Comment by big_chungus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by big_chungus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It walks like a duck and talks like a duck.

Nope. It's so, so different; you clearly know absolutely nothing about what actual concentration camps looked like.

> due to terrible living conditions south of the border they were indirectly forced there.

That's debatable, but why is is the job of America to hold every displaced guy on two continents?

> People are starving to death in these camps.

Source? The only deaths of which I have heard are as a result of days of dehydration and malnutrition after many days of hiking through blazing-hot desert beforehand.

> they should be held in humane conditions.

There are about 4,200 who seek asylum at ports of entry. Where do you propose to put 4,200 people in "humane conditions"? Who should shoulder the burden of that cost?

> Take some of the money you're burning up every day and spend it here instead

We're already running a massive deficit for the year. I agree there are stupid things the government does, but hell will freeze over before either side of our political system cuts spending.

This is a very hard situation, to handle this many people per month. For quite some time, the dems wouldn't even pass strictly-humanitarian money to fund better conditions. It takes time to put up that much infrastructure, especially in these somewhat-remote places. I think we have similar end goals (letting good people become Americans legally), I just think I'd disagree with how to go about it. Also, "concentration camps" is a ridiculous term for these facilities.

> why is is the job of America to hold every displaced guy on two continents?

Because of this:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It's the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. The US decided, long ago, that we'd be a haven for people of other countries who are being persecuted or who otherwise want a better life.

If we don't want to do that anymore, I suggest we tear down the Statue and replace it with a closed gate.

Besides that, we've been meddling in the affairs of Central and South America for decades with mostly-disastrous effect on their economies and political systems. Accepting refugees would be a small step toward acknowledging and working to right that wrong.

>It's the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. The US decided, long ago

The US absolutely never decided that, and certainly not at that time. That inscription was put there by wealthy New York liberals, and it certainly did not reflect the feelings of the majority of the people at the time. In fact in the decades that followed, the people of the United States instituted strong immigration restrictions, which by the way were specifically designed until 1965 so that they would not alter the national origin demographics of the country, so the American people at the time obviously did not want tens of millions of people from poor third world countries pouring in.

>Besides that, we've been meddling in the affairs of Central and South America for decades with mostly-disastrous effect on their economies and political systems.

Their ancestors before them went to war against other groups and took their land and resources. Something tells me they didn't feel particularly bad about it.

> Their ancestors before them went to war against other groups and took their land and resources. Something tells me they didn't feel particularly bad about it.

That's... not really relevant to the point being made.

At the end of the day, I'm tired of trying to advocate for the idea that you should care about other people. Especially if it doesn't cost you anything! Which, as it turns out, is actually the case for most kinds of immigration, despite what loads of unsupported FUD would like people to believe.

>That's... not really relevant to the point being made.

Of course it is. We don't owe them anything any more than they owe the victims of their ancestors' pillaging, which is nothing.

>At the end of the day, I'm tired of trying to advocate for the idea that you should care about other people.

Presumably you are discovering that people have their own problems to deal with, and don't always feel like being lectured about how they should put the problems of the rest of the world first.

>Which, as it turns out, is actually the case for most kinds of immigration, despite what loads of unsupported FUD would like people to believe.

It's actually not the case if you're a tax payer. More than 60% of households headed by an immigrant use some form of welfare.

That's money those taxpayers could otherwise have used to pay for their own children, and maybe could've afforded to have more.

It's also not the case if you're a low or medium skilled worker.

It is the case if you're a wealthy business owner who benefits from cheap labor or a highly skilled worker in a field that's not greatly affected by an influx in labor.

I agree with you in principle one-hundred percent. However, at the time that was written, there was one key difference: entitlements. Once the government started taking on the burden of providing a safety net, we lost the ability to admit every one. This was somewhat mitigated in the twentieth century by the sponsor system, but this is gone now, too.

I wish we could let every one come here and make himself successful, but I don't foresee entitlement spending ever gong any where but down. I don't take the position of limiting immigration for idealistic reasons, but because there is a limit on how many resources we have.

Just curious: do you think it's also a ridiculous term to use to describe Japanese-American internment camps?

I'm not the OP, but I think that would at least be a closer comparison, although what the Japanese-Americans went through was still a somewhat worse transgression, as they were by and large citizens. It would also be a good reminder of what happens when you let the government infringe upon natural rights enumerated by the constitution.

I get that there is a legal and constitutional distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but the idea that a non-citizen is (ethically) less entitled to basic human rights simply because they're not "one of us" is just disgusting to me.

> That's debatable, but why is is the job of America to hold every displaced guy on two continents?

You have room and you're partly responsible for why they're displaced?

> Where do you propose to put 4,200 people in "humane conditions"? Who should shoulder the burden of that cost?

The shuttered Trump Plaza has 900 rooms according to Wikipedia, two bunk-beds to a room and that's 3600 people in that building alone. Finding room for the remaining 600 can't be that difficult I'd imagine.

The people of the United States should shoulder the burden of that cost. Tax the rich even 1% more than you do now and you could build a new Trump Plaza every year if you wanted to.

Sweden found room for 80,000 Syrian refugees that all arrived within a span of ~12 months (6600 people per month), and we're a nation of 10 million people.

The US is supposed to be the greatest nation on Earth. Figure it out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com