9 ms·

I’m not American and I’ve always found it fascinating how a part of the American population defends the existence of illegal immigrants in American soil. It’s c

I’m not American and I’ve always found it fascinating how a part of the American population defends the existence of illegal immigrants in American soil. It’s crazy.

adnzzzzZ 8y ago
It's baffling to me as well. For some reason lots of Americans also don't support ID requirements for voting either. I'm from Brazil and even here we require ID for voters. I really just don't get it.
- nemothekid 8y ago
  Because in the US, and unlike Brazil, Voter ID laws are specifically enacted to discourage people from voting. It’s a solution looking for a problem (voter fraud is hardly an issue in the US). The Voter ID laws are all about putting a barrier in place to prevent $DEMOGRAPHIC from voting, then making it exceedingly difficult for $DEMOGRAPHIC to pass that barrier, even though it’s well within $DEMOGRAPHIC right to vote.
  - joelrunyon 8y ago
    > Because in the US, and unlike Brazil, Voter ID laws are specifically enacted to discourage people from voting. How familiar are you with the voting laws in Brazil and the reasoning behind them?
    - estebank 8y ago
      I'm familiar with the laws in Argentina. Brazil has similar laws and reason behind them. A very big difference is that the US doesn't have a national ID to begin with, and a substantial portion of the population would not support the creation of one. Argentina and Brazil provide a national ID to every newborn that is needed for any interaction with the state. Furthermore, procuring a state ID in the US can be difficult for some citizens, as the documentation that would be required for it (usually birth certificates) was purposely "misplaced" due to explicitly racist policies.
    - unbearded 8y ago
      I'm very familiar not only with the voting laws but the campaigns laws. In my opinion, the voting laws in Brazil are not bad. The US is very different than Brazil. One big difference is that in Brazil the TSE and the TREs and also the electronic ballot are standard. Here, each state has its system of voting and counting vote. I believe that Brazil's problem is not at the vote, but after the politicians get elected. Here, there's gerrymandering, vote suppression, Citizens United, super PACs. Very different problems. But fear not. At the rate the current administration is implementing ignorant, racist and stupid policies, soon we will be just like Brazil. The irony? The corruption at the highest echelons of the government and people cheering up bad leaders is not what I had in mind when I wished some stuff here was more like in Brazil (I thought more about food and extroverted people).
  - sbov 8y ago
    My favorite law was one passed by Texas, where a college id wasn't valid, but your NRA card was. So transparent. I think the federal courts struck it down.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Plenty of studies have been done on Voter ID requirements. Almost all of them have come back that (a) they discourage elderly, minorities etc from voting and (b) they have no impact whatsoever on the levels of voter fraud.
- unbearded 8y ago
  It's a very different story in Brazil. Trust me. I'm not only from there, I have been involved and know a thing or two about Brazil's politics. To start, in America the vote is not mandatory like in Brazil. Here, the "ID requirement" is not being implemented as a way to make better elections or prevent fraud, but as a way to suppress and limit the power of minorities, which by many complicated reasons, usually votes do the left. Also, illegal immigration is/was a product of the prosperity of the country. It only became an economic issue after 9/11, when the government tightened policies and made impossible for people without proper documents to contribute. Undocumented immigrants can't buy and drive a car (in most states) or be able to pay for health-insurance (it used to be much cheaper when they could). Instead, they drive without a license to feed their families and when they get into an accident or have a health "scare," we food the bill. Unfortunately, the system seems beyond repair at this point. Some political groups take advantage of the fear and lack of information of parts of the population to gather support for their agendas. Not even children are out of limits, and the top of the pyramid is taking advantage of the situation, throwing even more gasoline on the fire.
- cozzyd 8y ago
  Many people in the US have no official ID because there is no standard national ID. Instead, it's common to use things like driver's licenses (which not everyone has... since not everyone drives) or passports (which not everyone has... since you only need it to leave the country).
mertd 8y ago
Except for the natives, almost all of Americans are no more than two degrees separated from an immigrant who may or may not have been legal. It isn't surprising that they would be sympathetic to immigrants.
_bohm 8y ago
Is it really? Most people I know would probably contend that the illegal status of most of these people is due to flaws in our immigration system. They want this country to be a place where from all over can come to thrive if they are so motivated. The quote engraved on the Statue of Liberty comes to mind... “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  Which A) is not what the Statue of Liberty is about, it's about Liberty B) was added well after the statue's construction and C) is a poem, not a law of the USA. If you really knew what Emma Lazarus's (EDIT: wrong last name used at first) views were, it might give you pause... (hint: she hated Ashkenazi Jews and saw them as low-class)
  - _bohm 8y ago
