5 ms·

Legal immigrants? The feds flew or bused illegal border crossers who were processed and released to many states, including Florida. Yes it was a political stu

Legal immigrants? The feds flew or bused illegal border crossers who were processed and released to many states, including Florida. Yes it was a political stunt to move them again, but how is it worse than what the feds are doing?

Lammy 4y ago
Sad how we ended up in a world where capital is the only thing that gets the right to travel the globe freely. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030681-000-the-truth-about-migration-how-we-lived-without-passports/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030681-000-the-trut... “The passport as an instrument of state regulation was born of the French revolution of 1789. At first, ordinary people were issued passes to control internal movement, especially to Paris. But after the king tried to escape, and foreign aristocrats attacked the revolution, the authorities started requiring such papers for exit and entry to the country. The revolution created one of the world’s first “nation-states”, defined by the “national” identity of its people rather than its monarchs’ claims.” “But as the industrial revolution snowballed in the 19th century, there was pressure to allow free movement of all the factors of production – money, trade *and labour*. Passport requirements were widely relaxed across Europe — in 1872, the British foreign secretary, Earl Granville, even wrote: “all foreigners have the unrestricted right of entrance into and residence in this country”. The situation was similar in North America.” https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-measure/ https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-meas... “In 1947, the first problem considered at an expert meeting preparing for the UN World Conference on Passports and Frontier Formalities was “the possibility of a return to the regime which existed before 1914 involving as a general rule the abolition of any requirement that travelers should carry passports.””
- notch656a 4y ago
  I wonder how much public benefits has to do with strict immigration control. Before 1914 public benefits were practically nil, so it's not like you were likely to become a public charge as an immigrant. US seems to have 'solved' this by tolerating illegal immigration but then giving them the boot if the wheel ever squeaks.
cycrutchfield 4y ago
They are asylum seekers, what is illegal about that?
- peterangular 4y ago
  God the fact this comment keeps going gray really bothers me. You're 100% correct and these people are acting lawfully. I get that HN often swings conservative, but I gotta believe if we were in these folk's shoes some of us would be seeking a better life for ourselves through asylum in America.
  - cycrutchfield 4y ago
    Some people respond to inconvenient facts with downvotes.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I am for 100% open borders, I acknowledge asylum seekers are allowed in the country, and I agree your statement they are doing what many of us would do. I see nothing ethically wrong with what they're doing. That said, anyone who doesn't understand the undertone here, that the great majority will be denied asylum, that a great number are claiming asylum in a way that is coached/contrived/embellished, or that they couldn't have stopped and claimed asylum in another nation along the way (such as Mexico) is just completely naive. A great number of poeple here are game the system. That's fine, whatever, fuck borders, I'm on board. But I'm gonna call a spade a spade. A great number are here to play the system, often with lies, and the idea that all these people are 'acting lawfully' is not only factually incorrect I assert you KNOW it is factually incorrect and use it here as propaganda. In fact it is not lawful to lie to federal authorities in your asylum claim, but many are doing it. These are the things many of us know, but aren't supposed to say out loud in some polite circles. I applaud their efforts, but I aint no fool.
    - peterangular 4y ago
      > These are the things many of us know, but aren't supposed to say out loud in some polite circles. You're spending the majority of your comment saying "great numbers" of these folks are claiming asylum in bad-faith. You imply "great numbers" of them are here to game/play the system. You call a "great number" of them liars. You imply that they're criminals (not acting lawfully). > I applaud their efforts No you don't. You're painting "great numbers" of these people out to be untrustworthy to the point of preemptively calling them criminals. --- > and the idea that all these people are 'acting lawfully' is not only factually incorrect I assert you KNOW it is factually incorrect and use it here as propaganda Instead of asserting what I know, maybe provide sources for your argument. I take it as an outright aggression toward me that you posit I am spreading propaganda. Regardless. I rebut: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117 > We find that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. It's common sense that if you're looking to immigrate somewhere that you're not out there looking to break the law. Every study I have come across in regards to this seems to have similar outcomes. They know if they break the law they will likely be deported; and they typically act accordingly because they want to live, work, and raise their families in America. I take great issue with you claiming I'm spreading propaganda. In good-faith I assure you, I am not.
bigmattystyles 4y ago
No they were lawful asylum seekers.
- gjs278 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thehappypm 4y ago
  This kind of feels like doublespeak. Most migrants come for work, not to escape persecution. Economic migrants use asylum as a way to avoid being deported.
  - cycrutchfield 4y ago
    From a legal standpoint that is irrelevant. Until their asylum case is adjudicated, they are here legally.
    - thehappypm 4y ago
      all immigration is legal if you claim to be an asylum seeker. It’s not intended to be a deportation-delayer for economic migrants.
      - cycrutchfield 4y ago
        Cool. How do you decide who is an economic migrant?
        coryrc 4y ago
        If they traveled through another country (Mexico) which could grant asylum, but chose not to stay there.

