Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

>Like any other system, the purpose is what the system actually does. Especially a system that's been around for decades.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49260422

>We let them in, so they can work our fields and process our meat and whatever else. We shouldn't be surprised they want to buy cars, own business, and do other completely normal things.

So if the city/state/federal government lets a drug addict/dealer population to exist for too long (despite their best efforts at cracking down), they'll eventually get grandfathered in, and we can't enforce anti-money laundering regulations or dismantle their crack dens?

View on HN

The GOP has used immigration as a drum to beat since I became politically aware back in the Bill Clinton days. They've had numerous chances since then to fix immigration in one way or another, but they have not done so. They make a lot of noise. They build a few miles of fence. But, mostly they keep the system the same. Because they NEED that drum to beat.

Not remotely the same thing as Ukraine's army being stuck in a war they cannot win. Or whatever other not-quite-apt comparisons you want to make.

>Not remotely the same thing as Ukraine's army being stuck in a war they cannot win. Or whatever other not-quite-apt comparisons you want to make.

Did you get to comparison #3?

>The purpose of the British government is to propose a controversial new sentencing policy, stand firm in the face of protests for a while, then cave in after slightly larger protests and agree not to pass the policy after all.

>...

>The purpose of the British government is to govern Britain. But different British people disagree on how they should be governed, and sometimes one or another faction gets more power, so the government sometimes flip-flops about what it wants.

More to the point, the point isn't that POSWID is always false, it's that you can't use it as a thought terminating cliche in place of an actual argument.

"They might associate with the undocumented, therefore shouldn't be allowed to do normal things" was completely reductive.

Looking at El Paso, since it was the first city mentioned in the article, the entire city is about 25% immigrants (>200,000 people). And of that, more that 75% is here legally. So, 150,000 give or take, that according to your first comment, shouldn't be allowed to do business because there are illegals nearby?

>See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49260422

Doesn't seem to be particularly well received nor does it respond to any of the obvious criticisms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com