Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimmywanger | Hacker News Reader

This article is fairly silly.

> “We refuse to participate in the creation of databases of identifying information for the United States government to target individuals based on race, religion, or national origin.”

National origin - don't you have to declare what country you were born in to visit/emigrate to the United States? This is trying to legislate intent, which fails miserably. One thing we've seen is that if the database/tool exists, it'll be used in ways that nobody had ever thought of before.

> I’m not one of the people who seriously believes that the cost of deporting millions of people will deter the Trump administration from doing it (one easy way to reduce costs: don’t deport people humanely). But history tells us that, whether you do it humanely or not, this kind of large-scale human rights abuse

I like how she goes straight from deportation to large-scale human rights abuse. If you deport illegal immigrants (regardless of national origin or faith), you're enforcing the law. Period, point blank. To stretch that into human rights abuse is far-fetched at best.

View on HN

Mass migrations of people are a huge risk factor for human rights catastrophe. The Armenian genocide started as a mass deportation.

Once you're seriously talking about uprooting millions of people, including breaking up families that have lived in the United States for decades, you create a destabilizing set of conditions you may not be able to control.

Those people need to be housed, fed, moved, put on planes or ships to wherever they're being sent. The potential for abuse and tragedy is there at every step in this process.

> I like how she goes straight from deportation to large-scale human rights abuse. If you deport illegal immigrants (regardless of national origin or faith), you're enforcing the law. Period, point black. To stretch that into human rights abuse is far-fetched at best.

So if something's legal it can never be a human rights violation?

Tell that to the Japanese people we interned in World War II.

> So if something's legal it can never be a human rights violation?

I said it was far fetched. Many legal things can be considered morally wrong but without a consensus of what's morally right or wrong, the law is what we fall back on.

What are you proposing, doing whatever feels good at the moment while ignoring the law?

Thankfully morals don't depend on what is currently popular. Of course, mass deportations are also unpopular.

I'm proposing that we don't tear families apart for no benefit.

Enforcing an unjust law can easily tip in human rights abuse; witness the various anti-Jewish laws promulgated in 1930s Germany.

Much of American immigration law is arguably unjust. Did you know that if you are taken into custody for an immigration violation, you may not be entitled to any sort of hearing for as long as 6 months? Did you know that there have been many cases involving illegal abuses of people in immigration detention? Did you know that American citizens have been wrongly reported? Also, the process of determining who is deportable is nowhere near as simple as you suggest. Not everyone who comes here illegally is deportable even under a narrow reading of the law.

It is precisely your sort of poorly-informed complacency that enables human-rights abuses to occur in the first place. Of course, maybe I've read you wrong and you're OK with some people having their rights violated, in which case further conversation is pointless.

> Enforcing an unjust law can easily tip in human rights abuse; witness the various anti-Jewish laws promulgated in 1930s Germany.

How odd, a Nazi/Hitler reference. Who'd had thought that was coming?

> Much of American immigration law is arguably unjust.

It's the implementation that needs work. The law is the law. You said yourself "illegal abuses" and "wrongly reported".

> Of course, maybe I've read you wrong and you're OK with some people having their rights violated

If you're not a citizen, you don't have rights to due process, or many other rights that citizens are entitled to. You're fighting with one hand tied behind your back. You probably shouldn't be in a country that doesn't want you.

> If you're not a citizen, you don't have rights to due process, or many other rights that citizens are entitled to.

Sigh. For the umpteenth time, the US Constitution does not stipulate that non-citizens are subhuman. The right of due process, as described in the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Note that illegal immigrants are still people. The US Constitution does not define them ipso facto as subhuman.

> nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

When you deport somebody, how exactly are you depriving them of life, liberty, or property?

They aren't inherently being deprived of due process. But that's an irrelevant distraction from the actual claim you made that I was responding to, where you said that non-citizens do not have the right of due process.

You're wrong. Point blank, you're wrong. They do have the right of due process, both by natural law and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Depends on exactly what you think liberty means I guess.

Restricting freedom of movement is certainly contrary to many definitions of liberty.

You previous response said that non-citizens were not entitled to due process. A speedy trial is part of that, under the Sixth Amendment:

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

> How odd, a Nazi/Hitler reference. Who'd had thought that was coming?

