5 ms·

Why are you scare quoting "illegally"? They are here in violation of the law. If you don't believe in controlled immigration, just state that up front rather th

by hueving 10y ago

Why are you scare quoting "illegally"? They are here in violation of the law. If you don't believe in controlled immigration, just state that up front rather than trying to hide behind an appeal to emotion via stories of tearing families apart. Your argument seems to be either that long time violators of a law should gain immunity to the law; or that we should grant citizenship to anyone who enters the country. Which is it?

sangnoir 10y ago
> They are here in violation of the law. Serious question: which law?
- hueving 10y ago
  You need a visa to be here if you're not a US citizen. https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/laws-and-regulations/us-visa-policy.html https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/law...
- edblarney 10y ago
  "The illegal entry of non-nationals into the United States is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits non-nationals from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer, and also prohibits non-nationals from eluding inspection by immigration officers" Even though it's nice to know the specifics, really, it's absurd. A nation will not exist unless in the 21st century unless it manages its borders reasonably.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    Thanks - I probably read a headline somewhere that entering the US illegally is not a felony and did not consider that it could still be a crime - a misdemeanour as you said.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    A nation will not exist in the 21st century unless its demographics support its citizenry. Our population is aging, with insufficient service sector workers just to provide labor for the next generation of retirees, let alone fund their public pensions. There's a term for the 21st Century nations in Europe that are especially good at enforcing their own borders: "demographic crisis".
    - defen 10y ago
      Has importing an ethnically distinct underclass to perform labor & service jobs to fund the retirement of an aging population ever actually worked out well anywhere?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I'm Irish. Our immigration story in the US worked out pretty well. You're the one bringing the term "underclass" into the discussion. I'm a Democrat: I think what we need is a path to citizenship for people who have proven themselves productive members of our society. What I don't see is a rebuttal to my argument, which is that demography strongly suggests immigration is a net economic benefit to the country.
        defen 10y ago
        > Our immigration story in the US worked out pretty well. There are a great many accomplished, upstanding US citizens of Irish descent today, but let's not forget that mass Irish immigration also brought machine politics & race riots to the USA in the short-to-medium term. "Underclass" isn't meant as a moral judgment, I'm just talking about the people who work low-wage, low-prestige jobs with little job security. The USA already has fairly bad ethnic stratification of income; I don't want us to turn into Brazil or Mexico in that regard. As a moral or practical matter, I don't think deporting families is a good idea. I do think we have to find a way to stop digging a hole. Let the people who are here now assimilate - it's harder now, with modern communication and transportation technology, because it's so much easier to live in an enclave. Find ways to encourage people who are already here to have more kids if there is a concern about future workers.
idlewords 10y ago
Because it is the only case in which "illegal" refers to a status rather than an action, as if the very act of existing in the United States without correct documentation was an affront against justice. This is a very un-American view of how the law works, and so the scare quotes are merited.
- piaste 10y ago
  > Because it is the only case in which "illegal" refers to a status rather than an action [..] a very un-American view of how the law works That's because the illegal action consists of being in a location where you have no right to be. And it's not, in fact, the only case. Compare it to its close relative, trespassing: An "illegal resident" is someone living in a country of which they have neither citizenship nor visa. An "illegal occupant" is someone living in a building of which they have neither possession nor tenancy. It seems rather straightforward to me. Whether such a view is "un-American" or not I legitimately do not know, not being an American myself. Though I can say that that word doesn't have the proudest of histories, to put it mildly.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Maciej missed the point I was making, but I'm not going to let the conversation continue to miss it. No. There are young people in the United States who are citizens of this country by right. Children born in the US are citizens. They are not illegal immigrants. There are families that consist overwhelmingly of citizens who happen to have in the fabric of their families people who are here without a visa. Those people aren't causing problems. In fact: they are a benefit to our economy --- according to the overwhelming consensus of economists both left and right. Trump proposes to hunt those people down and deport them, solely to satiate the race-tinged fears of people who Trump himself has helped impoverish.
    - piaste 10y ago
      > No. There are young people in the United States who are citizens of this country by right. Children born in the US are citizens. They are not illegal immigrants. Yes, of course, but those are definitely not the people I was talking about. If someone is referring to legal citizens as illegal immigrants, that's wrong and they should stop. As for the rest of your comment, I will politely decline to respond. I wasn't trying to start a discussion over what would be a fair or sensible immigration policy - that could never fit inside a HN thread. I was only objecting to idlewords's assertion that it is inherently wrong to describe someone as "illegal".
tptacek 10y ago
I just described people who are not here in violation of the law and yet will be gravely harmed by Trump's immigration policies.
- hueving 10y ago
  They will be harmed by their parents' decision to break the law. The same thing would happen if their parents violated any other law. Why would this be different?