    I'm having a hard time grasping the point of this comment. Statues are put in place generally to commemorate the history, culture, and/or values of a people; I don't recall claiming it has any legal implications. Also, I am fairly well versed in Emma Goldman's writings, and she has said much with which I agree. The poem, however, was written by Emma Lazarus.
    - patrickg_zill 8y ago
      You're right, I confused the two last names, and corrected it. We have had some quote it as if were law, which I why I mentioned that. It isn't law, nor is it a foundational/original view of the USA dating from the Revolutionary War.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    Although you've corrected it since, I heartily encourage HN readers to immerse themselves in the views of Emma Goldman. As for your hinting, it's BS. Emma Lazarus was Jewish herself, get involved in activism when Jews were suffering pogroms in Russia and many of them began to emigrate to New York, helped found a school for Jewish refugees and wrote numerous advocacy articles on behalf of said refugees. I'm sure you can find an example of something she said that seems cringeworthy 130 years later.
i_dont_know_ 8y ago
I think you're getting it very wrong; this isn't about people saying "let's just allow illegal immigrants the full rights of legal immigrants". There are some people saying that, but they're a small minority. This is about saying "some people have come here illegally. let's not psychologically torture their children for it" You can be for legal migration and the humane treatment of people at the same time.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  This is such a distortion of what’s happening. Crossing into the US illegally is a crime. We are now arresting and charging people who commit it. We do not send innocent children to prison, so the only option is separation. If you commit any other crime and are arrested, you will be “separated” from your child, because your child does not belong in prison. Why do you expect this to be any different?
  - cycrutchfield 8y ago
    Applying for asylum is a crime?
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      Applying for asylum at a port of entry is not a crime, and none of those people are being detained or separated from their kids. But crossing into the country illegally is a crime, even if you subsequently request asylum. Edit: Someone1234, I would reply directly but I’m rate limited. The incident you’re pointing out is more nuanced than that. To combat human trafficking, we separate children from adults we suspect may not be their parents, pending further investigation like interviews of the children and interrogation of the supposed parents. That has nothing to do with the recent headlines and is longstanding practice. Edit: A further reply to Someone1234: you are citing these accounts by advocates on one side of the issue as truth. The official government statements are very clear on the situations in which children will be separated from the adults they are traveling with when claiming asylum at a port of entry. All of them concern either fears of human trafficking or other concern that child is not safe with the adult. Do government employees lie? Yes. But a systematic lie like that, involving the repeated illegal detention of children, would not last very long. If there’s one thing federal judges don’t tolerate, it’s being lied to.
staticautomatic 8y ago
It's a country founded by immigrants and for much of its history it welcomed them (with some significant caveats). The assertion that America is only for people who are already here is both radical and relatively recent. That's what's crazy.
- drb91 8y ago
  > The assertion that America is only for people who are already here is both radical and relatively recent. That's what's crazy. Well, to be fair, most immigration policy can be traced to blatantly racist policies, for instance against people of chinese descent.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- hnaccy 8y ago
  >The assertion that America is only for people who are already here is both radical and relatively recent. That's what's crazy. Benjamin Franklin directly puts forth and supports the notion of America as a place for white people(British/saxon) in the 1750s.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  > The assertion that America is only for people who are already here is both radical and relatively recent. That's not a very accurate reading of American history. There have been many instances in America's past of anti-immigrant sentiment, and even violence. Here's a particularly good article about anti-immigrant cartoons from the early 1900s: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/racist-anti-immigrant-cartoons-from-the-turn-of-the-20th-century/383248/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/racist-...
  - staticautomatic 8y ago
    You and others who replied to my comment have rightfully pointed out that America's anti-immigration policies have primarily been rooted in racism. Granted. That said, I think you've responded to a point that is related to but different from mine. My observation is that the rhetoric around immigration has noticeably evolved from "Those people aren't allowed in" to also include "The only people who can rightfully be here are already here." The difference is subtle but real, and it has been accompanied by a lot of historical revisionism around the idea that America isn't a country of or for immigrants at all and never really was. That's simply not true, regardless of the racism issues, and I think it's a somewhat radical perspective.
drb91 8y ago
They’re an economic boon and grateful to be here. Half of my ancestors who came here probably came illegally.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
