10 ms·

I have no beef with this guy who was basically forced into breaking the law before he could have responsibility for his actions. But overall I just feel that t

I have no beef with this guy who was basically forced into breaking the law before he could have responsibility for his actions. But overall I just feel that the compassion about immigration is misplaced. I don't understand why all the pro-immigration people say "look at these poor undocumented immigrants -- we should make life better for them." I think the people we should have compassion for are the people who are trying to do things the right way but running into headaches. Those are the people we should make things easier for, not the people who are willing to break the law to get what they want. I really don't think we want a situation where breaking the law is the best way to get ahead. If I was waiting to get into the US, I would be pretty upset to see all the benefits going to the people who cut in line. I don't understand why it's so controversial among the pro-immigration crowd to say that people shouldn't come here illegally. Naturally more leniency should be extended to children. EDIT: It is stories like this that I feel we should be solving with immigration reform: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2685261 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2685261

fastfinner 15y ago
EXACTLY!!! There are so many people who are trying to come and contribute to the US society through legal means. They run into all kinds of obstacles and barriers. Meanwhile it's OK to get a citizenship through fake passports?
- starwed 15y ago
  I just find it weird that everyone regards becoming a citizen by birth as so much fairer than becoming a citizen by sneaking in.
  - fastfinner 15y ago
    Oh on a philosophical level it is quite unfair. It's not fair at all that all humans are not regarded as equals. It's really unfair that I should be withheld from visiting or living on a piece of the planet because there happens the be a group of people on it that made a "nation" and the "nation" has invisible "borders" and the "borders" are by "law" not penetrable by people from my "nation". But such is the case. If Jose or anyone else wants to change this inherent unfairness they can do that. Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line. It is extremely unfair to the people who are also trying to immigrate to the US, but do so by entering lotteries, applying for GCs and all.
    - fastfinner 15y ago
      May I learn the reason of the down-vote? I am answering to the issue of the fairness of citizenship-by-birth raised in the parent. I draw a distinction between entrenched inequality in world order and the more amenable inequalities.
      - trustfundbaby 15y ago
        I didn't downvote you but I bet its for this "Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes" The guy didn't choose to be put in that situation, that decision was made for him. I think that's deserving of some empathy ... but that's just me.
      - dennisgorelik 15y ago
        You are NOT answering the issue of fairness of citizenship-by-birth. You are just claiming that it's ok to have discrimination by contry of birth. Well, unfair discrimination is NOT OK. That's why you are getting downvoted. I personally did not downvote you. Even though I strongly disagree - at least you are trying to understand.
        freshfunk 15y ago
        You're framing the argument in a way that makes your position stronger and his weaker. But, in your framing, I think you miss some basic points. For me, it comes down to what he said here: >Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line. The thing is that everyone else who is in the line is also hoping for a better life. So what justifies someone cutting? In this specific case, he had no choice in the matter (put on a plane as a kid) so I think he should be allowed to stay. But every other adult is, in my opinion, cutting in line.
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        Instead of comparing illegal immigrants against legal immigrants, focus on comparing illegal immigrants against citizens who got their privileges by birth. Share with us why immigrants are discriminated against and if this discrimination is fair.
- kelnos 15y ago
  Meanwhile it's OK to get a citizenship through fake passports? Why not? Think about it has hacking / routing around a broken system and it doesn't sound so bad. These are precisely the kinds of people I want living in working in the US: hard-working individuals who want to better themselves and those around them, and are willing to do anything to get there. Or maybe I just hate waiting in lines.
tokenadult 15y ago
Spouse of first-generation immigrant to the United States here. And back in the 1990s I used to be an immigration lawyer for a small law firm on the west coast. Yes, the personal story of Jose Antonio Vargas is rough on him personally, but a better basis for setting the policy of immigration in the United States would be the stories of the many people who patiently wait in line to be admitted to the United States through legal channels. Look at their stories, and figure out what change of rules and incentives would bring in what subset of those people to become new Americans. Every country on the planet appears to have restrictions on immigration. Most of the time we don't discuss the policies of countries other than the United States in new submissions to HN, even though HN is an international forum, because most countries are lousy enough to be entrepreneurs in and lousy enough to live in that no one on HN wants to immigrate to those countries. (Instead, most people on HN discuss how to get OUT of dozens of other countries around the world, and in many cases how to immigrate to the United States.) When we consider that the actual number of legally authorized immigrants to the United States each year is one of the highest such numbers in the world (does ANY country have more legal immigrants each year?), it's hard to make a case that the United States is missing out on immigrants by its current policies. Perhaps there are some policy changes to be made on the margins, and on my own part my policy preference would be to make immigration to the United States legally easier and much more commonplace, but the way to make the case for policy reform is to show law-abiding Americans that the policy changes help their lives. The Americans I know, including many law-abiding first-generation immigrants, want policy reform that makes like better in general for all people already in America, as well as for people intending to immigrate here.
- woodrow 15y ago
  AFAIK, most (66%) legal immigration into the United States is currently due to family reunification reasons, rather than for skilled employees, humanitarian reasons, or diversity [1]. Whether or not this is economically rational or beneficial to America or other Americans can be argued. [1] Second paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_State...
  - 15y ago
VladRussian 15y ago
even when i was jumping through all the hoops for my GC (took me 7+ years), i still felt strong compassion for these poor guys sitting under the hot midday Sun on San Antonio cross El Camino and ready to work for minimal money while i was driving by in air conditioned car to my nice hi-tech job. Yes, if my GC failed, i'd be strongly disappointed, to say the least, would be forced to start to think again where to go - Canada, England, Germany, Australia... didn't want back to Russia (even though programmer's salary there would make me live comparably much better than i live here) - tough choices ... These poor guys waiting for a piece of a tough dirty day job - what choice they have? what alternative did they have before crossing into US illegally if what they have now is supposedly a better one?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
nick-dap 15y ago
