5 ms·

The entirety of blame for all of this pain, loss, and suffering falls squarely on the Republicans who oppose immigration reform, and keep calling for the mercil

The entirety of blame for all of this pain, loss, and suffering falls squarely on the Republicans who oppose immigration reform, and keep calling for the merciless deportation of everyone including children who overstayed their visas or came over the border.

sokoloff 11y ago
I think there are two issues there. One, the immigration rules. Two, the enforcement of those rules. On the second, I have little sympathy for the category of people who intentionally break a law and then cry foul when that is discovered and addressed.
- delazeur 11y ago
  Except that all four of these people were brought into the country as young children. Were you in control of your life when you were five?
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    I was not. My kids are 4 and 6; they absolutely depend on me to make good choices on their behalf. I know that they will benefit from or suffer the consequences of many of my choices.
    - kaitai 11y ago
      Yep. Isn't it great that these kids could compete in robotics competitions and work to support their families in relative safety instead of being stuck in a corrupt and dangerous country in which a drug war has torn apart civil society? Looks like their parents made a pretty rational choice!
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        Agreed. Their parents took significant risk and made a choice that, albeit illegal, worked out very well for their kids for a little over a decade. Well done and I hope that I'd have done the same for my family in analogous circumstances. That doesn't mean that, once discovered, the kids are entitled to residency or citizenship.
    - MisterBastahrd 11y ago
      Suppose you made a mistake... say you were messing around with your phone while driving and ran over a family. Would you find it reasonable that your kids be prosecuted for your crime because they were in the back seat of your car? Because that's what's happening here.
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        That's not what's happening here (IMO). What is closer to happening is whether my kids should suffer the economic and loss of parenthood if I were sued civilly or incarcerated as a result of that incident. They would so suffer and that is proper. The young adults in question were born as non-US citizens and immigrated illegally (stipulated/agreed that this was not by their choice) to the US. Many years later, this is discovered. Now, the question is, "what to do about it?" None of the above facts support a claim to US citizenship nor US permanent residency under the current immigration laws (as I understand them). Whether it should is a different question. I _am_ in favor of a thoughtfully designed amnesty program for people who have lived peaceably and productively in our country for some extended period of time. I am also in favor of thoughtfully designed immigration program for people likely to live peaceably and productively in our country. A key element to my support is that these policies be thoughtfully designed by experts (ie. not by me, and not in an internet chat room) and that it be enforced (in both directions) when violations or qualifications are discovered. I believe there are some natural limits to how many people we want in the United States, and as one of the preferred nations (as measured by net immigration), we do need some policies, ie: open borders are not the default option.
- winter_blue 11y ago
  You would have more sympathy if you understood how those rules actually worked. There is no visa for unskilled people like the parents of the dreams in the movie. Even skilled people have a very hard time getting a US visa (more than any other country). I don't think it is morally wrong for people to move another country seeking a better life, even if that country by a thin majority is unwelcoming of them (by making it impossible for them to immigrate legally). I find your lack of sympathy repugnant.
- aljones 11y ago
  Why do you have such little sympathy?
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    Because I believe in the sovereignty of nations and in the stability that the rule of law gives to a free society. I'm entirely open for reconsidering (and am nowhere near an expert on) the first point (what our immigration policies are/ought to be). I'm fairly unwavering on the second. When someone says, "ah, screw it, I don't like that law, so I'm not going to follow it," they put themselves at peril of being discovered and prosecuted.
    - winter_blue 11y ago
      What do you think about the laws that were passed in the Jim Crow era? Suppose the United States had Jim Crow -esque laws at the federal law, would you support them because of "the stability that the rule of law gives to a free society"? As you've said say you are not an expert on immigration rules; I can give you a super-quick summary: in 1965, they changed the law to allow non-Europeans to immigrate. But they made it so extremely restrictive that practically no one could immigrate legally. Their objective was to ensure the ethnic composition ("whiteness") of the United States didn't change significantly. Which is why I don't see a family coming here seeking a better life as morally wrong.