It is crazy! For ~40 years now, people have consistently wanted restrictions on illegals coming into the country. We have had essentially, tyrannical lawlessness at the Federal level in the refusal to seriously enforce immigration laws.
- sg47 8y ago
  People have also wanted gun control to prevent horrible deaths of school children.
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    I don't have the knowledge to know what has happened during the past 40 years of gun laws. My impression is that gun laws have tightened, at least in the area of schools (banned on school grounds), but I can't say for sure.
sanderjd 8y ago
tldr: I'll be in favor of cracking down on illegal immigrants when people stop hiring them for fear of getting in trouble. This is a naive reading of the politics. Very few people are actively in favor of illegal immigration. Many people believe the cures (that is, the ones that politicians push for) are worse than the disease. My personal view is that if we really wanted to solve the problem, we would do it on the economic side; there are whole sectors of our economy that everyone knows are propped up by the employment of illegal immigrants. Nobody talks about that because the people who benefit most are strong, organized, and relatable (upstanding well-to-do businesspeople). Instead, everyone goes after the weak, disorganized, and unrelatable (scary foreigners who don't even speak our language).
- ethagnawl 8y ago
  > Nobody talks about that because the people who benefit most are strong, organized, and relatable (upstanding well to do business people). People who own hotels and golf courses, for instance.
- izendejas 8y ago
  This. If you really want to stop illegal immigration you go after employers who hire them. But even our president is content with hiring them, just not treating them like humans with certain inalienable rights.
- jcims 8y ago
  What would the process look like for authenticating individuals that wish to work for your company? Or maybe more precisely, what would meet the burden of proof for any reasonable regulation around such a thing? This would just drive up the value of stolen identities and make illegal immigrants even more indentured to organized criminals that supply them with such.
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    Yeah, this is definitely the best counterargument on this point. I do agree that it's very difficult, but it's not like the other alternatives are easy in any way (see the current debacle as exhibit A). If I heard politicians talking about how they've tried and failed to attack this side of the question in different ways, I may be more sympathetic to the alternatives. The deafening silence on this point makes me very skeptical.
popularrecluse 8y ago
Yeah well I am American and it's not true. The majority of us who you have been made to believe 'defend' their residing here illegally want to see them treated humanely, and see sensible immigration reform and reasonable paths to citizenship for those who desire it. I know, and have worked with plenty of people whose papers weren't in order. They are people, just like you or me. I certainly have violated the law in my life, and perhaps with less noble intentions than seeking a better life in another country.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  “Papers weren’t in order” is a hell of a euphemism for crossing into the country illegally or overstaying a temporary visa that is explicitly not for migration.
  - nomocrypto 8y ago
    You do realize that borders are totally arbitrary and that with the stroke of a pen any of these rules could be changed, right? What makes you so convinced that we are completely powerless to change this system that we’ve created? Just repeating “it’s a crime!” over and over again is absolutely no justification for how these people are treated, and I think you know that.
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      If you don’t believe a nation has the moral right to decide who to admit into itself, then we’re just operating from different axioms and will never agree.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - sg47 8y ago
        It's nice to see a Native American like yourself standing up for the country marcoperaza.
refurb 8y ago
Agreed. Nearly every other western country has strict immigration laws that they enforce and nobody seems to mind those.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  You make it sound like it's a solved problem that we're behind the curve on. This doesn't seem accurate to me; it seems like immigration is a divisive hot-button issue in most western democracies right now.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Canada is getting pissed at asylum seekers coming to Canada from the US and tightening up their requirements, sending many away. It’s not really getting the same level as attention as it’s getting in the US.
izendejas 8y ago
I'm a naturalized American and I've always understood straw man fallacies are universal. Thanks for confirming that bias.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
There is nothing crazy about saying that people who show up at a port of entry and ask for asylum should not have their children kidnapped and put in concentration camps. Asking that immigrants be treated humanely is not the equivalent of asking for no restrictions on immigration at all.
emodendroket 8y ago
Would it help if I told you that the entire American economy is built around their labor? I'd also add that this current policy affects asylum seekers (recognized by international law) and the government under Trump has also been canceling visas of legal residents and aggressively reviewing old naturalization papers to find reasons up strip people of US citizenship and deport them.

