matter. The judge said not to deport
| him and they did it anyway.
| latexr wrote:
| > this has nothing to do with startups or tech and doesn't
| belong here.
|
| The guidelines _explicitly_ say HN is not just for that. It's
| right at the top.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| > On-Topic: (...) That includes more than hacking and startups.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| "How come every time I see a headline like this it's totally
| wrong?"
|
| This isn't wrong. It's documented fact. Three U.S. citizen
| children (ages 2, 4, and 7) were deported by ICE through the
| New Orleans field office. A federal judge has already scheduled
| a hearing about this, citing a "strong suspicion" that a
| 2-year-old U.S. citizen was deported "with no meaningful
| process."
|
| You're doing exactly what propagandists hope for - spreading
| doubt about documented human rights abuses without bothering to
| verify the facts.
|
| "Last time the pitch was some illegal immigrant who was covered
| in MS-13 tattoos wasn't MS-13."
|
| If you're referring to a case with photoshopped tattoos, you're
| literally proving my point! You fell for actual fake news and
| are now using that to dismiss real, verified reporting from
| multiple sources including federal court records.
|
| "I wouldn't be surprised if in a few days we learn neither of
| their parents are citizens and they're foreign nationals."
|
| You've already decided what "truth" you want to emerge.
| Meanwhile, one of these American children has cancer and was
| deported without their medication despite ICE being notified of
| their urgent medical needs.
|
| Your cynicism isn't wisdom, it's complicity. You're pre-
| emptively discrediting reports of government abuses against
| literal American children because acknowledging them might
| force you to confront uncomfortable truths about a system you
| apparently want to defend at all costs.
|
| These aren't anonymous claims! They're documented cases with
| legal representation, court filings, and federal judicial
| review already underway. What would it take for you to actually
| care about American citizens losing their rights?
| sschueller wrote:
| If these people were all really MS13 then where are the
| shootouts with ICE? I thought this gang was so ruthless and
| violent that they had to be declared a terrorist organization?
| stefap2 wrote:
| Six months ago I would have endorsed wide-scale deportations, but
| after seeing the consequences--families swept into jails, plain-
| clothes officers ambushing people on their way to work or school,
| and communities living in constant fear--it's clear that
| indiscriminate removals are neither practical nor just. This
| approach diverts resources from pursuing violent offenders,
| erodes faith in the rule of law, and forces the whole country
| toward a "papers-please" surveillance culture, where everyone
| must carry ever-stricter IDs. Watching longtime neighbors dragged
| off for minor infractions, the policy feels capricious, and that
| perception of unfairness only accelerates the broader corrosion
| of civil liberties. A sound path must still secure the border,
| yet focus enforcement on genuine threats and offer law-abiding
| residents a transparent route to legal status, so safety is
| preserved without sacrificing the freedoms.
| mtVessel wrote:
| Serious question: how did you envision "wide-scale
| deportations" playing out, prior to these events?
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I'm sure they thought it was like the Boondocks Catcher
| Freeman master's version of slavery where they were all in
| the fields playing games and hanging out with pre-packed
| picnic baskets, waiting for the expedition
| chrisulloa wrote:
| seriously can't believe anyone thought it would happen any
| other way
| eschaton wrote:
| Exactly--plenty of people said exactly what would happen. Why
| did you not believe them? Will you believe them in the
| future?
| slg wrote:
| >Will you believe them in the future?
|
| An underdiscussed frustrating aspect of this whole era is
| that there is never any true retrospection. There is no
| adjustment in the credibility of the people who predicted
| exactly how things would play out or the people whose
| predictions ended up being incredibly wrong. If there is a
| lack of consequence for being wrong, it ends up meaning
| there won't be any consequences for maliciously lying in
| the moment knowing it's only a matter of time until they
| are proven wrong because when that day comes, they have
| already moved onto some other lie and the cycle continues.
| stefap2 wrote:
| I think the retrospection should be why the massive
| influx was allowed to happen between 2020 to 2024.
| Because it did happened before, so it's not like we
| didn't know this will/can happen. There should be massive
| increase in processing of claims. Not extrajudciary
| deporting people. Why would somebody predict
| extrajudicial deporting if that hasn't happened before?
| hayst4ck wrote:
| I think the most common of human mistakes is to think that
| because something is easy to say, it is easy to do.