Are you... seriously... trying to be all "wuh buh Godwin's Law froggle boggle" in December Two Thousand And Sixteen?

Seriously dude bro? With all gravity pally pal? Ya mean it my man? Wow.

> You probably shouldn't be in a country that doesn't want you.

I happen to be in agreement with most Americans that people who have never known any country but the United States shouldn't be deported to countries they've never known.

How odd, a Nazi/Hitler reference. Who'd had thought that was coming?

Why shouldn't I use the best available example when it's germane? Your rhetorical flourish is a clear attempt to duck the question.

It's the implementation that needs work. The law is the law. You said yourself "illegal abuses" and "wrongly reported".

Misdirection. Not all laws are of equal significance; a person who jay-walks is a criminal, but we see a vast qualitative difference between that activity and murder, for example. Cliches like 'The law is the law' are mere tautology, and inaccurate to boot - as any lawyer will readily confirm. You seem to forget that the Constitution speaks of equity as well as law.

Wrong. Let's reread the 14th amendment to the Constitution:

'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.' (emphasis added)

Some Constitutional protections extend only to Citizens of the USA. Others extend to everyone within its jurisdiction. Would you like me to cite case law to drive home just how wrong you are?

How odd, bringing up the past to explain the present.

> National origin - don't you have to declare what country you were born in to visit/emigrate to the United States?

Yes, but once you're a citizen you certainly shouldn't have your original national origin tracked. Or that of your parents.

> To stretch that into human rights abuse is far-fetched at best.

No it is really not. Genocides almost invariable start with deportation.

Nothing in this article is about illegal immigration. For one thing, it's a wholly separate issue than the proposed Muslim database—the vast majority of Muslim-Americans are here legally.

I am so far batting .750 with my conservative friends trying to convince them that mass deportation is an issue they should be concerned with. Every one of them begins by pointing out that "illegal immigration is illegal, full stop". Here are the issues they're not immediately considering:

* For many Latino immigrants, the wait list for permanent residency is over 20 years long. The wait isn't that long because we want to restrict immigration; we broadly agree that if we drastically reduced the immigrant population in the US, the economy would suffer, because those people are staffing the meat packing plants, cleaning the hotels, working the line at practically every high-end restaurant, harvesting crops, laying bricks, and putting up tile. Rather: the 20 year wait list is simple bureaucratic cruelty: there are loud constituencies who are uneasy about formally allowing people to stay here while being totally content with allowing them to work here undocumented, so long as they're kept second-class.

* That's bad enough, but not dispositive. The real problem is that we've created the expectation that people can work here for years and years without obtaining permanent residency, and so people put down roots and then have children here. Children born in America are American citizens, full stop. We are idiosyncratic in having a Constitution that guarantees birthright citizenship, but we do, and we are a nation of laws. To deport undocumented workers with children born here is to put young American citizens in the position of having to choose between losing their parents or their home country. Pointlessly. We owe our fellow citizens better.

* A huge number (pretty much everyone agrees it's a plurality) of undocumented workers are undocumented not because they've done something wrong, but because they've somehow fallen off their visa track --- which the law makes incredibly easy to do! We put them on an untenable 20 year legal obstacle course that really requires professional representation to complete. They spend that time working and raising children. Then we punish their children for technicalities, while quietly replacing them with other Latino immigrants.

* The due process concerns about deportation are overwhelming. More than 70% of deportation cases in which the subject is represented by an immigration attorney fail --- the immigrant isn't deported. But the overwhelming majority of deportees aren't represented, because we don't guarantee counsel to people in immigration court. All we give them is a translator. If I sued you on some bogus libel charge for pissing me off on HN, how well do you think you'd do if you were denied a lawyer?

I am ultimately ambivalent about immigration enforcement. I recognize that we are in many ways more lenient than much of Europe. My objection to the big dumb wall isn't moral, it's just that it's a big dumb waste of money.

I am not ambivalent about pointlessly tearing up, or, worse, forcibly relocating families that include American citizens. There are hundreds of thousands of those. I would absolutely quit a job, refuse investment from a firm that supported, or sever ties with a client that participated in a mass deportation program that forced children to choose between their parents and their country.

> there are loud constituencies who are uneasy about formally allowing people to stay here while being totally content with allowing them to work here undocumented, so long as they're kept second-class.