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        I think a lot of the marijuana and peyote drug policies were also "fear of non-whites" driven. It's a real thing; I agree. To answer your specific Jim Crow law question, prior to the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendment, yes, I would support those chartered with the enforcement of those laws while seeking to change the law at the legislative level. (These are morally repugnant laws to be clear; the choice is between an orderly society with some bad consequences, or an anarchic society with different bad consequences. I choose order.) After the 14th Amendment, those laws are unconstitutional, and I do not support the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Those states who had Jim Crow laws or even plantation owners who bought and sold humans; I can't understand it and can't support it, but it clearly was the majority point of view at that time and place. This issue is running up against the fundamental challenge of democratic society: how to have a government that expresses and supports the will of the majority of its citizens without unduly restricting the freedom of those citizens who find themselves in the minority.
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  If the law wasn't so selectively enforced and if the US weren't directly responsible for the political instability south of the border I'd have some sympathy for your view.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >On the second, I have little sympathy for the category of people who intentionally break a law and then cry foul when that is discovered and addressed. So homosexuals put in prison because homosexuality is illegal in places (including the US not even 20 years ago)... no sympathy for them? OR... do you think not all laws are equal and that there are bad laws?
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    There are absolutely bad laws. There are also unconstitutional laws. I have no support for the latter, of course. For bad but constitutional laws, we have a process for challenging and changing them. While they're in effect, I believe that if you're going to break them publicly, you should not expect to escape consequences.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >There are also unconstitutional laws. The problem is that a law is or is not constitutional based on numerous other factors such as popular opinion. The truth is that the SCOTUS is partially impacted by the will of the people at any given time (to say nothing of the entire issue of the political nature of the SCOTUS). Crying foul is one way to modify the will of the people. In some cases, what is constitutional is even explicitly tied to external factors (such as obscenity tests which in part depend upon current morals of the community).
    - winter_blue 11y ago
      Regarding constitutionality, FYI: Back when the U.S. constitution was written, visas did not exists, and getting permission to immigrate was uncommon. You could literally walk into most countries without any papers. As such, the enumerated powers of Congress actually only contains the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). Nothing about restricting immigration. The US did not regulate immigration at all until the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). The Act was challenged in the courts, and the SCOTUS ruled that Congress' power to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" meant that it could also exclude people from entering the country – which is quite a stretch. For more, see: http://openborders.info/blog/immigration- http://openborders.info/blog/immigration- Popular opinion at the time was that Chinese and other Asian people were unfit to be part of American society, and the SCOTUS was willing to stretch the meaning of those words in the Constitution to grant Congress the new powers necessary to exclude them.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
melling 11y ago
If I go to another country and overstay my welcome, I end up in trouble. There's a 90 day visa limit in a few countries in Central America, for example. I once had to go to Mexico for a day to reset my visa. What a hassle; one painful bus ride! Everyone else can apply for a temporary visa then simply permanently stay? The Republicans did give amnesty to 3 million illegals: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1283036... The United States let in lots of immigrants. The world is full of people who want to come here. Shouldn't there be a more fair system?
pkaye 11y ago
What should be done? A amnesty for existing illegal immigrants? Having an open border? Do you thing this will result in an influx of economic migrants as it is happening in the EU?
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11102015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11102015 and marked it off-topic.