Lammy 4y ago

Sad how we ended up in a world where capital is the only thing that gets the right to travel the globe freely. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030681-000-the-truth-about-migration-how-we-lived-without-passports/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030681-000-the-trut... “The passport as an instrument of state regulation was born of the French revolution of 1789. At first, ordinary people were issued passes to control internal movement, especially to Paris. But after the king tried to escape, and foreign aristocrats attacked the revolution, the authorities started requiring such papers for exit and entry to the country. The revolution created one of the world’s first “nation-states”, defined by the “national” identity of its people rather than its monarchs’ claims.” “But as the industrial revolution snowballed in the 19th century, there was pressure to allow free movement of all the factors of production – money, trade *and labour*. Passport requirements were widely relaxed across Europe — in 1872, the British foreign secretary, Earl Granville, even wrote: “all foreigners have the unrestricted right of entrance into and residence in this country”. The situation was similar in North America.” https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-measure/ https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-meas... “In 1947, the first problem considered at an expert meeting preparing for the UN World Conference on Passports and Frontier Formalities was “the possibility of a return to the regime which existed before 1914 involving as a general rule the abolition of any requirement that travelers should carry passports.””

notch656a 4y ago
I wonder how much public benefits has to do with strict immigration control. Before 1914 public benefits were practically nil, so it's not like you were likely to become a public charge as an immigrant. US seems to have 'solved' this by tolerating illegal immigration but then giving them the boot if the wheel ever squeaks.

cycrutchfield 4y ago

They are asylum seekers, what is illegal about that?

peterangular 4y ago
God the fact this comment keeps going gray really bothers me. You're 100% correct and these people are acting lawfully. I get that HN often swings conservative, but I gotta believe if we were in these folk's shoes some of us would be seeking a better life for ourselves through asylum in America.
- cycrutchfield 4y ago
  Some people respond to inconvenient facts with downvotes.
- notch656a 4y ago
  I am for 100% open borders, I acknowledge asylum seekers are allowed in the country, and I agree your statement they are doing what many of us would do. I see nothing ethically wrong with what they're doing. That said, anyone who doesn't understand the undertone here, that the great majority will be denied asylum, that a great number are claiming asylum in a way that is coached/contrived/embellished, or that they couldn't have stopped and claimed asylum in another nation along the way (such as Mexico) is just completely naive. A great number of poeple here are game the system. That's fine, whatever, fuck borders, I'm on board. But I'm gonna call a spade a spade. A great number are here to play the system, often with lies, and the idea that all these people are 'acting lawfully' is not only factually incorrect I assert you KNOW it is factually incorrect and use it here as propaganda. In fact it is not lawful to lie to federal authorities in your asylum claim, but many are doing it. These are the things many of us know, but aren't supposed to say out loud in some polite circles. I applaud their efforts, but I aint no fool.
  - peterangular 4y ago
    > These are the things many of us know, but aren't supposed to say out loud in some polite circles. You're spending the majority of your comment saying "great numbers" of these folks are claiming asylum in bad-faith. You imply "great numbers" of them are here to game/play the system. You call a "great number" of them liars. You imply that they're criminals (not acting lawfully). > I applaud their efforts No you don't. You're painting "great numbers" of these people out to be untrustworthy to the point of preemptively calling them criminals. --- > and the idea that all these people are 'acting lawfully' is not only factually incorrect I assert you KNOW it is factually incorrect and use it here as propaganda Instead of asserting what I know, maybe provide sources for your argument. I take it as an outright aggression toward me that you posit I am spreading propaganda. Regardless. I rebut: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117 > We find that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. It's common sense that if you're looking to immigrate somewhere that you're not out there looking to break the law. Every study I have come across in regards to this seems to have similar outcomes. They know if they break the law they will likely be deported; and they typically act accordingly because they want to live, work, and raise their families in America. I take great issue with you claiming I'm spreading propaganda. In good-faith I assure you, I am not.

bigmattystyles 4y ago

No they were lawful asylum seekers.

gjs278 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thehappypm 4y ago
This kind of feels like doublespeak. Most migrants come for work, not to escape persecution. Economic migrants use asylum as a way to avoid being deported.
- cycrutchfield 4y ago
  From a legal standpoint that is irrelevant. Until their asylum case is adjudicated, they are here legally.
  - thehappypm 4y ago
    all immigration is legal if you claim to be an asylum seeker. It’s not intended to be a deportation-delayer for economic migrants.
    - cycrutchfield 4y ago
      Cool. How do you decide who is an economic migrant?
      - coryrc 4y ago
        If they traveled through another country (Mexico) which could grant asylum, but chose not to stay there.