How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?" And why can't we tackle these problems at the same time? Why can't we even tackle these problems _one_ at a time? The Dream Act has been under review since 2001. It is a bill that can be voted on and passed in literally two days. Why not? ... I'll answer. Our impotent Congress, two year election cycles, and media that no longer holds anybody accountable.
- haberman 15y ago
  > How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?" Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. You got what you wanted faster because your family broke the law. I still believe that children who are brought here illegally should get a lot more leniency because they weren't responsible for their actions.
  - jshen 15y ago
    You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. I'm inclined to question that assumption. I could also make the usual snarky comment and say that by the letter of the "law" we owe native americans a whole bunch of land. Maybe even the land your house is on.
    - haberman 15y ago
      > You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. No, I'm assuming that regulating immigration is right because not regulating it has demonstrably bad consequences, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift If regulating immigration is right, sidestepping that regulation is wrong, just like driving without a license, running a bank that doesn't keep enough reserves, or building a house that doesn't have safe wiring.
      - 15y ago
phillmv 15y ago
>I think the people we should have compassion for are the people who are trying to do things the right way but running into headaches. Those are the people we should make things easier for, not the people who are willing to break the law to get what they want. >I don't understand why it's so controversial among the pro-immigration crowd to say that people shouldn't come here illegally. It's because the official green card process is [utterly ridiculous](http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/01/what-part-of-legal-immigration http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/01/what-part-of-legal-imm...) and stacked against almost every prospective immigrant. It's one of those cases where the law has failed to catch up to the underlying economics of the situation: immigrants need jobs and the US has a need for cheap or highly specialized labour. That is the process that needs to be reformed. Kicking out the people who are already in the country doesn't achieve anything other than waste more money and ruin more lives.
- fastfinner 15y ago
  "Kicking out the people who are already in the country doesn't achieve anything other than waste more money and ruin more lives." It achieves fairness about who gets in. Rules may need to be revised, etc. No arguments here. But while the revision is taking place or not taking place the rules need to be followed.
  - kelnos 15y ago
    If life were fair we'd all be living in luxury and wouldn't have to worry about this immigration crap. But life isn't fair. Laws aren't always fair. What inherent rule of the universe states that breaking an unfair law is wrong? Sure, you risk getting punished if you're caught. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try, and that doesn't mean I'm not going to be sympathetic if I happen to agree with your point of view, and wish that there can be an outcome where you don't get punished. What positive benefit would come about due to kicking Vargas out of the country? Those on his side will just be angry, and the xenophobes will just remain as they are, satisfied that they ruined a life.
  - phillmv 15y ago
    Well, no, this is assuming the problem gets fixed and most of the undocumented people living in the US suddenly become eligible. If a rule is unjust to begin with, I don't see how being fair in its application is all that paramount. Insert any number of parallels to the War on Drugs here.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
We can have compassion for both. More importantly, we shouldn't restrict our policy decisions based on avoiding making people upset.
- haberman 15y ago
  > More importantly, we shouldn't restrict our policy decisions based on avoiding making people upset. I think that's a fair point. A more important argument is that making the system too lenient towards people who have come here illegally creates the wrong incentives.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    Perhaps. But that also shouldn't stop us from making the system better and more sane. Today the system is ridiculous and laden with vestiges of waves of anti-immigrant sentiment in the past. It needs to become sane, and if that means cutting a few corners then I think that's better than continuing to perpetuate injustice and ridiculous laws that don't uphold the ideals of our country.
rubashov 15y ago
"look at these poor undocumented immigrants -- we should make life better for them." What I really don't get is how incapable the bleeding hearts are of understanding that immigration hurts the weakest Americans. Wages are driven down. See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers? See the unemployed American blacks in your city? Think really hard and try to connect the dots... This dynamic applies well farther up the economic food chain.
- truthseeker 15y ago
  See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers? Are you being serious or are you having a bad day? I would be scared to be around someone like you who makes such sweeping generalizations.
  - rubashov 15y ago
    Are you really this naive about the landscaping business in much of the country? In a great many cases you can reliably assume people are here illegally.
    - sorbus 15y ago
      I really hope that you have citations for that. Not saying that you're correct or incorrect (I have not personally gone out of my way to find landscapers and determine whether they're legal residents or not, so I obviously have no data points to contribute), but in the absence of some sources - or at the very least a few anecdotes! - it sounds like you're making sweeping generalizations about groups of people, possibly based on their appearance.
      - bugmenot 15y ago
        You may not like his presentation style, but the stats bear his argument out.
- wnight 15y ago
  > See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers? See the unemployed American blacks in your city? Think really hard and try to connect the dots... Repressive government policies. Exactly. We're supposed to believe the free market is efficient and useful, but that free people are inefficient and problematic.
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
You know, the basis of democracy is that the laws are ultimately made by the same people who have to uphold them. But that doesn't hold for immigration laws. Immigration laws are made by one group of people that is completely unaffected by them for an entirely different group of people to respect. That's why, in my view, immigration laws have no legitimacy whatsoever. Where you are born is complete chance. Some of those who happen to be born in better places think that it serves them well to keep others out in order to keep that unfair competitive advantage. Sometimes it's the very same people who pride themselves of being in favor of free trade, a level playing field, antiprotectionist, etc. A ridiculously disingenuous position considering the most important thing everyone has to trade is their own time, effort and skills. They find all kinds of spurious reasons to defend this unfair and blatently self-serving position. One of the worst is that all countries have immigration laws. This argument mixes up practical matters with ethical ones. Obviously, it's difficult for one country to unilaterally abolish all immigration laws. But that shouldn't convince anyone that these laws have any moral foundation or are based on democracy or that they personally have a right to tell others where to settle.