If you have to get smuggled into a country without papers to live in this country and work for wages less than people who already live in the country, you sort of already have the expectation of being second class. Yet, people still come. It's a choice they make. It's not an easy choice, but still a choice.

> we are a nation of laws

and then

>To deport undocumented workers with children born here is to put young American citizens in the position of having to choose between losing their parents or their home country. Pointlessly.

The law is the point, as you said, we're a nation of laws.

> The due process concerns about deportation are overwhelming.

Due process is only a right guaranteed to citizens. Not quite sure what your point is.

That we are a nation of laws obviously does not mean we're a nation of ruthless, pointless enforcement of laws, or else we'd all be in prison for Harvey Silverglate's "Orange Juice" crimes.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...

> obviously does not mean we're a nation of ruthless, pointless enforcement of laws

That's absolutely incorrect. Cops will and can enforce laws arbitrarily. If you're an illegal immigrant, you just have less rope to play with.

If you get bored, do a search of police arrest records on how many people are charged with just "resisting arrest".

Or you can always apply that timeless advice, "only do one illegal thing at once. For instance, either drive without a license, or have a tail light out. Not both".

Immigrants already are driving metaphorically without a license.

Cops also take bribes, as I know from personal experience. But we are not a nation of bribing the cops, just as we are not a nation of ruthless, pointless enforcement of laws.

At this point I'm wondering if we actually disagree, since you seem to be agreeing that deportation of families that include citizen children would qualify as ruthless.

> deportation of families that include citizen children would qualify as ruthless.

Depends. There are several instances. Trump has gradually softened his stance on illegal immigration, basically saying now that if you keep your nose clean, you probably won't get deported.

If however the family contain family members who are violent criminals or have known gang ties? How is deporting them "ruthless"? It's self-preservation.

Deporting violent criminals isn't ruthless.

Whether or not Trump currently says he's going to do it is besides the point. That is a super common and easily disposed of objection from conservatives. If you don't think Trump is going to propose something, a pledge not to do it should be even less objectionable to Republicans.

> Deporting violent criminals isn't ruthless.

But... but... think of their children and families! Aren't they human beings too?/s

But then it comes down to a value judgement, and all laws/rules have edge cases. Should you take a generally good law, point to the edge cases, and then abolish the law?

> If you don't think Trump is going to propose something, a pledge not to do it should be even less objectionable to Republicans.

Not from a negotiating perspective. By keeping options in your pocket you're able to wrangle concessions from people.

Why do you keep making up straw man arguments? There's literally nothing in this comment that is responsive to anything I've written, or to the pledge, or to the immigration issue I brought up.

Have I not demonstrated that I'm willing to listen to you and address arguments you bring up respectfully? Is there something I said that made you feel like your best way forward was to play message board nerd games?

You're the one insulting people. "message board nerd games".

There are no strawman arguments here. San Francisco has a sanctuary city policy, blocking immigration attempts to deport people. Deporting people is not a horrible deplorable thing, as you're making it out to be. It's a fact of border enforcement.

You can make any number of arguments about families and suffering, but the fact of the matter is that people chose to immigrate illegally and raise families when they knew what the consequences could be, and now they're trying to weasel out of the consequences.

> It's a choice they make. It's not an easy choice, but still a choice.

And as for the children who never had a choice to make...?

That argument works for really any situation involving children.

Children never had choices to make when born into an alcoholic family, or in a country in a war torn third world country, and yet they still suffer. That's just sort of how life is. The children suffer based on the mistakes of their parents.

We have limited resources, and we have to decide how to partition these resources.

So because children suffer injustices, it's fine to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to deliberately cause more injustice? That can't be your argument.

> it's fine to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to deliberately cause more injustice?

To enforce the law and to prevent these injustices to happen in the future. How are you causing more injustice? That's sort of like saying "Why spend money to evict squatters in houses they don't own? They have children, and it costs money to evict them."

Childhood arrivals are not squatters!

Childhood arrivals are definitely squatters. If they're not born in the states or citizens. They're here when they shouldn't be here.

Those that were born here are citizens, and get the choice like every other citizen - move to be with their families, or stay here alone. The fact that they're children is immaterial.

I should add: it's absolutely not the case that we extend due process only to US citizens.

Add to your list of arguments the many illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children, and have lived here ever since. Where is the part where they did something morally wrong?

