4 ms·

U.S. Sues California to Void Illegal Immigrant Protection Laws

12 points by meri_dian 9y ago

glup 9y ago
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...
- volgo 9y ago
  Do you believe the government is overstepping its authority by stopping people from entering the country without permission? I’m curious if you support an open border and how you want to deal with the ramificiations?
  - eesmith 9y ago
    The parent comment was rhetorical baffelgab. You are unlikely to get a meaningful response. Your questions have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand, which concerns state laws that restrict state and local law enforcement officials, and private companies, from voluntarily sharing certain information with federal agents, and a law which allows state officials to review and inspect federal detention facilities in California. What are your views on the topic? Can a state prevent voluntary sharing of information with the federal government? I know of few people who call for truly open borders where the government has no authority to stop people from entering the country, so I don't understand why you posed your questions. The one exception I know of is Svalbard. You can move there without a visa, if you can support yourself, live there for 7 years, and then get Norwegian citizenship.
meri_dian 9y ago
Interesting to note that this was one of the top 10 articles on the front page then in the space of 5 seconds dropped off entirely. Very odd...
- mc32 9y ago
  Because in the US, at least, illegal forms of immigration can be a contentious issue where it's proven difficult for many to discuss the issue civilly and productively.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    Those who have trouble discussing the issue in a respectful manner appropriate to HN should be removed from the conversation, rather than the conversation itself being removed.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  From the guidelines: “Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.” This is a fairly mainstream politics story on an issue that is a focus of intense partisan controversy; it invites political flamewar but, history suggests, is unlikely to have much intellectually gratifying discussion here. It getting demoted for being hit by flags is unsurprising.
carbocation 9y ago
The Bloomberg title does not include the word “Illegal”, which appears to be an editorialization in the title posted here on HN.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  The original Bloomberg article was misleading because there are many laws which concern immigrants, but the US is specifically going after those protecting immigrants here illegally. Hence my more precise title.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    The HN guidelines recommend not changing the title unless it is misleading or linkbait. It sounds like you think that leaving out the "illegal" part is misleading, rather than a simplification used to make a shorter headline. If that's so, why did you clarify it as "illegal immigrant" rather than "undocumented immigrant"? That is the term used several times in the text, and it follows the AP Stylebook recommendation, described at https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more . As you wish people to have a respectful manner appropriate to HN, surely you must agree that the clarification "undocumented immigrant" would be more respectful of the source material, yes? Given your view that "illegal immigration is bad" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16009093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16009093 ), I cannot help but interpret your choice of inserting "illegal" here instead of "undocumented" as editorializing.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

12 points by meri_dian 9y ago

glup 9y ago

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...

volgo 9y ago
Do you believe the government is overstepping its authority by stopping people from entering the country without permission? I’m curious if you support an open border and how you want to deal with the ramificiations?
- eesmith 9y ago
  The parent comment was rhetorical baffelgab. You are unlikely to get a meaningful response. Your questions have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand, which concerns state laws that restrict state and local law enforcement officials, and private companies, from voluntarily sharing certain information with federal agents, and a law which allows state officials to review and inspect federal detention facilities in California. What are your views on the topic? Can a state prevent voluntary sharing of information with the federal government? I know of few people who call for truly open borders where the government has no authority to stop people from entering the country, so I don't understand why you posed your questions. The one exception I know of is Svalbard. You can move there without a visa, if you can support yourself, live there for 7 years, and then get Norwegian citizenship.

meri_dian 9y ago

Interesting to note that this was one of the top 10 articles on the front page then in the space of 5 seconds dropped off entirely. Very odd...

mc32 9y ago
Because in the US, at least, illegal forms of immigration can be a contentious issue where it's proven difficult for many to discuss the issue civilly and productively.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Those who have trouble discussing the issue in a respectful manner appropriate to HN should be removed from the conversation, rather than the conversation itself being removed.
dragonwriter 9y ago
From the guidelines: “Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.” This is a fairly mainstream politics story on an issue that is a focus of intense partisan controversy; it invites political flamewar but, history suggests, is unlikely to have much intellectually gratifying discussion here. It getting demoted for being hit by flags is unsurprising.

carbocation 9y ago

The Bloomberg title does not include the word “Illegal”, which appears to be an editorialization in the title posted here on HN.

meri_dian 9y ago
The original Bloomberg article was misleading because there are many laws which concern immigrants, but the US is specifically going after those protecting immigrants here illegally. Hence my more precise title.
- eesmith 9y ago
  The HN guidelines recommend not changing the title unless it is misleading or linkbait. It sounds like you think that leaving out the "illegal" part is misleading, rather than a simplification used to make a shorter headline. If that's so, why did you clarify it as "illegal immigrant" rather than "undocumented immigrant"? That is the term used several times in the text, and it follows the AP Stylebook recommendation, described at https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more . As you wish people to have a respectful manner appropriate to HN, surely you must agree that the clarification "undocumented immigrant" would be more respectful of the source material, yes? Given your view that "illegal immigration is bad" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16009093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16009093 ), I cannot help but interpret your choice of inserting "illegal" here instead of "undocumented" as editorializing.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]