6 ms·

Every day across the world thousands of people are removed from countries around the world for violating immigration laws. Except in cases of where it coincided

Every day across the world thousands of people are removed from countries around the world for violating immigration laws. Except in cases of where it coincided with criminality, it's always going to be very ugly, because it means somebody had built up a life for themselves somewhere and that is now ended due to them having been born in a different place and then overstayed their permission, or never received such, to stay somewhere else. Like in this case, what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people? The parents were in the country illegally, and the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright. Any sort of "pleasant" outcome would effectively require turning birthright citizenship into defacto citizenship for the parents as well, at least if they can stay illegally for long enough. That's not only completely unrealistic, but also a complete slap in the face to the millions of people who try to migrate legally and are refused entry.

yodsanklai 2y ago
> it's always going to be very ugly, It doesn't have to be as ugly as what is described in the article.
apical_dendrite 2y ago
> Any sort of "pleasant" outcome would effectively require turning birthright citizenship into defacto citizenship for the parents as well, at least if they can stay illegally for long enough. No, there are lots of immigration statuses between "illegal" and "citizen". DAPA, which was the Obama administration's policy, gave parents of US citizens a status where they could get temporary renewable work permits and exemption for deportation. This was not citizenship, or even a status that could allow someone to eventually become a citizen.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Most of those statuses are called "visas" and they have been around for a while. Obama's innovation was giving a weird form of status ("we know you broke the law and we aren't enforcing it") to people who broke the law when crossing the border. Most people with a non-illegal and non-citizen status are supposed to apply for that status before crossing the border.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    This gets at another portion of the answer to the "what's your alternative suggestion?" question: I'd suggest Congress pass laws, rather than presidents making stuff up, illegally. This is clearly not a partisan point! Every president in my voting lifetime - Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden - has made up immigration law while Congress sat on its thumbs.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      Exactly. People forget, but the first selective enforcement edict (on illegal immigration) came from HW Bush.
    - roamerz 2y ago
      There have been many laws passed by Congress addressing immigration. It is against law to cross the border without authorization. This particular case exists as a result of not enforcing those laws. Pretty simple.
      - sanderjd 2y ago
        Despite past congresses passing laws, the system is not good. A major contributor to the problem of people immigrating illegally is that our legal immigration system is a total mess. This is why there have been a number of efforts at reforms over the past few decades. But none of them have worked, leaving us in this situation where presidents from both parties do all this illegal stuff by executive action.
    - apical_dendrite 2y ago
      I agree with you. I think there has to be a reasonable solution that gives legal status to the guy who's been here for 20 years and is making a positive contribution to society, but doesn't allow someone to show up and exploit loopholes to stay forever. I think a reasonable compromise would look something like this: * Make it much easier for people to get temporary visas for the kinds of jobs where we need migrant workers. * Provide a pathway to citizenship for people who have been in this country for a very long time and are contributing to society. * Make it very difficult for people to come to the US without a visa - e.g. make people apply for asylum outside of the US. Stop issuing temporary protected status to huge blocks of migrants. Unfortunately, political polarization has basically made it impossible for Congress to solve real problems.
sswatson 2y ago
The phrase "solely one of birthright" suggests the diminishment of the citizenship of certain people. That is not how citizenship works: no one is less of a citizen than anyone else. The most objectionable part here — by far — is not the deportation of the parents, but the deportation of citizens and the lack of due process. The alternative being proposed is that if ICE is going to deport the parents of US citizen children, the parents should be given the opportunity to seek legal counsel regarding how they're going to ensure care for their children.
- kadushka 2y ago
  no one is less of a citizen than anyone else This is not true - a citizen by birth can become the president, a naturalized citizen cannot.
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    that's true, so basically they deported somebody that one day could become President!
    - lawn 2y ago
      They deported someone with (supposedly) more rights than Elon Musk.
  - V-eHGsd_ 2y ago
    While true, I believe op was talking about with respect to the protections afforded by the law.
    - threatofrain 2y ago
      While true, one thing OP could be talking about is the spiritualism implied by that rule, and whether it finds catch in the American psychology.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  US hospitals do not have magical pixie dust to grant US citizenship. This is why birthright as a legal concept is a diminishment of citizenship for all those who hold it. Parents pass on the shared history, values, and national culture to their kids. Parents are those who give value to US citizenship. Not coming out of a belly, that happens to be inside a US hospital.