|
| Once you actually dig in to how to accomplish something you
| find the devil in the details and complexity in places you
| didn't realized it exists. I would not believe someone is an
| experienced programmer unless they understand this idea in
| their bones.
|
| I think so many people here, with the benefit of hindsight,
| are accusatory, but they've committed this very same type of
| error themselves.
|
| I am _vehemently_ against this administration, but feeling
| like something must be done about border violations is
| reasonable and thinking there is a way to do that is
| reasonable. I personally don 't think it's the best use of
| resources, but I think it is reasonable to want some kind of
| border with meaningful enforcement.
|
| What is not reasonable is thinking this administration would
| do it in good faith, rather than as a means of power grabs
| against the legal system, but some people aren't capable of
| taking heed of warnings, and must experience consequences
| before they understand. Some people aren't able to think
| through "where is the public plan that explains this" and
| realize that if it's not there, if there is only the concept
| of a plan, then that's someone vying for power, not someone
| attempting to solve a problem.
|
| When people come back to reality and choose to be grounded in
| it, that should be celebrated rather than persecuted even if
| they materially caused damage by their ignorance and lack of
| thought. Game theory requires punishment/defection against
| those who don't cooperate, but it also requires forgiveness
| for those who repent.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| I strongly disagree with your framing. Yes, policies can
| have unintended consequences and immigration policy in
| particular is a minefield of obvious solutions having
| terrible results... But that's not what we're talking
| about.
|
| When OP says "I was for wide-scale deportations until I saw
| people I like being deported", it's not a case of
| unintended consequences, it's a case of "When I voted for
| the leopard party I didn't think the leopards would eat the
| faces of people I like!"
|
| Unintended consequences means things like "criminality
| increased because immigrant communities lost trust in the
| police".
|
| But come on. "Families swept into jails, plain-clothes
| officers ambushing people on their way to work or school"
| is _how deportations work_. Being surprised by that is like
| being surprised that the death penalty means people get
| executed.
|
| This isn't a failure of epistemology, it's a failure of
| empathy. OP just didn't think that the people getting
| deported would turn out to be people with moral value.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _When I voted for the leopard party I didn 't think the
| leopards would eat the faces of people I like_
|
| This isn't a good-faith interpretation of their comment.
|
| There are plenty of illegal immigrants with a criminal
| record. Trump's pitch was to deport them. There was
| _also_ a pitch that strongly hinted at deporting
| basically anyone who isn 't white, and I think this
| appealed to the racist fifth of Americans [1], but plenty
| of people were messaged the first part with the second
| being segregated to rallies, NewsMax, Twitter, _et
| cetera_.
|
| [1] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/stories/poll-
| finds-suppo...
| ripe wrote:
| > There are plenty of illegal immigrants with a criminal
| record.
|
| I keep hearing this claim, but was there ever any proof
| of it?
|
| To be precise: is there any reason why criminals cannot
| be caught without hunting for immigrants to deport?
| stefap2 wrote:
| Good question. I still think it's unfair for these people to
| stay here, when legal refugees spent waiting years or decades
| for permission to enter often in bad conditions in refugee
| camps. The issue here is officials keep rounding up students
| on legal visas and parents who've lived here for years--
| exactly the people the article labels "families who had lived
| in the United States for years and had deep ties to their
| communities." Where are the fresh arrivals?
| low_tech_love wrote:
| So basically you came to the same conclusion as everyone
| else who is against this (and who I assume you would
| consider to be your political opponents): that even though
| it sounds good and reasonable on paper (as a populist
| concept), in practice it is invariably used for arbitrary
| exercise of power.
|
| Here is the thing: hard and complex problems require hard
| and complex solutions, but you chose to put in power the
| people who like easy solutions. I hope it's never late to
| learn a lesson.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _hard and complex problems require hard and complex
| solutions_
|
| There's actually a simple solution to illegal
| immigration: go after the employers. We don't because we
| want to have our cake and eat it too. (Same reason these
| raids aren't happening on farms in red states.)
| low_tech_love wrote:
| So, real story, I work in a university in Europe, and
| we've been told by the immigration explicitly that we
| need to increase at least 50% of rejections to
| applications from Pakistani students. Apparently they
| come with a student Visa to take a Master's degree but
| after a month or two they get a job and disappear from
| the university. And this is not desirable.
|
| The fun part is that they _are allowed to work_ with
| their student Visa, and they pay the tuition fees
| normally, which is _spicy_.
