Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tallain | Hacker News Reader

When I read "the immigration system is broken," I don't think of the arduous process of filing paperwork. I highly doubt GP was whining about the difficult and time-consuming process of filling out reams of paperwork, especially considering the context of the rest of their post where they talked about exploiting loopholes and the letter of the law to abuse the system. Context is important! No matter how high your horse is.

In any case, the instant you fall just a little outside the prescribed lines is when things start to get hairy. Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached.

View on HN

>especially considering the context of the rest of their post where they talked about exploiting loopholes and the letter of the law to abuse the system.

I didn't read the original post that way. If the poster stayed within the rules and—more importantly—immigration officials agreed with his interpretation of the rules, who am I to gainsay their decisions? To put another way, this is why my response was to hn_throwaway_99's comment, not to the original post itself.

>Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached.

Again, you are coming at this from the perspective that something like DACA must exist, and therefore ought to be improved/eased/etc. The a priori argument that a country must accept refugees, and the only answer to the question of "How many?" is "As many as possible". This is the same entitled line of thinking as hn_throwaway_99's declaration that a complex system with many moving parts that operate over a long period of time must therefore be "broken", with the implication that the "fix" must be to make it as close to a one-button process as possible.

The 1951 UNHCR convention [1] would like to disagree that only an entitled line of thinking presupposes rights of refugees.

[1] https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-co...

The entitled line of thinking is that everyone who comes from a country where things are shitty is a "refugee". That's the problem with the way this discussion is framed.

1. They didn't say ANY refugees in the country is entitled thinking. They meant as MANY as possible is entitled. Wich is a reasonable take.

2. Also, just because a UNHCR convention says it, doesn't mean it isn't entitled. (I would say the UN is an exemplar of entitlement. The US provides the largest budget while countries like China get an equal vote in vetoing.)

3. Everyone coming illegally is either a) a refugee, b) an economic migrant or c) a threat. Every country has the right to a reasonable process to determine which bucket someone falls into. Even the 1951 convention you linked allows for that. The US's process is actually less onereous than the EU's. The EU won't grant you asylum if you come through a safe country. The US has no such concept. You can be a single military aged male from China but you will still be validly considered for asylum just like a child or 80 year old from Afghanistan.

> In any case, the instant you fall just a little outside the prescribed lines is when things start to get hairy. Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be.

DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no? So even if that subsystem is inconsistent, unreliable, or totally nonfunctional, it wouldn't be a reason to say the system as a whole is broken.

> Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached.

Refugee status is meant to be a last resort for people who flee in fear for their lives. For people who legitimately need it, it's ok if the process is slow or unclear as long as it's safe (frankly, the process of granting refugee status should be slow and cautious; if the system allows economic migrants to gain an advantage by claiming a refugee status that they're not entitled to, that makes the whole system worse for everyone). The system would only be broken if legitimate refugees were getting sent back into places where their lives were in danger.

> DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no? So even if that subsystem is inconsistent, unreliable, or totally nonfunctional, it wouldn't be a reason to say the system as a whole is broken.

Let me make sure I understand the point I think you're trying to make. Because people with DACA status were in violation of the law at some point in their lives, it's acceptable to thrust upon them a broken system? So, they deserve it? I just want to be sure because it sounds like you're saying it's acceptable for this system to mistreat or otherwise neglect a subset of people because reasons.

Setting aside the fact that DACA status is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, namely, people brought to this country as children at a time in their lives when they could not have known what was happening let alone had the agency to say, "hey wait, have you tried the normal way to immigrate into this country, mom and / or dad?"

The point I was trying to make with DACA is that the system is broken, not because of long wait times for paperwork, but because at any point the entire thing can be taken away. DACA status has been threatened multiple times. Imagine living a life you didn't ask for, not native to the land in which you live, and not native to the one you were forcibly taken from, and living under the shadow of the threat of being forcibly taken back to a strange country. That's one part of the system that is fundamentally broken, and because these people are "in violation of the law", they deserve it?

The machine doesn't work unless the parts do. Or to quote Solomon Burke, if "one of us are chained, none of us are free."

It's easy to dismiss a single piece that doesn't impact your life directly. "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!"

But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own. It's this contentment with injustice elsewhere that's utterly infuriating and really shines a light on the privilege of some on this forum.

Not even going to touch the "economic migrant" bit. Sounds a little too close to a dog whistle to me. Not even sure why I felt the need to engage this much.

> "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!" But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own.

This is the thing that really gets me. There's all this hand-wringing about how people in the country illegally should just accept that they did it "the wrong way", and oops, well, I guess that means they're not worthy of being treated as a human with wants and needs and dreams anymore. Because what, they crossed an imaginary line on the ground someone drew, in a way that didn't match up with the rules a bunch of out-of-touch people decided on? Not just out-of-touch, but people who actively use immigration reform (or the lack thereof) as a political weapon.