sanderjd 2y ago
> the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright Under the US Constitution, this is not a distinction. What you're looking for is just "the children's citizenship" without this qualifier that signifies nothing under the law. The better alternative is to aggressively enforce employment laws against employers. Immigrants come here and stay here to work.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Agree and proper border control which the previous administration failed to enforce. Step 1 is stop the influx.
  - faster 2y ago
    The data seem to show that at the end of Biden's term, ICE enforcement actions were very low. But for some reason, the stats page doesn't show Trump's previous term. https://www.ice.gov/statistics https://www.ice.gov/statistics Looking at the most recent DHS yearbook (apples and oranges, but the best I can find so far) at https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook and scaling to match the curve at the ICE stats page, it looks like illegal immigration was way down at the end of Biden's term. So maybe the influx was already slowed dramatically. I don't think it's possible to stop people from wanting to go to the US, except by making it worse that the places people are leaving. I don't think that's a worthy goal.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      The question we have to ask ourselves is why was ICE not empowered to conduct enforcement ? Why were border crossings up over Biden’s term and then when Trump is elected and comes into office they drop dramatically ?
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    I'm in favor of that too, but I think this insistence on it being step 1 is actually just a resistance to solving the real problem. (Which is that employers are happy to pay below market wages to illegally employ immigrants who are here unlawfully.)
DragonStrength 2y ago
The issue is some ability to fight. For instance, I don’t think the child of a US citizen should be deported without consent of their citizen parent or a ruling against that parent. I’d like some assurance my own child won’t be disappeared to another country without my consent.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  > I don’t think the child of a US citizen should be deported without consent of their citizen parent or a ruling against that parent. Think it should depend on custody. US courts don't just always favor the custody of the citizen parent.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    If only custody and other issues could have been determined h a court, not ICE ignoring the court while it expedited a flight out of the country then said “sorry, too late”.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
UncleMeat 2y ago
> and the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright My citizenship is solely that way too, even though generations of my ancestors were also citizens. Unless you personally naturalized then your citizenship is solely by birthright. The vast majority of US citizens are this way. Insisting that this is somehow worth less in terms of legal protections is just frankly wrong. Imagine you said this for other circumstances. "Well, a parent going to prison is always going to be hard for the family - better imprison the whole family!"
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
nikanj 2y ago
The previous time the big mad that Obama was (supposedly) not born on the US soil, now the problem is that someone was born in the US. Is there an acceptable way for POC to get citizenship anymore, if it's not by inheritance and it's not by being born in the US?
- tuan 2y ago
  5mil for a gold card and expedited path to citizenship I’ve heard.
  - chasd00 2y ago
    Just like everywhere else.
    - usernomdeguerre 2y ago
      There are places that do not have pay-for-citizenship.
- tastyfreeze 2y ago
  A quarter of US citizens are not white. Maybe POC isn't the best term to use here.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
__turbobrew__ 2y ago
> Like in this case, what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people? I like how nobody has actually answered this question yet, and have only harped on your birthright comment. The parents are in the US illegally, ICE deports people who are in the US illegally. Presumably the parents didn’t want to leave their USC kids behind so they brought them. I guess possible options are 1. Allow illegal parents to designate USC kids a guardian who has legal US immigration status 2. Dont deport illegal immigrants who have USC kids (basically making birthright transitive to parents)
- Swizec 2y ago
  > 2. Dont deport illegal immigrants who have USC kids (basically making birthright transitive to parents) Birthright is somewhat transitive. US citizens can sponsor family members for a green card once they’re 18.
- Volundr 2y ago
  While plenty of people would prefer 2) there would be a lot less outcry if they were allowing 1) especially in cases where the kid already has a legal USC guardian like the one discussed here where the father couldn't even speak with the mother before her and his child was deported.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > The parents are in the US illegally No, the father is not. And when trying to get the mother legal help for her situation was cut off from her. Same when the court tried to get information, ICE ignored it, got her on a plane and then shortly after said “sorry, too late”.
  - __turbobrew__ 2y ago
    The question then is the mother the legal guardian of the kids and was she given a choice to hand off the kids to someone else? If the mother was the legal guardian and she decided to take the USC kids with her, that is her right. I think the details will matter here, it does seem like ICE skrewed the pooch here in not giving the family recourse to get the kids out of the detainee facility. If the USC kids were involuntarily detained that is a problem (despite it may be legal to do that according to US federal law).
IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
First, the US needs to resolve its issue of citizenship. It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time. Instead we defaulted to "anyone born in a US hospital is a citizen" Then, as welfare, lack of law enforcement and border grew, the broken citizenship process became a larger problem that now we have to deal with. To me, the answer to your question of what is the alternative is as follows: The sole act of breaking laws and cutting the line to come into the country, to then birth babies here for the pusposes of straightjacketing the host's own response seems like should not be allowed, full stop. The premise of becoming a US citizen cannot be grounded in 2 crimes being committed before you are a citizen (1 illegal entry, 1 lying about your asylum petition). We then have the issue of citizenship. It cannot be that because you come out of a womb that happens to be passing by a US hospital, you are a US citizen. US hospitals do not have magic pixie dust that grant american-ness. The Swiss have the right model that you actually have to come from at least 1 national parent, to foster national unity. The Swiss have the longest-lasting democracy in the world for a reason. Ignoring this seems suicidal. In nature and history, no humans prospered without an organized tribe centered around shared history and values. Then there are the cases of people that came here, all legally, and found a life worth having by contributing to society. There should be a path for them to be citizens. What that path looks like, I dont know. But that's a conversation worth having soon since they are paying the price for the crimes and abuse committed by the 1st group.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  Let's remind ourselves of the text of the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” > It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time. I think any clear reading of the 14th amendment shows that you are incorrect.
mayneack 2y ago
> That's not only completely unrealistic I don't see how it's unrealistic.
tomrod 2y ago
> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent There is a moral answer, the practical answer, and two popular answers, none of which are particularly satisfying. The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless all or a large bloc of countries allow it in reciprocity, or at least countries with an EU-like agreement. It would make a lot of sense for all of North America to have an EU-like agreement, economically, militarily, and legally. The practical answer: amnesty for parents of children who are born here, conditional on criminality aversion. Like a form of probation. The right-wing propaganda answer: immigrants somehow took jobs they are unwilling to do and therefore, while we might crack a few eggs making the omelette, all immigrants must go. Authoritarians love this view. The left-wing propaganda: all immigrants are noble victims of evil capitalist systems, and therefore any control over borders is inherently racist and fascist. This is clearly also unsustainable, and authoritarians love for their opponents to have this view.
- yubblegum 2y ago
  > The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless .. A strong no on this being "the moral answer". If people are permitted to vote with their feet maybe people are also permitted to build pickets around communities. That sounds more "moral" to me than entirely ignoring the wishes of the chosen destination's "people". IFF the destination is happy to welcome people who think their community better than their own and want to move over, then fine, that is a much better candidate for "the moral answer".
  - tomrod 2y ago
    We already do this between states in the US and in the EU, so clearly it can work in practice. We don't normally look at it that way, but that is precisely how we structured things.
    - yubblegum 2y ago
exe34 2y ago
"what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people?" A fair trial in court for a start.
p_j_w 2y ago
> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people? How about real actual fucking due process? Maybe they can NOT cut off communication when the citizen father tried to provide her with a phone number for legal counsel. Anything else is ghoulish. Keep defending it if you really don’t give a shit about your level of humanity.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  > Maybe they can NOT cut off communication when the citizen father tried Is father a US citizen? Based on https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.210781/gov.uscourts.lawd.210781.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21... assuming that's the right case it doesn't seem like he is
  - jolmg 2y ago
    Possibly meant "the citizen's father"
    - rdtsc 2y ago
      That could be, but I see other comments also indicating the father is a U.S. citizen.
shadowgovt 2y ago
> also a complete slap in the face to the millions of people who try to migrate legally and are refused entry. Yeah, it sounds like a completely unworkable situation. If only there was some way to make it easier for people to stay in the United States with much relaxed concern about their citizenship status or documentation. ... Oh wait, we could just do that. Because it's our laws, which means it's rules for a game we made up for ourselves. The universe does not care about the lines drawn on a map. People do. If the lines drawn on a map and the separation of human beings across those lines is becoming painful... Maybe we stop hurting ourselves? We could care less. We did care less in the past. It seemed to work pretty well.