|
| So basically we have a huge gang problem right now, but
| instead of deporting gang criminals, we're deporting
| honest Pakistani young people who are actually working
| legally for the country's companies. But guess how many
| companies ever got in trouble for this?
| recursivegirth wrote:
| I think people often forget that even though these people
| came here illegally, a majority of them submit themselves
| immediately to authorities to enter into the immigration
| court. Nine out of ten times, they are just given a future
| court date and released on their on recognizance legally
| into the United States (typically with some restrictions on
| movement).
|
| Why? Because that's how the system was legally designed to
| work. You want them to stay here, because some % cases are
| valid (a lot surrender at ports of entry). So then you must
| ask yourself, what went wrong? Cartels figured out they
| could break the system by overwhelming it, yet we had a
| clear cut way to solve it.
|
| The parties politicized the topic by not doing anything
| about it... and now here we are.
|
| Question: When Obama/Biden supported legislation to hire
| more immigration judges to work through the backlog of
| cases, did you support the legislation as well?
|
| There are for more just ways to handle this. These people
| are tyrant oligarchs, and need to be treated as such.
| Today's it's "those people", tomorrow it will be "your
| people".
|
| https://immigrationimpact.com/2015/05/21/bi-partisan-
| house-b...
|
| https://www.axios.com/2024/12/31/biden-immigration-courts-
| de...
| like_any_other wrote:
| Competently? Just as DOGE isn't the only way to cut
| government waste, so are these injustices not a necessary
| component of wide-scale deportations. Most countries, of
| course, don't have to even attempt this, as they didn't
| neglect their borders for decades. We could as well blame
| this as a necessary consequence of that prior neglect, as
| payment coming due - but we won't, because we liked that
| policy, but don't like this one.
|
| We also publicize these injustices widely, but when e.g.
| Meloni released the video of a migrant committing rape, the
| whole journalistic world called it an outrage and
| impermissible (then promptly returned to plastering the
| covers with the picture of a drowned child. A treatment the
| Southport children didn't get, nor does, e.g., Bernard
| Fowler's death [1] get the "well how did you _think_
| immigration would play out? " treatment).
|
| A spin as old as time - when it's due to policies you like,
| it's all just random, isolated tragedies. When it's policies
| you don't like, it's an unavoidable, even deliberate
| consequence. You may recognize it from the "real communism
| has never been tried/free healthcare? what's next - gulags??"
| debate.
|
| [1] https://news.sky.com/story/man-given-indefinite-hospital-
| ord...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _could as well blame this as a necessary consequence of
| that prior neglect_
|
| The endgame for this policy is a Democrat President
| deporting and detaining abroad January 6th types, and other
| violent criminals on the right. (Or worse, nonviolent
| agitators.) _Habeas corpus_ predates the Magna Carta [1]
| for a reason.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Origins_in_
| Engla...
| camgunz wrote:
| I'm pretty sympathetic to people who are hawkish on
| immigration: the right's been demagoguing it for... forever?
| You hear all kinds of total bullshit like they drive down
| wages or they eat fuckin dogs or whatever.
|
| The real tragedy is that immigration is probably the reason
| we've outpaced other OECD nations in economic growth
| recently, and more to the point, immigrants almost always
| drive wages up. TL;DR: immigration is practically all upside.
|
| The second part of this is that immigration and border
| enforcement is often pretty cruel, just by nature. You're
| talking about turning kids back into some Central/South
| American social system, breaking up families, etc. You only
| hear about it now because the Trump admin perversely rejoices
| in trumpeting the cruelty, but it's only slightly more gross
| now than it usually is. Until Trump, the right used to leave
| this part out.
|
| https://www.ucdavis.edu/magazine/how-does-immigration-
| affect...
| sjducb wrote:
| Well done for changing your mind. Most people would find this
| post impossible to write.
|
| The arguments that changed your mind are important information.
| If we want to change the minds of fence sitters then focusing
| on these arguments should be the priority.
|
| You make an interesting "right-wing" case against mass
| deportation of immigrants.
|
| > This approach diverts resources from pursuing violent
| offenders, erodes faith in the rule of law, and forces the
| whole country toward a "papers-please" surveillance culture,
| where everyone must carry ever-stricter IDs.
| yibg wrote:
| This makes it sound like an unintended consequence, rather than
| the goal. "Papers please" is the desired end state.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806201
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-26 23:02 UTC)