by hueving 10y ago

sangnoir 10y ago

> They are here in violation of the law. Serious question: which law?

hueving 10y ago
You need a visa to be here if you're not a US citizen. https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/laws-and-regulations/us-visa-policy.html https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/law...
edblarney 10y ago
"The illegal entry of non-nationals into the United States is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits non-nationals from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer, and also prohibits non-nationals from eluding inspection by immigration officers" Even though it's nice to know the specifics, really, it's absurd. A nation will not exist unless in the 21st century unless it manages its borders reasonably.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  Thanks - I probably read a headline somewhere that entering the US illegally is not a felony and did not consider that it could still be a crime - a misdemeanour as you said.
- tptacek 10y ago
  A nation will not exist in the 21st century unless its demographics support its citizenry. Our population is aging, with insufficient service sector workers just to provide labor for the next generation of retirees, let alone fund their public pensions. There's a term for the 21st Century nations in Europe that are especially good at enforcing their own borders: "demographic crisis".
  - defen 10y ago
    Has importing an ethnically distinct underclass to perform labor & service jobs to fund the retirement of an aging population ever actually worked out well anywhere?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I'm Irish. Our immigration story in the US worked out pretty well. You're the one bringing the term "underclass" into the discussion. I'm a Democrat: I think what we need is a path to citizenship for people who have proven themselves productive members of our society. What I don't see is a rebuttal to my argument, which is that demography strongly suggests immigration is a net economic benefit to the country.
      - defen 10y ago
        > Our immigration story in the US worked out pretty well. There are a great many accomplished, upstanding US citizens of Irish descent today, but let's not forget that mass Irish immigration also brought machine politics & race riots to the USA in the short-to-medium term. "Underclass" isn't meant as a moral judgment, I'm just talking about the people who work low-wage, low-prestige jobs with little job security. The USA already has fairly bad ethnic stratification of income; I don't want us to turn into Brazil or Mexico in that regard. As a moral or practical matter, I don't think deporting families is a good idea. I do think we have to find a way to stop digging a hole. Let the people who are here now assimilate - it's harder now, with modern communication and transportation technology, because it's so much easier to live in an enclave. Find ways to encourage people who are already here to have more kids if there is a concern about future workers.

idlewords 10y ago

Because it is the only case in which "illegal" refers to a status rather than an action, as if the very act of existing in the United States without correct documentation was an affront against justice. This is a very un-American view of how the law works, and so the scare quotes are merited.

piaste 10y ago
> Because it is the only case in which "illegal" refers to a status rather than an action [..] a very un-American view of how the law works That's because the illegal action consists of being in a location where you have no right to be. And it's not, in fact, the only case. Compare it to its close relative, trespassing: An "illegal resident" is someone living in a country of which they have neither citizenship nor visa. An "illegal occupant" is someone living in a building of which they have neither possession nor tenancy. It seems rather straightforward to me. Whether such a view is "un-American" or not I legitimately do not know, not being an American myself. Though I can say that that word doesn't have the proudest of histories, to put it mildly.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Maciej missed the point I was making, but I'm not going to let the conversation continue to miss it. No. There are young people in the United States who are citizens of this country by right. Children born in the US are citizens. They are not illegal immigrants. There are families that consist overwhelmingly of citizens who happen to have in the fabric of their families people who are here without a visa. Those people aren't causing problems. In fact: they are a benefit to our economy --- according to the overwhelming consensus of economists both left and right. Trump proposes to hunt those people down and deport them, solely to satiate the race-tinged fears of people who Trump himself has helped impoverish.
  - piaste 10y ago
    > No. There are young people in the United States who are citizens of this country by right. Children born in the US are citizens. They are not illegal immigrants. Yes, of course, but those are definitely not the people I was talking about. If someone is referring to legal citizens as illegal immigrants, that's wrong and they should stop. As for the rest of your comment, I will politely decline to respond. I wasn't trying to start a discussion over what would be a fair or sensible immigration policy - that could never fit inside a HN thread. I was only objecting to idlewords's assertion that it is inherently wrong to describe someone as "illegal".

tptacek 10y ago

I just described people who are not here in violation of the law and yet will be gravely harmed by Trump's immigration policies.

hueving 10y ago
They will be harmed by their parents' decision to break the law. The same thing would happen if their parents violated any other law. Why would this be different?