Hacker News Reader

Comment by remotecool | Hacker News Reader

If I get arrested for drunk driving and I am in jail and separated from my kids, I wouldn't really blame the police for separating a family.

I really wish there was more personal responsibility in this world.

View on HN

DUI/DWI is a felony in most places in the US.

Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. Seeking asylum in the US is not a crime.

If it were about "personal responsibility", people wouldn't be hyperventilating about brown people coming to work for shit pay. People like you wouldn't be devising rationalizations not to feel responsible for their government separating children from parents and keeping those children and parents in cages while denying them sufficient medical care and basic hygiene supplies.

I'm not responsible and will never feel responsible for a person risking their life and families life to come to the US illegally, when there are ways to come here legally.

It's a personal choice to put yourself and your family at such risk.

The GOP wants more funding for facilities, but The Democrats are using it for political gain because they want open borders (and can now point to horrible conditions and blame the current administration).

Many children are separated from parents because molesters and criminals were bringing children over and claiming them as their own, only to go through continued abuse later on.

This policy started during the Obama administration and makes sense.

As for your remark about 'cages'? It's this sort of hyperbole that doesn't help the situation.

> when there are ways to come here legally

1. Refuges are always legally here. 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXqnRMU1fTs

"Open border" is a meaningless term here, because no one, not a single member of Congress, wants unrestricted borders.

There is not a single Republican member of Congress who wants a closed border - "closed" meaning that no one at all is legally allowed to enter the US.

Which means that all members of Congress want open borders.

I think even intelligent people become deluded by emotion and politics devoid of reason sometimes.

Especially given that political posturing has if anything hindered efforts to improve conditions for illegal migrants being held at the border.

The people pushing the message of "evil ICE" know that it's actually about personal responsibility. That's not the point, though; the point is advancing the progressive no-borders agenda.

You know how I keep my kids protected? By not crossing multiple countries' borders with my children, ignoring international asylum law (must seek asylum in the first country you come to), and obeying the law in my jurisdiction.

> You know how I keep my kids protected?

I'm guessing if you could move them out of a violent, dangerous country, and into a much safer (and more economically stable) country, you would risk quite a bit to get them there. Sorry, I get the personal responsibility angle, but your comment comes off as deeply disingenuous.

It is also disingenuous to pretend all of Latin America is a dangerous cesspool of crime and murder, unfit to live in, and the US is the sole shining beacon of safety and prosperity. People are so quick to point out how very wrong Trump was to call them 'shithole countries', but immediately adopt that position when it's time to justify increased immigration.

It's perfectly congruent if the people seeking a better life through (risky) emigration are distinct from the people for whom their home country is safe and economically viable. Not being in their shoes I'm not qualified to make the call as to whether seeking a life in the U.S. is the right move or not. Still, I suspect that the disparity in demand implies a better quality of life in the U.S. without needing to refer to any collection of places as a shithole.

I don't think all of Latin America is a cesspool. But much of Mexico and central America is absolutely dangerous and after living on the border, I know of many people with first hand experience in the matter.

Re: Trump -- there is a difference between recognizing a reality and publicly insulting an entire region. People were harsh on him for those comments because it bought us nothing (politically) but did damage our reputation, and encourage despotic supporters (e.g. anti-American nationalists) in the region. For what gain?

Even so, ICE should strive to enforce the border more humanely.

A "no-borders agenda" is far from a mainstream progressive agenda.

I mean, "progressive" is a very broad label, and I'm sure there are some in favor of it. But that's like saying that the conservative agenda is to invade Cuba.

Name one member of Congress, or progressive with significant political power, who is pushing a "no-borders agenda".

Or, most Western European countries are far more progressive than the US, and even there there's no big movement for taking down the Schengen border.

Crossing the border between Maine and Canada used to be trivial. But the 1960s US was hardly a "no-borders" country.

Have you considered having a government that doesn't go to other countries and attempt to subvert or bomb them into submission in contravention of its own founding principles, only to turn around and complain about the refugee crises of its own creation?

They tried - a big chunk of Trumps platform was isolationism. The military-industrial complex pushing foreign meddling, and people calling for less immigration, are not the same.

> the point is advancing the progressive no-borders agenda.

HN isn't really the place to share conspiracy theories that are completely unhinged from reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com