I’m not American and I’ve always found it fascinating how a part of the American population defends the existence of illegal immigrants in American soil. It’s crazy.

adnzzzzZ 8y ago

It's baffling to me as well. For some reason lots of Americans also don't support ID requirements for voting either. I'm from Brazil and even here we require ID for voters. I really just don't get it.

nemothekid 8y ago
Because in the US, and unlike Brazil, Voter ID laws are specifically enacted to discourage people from voting. It’s a solution looking for a problem (voter fraud is hardly an issue in the US). The Voter ID laws are all about putting a barrier in place to prevent $DEMOGRAPHIC from voting, then making it exceedingly difficult for $DEMOGRAPHIC to pass that barrier, even though it’s well within $DEMOGRAPHIC right to vote.
- joelrunyon 8y ago
  > Because in the US, and unlike Brazil, Voter ID laws are specifically enacted to discourage people from voting. How familiar are you with the voting laws in Brazil and the reasoning behind them?
  - estebank 8y ago
    I'm familiar with the laws in Argentina. Brazil has similar laws and reason behind them. A very big difference is that the US doesn't have a national ID to begin with, and a substantial portion of the population would not support the creation of one. Argentina and Brazil provide a national ID to every newborn that is needed for any interaction with the state. Furthermore, procuring a state ID in the US can be difficult for some citizens, as the documentation that would be required for it (usually birth certificates) was purposely "misplaced" due to explicitly racist policies.
  - unbearded 8y ago
    I'm very familiar not only with the voting laws but the campaigns laws. In my opinion, the voting laws in Brazil are not bad. The US is very different than Brazil. One big difference is that in Brazil the TSE and the TREs and also the electronic ballot are standard. Here, each state has its system of voting and counting vote. I believe that Brazil's problem is not at the vote, but after the politicians get elected. Here, there's gerrymandering, vote suppression, Citizens United, super PACs. Very different problems. But fear not. At the rate the current administration is implementing ignorant, racist and stupid policies, soon we will be just like Brazil. The irony? The corruption at the highest echelons of the government and people cheering up bad leaders is not what I had in mind when I wished some stuff here was more like in Brazil (I thought more about food and extroverted people).
- sbov 8y ago
  My favorite law was one passed by Texas, where a college id wasn't valid, but your NRA card was. So transparent. I think the federal courts struck it down.
threeseed 8y ago
Plenty of studies have been done on Voter ID requirements. Almost all of them have come back that (a) they discourage elderly, minorities etc from voting and (b) they have no impact whatsoever on the levels of voter fraud.
unbearded 8y ago
It's a very different story in Brazil. Trust me. I'm not only from there, I have been involved and know a thing or two about Brazil's politics. To start, in America the vote is not mandatory like in Brazil. Here, the "ID requirement" is not being implemented as a way to make better elections or prevent fraud, but as a way to suppress and limit the power of minorities, which by many complicated reasons, usually votes do the left. Also, illegal immigration is/was a product of the prosperity of the country. It only became an economic issue after 9/11, when the government tightened policies and made impossible for people without proper documents to contribute. Undocumented immigrants can't buy and drive a car (in most states) or be able to pay for health-insurance (it used to be much cheaper when they could). Instead, they drive without a license to feed their families and when they get into an accident or have a health "scare," we food the bill. Unfortunately, the system seems beyond repair at this point. Some political groups take advantage of the fear and lack of information of parts of the population to gather support for their agendas. Not even children are out of limits, and the top of the pyramid is taking advantage of the situation, throwing even more gasoline on the fire.
cozzyd 8y ago
Many people in the US have no official ID because there is no standard national ID. Instead, it's common to use things like driver's licenses (which not everyone has... since not everyone drives) or passports (which not everyone has... since you only need it to leave the country).

mertd 8y ago

Except for the natives, almost all of Americans are no more than two degrees separated from an immigrant who may or may not have been legal. It isn't surprising that they would be sympathetic to immigrants.

