5 ms·

A different source (CBC) for the same story was posted yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43688069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43688069

tannedNerd 2y ago
[flagged]
- organsnyder 2y ago
  I agree, but OP didn't make any value judgment about this post.
  - tannedNerd 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - palmotea 2y ago
      > I would argue people complaining about seeing this twice are trying to pull the article without coming out as a bigot I would argue that you probably need to step away from the keyboard, if you're willing to jump to the conclusion that someone truthfully posting a very customary "this is a dup" comment is a bigot.
    - _bin_ 2y ago
      Okay, it seems like you're talking about me. I don't particularly support Trump and didn't vote for the guy but his immigration policy is one place I agree. I believe that every single illegal should be deported and probably barred from re-entry or citizenship as a punitive deterrent. I do not believe anyone besides Trump will actually do this. I do, however, disagree with Trump's targeting of pro-Palestinians. If Mahdawi originally immigrated illegally we should block a pathway to citizenship, as we should for every other current or former illegal. However, this appears to be done for the wrong reasons. Tarring everyone who dislikes illegal immigration and believes the "soft" solutions have utterly failed as a bigot is inaccurate and unproductive.
      - estebank 2y ago
        There's already no path to citizenship for anyone that entered the US without a visa or parole, and if deported it already eliminates the eligibility for a visa for 5 to 20 years.
        _bin_ 2y ago
        There are periodic amnesties granted every so often. The prior administration also radically expanded temporary protected status by hundreds of thousands of people to protect them from deportation. Near the end of his second term, Obama attempted to do this for millions of immigrants. We also issue I-601A waivers, the U visa, and of course the mass abuse of the asylum system. I think this should be pretty straightforward: we need a somewhat more streamlined immigration system. However, we should still cap the overall proportion of immigration any country can represent, should limit uneducated, unskilled labor, and should block anyone who immigrates illegally from ever obtaining lawful permanent residency, any benefits or privileges, and certainly citizenship.
      - AlecSchueler 2y ago
        > Tarring everyone who dislikes illegal immigration and believes the "soft" solutions have utterly failed as a bigot is inaccurate and unproductive. I wouldn't do that myself but when you refer to people as "illegals" you make it much more difficult.
        _bin_ 2y ago
        Is there something wrong with that? Incredibly common parlance.
        AlecSchueler 2y ago
        It's dehumanising. They have committed an illegal act. The respectfully term would be "illegal immigrants." It's the difference between "black people" and "blacks." The latter was also once incredibly common parlance.
tom_ 2y ago
And a BBC link, from the article, which is apparently currently HN'd: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy0332y7xzo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy0332y7xzo
mdp2021 2y ago
(Submitter here.) I had not seen it. I have been checking the Daily Nous for years as a small team outlet for professional philosophers. I find it strong when academicians and professionals feel they have to interrupt the normal stream of their occupations because of an extraordinary something that calls for a shift in attention...

tannedNerd 2y ago

[flagged]

organsnyder 2y ago
I agree, but OP didn't make any value judgment about this post.
- tannedNerd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - palmotea 2y ago
    > I would argue people complaining about seeing this twice are trying to pull the article without coming out as a bigot I would argue that you probably need to step away from the keyboard, if you're willing to jump to the conclusion that someone truthfully posting a very customary "this is a dup" comment is a bigot.
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    Okay, it seems like you're talking about me. I don't particularly support Trump and didn't vote for the guy but his immigration policy is one place I agree. I believe that every single illegal should be deported and probably barred from re-entry or citizenship as a punitive deterrent. I do not believe anyone besides Trump will actually do this. I do, however, disagree with Trump's targeting of pro-Palestinians. If Mahdawi originally immigrated illegally we should block a pathway to citizenship, as we should for every other current or former illegal. However, this appears to be done for the wrong reasons. Tarring everyone who dislikes illegal immigration and believes the "soft" solutions have utterly failed as a bigot is inaccurate and unproductive.
    - estebank 2y ago
      There's already no path to citizenship for anyone that entered the US without a visa or parole, and if deported it already eliminates the eligibility for a visa for 5 to 20 years.
      - _bin_ 2y ago
        There are periodic amnesties granted every so often. The prior administration also radically expanded temporary protected status by hundreds of thousands of people to protect them from deportation. Near the end of his second term, Obama attempted to do this for millions of immigrants. We also issue I-601A waivers, the U visa, and of course the mass abuse of the asylum system. I think this should be pretty straightforward: we need a somewhat more streamlined immigration system. However, we should still cap the overall proportion of immigration any country can represent, should limit uneducated, unskilled labor, and should block anyone who immigrates illegally from ever obtaining lawful permanent residency, any benefits or privileges, and certainly citizenship.
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      > Tarring everyone who dislikes illegal immigration and believes the "soft" solutions have utterly failed as a bigot is inaccurate and unproductive. I wouldn't do that myself but when you refer to people as "illegals" you make it much more difficult.
      - _bin_ 2y ago
        Is there something wrong with that? Incredibly common parlance.
        AlecSchueler 2y ago
        It's dehumanising. They have committed an illegal act. The respectfully term would be "illegal immigrants." It's the difference between "black people" and "blacks." The latter was also once incredibly common parlance.

tom_ 2y ago

And a BBC link, from the article, which is apparently currently HN'd: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy0332y7xzo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy0332y7xzo

mdp2021 2y ago

(Submitter here.) I had not seen it. I have been checking the Daily Nous for years as a small team outlet for professional philosophers. I find it strong when academicians and professionals feel they have to interrupt the normal stream of their occupations because of an extraordinary something that calls for a shift in attention...