It's so easy for someone (such as myself) who was born in the US, whose family has been in the US for generations, to just not get what a big deal all this is. I will likely never have to worry about feeling unsafe in my own country, feeling like I have absolutely no opportunity to house, clothe, and feed myself. And if I did, I'd still have options! I know it can be hard for some of us to try on the shoes of someone who believes that the only way for them (and their family) to have a future is to pack up whatever they can carry and risk their lives to "sneak" into another country where they will have better chances. But I really wish people would show more sympathy and empathy toward people in that situation.

>actively use immigration reform (or the lack thereof) as a political weapon.

You criticize this but then do the exact same thing. You try to manipulate the reader by stating that if you don't agree with your view point they lack sympathy. This is exactly what politicians do.

Read the reply above yours that states facts and law, there is no politics, manipulation or appeals for sympathy.

> Let me make sure I understand the point I think you're trying to make. Because people with DACA status were in violation of the law at some point in their lives, it's acceptable to thrust upon them a broken system? So, they deserve it? I just want to be sure because it sounds like you're saying it's acceptable for this system to mistreat or otherwise neglect a subset of people because reasons.

Not "at some point in their lives". DACA is for people who are remaining in the country in continual violation of the law. Short of human rights violations like torture, it's acceptable for any system that permits them to remain in the country despite the illegality of their presence to be "broken", because the very existence of any such system is supererogatory.

> The point I was trying to make with DACA is that the system is broken, not because of long wait times for paperwork, but because at any point the entire thing can be taken away. DACA status has been threatened multiple times. Imagine living a life you didn't ask for, not native to the land in which you live, and not native to the one you were forcibly taken from, and living under the shadow of the threat of being forcibly taken back to a strange country. That's one part of the system that is fundamentally broken, and because these people are "in violation of the law", they deserve it?

What I would call "broken" is a system where you can do an end run around all our immigration laws by breaking them a day before your (claimed) 16th birthday. Yes, bad parents can place their children in an arbitrarily awful position, but there are any number of other ways they can do that; it's not the state's responsibility to pick up the pieces (and making it so creates perverse incentives) outside exceptional circumstances like orphans/foundlings (who I believe do have a path to citizenship).

> It's easy to dismiss a single piece that doesn't impact your life directly. "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!"

> But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own. It's this contentment with injustice elsewhere that's utterly infuriating and really shines a light on the privilege of some on this forum.

I'd say that applies double to the wealthy PMC who promote illegal immigration because it doesn't hurt them.

> DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no?

Are you really going to try to tell me that a 2-year-old who was brought to the US by their parents and then stayed here into adulthood was "in violation of the law"?

While I agree that DACA isn't representative of common situations US immigrants (legal and illegal) end up in, I think it's a fine illustration of how our immigration system is broken. If we can't even find a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship for people in that situation (not to mention the constant threat of DACA being scrapped entirely if political winds change), who have only ever known the US as a home... well, it's pretty easy to question the rest of the system then.

> Refugee status is meant to be a last resort for people who flee in fear for their lives

I think you underestimate the quantity of political persecution outside the US. Remember that this isn't just prominent public figures who have tried to stand up against an oppressive regime and failed. Any average citizen in a situation like that could end up in a precarious situation like that. And political persecution is just one reason someone might fear for their lives to the point where they believe they need to leave their country.

But really, we don't need to limit ourselves to DACA or refugees to find serious issues with the US immigration system. The H1-B visa is broken; it's gamed by "consulting" companies to mint modern-day indentured servants. The green card process is ridiculous; imagine applying for permanent residency and being told that the wait time meant you'd get it after you were dead, just because you were born in a particular country, not because of anything else about you that actually matters.

> Are you really going to try to tell me that a 2-year-old who was brought to the US by their parents and then stayed here into adulthood was "in violation of the law"?

Yes? Why would you argue otherwise?

> Are you really going to try to tell me that a 2-year-old who was brought to the US by their parents and then stayed here into adulthood was "in violation of the law"?

Yes. You can blame their parents for giving them an upbringing unsuited to their citizenship, but that doesn't make their position any more legitimate. It's no different from a child raised in a mafia family, who was brought up to break the law before they even knew they were doing so, for whom criminality is the only way they know to live - we don't hold them responsible for their crimes from back when they were too young to know what they were doing, but we do expect them to stop.

> I think you underestimate the quantity of political persecution outside the US. Remember that this isn't just prominent public figures who have tried to stand up against an oppressive regime and failed. Any average citizen in a situation like that could end up in a precarious situation like that. And political persecution is just one reason someone might fear for their lives to the point where they believe they need to leave their country.

I don't see how any of that changes what I wrote? Yes, there may be any number of reasons someone might end up in legitimate fear for their lives. But either they are genuinely fleeing for their lives (for whatever reason) or they are not refugees.

Thank you, said it better than I would have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com