Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by tomrod | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

tomrod

> Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed.

I'll bite.

Why not?

We let capital typically move freely. Why shouldn't people be as free to move as money?

View on HN

I think movement is pretty free for people that can demonstrate they would be net-positive to the country they're moving to. I don't really see why movement should be free for anyone who would be net-negative. It's true that demonstrating the ability =/= having the ability, and I think most systems could be improved to filter for that better, but I don't think that's significantly affecting America's immigration process. It isn't very hard to get an O1/E1 visa, or at least a student visa, if you're decent in your subject area.

Money doesn't consume physical resources the way people do.

Uncontrolled immigration will overconsume whatever resources the country has, and infrastructure can't increase as quickly as unabated immigration. Things like rent will skyrocket and resources like water, sewage, hospitals, schools, etc. will get overconsumed without the ability to increase it quick enough. It will make the country worse very quickly.

Let's look at it at a more local level. If somebody wants to move into your house without permission, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

My house is not a sovereign state, and a sovereign state is not a house. I reject this argument by analogy as a logical fallacy (and more to the point, overly reductive, since my household's action space is drastically different from and mostly smaller than a sovereign state's action space).

A better analogy would be city to city moves, and as far as I am aware the aggregate percent of immigration inflow falls below far below domestic inflow for areas the most growth. Texas adds about a new large city (~130k) per year with net domestic migration. So clearly there are enough regional resources to support movement of individuals.

Wherein is the friction? Utilization of the social safety net? Given that undocumented immigrants are cut off from almost all social services outside very basic ones like access to public schools, for which their rent and sales tax payments are likely to cover (unless in an oddball state like Ohio or Pennsylvania). They aren't getting healthcare except by the extreme standards that we force individuals to go to the ED for basic medical care if they are indigent.

Obviously there are differences, but it is still a fine analogy.

If I own property I can determine who can use it. I live in a democracy so I own my country as well. It is shared with others, but a house could also have split ownership. If you have split ownership on a house you have to come to an agreement on who can come into the house. Why is a country any different?

It is not just about using resources. If somebody broke into my house and just lived there, but didn't use any food or bandaids I would not be thrilled with it. While it is better than if they used my resources I don't want somebody I don't know in my house.

I have the exact same standard with my country. I don't want anybody who hasn't been documented in the country. If you are born here you get a birth certificate and you haven't committed any crimes. If you come here, I want to have some level of knowledge, like if you are a criminal or are carrying the plague.

Your analogy to a city doesn't apply because a city doesn't have sovereignty. It cannot stop people from coming into it like you can with a country or house. If you think it acceptable to break down the sovereignty of a country, then there is no reason why I can't do the same to houses.

We have a globally accepted idea on this, so the burden is on you why we need to destroy it.

> Your analogy to a city doesn't apply because a city doesn't have sovereignty. It cannot stop people from coming into it like you can with a country or house. If you think it acceptable to break down the sovereignty of a country, then there is no reason why I can't do the same to houses.

> We have a globally accepted idea on this, so the burden is on you why we need to destroy it.

Per sister comment to yours, we don't have a "globally accepted idea" as states (which do have sovereignty, unlike both homes and most cities) offer benefits to undocumented immigrants, suggesting that by way of policy they are okay with different standards of immigration. If two people arguing for the same policy disagree completely on the internal consistency in supporting their argument, this suggests that the argument lacks coherence.

I continue to reject that the analogy of a home has useful equivalence to a sovereign state regarding immigration on grounds that it is a logical fallacy.

Almost everybody agrees that a state can determine who can enter and how long they can be there. Homes are similar because almost everybody agrees that the owner can determine the same thing.

When 99.99% of people agree on the similarity of two different things then the burden is on the 0.01% to prove the alternative.

If you refuse to make a coherent argument other than they are not identical then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

> Given that undocumented immigrants are cut off from almost all social services outside very basic ones like access to public schools, for which their rent and sales tax payments are likely to cover (unless in an oddball state like Ohio or Pennsylvania). They aren't getting healthcare except by the extreme standards that we force individuals to go to the ED for basic medical care if they are indigent.

This is patently false, and goes to show you don't understand the issue at all. They have tremendous benefits. In New York State, they constitutionally are required to give housing and support, which is why you hear of stories of illegal aliens getting hotel rooms, gift cards, and cell phones.

Undocumented immigrants in California can apply for health plans through Covered California and may be eligible for certain public benefits. However, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for certain federally funded programs.

Health coverage Covered California: Individuals can apply through Covered California to see if they are eligible for a health plan.

Public benefits CalFresh: Food assistance

CalWORKs: Cash assistance for people with children

County Adult Assistance Programs (CAAP): Cash assistance for individuals without dependents

Medi-Cal: Health insurance

Legal resources Bay Area Legal Aid Free Advice Hotline: (800) 551-5554 National Immigration Legal Services Directory: A resource for immigration legal assistance

Know your rights

California law prohibits law enforcement from asking about a person's immigration status for immigration enforcement purposes.

> This is patently false, and goes to show you don't understand the issue at all. They have tremendous benefits. In New York State, they constitutionally are required to give housing and support, which is why you hear of stories of illegal aliens getting hotel rooms, gift cards, and cell phones.

The solutions being pushed are federal. Federal is intended to guard border, but it sounds like some states are fine with providing benefits. So is the friction with states exercising their rights to provide services to people in their borders, or with the provision of federal benefits?

Maybe I've lost the bead here, does the current administration support more or less federalism?

You said that illegal immigrants weren't getting any services and weren't getting health services. Do you admit that you were wrong?

We have plenty of controls on money movements. Immigrants who are financially self-sufficient can come here to visit quite easily and freely. They just can't take up jobs. We even let them buy up land, which many countries disallow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com