3 ms·

The people pushing the message of "evil ICE" know that it's actually about personal responsibility. That's not the point, though; the point is advancing the pro

The people pushing the message of "evil ICE" know that it's actually about personal responsibility. That's not the point, though; the point is advancing the progressive no-borders agenda. You know how I keep my kids protected? By not crossing multiple countries' borders with my children, ignoring international asylum law (must seek asylum in the first country you come to), and obeying the law in my jurisdiction.

deogeo 7y ago
Even so, ICE should strive to enforce the border more humanely.
cloverich 7y ago
> You know how I keep my kids protected? I'm guessing if you could move them out of a violent, dangerous country, and into a much safer (and more economically stable) country, you would risk quite a bit to get them there. Sorry, I get the personal responsibility angle, but your comment comes off as deeply disingenuous.
- deogeo 7y ago
  It is also disingenuous to pretend all of Latin America is a dangerous cesspool of crime and murder, unfit to live in, and the US is the sole shining beacon of safety and prosperity. People are so quick to point out how very wrong Trump was to call them 'shithole countries', but immediately adopt that position when it's time to justify increased immigration.
  - ultrarunner 7y ago
    It's perfectly congruent if the people seeking a better life through (risky) emigration are distinct from the people for whom their home country is safe and economically viable. Not being in their shoes I'm not qualified to make the call as to whether seeking a life in the U.S. is the right move or not. Still, I suspect that the disparity in demand implies a better quality of life in the U.S. without needing to refer to any collection of places as a shithole.
  - cloverich 7y ago
    I don't think all of Latin America is a cesspool. But much of Mexico and central America is absolutely dangerous and after living on the border, I know of many people with first hand experience in the matter. Re: Trump -- there is a difference between recognizing a reality and publicly insulting an entire region. People were harsh on him for those comments because it bought us nothing (politically) but did damage our reputation, and encourage despotic supporters (e.g. anti-American nationalists) in the region. For what gain?
anigbrowl 7y ago
Have you considered having a government that doesn't go to other countries and attempt to subvert or bomb them into submission in contravention of its own founding principles, only to turn around and complain about the refugee crises of its own creation?
- deogeo 7y ago
  They tried - a big chunk of Trumps platform was isolationism. The military-industrial complex pushing foreign meddling, and people calling for less immigration, are not the same.
eesmith 7y ago
A "no-borders agenda" is far from a mainstream progressive agenda. I mean, "progressive" is a very broad label, and I'm sure there are some in favor of it. But that's like saying that the conservative agenda is to invade Cuba. Name one member of Congress, or progressive with significant political power, who is pushing a "no-borders agenda". Or, most Western European countries are far more progressive than the US, and even there there's no big movement for taking down the Schengen border. Crossing the border between Maine and Canada used to be trivial. But the 1960s US was hardly a "no-borders" country.
Can_Not 7y ago
> the point is advancing the progressive no-borders agenda. HN isn't really the place to share conspiracy theories that are completely unhinged from reality.

deogeo 7y ago

Even so, ICE should strive to enforce the border more humanely.

cloverich 7y ago

> You know how I keep my kids protected? I'm guessing if you could move them out of a violent, dangerous country, and into a much safer (and more economically stable) country, you would risk quite a bit to get them there. Sorry, I get the personal responsibility angle, but your comment comes off as deeply disingenuous.

deogeo 7y ago
It is also disingenuous to pretend all of Latin America is a dangerous cesspool of crime and murder, unfit to live in, and the US is the sole shining beacon of safety and prosperity. People are so quick to point out how very wrong Trump was to call them 'shithole countries', but immediately adopt that position when it's time to justify increased immigration.
- ultrarunner 7y ago
  It's perfectly congruent if the people seeking a better life through (risky) emigration are distinct from the people for whom their home country is safe and economically viable. Not being in their shoes I'm not qualified to make the call as to whether seeking a life in the U.S. is the right move or not. Still, I suspect that the disparity in demand implies a better quality of life in the U.S. without needing to refer to any collection of places as a shithole.
- cloverich 7y ago
  I don't think all of Latin America is a cesspool. But much of Mexico and central America is absolutely dangerous and after living on the border, I know of many people with first hand experience in the matter. Re: Trump -- there is a difference between recognizing a reality and publicly insulting an entire region. People were harsh on him for those comments because it bought us nothing (politically) but did damage our reputation, and encourage despotic supporters (e.g. anti-American nationalists) in the region. For what gain?

anigbrowl 7y ago

Have you considered having a government that doesn't go to other countries and attempt to subvert or bomb them into submission in contravention of its own founding principles, only to turn around and complain about the refugee crises of its own creation?

deogeo 7y ago
They tried - a big chunk of Trumps platform was isolationism. The military-industrial complex pushing foreign meddling, and people calling for less immigration, are not the same.

eesmith 7y ago

A "no-borders agenda" is far from a mainstream progressive agenda. I mean, "progressive" is a very broad label, and I'm sure there are some in favor of it. But that's like saying that the conservative agenda is to invade Cuba. Name one member of Congress, or progressive with significant political power, who is pushing a "no-borders agenda". Or, most Western European countries are far more progressive than the US, and even there there's no big movement for taking down the Schengen border. Crossing the border between Maine and Canada used to be trivial. But the 1960s US was hardly a "no-borders" country.

Can_Not 7y ago

> the point is advancing the progressive no-borders agenda. HN isn't really the place to share conspiracy theories that are completely unhinged from reality.