Hacker News Reader

Comment by like_any_other | Hacker News Reader

More and more it seems that a country is fundamentally not allowed to say "no" to immigration. Even the ~1 million/year for the last 25 years [1] that the US has admitted legally is deemed too restrictive, so those who try to enforce immigration law are attacked. No position short of "America belongs to everyone" is permitted, no matter what voters says.

I wonder if experts will emerge to call this inciting "stochastic terrorism" [2]. I won't be holding my breath.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_immigration_stat...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism

View on HN

Saying "no" to immigration is one thing; masked unidentified thugs surrounding a student with a legal visa in the streets and throwing her into an unmarked van to deport her with no warning isn't anti-immigration, it's a violation of civil rights.

Shipping someone to a concentration camp in El Salvador despite the fact that a federal judge ordered that they not be sent to El Salvador, insisting without evidence that they were a member of a gang, saying anyone who wants them to be able to defend themselves in court is pro-gang-violence, and then insisting that there's nothing you can do to get them back so everyone should stop complaining and move in... that's some fascist secret police shit.

Maybe the left should have offered genuine concessions on immigration and border security when they had the chance. E.g., support the construction of a wall without expecting anything like "comprehensive immigration reform" (read: amnesty) in return. Instead you dragged your feet at every opportunity, even as the entire world made a mockery of our immigration laws:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyssZRWaMWg

Trump's second term, with his sledgehammer approach, is the natural result.

> E.g., support the construction of a wall without expecting anything like "comprehensive immigration reform" (read: amnesty) in return.

They had already gotten amnesty once, but not much came of the promised increased illegal immigration scrutiny (and nothing was done to reduce legal immigration at all):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control...

This is not enforcement, it is a spree of extrajudicial kidnappings without orders from the court. This puts us back so far even the Magna Carta is futuristic.

I think it's an understandable overshoot to confront what some might see as a long-standing, festering problem. This isn't an endorsement, but the frantic attitude makes sense: rush and get the job done, there's only one 4-year-term in which to do it.

If it's amazing people will demand that it continue.

IIRC, Biden's administration claimed 10-11 million undocumented migrants. Given where they are belived to be working, in food supply, removing them within a term of office (irregardless of questions about accuracy or due process) is likely to cause food shortage within the USA.

I'm on a different continent, so this metaphorical frag grenade exploding in the USA's metaphorical tent isn't my problem. But it should slow down the people desperate to make it a fix-in-one-term thing.

Agree completely. The parties here really couldn't be farther from consensus, so the sloppy, frantic policy decisions will probably continue. My knowledge of political history doesn't go far back, but it feels like a new thing for every presidential term to start off with a wave of retractions of the last guy's decisions.

Sure, first you hallucinate a problem that doesn't exist, then you shred the Constitution "solving" the imaginary problem. Literally the Hitler gambit.

Illegal immigration is far from an imaginary problem. Any immigration at all will affect the availability of homes, of jobs, of healthcare... So, it ought to be monitored and controlled. This is becoming more relevant as home prices rise and the job market stays sucking.

I don't even think ripping the Constitution up would render the problem "solved." It would really help relieve the panic if the parties could at least agree that the issue does exist; until then, any government plan can expect to be overturned in four years time.

To clarify: not defending literally A.H., I think that's a mischaracterization.

Every reasonable politician agree illegal immigration is illegal. But you're conflating immigration with illegal immigration in your comment, for some reason.

> Any immigration at all will affect the availability of homes, of jobs, of healthcare... So, it ought to be monitored and controlled. This is becoming more relevant as home prices rise and the job market stays sucking.

So does having babies. I don't see your point here. Immigrants come and they provide labor, the same labor we use to build homes and staff hospitals. Most immigrants that come to the U.S. are young and utilize less healthcare services than non-immigrants.

Well, no, almost everything you said simply isn't true. Immigrants create jobs. They create homes. They make healthcare more available. Why? Because they work productively, they earn money, and they spend it in the US. "Illegals" do all this while paying taxes without being eligible for benefits, so arguably they help America more than an average citizen.

There are good reasons to limit immigration, but "they're taking our jobs" isn't one of them.

As I understand it, some of the arrests are following administrative warrants. Others are "broken window" policing.

"As I haven't been bothered to follow what's going on I'm just trusting what newsmax tells me."

Care to elaborate?

The "process" in the phrase "due process" is there to ensure that the cops have the right guy, that they actually did something, and that their removal from one place to another is the appropriate remedy.

Such details used to matter. It was a more civilized time.

Disappointing & unsurprising to see the "law & order" as well as libertarian right types so supportive of stripping due process here.

The ability of government to hold you indefinitely, punish, deport you, etc without going thru courts simply by declaring you a criminal is how you get gulags.

Yes maybe this time they don't look like you and their last names end in z which yours doesn't, but wait until the next time.

Desiring less immigration is legit. I’m sorry that was screamed down by unreasonable people.

Corrupting our democracy to get your way is not legit even if you were unfairly screamed down. The corruption will be fought tooth and nail.

By electing a racist, rapist, felon, and vile insurrectionist.

These are not good people.

I believe that you misread the direction of m_fayer's comment.

what a terrible take

there's law enforcement that follows due process, and there's "law enforcement" that doesn't

the former is the regular police (when they're doing their job right), the latter is the Gestapo and ICE

the problem isn't so much immigration laws; it's 1) the way ICE is enforcing them, and 2) the fact that a non-trivial percentage of US businesses actually depend on that illegal immigration (which is why after political pressure, Trump made "exceptions" for certain businesses--not exceptions to the law, exceptions to its enforcement)

Sorry, but this is an awful strawman argument.

> being anti-immigration is not allowed anymore

> current party in power 11xed the ICE budget, built Alligator Alcatraz, and has deals with foreign governments to deport people straight to prison

I'm not sure I can square your victimhood with reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com