fastfinner 15y ago

EXACTLY!!! There are so many people who are trying to come and contribute to the US society through legal means. They run into all kinds of obstacles and barriers. Meanwhile it's OK to get a citizenship through fake passports?

starwed 15y ago
I just find it weird that everyone regards becoming a citizen by birth as so much fairer than becoming a citizen by sneaking in.
- fastfinner 15y ago
  Oh on a philosophical level it is quite unfair. It's not fair at all that all humans are not regarded as equals. It's really unfair that I should be withheld from visiting or living on a piece of the planet because there happens the be a group of people on it that made a "nation" and the "nation" has invisible "borders" and the "borders" are by "law" not penetrable by people from my "nation". But such is the case. If Jose or anyone else wants to change this inherent unfairness they can do that. Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line. It is extremely unfair to the people who are also trying to immigrate to the US, but do so by entering lotteries, applying for GCs and all.
  - fastfinner 15y ago
    May I learn the reason of the down-vote? I am answering to the issue of the fairness of citizenship-by-birth raised in the parent. I draw a distinction between entrenched inequality in world order and the more amenable inequalities.
    - trustfundbaby 15y ago
      I didn't downvote you but I bet its for this "Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes" The guy didn't choose to be put in that situation, that decision was made for him. I think that's deserving of some empathy ... but that's just me.
    - dennisgorelik 15y ago
      You are NOT answering the issue of fairness of citizenship-by-birth. You are just claiming that it's ok to have discrimination by contry of birth. Well, unfair discrimination is NOT OK. That's why you are getting downvoted. I personally did not downvote you. Even though I strongly disagree - at least you are trying to understand.
      - freshfunk 15y ago
        You're framing the argument in a way that makes your position stronger and his weaker. But, in your framing, I think you miss some basic points. For me, it comes down to what he said here: >Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line. The thing is that everyone else who is in the line is also hoping for a better life. So what justifies someone cutting? In this specific case, he had no choice in the matter (put on a plane as a kid) so I think he should be allowed to stay. But every other adult is, in my opinion, cutting in line.
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        Instead of comparing illegal immigrants against legal immigrants, focus on comparing illegal immigrants against citizens who got their privileges by birth. Share with us why immigrants are discriminated against and if this discrimination is fair.
kelnos 15y ago
Meanwhile it's OK to get a citizenship through fake passports? Why not? Think about it has hacking / routing around a broken system and it doesn't sound so bad. These are precisely the kinds of people I want living in working in the US: hard-working individuals who want to better themselves and those around them, and are willing to do anything to get there. Or maybe I just hate waiting in lines.