You're arguing with sentiment. That's on a case by case basis.

Do they have a moral right to live in the United States? Probably not.

Should we let them stay? Depends on how we feel. It's not up to them anymore.

How do we make decisions about these things if not based on some set of principles? What's the logic we'd use to deport someone brought here as an infant, who has known no other country but ours? What possible benefit could accrue to use to offset the harm we'd be doing? What's the point?

That the law doesn't mandate an entitlement to permanent residency for undocumented immigrants brought here as children does not mean that we should be arbitrary about making these decisions.

> What's the logic we'd use to deport someone brought here as an infant, who has known no other country but ours?

We should not try to help clean up other peoples' mistakes. If you bring a newborn illegally into a country where they should not be, you're accepting the consequences not just for yourself, but the baby.

The point is not we're deporting the baby, we're deporting the whole family and trying to deter future illegal immigration.

Again: I am not talking about newborns brought here illegally. I am talking about birthright citizens of the United States, owed all the same rights and protections as any other citizen.

You're the one that said "brought here as an infant", not "born in the United States".

And those babies born here have the same rights and protections. Either move to another country because your family is there or stay here without your family. Those are the rights that all citizens have.

> Do they have a moral right to live in the United States? Probably not.

Yes, they do. Everyone has a moral right not to be deported to somewhere they've never known, especially if it tears up families in the process, extra especially if it's ultimately just for bureaucratic reasons.

> Everyone has a moral right not to be deported to somewhere they've never known.

That's the exact same argument people who live in any rapidly gentrifying neighborhood make. You do NOT have the moral right to live whereever you want, even if it's the only place you know.

Fundamentally you live where you can afford and it's legal for you to live. You don't have the rights to any piece of land unless you have a deed, and even then, eminent domain can trump your rights.

1. Out-of-control housing prices are also a moral problem. That's why it's such a hot-button issue, after all. The difference is that the housing market is a tough issue to solve, while the prospect of mass deportations is a very easy issue to solve: don't start mass deportations.

2. We're not talking about having to move across town. We're talking about being deported to a country you've never known. Being forcibly separated from your friends and family. Being unable to even visit them due to the mandatory 10-year ban on entering the United States after being deported.

And again, since you mention legality, it was illegal for Japanese-Americans to live in their homes during World War II. Yet they had a right to do so.

> don't start mass deportations.

Hah. You're already confusing mass deportation as a moral problem, rather than a legal and policy problem. Should illegal immigrants be deported en masse? Should criminals be incarcerated en mass?

> We're talking about being deported to a country you've never known.

You're talking about children who were born in the states? They have a choice. Either stay in the states or go with their parents to another country. It's up to them, just like it's up to any other citizen. The children are not forced to leave.

The difference between moving from Wicker Park to Garfield Park and moving from Wicker Park to Tegucigalpa is not merely one of degree.

Three questions:

1) Donald Trump has called for keeping a database of Muslims, to surveil and police them. Do you recognize the truth of this statement?

2) Is it bad and oppressive to target a stigmatized minority religious group for government surveillance and policing?

3) Are software engineers morally obligated to not implement oppressive policies? Or is whatever they do justified, so long as it came as an order from above?

> 1) Donald Trump has called for keeping a database of Muslims, to surveil and police them.

The problem is that all that information already exists. Google and Facebook know everyone's religion (and ethnicity and so forth). And as Snowden revealed, the government can get access to those databases.

And you can be sure they already do so specifically for Muslim people, for terrorism intel purposes.

If the author of the piece were serious, we would need to start by getting Google and Facebook to remove that information. Or stop working with the government. Or stop working at those companies until they do. But the author realizes that is something people wouldn't accept, I guess, and suggests we "not help create a new database" which just a meaningless distraction.

There's still a world of difference between the government actively maintaining a database of Enemies of the State, and the government having to extract that information from at best neutral, and often hostile third parties.

That said, it certainly behooves Facebook and Google to be thoughtful about what data they keep in a form easily accessible to the government.

I don't see a world of difference. The government gets that information either way. Once Google and Facebook has it, it can be retrieved by the government through both legal and non-legal mechanisms. Again, we know this happens, Snowden showed us.

The only option is for Google and Facebook to not have that information in the first place. That's just not going to happen - there is tons of financial value in knowing people's religion, ethnicity, etc. etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com