3 ms·

> Thanks to HN's naive and draconian policy prohibiting political discussion No such policy exists. There was a brief experiment with such a policy, years ago,

> Thanks to HN's naive and draconian policy prohibiting political discussion No such policy exists. There was a brief experiment with such a policy, years ago, and it was terminated early when it proved unworkable. It is true that most, especially high-controversy, political discussion is outside of what the community here views as simultaneously being intellectually stimulating and something that is likely to be discussed without descending into an emotion-driven flamewar with of hyperbole, lies,and people talking past each other that has no value. And, fairly frequently, the controversial political topics that don't die right away to community moderation reinforce this point. The strengths HN has a forum on some issues over places loke Twitter or Reddit or even yelling at people on a street corner simply are not there for many political controversies.

resters 2y ago
Do you consider people being deported without trial to be something "controversial"? I think most people consider bans on such things to be a basic principle of british common law and (with a few notable exceptions) a centuries old norm for western civilization.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Do you consider people being deported without trial to be something "controversial"? Is there, in fact, significant controversy over it? Then, yes, it is controversial. > I think most people consider bans on such things to be a basic principle of british common law I don't think most people have any idea what “british common law” is, much less have a particular opinion about what it has to say about American immigration policy. And, AFAICT, British Common Law at the point it was last relevant to American law, that is, at the time of US independence, was somewhat unsettled on the matter, with leading scholars disagreeing over whether the power of removal was purely discretionary, required stating good cause, or might be subject to more stringent limits as to justification for certain aliens, see, e.g., the discussion at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-2/ALDE_00001256/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8...
  - resters 2y ago
    The previous time the alien enemies act was exercised (putting Japanese Americans in camps during WW2) is widely viewed as having been highly inappropriate and regrettable act. Ronald Reagan officially apologized and paid $20K to the families of each person victimized.
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      40 years later? Were there people marching in the streets demanding the practice stop in the 1940s? Editorials? Muttering at work?
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > The previous time the alien enemies act was exercised (putting Japanese Americans in camps during WW2) is widely viewed as having been highly inappropriate and regrettable act. This is often incorrectly cited as the last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, but EO 9066, under which the exclusion, and subsequent forced relocation of, Americans of Japanese descent from large swathes of the country, and some others, occurred does not cite as authority and was not tied to the Alien Enemies Act (which, by its own terms, only applies to aliens, not citizens.) There were invocations of the Alien Enemies Act in the earlier proclamations of Dec. 7 and Dec. 8, 1941, but the exclusions and forced relocation under military authority under EO 9066 was broader and not based on the Alien Enemies Act.
      - resters 2y ago
        I get that EO 9066 wasn’t directly tied to the Alien Enemies Act, but the internment itself still relied on wartime powers and ended up targeting Japanese Americans unjustly. Do you think the legal specifics change how we view the regret over those camps today? Also FWIW Reagan's apology was addressed both to citizen and non-citizen victims of the camps.
        dragonwriter 2y ago
        > Do you think the legal specifics change how we view the regret over those camps today? I think whether or not, and how, it was tied to the Alien Enemies Act is more than a little relevant to considering what purpose it can serve in discussing the Alien Enemies Act. How we view the regret over the camps is, outside of that, mostly irrelevant to the context in which the issue was raised in this discussion.

resters 2y ago

Do you consider people being deported without trial to be something "controversial"? I think most people consider bans on such things to be a basic principle of british common law and (with a few notable exceptions) a centuries old norm for western civilization.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> Do you consider people being deported without trial to be something "controversial"? Is there, in fact, significant controversy over it? Then, yes, it is controversial. > I think most people consider bans on such things to be a basic principle of british common law I don't think most people have any idea what “british common law” is, much less have a particular opinion about what it has to say about American immigration policy. And, AFAICT, British Common Law at the point it was last relevant to American law, that is, at the time of US independence, was somewhat unsettled on the matter, with leading scholars disagreeing over whether the power of removal was purely discretionary, required stating good cause, or might be subject to more stringent limits as to justification for certain aliens, see, e.g., the discussion at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-2/ALDE_00001256/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8...
- resters 2y ago
  The previous time the alien enemies act was exercised (putting Japanese Americans in camps during WW2) is widely viewed as having been highly inappropriate and regrettable act. Ronald Reagan officially apologized and paid $20K to the families of each person victimized.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    40 years later? Were there people marching in the streets demanding the practice stop in the 1940s? Editorials? Muttering at work?
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > The previous time the alien enemies act was exercised (putting Japanese Americans in camps during WW2) is widely viewed as having been highly inappropriate and regrettable act. This is often incorrectly cited as the last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, but EO 9066, under which the exclusion, and subsequent forced relocation of, Americans of Japanese descent from large swathes of the country, and some others, occurred does not cite as authority and was not tied to the Alien Enemies Act (which, by its own terms, only applies to aliens, not citizens.) There were invocations of the Alien Enemies Act in the earlier proclamations of Dec. 7 and Dec. 8, 1941, but the exclusions and forced relocation under military authority under EO 9066 was broader and not based on the Alien Enemies Act.
    - resters 2y ago
      I get that EO 9066 wasn’t directly tied to the Alien Enemies Act, but the internment itself still relied on wartime powers and ended up targeting Japanese Americans unjustly. Do you think the legal specifics change how we view the regret over those camps today? Also FWIW Reagan's apology was addressed both to citizen and non-citizen victims of the camps.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > Do you think the legal specifics change how we view the regret over those camps today? I think whether or not, and how, it was tied to the Alien Enemies Act is more than a little relevant to considering what purpose it can serve in discussing the Alien Enemies Act. How we view the regret over the camps is, outside of that, mostly irrelevant to the context in which the issue was raised in this discussion.