tokenadult 15y ago

Spouse of first-generation immigrant to the United States here. And back in the 1990s I used to be an immigration lawyer for a small law firm on the west coast. Yes, the personal story of Jose Antonio Vargas is rough on him personally, but a better basis for setting the policy of immigration in the United States would be the stories of the many people who patiently wait in line to be admitted to the United States through legal channels. Look at their stories, and figure out what change of rules and incentives would bring in what subset of those people to become new Americans. Every country on the planet appears to have restrictions on immigration. Most of the time we don't discuss the policies of countries other than the United States in new submissions to HN, even though HN is an international forum, because most countries are lousy enough to be entrepreneurs in and lousy enough to live in that no one on HN wants to immigrate to those countries. (Instead, most people on HN discuss how to get OUT of dozens of other countries around the world, and in many cases how to immigrate to the United States.) When we consider that the actual number of legally authorized immigrants to the United States each year is one of the highest such numbers in the world (does ANY country have more legal immigrants each year?), it's hard to make a case that the United States is missing out on immigrants by its current policies. Perhaps there are some policy changes to be made on the margins, and on my own part my policy preference would be to make immigration to the United States legally easier and much more commonplace, but the way to make the case for policy reform is to show law-abiding Americans that the policy changes help their lives. The Americans I know, including many law-abiding first-generation immigrants, want policy reform that makes like better in general for all people already in America, as well as for people intending to immigrate here.

woodrow 15y ago
AFAIK, most (66%) legal immigration into the United States is currently due to family reunification reasons, rather than for skilled employees, humanitarian reasons, or diversity [1]. Whether or not this is economically rational or beneficial to America or other Americans can be argued. [1] Second paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_State...
- 15y ago

VladRussian 15y ago

even when i was jumping through all the hoops for my GC (took me 7+ years), i still felt strong compassion for these poor guys sitting under the hot midday Sun on San Antonio cross El Camino and ready to work for minimal money while i was driving by in air conditioned car to my nice hi-tech job. Yes, if my GC failed, i'd be strongly disappointed, to say the least, would be forced to start to think again where to go - Canada, England, Germany, Australia... didn't want back to Russia (even though programmer's salary there would make me live comparably much better than i live here) - tough choices ... These poor guys waiting for a piece of a tough dirty day job - what choice they have? what alternative did they have before crossing into US illegally if what they have now is supposedly a better one?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

nick-dap 15y ago

How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?" And why can't we tackle these problems at the same time? Why can't we even tackle these problems _one_ at a time? The Dream Act has been under review since 2001. It is a bill that can be voted on and passed in literally two days. Why not? ... I'll answer. Our impotent Congress, two year election cycles, and media that no longer holds anybody accountable.

haberman 15y ago
> How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?" Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. You got what you wanted faster because your family broke the law. I still believe that children who are brought here illegally should get a lot more leniency because they weren't responsible for their actions.
- jshen 15y ago
  You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. I'm inclined to question that assumption. I could also make the usual snarky comment and say that by the letter of the "law" we owe native americans a whole bunch of land. Maybe even the land your house is on.
  - haberman 15y ago
    > You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. No, I'm assuming that regulating immigration is right because not regulating it has demonstrably bad consequences, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift If regulating immigration is right, sidestepping that regulation is wrong, just like driving without a license, running a bank that doesn't keep enough reserves, or building a house that doesn't have safe wiring.
    - 15y ago

phillmv 15y ago

>I think the people we should have compassion for are the people who are trying to do things the right way but running into headaches. Those are the people we should make things easier for, not the people who are willing to break the law to get what they want. >I don't understand why it's so controversial among the pro-immigration crowd to say that people shouldn't come here illegally. It's because the official green card process is [utterly ridiculous](http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/01/what-part-of-legal-immigration http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/01/what-part-of-legal-imm...) and stacked against almost every prospective immigrant. It's one of those cases where the law has failed to catch up to the underlying economics of the situation: immigrants need jobs and the US has a need for cheap or highly specialized labour. That is the process that needs to be reformed. Kicking out the people who are already in the country doesn't achieve anything other than waste more money and ruin more lives.

