Hacker News Reader

Comment by lol214365 | Hacker News Reader

The ACLU has completely deviated from their declared mission -- protecting civil liberties -- in recent weeks.

The ACLU opposes a border wall. Who's civil liberties are violated by a border wall?

The ACLU opposes the immigration and refugee EO. Who's civil liberties are violated by foreign nationals not being permitted into the United States?

View on HN

They literally tell you.

Border wall: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-c...

One of dozens of articles on the refugee EO: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trump-begins-his-unco...

These pages are both grossly biased and intellectually dishonest. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible to impute motive from action, it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations.

I've historically supported the ACLU's mission, but right now they are showboating for donations and that plan is working out great for them which means we can expect them to double down on the strategy. It's no secret that a significant portion of political activism and fund-raising is just skinning suckers. The right ran the same scam on its constituents during the Obama years.

"it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations."

I haven't heard one single reasonable explanation for why the US taxpayers should put $15 BILLION (before budget overflows and deadline pushbacks) into this wall. Until it is remotely justifiable, a knee-jerk monument to collective racism and xenophobia is ALL it is.

Starting a trade war with Mexico so we can say they paid for it though creative accounting will hurt our economy and cost the working class much more than a simple crackdown on employers exploiting illegal immigrants.

Considering you can find Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama and various other Democrats calling for secure borders and barriers of various sorts throughout the years...

It wasn't racism and xenophobic when it was called for then... Bill got a standing ovation from both sides when he made his speech...

What's changed about wanting those things?

100% my opinion here, but based on what I've read and heard so far a physical wall is a terrible way to actually prevent illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants arrive legally but just remain illegally.

But you know what a big wall is? A symbol. It's my opinion that the purpose of the wall is not to actually 'secure our borders' but to act as a symbol that those to the south are not as welcome as before.

Leaving the $15 BILLION aside for now, are you able to see any reason for having a wall at all?

that justification is very weak re the border wall. we can argue that it is a dumb way to do things. but if that was the case then everything the gov does needs an ACLU lawsuit.

the constitution does not guarantee open-borders and the entire immigration system is there to act as a virtual wall in the first place. So I fail to understand the ACLU's position on the wall. It definitely has nothing to do with constitutional issues

Both articles just say "unconstitutional" and say "racist" a bunch of times without citing statute or case law. Sorry if I don't find such arguments compelling.

Green card holding permanent residents of the US who were denied entry without due process are having their civil liberties violated. Everyone who was detained by CBP explicitly in illegal violation of the order of a federal judge had their civil liberties violated. Those parts of the order were rescinded because it was obviously illegal, but their rights were still denied.

That's the easiest, inarguable example.

What procedural guarantees are permanent residents guaranteed under US law, that these people were not granted when they were denied entry, ie. what is 'due process' in the context of entry for permanent residents?

That question matters if you want to gauge the chances for a successful appeal in court.

Whether completely upending the lives of longterm residents without any prior warning is something that should be allowed to happen in a country is at least in part a moral question, and surely the ACLU is well within it's rights to answer that in the negative; nor, I dare say, would that answer seem very foreign to the average decent person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com