sokoloff 11y ago

I think there are two issues there. One, the immigration rules. Two, the enforcement of those rules. On the second, I have little sympathy for the category of people who intentionally break a law and then cry foul when that is discovered and addressed.

delazeur 11y ago
Except that all four of these people were brought into the country as young children. Were you in control of your life when you were five?
- sokoloff 11y ago
  I was not. My kids are 4 and 6; they absolutely depend on me to make good choices on their behalf. I know that they will benefit from or suffer the consequences of many of my choices.
  - kaitai 11y ago
    Yep. Isn't it great that these kids could compete in robotics competitions and work to support their families in relative safety instead of being stuck in a corrupt and dangerous country in which a drug war has torn apart civil society? Looks like their parents made a pretty rational choice!
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      Agreed. Their parents took significant risk and made a choice that, albeit illegal, worked out very well for their kids for a little over a decade. Well done and I hope that I'd have done the same for my family in analogous circumstances. That doesn't mean that, once discovered, the kids are entitled to residency or citizenship.
  - MisterBastahrd 11y ago
    Suppose you made a mistake... say you were messing around with your phone while driving and ran over a family. Would you find it reasonable that your kids be prosecuted for your crime because they were in the back seat of your car? Because that's what's happening here.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      That's not what's happening here (IMO). What is closer to happening is whether my kids should suffer the economic and loss of parenthood if I were sued civilly or incarcerated as a result of that incident. They would so suffer and that is proper. The young adults in question were born as non-US citizens and immigrated illegally (stipulated/agreed that this was not by their choice) to the US. Many years later, this is discovered. Now, the question is, "what to do about it?" None of the above facts support a claim to US citizenship nor US permanent residency under the current immigration laws (as I understand them). Whether it should is a different question. I _am_ in favor of a thoughtfully designed amnesty program for people who have lived peaceably and productively in our country for some extended period of time. I am also in favor of thoughtfully designed immigration program for people likely to live peaceably and productively in our country. A key element to my support is that these policies be thoughtfully designed by experts (ie. not by me, and not in an internet chat room) and that it be enforced (in both directions) when violations or qualifications are discovered. I believe there are some natural limits to how many people we want in the United States, and as one of the preferred nations (as measured by net immigration), we do need some policies, ie: open borders are not the default option.
winter_blue 11y ago
You would have more sympathy if you understood how those rules actually worked. There is no visa for unskilled people like the parents of the dreams in the movie. Even skilled people have a very hard time getting a US visa (more than any other country). I don't think it is morally wrong for people to move another country seeking a better life, even if that country by a thin majority is unwelcoming of them (by making it impossible for them to immigrate legally). I find your lack of sympathy repugnant.
aljones 11y ago
Why do you have such little sympathy?
- sokoloff 11y ago
  Because I believe in the sovereignty of nations and in the stability that the rule of law gives to a free society. I'm entirely open for reconsidering (and am nowhere near an expert on) the first point (what our immigration policies are/ought to be). I'm fairly unwavering on the second. When someone says, "ah, screw it, I don't like that law, so I'm not going to follow it," they put themselves at peril of being discovered and prosecuted.
  - winter_blue 11y ago
    What do you think about the laws that were passed in the Jim Crow era? Suppose the United States had Jim Crow -esque laws at the federal law, would you support them because of "the stability that the rule of law gives to a free society"? As you've said say you are not an expert on immigration rules; I can give you a super-quick summary: in 1965, they changed the law to allow non-Europeans to immigrate. But they made it so extremely restrictive that practically no one could immigrate legally. Their objective was to ensure the ethnic composition ("whiteness") of the United States didn't change significantly. Which is why I don't see a family coming here seeking a better life as morally wrong.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      I think a lot of the marijuana and peyote drug policies were also "fear of non-whites" driven. It's a real thing; I agree. To answer your specific Jim Crow law question, prior to the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendment, yes, I would support those chartered with the enforcement of those laws while seeking to change the law at the legislative level. (These are morally repugnant laws to be clear; the choice is between an orderly society with some bad consequences, or an anarchic society with different bad consequences. I choose order.) After the 14th Amendment, those laws are unconstitutional, and I do not support the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Those states who had Jim Crow laws or even plantation owners who bought and sold humans; I can't understand it and can't support it, but it clearly was the majority point of view at that time and place. This issue is running up against the fundamental challenge of democratic society: how to have a government that expresses and supports the will of the majority of its citizens without unduly restricting the freedom of those citizens who find themselves in the minority.
HarryHirsch 11y ago
If the law wasn't so selectively enforced and if the US weren't directly responsible for the political instability south of the border I'd have some sympathy for your view.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>On the second, I have little sympathy for the category of people who intentionally break a law and then cry foul when that is discovered and addressed. So homosexuals put in prison because homosexuality is illegal in places (including the US not even 20 years ago)... no sympathy for them? OR... do you think not all laws are equal and that there are bad laws?
- sokoloff 11y ago
  There are absolutely bad laws. There are also unconstitutional laws. I have no support for the latter, of course. For bad but constitutional laws, we have a process for challenging and changing them. While they're in effect, I believe that if you're going to break them publicly, you should not expect to escape consequences.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >There are also unconstitutional laws. The problem is that a law is or is not constitutional based on numerous other factors such as popular opinion. The truth is that the SCOTUS is partially impacted by the will of the people at any given time (to say nothing of the entire issue of the political nature of the SCOTUS). Crying foul is one way to modify the will of the people. In some cases, what is constitutional is even explicitly tied to external factors (such as obscenity tests which in part depend upon current morals of the community).
  - winter_blue 11y ago
    Regarding constitutionality, FYI: Back when the U.S. constitution was written, visas did not exists, and getting permission to immigrate was uncommon. You could literally walk into most countries without any papers. As such, the enumerated powers of Congress actually only contains the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). Nothing about restricting immigration. The US did not regulate immigration at all until the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). The Act was challenged in the courts, and the SCOTUS ruled that Congress' power to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" meant that it could also exclude people from entering the country – which is quite a stretch. For more, see: http://openborders.info/blog/immigration- http://openborders.info/blog/immigration- Popular opinion at the time was that Chinese and other Asian people were unfit to be part of American society, and the SCOTUS was willing to stretch the meaning of those words in the Constitution to grant Congress the new powers necessary to exclude them.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

melling 11y ago

If I go to another country and overstay my welcome, I end up in trouble. There's a 90 day visa limit in a few countries in Central America, for example. I once had to go to Mexico for a day to reset my visa. What a hassle; one painful bus ride! Everyone else can apply for a temporary visa then simply permanently stay? The Republicans did give amnesty to 3 million illegals: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1283036... The United States let in lots of immigrants. The world is full of people who want to come here. Shouldn't there be a more fair system?

pkaye 11y ago

What should be done? A amnesty for existing illegal immigrants? Having an open border? Do you thing this will result in an influx of economic migrants as it is happening in the EU?

dang 11y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11102015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11102015 and marked it off-topic.