_bohm 8y ago

Is it really? Most people I know would probably contend that the illegal status of most of these people is due to flaws in our immigration system. They want this country to be a place where from all over can come to thrive if they are so motivated. The quote engraved on the Statue of Liberty comes to mind... “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

patrickg_zill 8y ago
Which A) is not what the Statue of Liberty is about, it's about Liberty B) was added well after the statue's construction and C) is a poem, not a law of the USA. If you really knew what Emma Lazarus's (EDIT: wrong last name used at first) views were, it might give you pause... (hint: she hated Ashkenazi Jews and saw them as low-class)
- _bohm 8y ago
  I'm having a hard time grasping the point of this comment. Statues are put in place generally to commemorate the history, culture, and/or values of a people; I don't recall claiming it has any legal implications. Also, I am fairly well versed in Emma Goldman's writings, and she has said much with which I agree. The poem, however, was written by Emma Lazarus.
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    You're right, I confused the two last names, and corrected it. We have had some quote it as if were law, which I why I mentioned that. It isn't law, nor is it a foundational/original view of the USA dating from the Revolutionary War.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Although you've corrected it since, I heartily encourage HN readers to immerse themselves in the views of Emma Goldman. As for your hinting, it's BS. Emma Lazarus was Jewish herself, get involved in activism when Jews were suffering pogroms in Russia and many of them began to emigrate to New York, helped found a school for Jewish refugees and wrote numerous advocacy articles on behalf of said refugees. I'm sure you can find an example of something she said that seems cringeworthy 130 years later.

i_dont_know_ 8y ago

I think you're getting it very wrong; this isn't about people saying "let's just allow illegal immigrants the full rights of legal immigrants". There are some people saying that, but they're a small minority. This is about saying "some people have come here illegally. let's not psychologically torture their children for it" You can be for legal migration and the humane treatment of people at the same time.

marcoperaza 8y ago
This is such a distortion of what’s happening. Crossing into the US illegally is a crime. We are now arresting and charging people who commit it. We do not send innocent children to prison, so the only option is separation. If you commit any other crime and are arrested, you will be “separated” from your child, because your child does not belong in prison. Why do you expect this to be any different?
- cycrutchfield 8y ago
  Applying for asylum is a crime?
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    Applying for asylum at a port of entry is not a crime, and none of those people are being detained or separated from their kids. But crossing into the country illegally is a crime, even if you subsequently request asylum. Edit: Someone1234, I would reply directly but I’m rate limited. The incident you’re pointing out is more nuanced than that. To combat human trafficking, we separate children from adults we suspect may not be their parents, pending further investigation like interviews of the children and interrogation of the supposed parents. That has nothing to do with the recent headlines and is longstanding practice. Edit: A further reply to Someone1234: you are citing these accounts by advocates on one side of the issue as truth. The official government statements are very clear on the situations in which children will be separated from the adults they are traveling with when claiming asylum at a port of entry. All of them concern either fears of human trafficking or other concern that child is not safe with the adult. Do government employees lie? Yes. But a systematic lie like that, involving the repeated illegal detention of children, would not last very long. If there’s one thing federal judges don’t tolerate, it’s being lied to.

staticautomatic 8y ago

It's a country founded by immigrants and for much of its history it welcomed them (with some significant caveats). The assertion that America is only for people who are already here is both radical and relatively recent. That's what's crazy.

drb91 8y ago
> The assertion that America is only for people who are already here is both radical and relatively recent. That's what's crazy. Well, to be fair, most immigration policy can be traced to blatantly racist policies, for instance against people of chinese descent.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
hnaccy 8y ago
>The assertion that America is only for people who are already here is both radical and relatively recent. That's what's crazy. Benjamin Franklin directly puts forth and supports the notion of America as a place for white people(British/saxon) in the 1750s.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
> The assertion that America is only for people who are already here is both radical and relatively recent. That's not a very accurate reading of American history. There have been many instances in America's past of anti-immigrant sentiment, and even violence. Here's a particularly good article about anti-immigrant cartoons from the early 1900s: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/racist-anti-immigrant-cartoons-from-the-turn-of-the-20th-century/383248/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/racist-...
- staticautomatic 8y ago
  You and others who replied to my comment have rightfully pointed out that America's anti-immigration policies have primarily been rooted in racism. Granted. That said, I think you've responded to a point that is related to but different from mine. My observation is that the rhetoric around immigration has noticeably evolved from "Those people aren't allowed in" to also include "The only people who can rightfully be here are already here." The difference is subtle but real, and it has been accompanied by a lot of historical revisionism around the idea that America isn't a country of or for immigrants at all and never really was. That's simply not true, regardless of the racism issues, and I think it's a somewhat radical perspective.

