Hacker News Reader

Comment by ap99 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I think a lot of people believe that there ought to be a statute of limitations on immigration; if you've been peacefully living and working in the country for many years, what's the actual public purpose of deporting someone? Including breaking up a family?

The purpose of deporting them is the same as punishing any other crime: to disincentivize committing it.

Immigration is arguably even more important to enforce in this manner because of the clear-cut legal alternative.

> Immigration is arguably even more important to enforce in this manner because of the clear-cut legal alternative.

We're talking about an immigration policy that is now rounding people up at their legal immigration appointments. This is not about maintaining a legal alternative, and to argue that it is feels disingenuous.

Under expedited removal, an established legal process, these undocumented immigrants are being deported, and are free to pursue their asylum claim in the meantime.

It’s disingenuous to argue that they have any more right to be here than any other undocumented immigrant, just because they happened to be detained at a courthouse.

The “laws must be enforced, back the blue” folks voted in a convicted felon - exempting him from sentencing! - who then pardoned hundreds of people who assaulted cops on his behalf.

Spare me.

Given two choices, and America preferring the felon what does that say about the alternative.

49-48% with half the country not voting says "meh".

I think picking the felon says something about the voters, too.

Given the vastness of the US, there's a huge difference between intrusion within a country vs a home. You can't replace the two.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com