Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacobolus | Hacker News Reader

They don’t “need to know” for reasons which are of significant practical benefit to citizens/residents.

But institutions like governments only “see” via data collection, and in general are happy to collect whatever is technically and socially feasible, and people involved in setting up databases seldom stop to think about the risks or trade-offs involved in collecting various types of data, or whether that data is meaningful or useful. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call...

View on HN

> They don’t “need to know” for reasons which are of significant practical benefit to citizens/residents.

Staying for more than six months is usually one of the main measures to determine if one is resident and should pay taxes in the country, so there is at least a very good reason (although I don't know how much this applies to the USA specifically).

Anyone who earns income working in the USA has to pay US income and payroll taxes.

you pay income tax in the country you live, not where you work (i.e. if you were employed by a US company, but working remotely in the UK, you'd pay income tax in the UK)

Any country can try to extract any tax from anyone it likes, and in general the US does.

Except if you are working for a company that is sending you to the US (your company makes the income). It's easy to argue for 2-3 weeks, harder to argue for over 2 months.

It seems to me that being opposed to someone breaking the law is not equivalent to being a sadistic xenophobe.

Finding people who rob banks at some point and punishing them is of great interest to people fearful of robbers who like disrupting robbers’ lives for no practical purpose because they gain sadistic satisfaction from cruelly exercising power over other people.

I think the robbers argument isn't directly applicable because mere physical presence without committing a crime doesn't hurt anyone -- does it? I think Congress for all its flaws agrees, as simply being present and out of status in the US isn't a criminal matter, it's civil, and congress has repeatedly, and even recently, refused to change that classification.

You punish a robber ostensibly to stop them from robbing again, lest you end up the victim of a robbery. What does being the victim of someone's unlawful presence even mean?

Their "mere physical presence" after their visa has expired is the crime.

There is nothing unique about the US in that regard. Most countries have a limit on how long you can visit.

No, it's not a criminal matter, it's a civil matter. It's illegal in the same way as parking somewhere you're not supposed to. Not everything that's illegal is a crime. "It is generally accurate that the simple act of being in the United States illegally is not, by itself, a crime. Rather, it’s a civil violation that puts the individual at risk for deportation, but not for criminal prosecution." [1]

This isn't always a good thing, of course, as there's less due process involved in handling such situations. Unlawful entry is a misdemeanor, lying to a border guard is a crime, and unlawful re-entry after deportation can be, also.

[1] https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/15/fl...

Ok, point withdrawn. Overstaying a visa is not a criminal offense. That's a new one for me. Thanks.

I think your "who is hurt" approach is weak though.

If a country can't enforce its own laws - or worse selectively enforces them - no one is obviously "hurt" but it erodes trust in the systems and process itself. It leaves everything up to the judgement of the people on the ground and damages the concept of equality under the law. It's a dangerous game to play.

Yeah, I agree with you about law enforcement, particularly selective law enforcement. It is indeed a dangerous game to play, and while definitely a left-leaning individual I just can't get behind the whole "abolish ICE" thing. I do think that immigration laws in the US are absurdly strict and I have a hard time buying the "America's Full" argument. That said, while laws exist on the books they should be enforced.

I was suggesting one has a clear victim and the other doesn't so it may not be directly comparable. The "who's hurt" question was something I'm curious the consensus answer to rather than an excuse for not enforcing the law.

> I just can't get behind the whole "abolish ICE" thing.

Not saying one way or another, but the argument is that ICE was only formed 16 years ago and that the U.S. was not 'overrun' before then. The Border Patrol etc. would still remain, just the Stasi-like tactics of removing people from their homes in the middle of the night and holding people in cages would disappear.

At least that's how I've heard the argument.

ICE was the merger of numerous things, including the INS which pre-dates WW2 making it older than the Air Force, Department of Ed, and dozens of other government agencies.

Saying "only formed 16 years ago" is only right among the "well, actually" crowd.

The problem is that a merge increases the centralization of power and the ability to abuse that power with impunity. ICE was only formed 16 years ago as this sort of centralized organization. That is different than going via multiple separate entities, each of which have their own checks and balances, oversight and even internal politics that make it less likely widespread abuse would pass all the links in the chain untamed. That is gone.

The difference in 'effectiveness' is sort of like the difference between the reach of the LAPD intelligence arm vs the CIA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com