drb91 8y ago

They’re an economic boon and grateful to be here. Half of my ancestors who came here probably came illegally.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

It is crazy! For ~40 years now, people have consistently wanted restrictions on illegals coming into the country. We have had essentially, tyrannical lawlessness at the Federal level in the refusal to seriously enforce immigration laws.

sg47 8y ago
People have also wanted gun control to prevent horrible deaths of school children.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  I don't have the knowledge to know what has happened during the past 40 years of gun laws. My impression is that gun laws have tightened, at least in the area of schools (banned on school grounds), but I can't say for sure.

sanderjd 8y ago

tldr: I'll be in favor of cracking down on illegal immigrants when people stop hiring them for fear of getting in trouble. This is a naive reading of the politics. Very few people are actively in favor of illegal immigration. Many people believe the cures (that is, the ones that politicians push for) are worse than the disease. My personal view is that if we really wanted to solve the problem, we would do it on the economic side; there are whole sectors of our economy that everyone knows are propped up by the employment of illegal immigrants. Nobody talks about that because the people who benefit most are strong, organized, and relatable (upstanding well-to-do businesspeople). Instead, everyone goes after the weak, disorganized, and unrelatable (scary foreigners who don't even speak our language).

ethagnawl 8y ago
> Nobody talks about that because the people who benefit most are strong, organized, and relatable (upstanding well to do business people). People who own hotels and golf courses, for instance.
izendejas 8y ago
This. If you really want to stop illegal immigration you go after employers who hire them. But even our president is content with hiring them, just not treating them like humans with certain inalienable rights.
jcims 8y ago
What would the process look like for authenticating individuals that wish to work for your company? Or maybe more precisely, what would meet the burden of proof for any reasonable regulation around such a thing? This would just drive up the value of stolen identities and make illegal immigrants even more indentured to organized criminals that supply them with such.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  Yeah, this is definitely the best counterargument on this point. I do agree that it's very difficult, but it's not like the other alternatives are easy in any way (see the current debacle as exhibit A). If I heard politicians talking about how they've tried and failed to attack this side of the question in different ways, I may be more sympathetic to the alternatives. The deafening silence on this point makes me very skeptical.

popularrecluse 8y ago

Yeah well I am American and it's not true. The majority of us who you have been made to believe 'defend' their residing here illegally want to see them treated humanely, and see sensible immigration reform and reasonable paths to citizenship for those who desire it. I know, and have worked with plenty of people whose papers weren't in order. They are people, just like you or me. I certainly have violated the law in my life, and perhaps with less noble intentions than seeking a better life in another country.

marcoperaza 8y ago
“Papers weren’t in order” is a hell of a euphemism for crossing into the country illegally or overstaying a temporary visa that is explicitly not for migration.
- nomocrypto 8y ago
  You do realize that borders are totally arbitrary and that with the stroke of a pen any of these rules could be changed, right? What makes you so convinced that we are completely powerless to change this system that we’ve created? Just repeating “it’s a crime!” over and over again is absolutely no justification for how these people are treated, and I think you know that.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    If you don’t believe a nation has the moral right to decide who to admit into itself, then we’re just operating from different axioms and will never agree.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sg47 8y ago
      It's nice to see a Native American like yourself standing up for the country marcoperaza.

refurb 8y ago

Agreed. Nearly every other western country has strict immigration laws that they enforce and nobody seems to mind those.

sanderjd 8y ago
You make it sound like it's a solved problem that we're behind the curve on. This doesn't seem accurate to me; it seems like immigration is a divisive hot-button issue in most western democracies right now.
- refurb 8y ago
  Canada is getting pissed at asylum seekers coming to Canada from the US and tightening up their requirements, sending many away. It’s not really getting the same level as attention as it’s getting in the US.

izendejas 8y ago

I'm a naturalized American and I've always understood straw man fallacies are universal. Thanks for confirming that bias.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago

There is nothing crazy about saying that people who show up at a port of entry and ask for asylum should not have their children kidnapped and put in concentration camps. Asking that immigrants be treated humanely is not the equivalent of asking for no restrictions on immigration at all.

emodendroket 8y ago

Would it help if I told you that the entire American economy is built around their labor? I'd also add that this current policy affects asylum seekers (recognized by international law) and the government under Trump has also been canceling visas of legal residents and aggressively reviewing old naturalization papers to find reasons up strip people of US citizenship and deport them.