fastfinner 15y ago
"Kicking out the people who are already in the country doesn't achieve anything other than waste more money and ruin more lives." It achieves fairness about who gets in. Rules may need to be revised, etc. No arguments here. But while the revision is taking place or not taking place the rules need to be followed.
- kelnos 15y ago
  If life were fair we'd all be living in luxury and wouldn't have to worry about this immigration crap. But life isn't fair. Laws aren't always fair. What inherent rule of the universe states that breaking an unfair law is wrong? Sure, you risk getting punished if you're caught. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try, and that doesn't mean I'm not going to be sympathetic if I happen to agree with your point of view, and wish that there can be an outcome where you don't get punished. What positive benefit would come about due to kicking Vargas out of the country? Those on his side will just be angry, and the xenophobes will just remain as they are, satisfied that they ruined a life.
- phillmv 15y ago
  Well, no, this is assuming the problem gets fixed and most of the undocumented people living in the US suddenly become eligible. If a rule is unjust to begin with, I don't see how being fair in its application is all that paramount. Insert any number of parallels to the War on Drugs here.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

We can have compassion for both. More importantly, we shouldn't restrict our policy decisions based on avoiding making people upset.

haberman 15y ago
> More importantly, we shouldn't restrict our policy decisions based on avoiding making people upset. I think that's a fair point. A more important argument is that making the system too lenient towards people who have come here illegally creates the wrong incentives.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  Perhaps. But that also shouldn't stop us from making the system better and more sane. Today the system is ridiculous and laden with vestiges of waves of anti-immigrant sentiment in the past. It needs to become sane, and if that means cutting a few corners then I think that's better than continuing to perpetuate injustice and ridiculous laws that don't uphold the ideals of our country.

rubashov 15y ago

"look at these poor undocumented immigrants -- we should make life better for them." What I really don't get is how incapable the bleeding hearts are of understanding that immigration hurts the weakest Americans. Wages are driven down. See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers? See the unemployed American blacks in your city? Think really hard and try to connect the dots... This dynamic applies well farther up the economic food chain.

truthseeker 15y ago
See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers? Are you being serious or are you having a bad day? I would be scared to be around someone like you who makes such sweeping generalizations.
- rubashov 15y ago
  Are you really this naive about the landscaping business in much of the country? In a great many cases you can reliably assume people are here illegally.
  - sorbus 15y ago
    I really hope that you have citations for that. Not saying that you're correct or incorrect (I have not personally gone out of my way to find landscapers and determine whether they're legal residents or not, so I obviously have no data points to contribute), but in the absence of some sources - or at the very least a few anecdotes! - it sounds like you're making sweeping generalizations about groups of people, possibly based on their appearance.
    - bugmenot 15y ago
      You may not like his presentation style, but the stats bear his argument out.
wnight 15y ago
> See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers? See the unemployed American blacks in your city? Think really hard and try to connect the dots... Repressive government policies. Exactly. We're supposed to believe the free market is efficient and useful, but that free people are inefficient and problematic.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

You know, the basis of democracy is that the laws are ultimately made by the same people who have to uphold them. But that doesn't hold for immigration laws. Immigration laws are made by one group of people that is completely unaffected by them for an entirely different group of people to respect. That's why, in my view, immigration laws have no legitimacy whatsoever. Where you are born is complete chance. Some of those who happen to be born in better places think that it serves them well to keep others out in order to keep that unfair competitive advantage. Sometimes it's the very same people who pride themselves of being in favor of free trade, a level playing field, antiprotectionist, etc. A ridiculously disingenuous position considering the most important thing everyone has to trade is their own time, effort and skills. They find all kinds of spurious reasons to defend this unfair and blatently self-serving position. One of the worst is that all countries have immigration laws. This argument mixes up practical matters with ethical ones. Obviously, it's difficult for one country to unilaterally abolish all immigration laws. But that shouldn't convince anyone that these laws have any moral foundation or are based on democracy or that they personally have a right to tell others where to settle.