Hacker News Reader

> Keep reading.

I did.

> The problem seems to be driven by undocumented workers crossing the border. There are a lot of dangerous second order effects from having a porous border and this is one of them.

Ok? They are still children. Child exploitation is not an immediate downstream effect of having illegal immigration. It is a downstream effect of having an exploitative system.

> It's also interesting how they talk about it. "crossed the border". You won't find Mexico, undocumented or migrant in the rest of the text.

Yeah probably because the exploitation of children is much more disconcerting than people overstaying their visas or escaping violence. I think the only benefit that the added context would be to segue into arguing for stronger protections for undocumented laborers.

> Without a careful reading you'd think these are lower middle class American's sending their children to coal mines

Again, I don't care if it is undocumented migrant children or middle class Americans. I don't understand why you think this context would change the impression the article is going to give on readers.

I feel like the point you are trying to make is that "It's only the exploitation of people who came here illegally, so it's no big deal."

> Child exploitation is not an immediate downstream effect of having illegal immigration. It is a downstream effect of having an exploitative system.

I disagree. You have people outside of the system. It's hard to pass a law that protects these people because they are outside of the legal system by being undocumented

> people overstaying their visas or escaping violence.

Most of the people that are caught up in this situation came without a visa so please don't conflate the two.

> I feel like the point you are trying to make is that "It's only the exploitation of people who came here illegally, so it's no big deal."

Quite the opposite. I'm saying that pretending like having open borders and having all these undocumented workers and turning the blind eye necessary leads to exploration. And this includes exploitation of children. It's not humane to just pretend there isn't a problem. This is the same logic that thinks it's compassionate to let mentally ill people sleep on the streets and self medicate

They aren't outside of the legal system, labor laws don't discriminate by immigration status. They know that if they seek redress under those laws, they will be punished under others.

The system prioritizes immigration enforcement over the rights & safety of workers and children. The system chooses not to protect them. Other choices are possible here don't pretend this is the inevitable & only outcome there could be.

For example we could easily give temporary immigration amnesty to victims of alleged crimes. Instead we have ICE camped out at family court, companies like this using the threat of deportation to keep their exploited workers in line. To the point of using child labor. Look at what you are defending here.

Couldn't have said it better.

> It's hard to pass a law that protects these people because they are outside of the legal system by being undocumented

It's really not. Don't deport people who file labor complaints. You can protect undocumented workers quite easily.

> Most of the people that are caught up in this situation came without a visa so please don't conflate the two.

I don't care if they came without a visa or overstayed a visa or literally walked across the border. I think borders are arbitrary and see very little difference anyways.

> I'm saying that pretending like having open borders and having all these undocumented workers and turning the blind eye necessary leads to exploration.

You are claiming something to be inherent when it is not. Illegal immigration does not create exploitation. Threat of deportation creates exploitation. If the threat of employer retaliation didn't exist, if illegal immigrants were educated about our labor laws, there would not be as much exploitation. It's really simple, I feel that you are being obtuse.

> This is the same logic that thinks it's compassionate to let mentally ill people sleep on the streets and self medicate

Nobody thinks it is compassionate to "let" people live on the streets, they just don't think cops should forcibly remove the homeless. Compassion would be giving them housing and treatment, but you wont see many "liberals" supporting free no strings attached housing.

If by self-medicating you mean harm reduction by giving opioid addicts heroin then I wouldn't say that is compassionate, just the bare minimum. When the alternative is them overdosing on fent or dying from withdrawals.

I think you haven't really thought very hard about these things because your arguments are very tired and simplistic. The answer is not more cruelty, nor is it the half-measures you see in San Francisco or Seattle or whatever. The policy solutions are pretty simple and are supported by empirical evidence in many countries and case studies.

You quoted earlier: "are permitted to remain in the U.S. and are remanded to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, which delivers them as quickly as possible to a sponsor"

Which means that they are not "outside of the system", and not without documentation (as minor-aged asylum seekers).

The problem seems to be driven by undocumented workers crossing the border.

No, as always (and from basic physic, as it were): what it's driven by is greed, and a lack of oversight. And to some extent, it may be a negative side effect of the rising minimum wage in some states. The undocumented workers, are just following the path of least resistance -- and are getting sucked in over the border, in response to these forces.

Remember, by themselves they are essentially powerless -- and the very opposite of a "driving force" for anything in this picture,

"basic physics"

Why the blame the kids and not the companies?

Like how was it easily determined that these children working for this company were working without permits?

You left out the part where the government is trafficking them to the "sponsors."

Wouldn't regulating the companies protect the children from the harsh environments regardless of the intentions of their sponsors?