yodsanklai 2y ago

> it's always going to be very ugly, It doesn't have to be as ugly as what is described in the article.

apical_dendrite 2y ago

> Any sort of "pleasant" outcome would effectively require turning birthright citizenship into defacto citizenship for the parents as well, at least if they can stay illegally for long enough. No, there are lots of immigration statuses between "illegal" and "citizen". DAPA, which was the Obama administration's policy, gave parents of US citizens a status where they could get temporary renewable work permits and exemption for deportation. This was not citizenship, or even a status that could allow someone to eventually become a citizen.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
Most of those statuses are called "visas" and they have been around for a while. Obama's innovation was giving a weird form of status ("we know you broke the law and we aren't enforcing it") to people who broke the law when crossing the border. Most people with a non-illegal and non-citizen status are supposed to apply for that status before crossing the border.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  This gets at another portion of the answer to the "what's your alternative suggestion?" question: I'd suggest Congress pass laws, rather than presidents making stuff up, illegally. This is clearly not a partisan point! Every president in my voting lifetime - Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden - has made up immigration law while Congress sat on its thumbs.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Exactly. People forget, but the first selective enforcement edict (on illegal immigration) came from HW Bush.
  - roamerz 2y ago
    There have been many laws passed by Congress addressing immigration. It is against law to cross the border without authorization. This particular case exists as a result of not enforcing those laws. Pretty simple.
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      Despite past congresses passing laws, the system is not good. A major contributor to the problem of people immigrating illegally is that our legal immigration system is a total mess. This is why there have been a number of efforts at reforms over the past few decades. But none of them have worked, leaving us in this situation where presidents from both parties do all this illegal stuff by executive action.
  - apical_dendrite 2y ago
    I agree with you. I think there has to be a reasonable solution that gives legal status to the guy who's been here for 20 years and is making a positive contribution to society, but doesn't allow someone to show up and exploit loopholes to stay forever. I think a reasonable compromise would look something like this: * Make it much easier for people to get temporary visas for the kinds of jobs where we need migrant workers. * Provide a pathway to citizenship for people who have been in this country for a very long time and are contributing to society. * Make it very difficult for people to come to the US without a visa - e.g. make people apply for asylum outside of the US. Stop issuing temporary protected status to huge blocks of migrants. Unfortunately, political polarization has basically made it impossible for Congress to solve real problems.

sswatson 2y ago

The phrase "solely one of birthright" suggests the diminishment of the citizenship of certain people. That is not how citizenship works: no one is less of a citizen than anyone else. The most objectionable part here — by far — is not the deportation of the parents, but the deportation of citizens and the lack of due process. The alternative being proposed is that if ICE is going to deport the parents of US citizen children, the parents should be given the opportunity to seek legal counsel regarding how they're going to ensure care for their children.

kadushka 2y ago
no one is less of a citizen than anyone else This is not true - a citizen by birth can become the president, a naturalized citizen cannot.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  that's true, so basically they deported somebody that one day could become President!
  - lawn 2y ago
    They deported someone with (supposedly) more rights than Elon Musk.
- V-eHGsd_ 2y ago
  While true, I believe op was talking about with respect to the protections afforded by the law.
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    While true, one thing OP could be talking about is the spiritualism implied by that rule, and whether it finds catch in the American psychology.
IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
US hospitals do not have magical pixie dust to grant US citizenship. This is why birthright as a legal concept is a diminishment of citizenship for all those who hold it. Parents pass on the shared history, values, and national culture to their kids. Parents are those who give value to US citizenship. Not coming out of a belly, that happens to be inside a US hospital.

sanderjd 2y ago

> the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright Under the US Constitution, this is not a distinction. What you're looking for is just "the children's citizenship" without this qualifier that signifies nothing under the law. The better alternative is to aggressively enforce employment laws against employers. Immigrants come here and stay here to work.

firesteelrain 2y ago
Agree and proper border control which the previous administration failed to enforce. Step 1 is stop the influx.
- faster 2y ago
  The data seem to show that at the end of Biden's term, ICE enforcement actions were very low. But for some reason, the stats page doesn't show Trump's previous term. https://www.ice.gov/statistics https://www.ice.gov/statistics Looking at the most recent DHS yearbook (apples and oranges, but the best I can find so far) at https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook and scaling to match the curve at the ICE stats page, it looks like illegal immigration was way down at the end of Biden's term. So maybe the influx was already slowed dramatically. I don't think it's possible to stop people from wanting to go to the US, except by making it worse that the places people are leaving. I don't think that's a worthy goal.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    The question we have to ask ourselves is why was ICE not empowered to conduct enforcement ? Why were border crossings up over Biden’s term and then when Trump is elected and comes into office they drop dramatically ?
- sanderjd 2y ago
  I'm in favor of that too, but I think this insistence on it being step 1 is actually just a resistance to solving the real problem. (Which is that employers are happy to pay below market wages to illegally employ immigrants who are here unlawfully.)

DragonStrength 2y ago

The issue is some ability to fight. For instance, I don’t think the child of a US citizen should be deported without consent of their citizen parent or a ruling against that parent. I’d like some assurance my own child won’t be disappeared to another country without my consent.

whimsicalism 2y ago
> I don’t think the child of a US citizen should be deported without consent of their citizen parent or a ruling against that parent. Think it should depend on custody. US courts don't just always favor the custody of the citizen parent.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  If only custody and other issues could have been determined h a court, not ICE ignoring the court while it expedited a flight out of the country then said “sorry, too late”.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

UncleMeat 2y ago

> and the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright My citizenship is solely that way too, even though generations of my ancestors were also citizens. Unless you personally naturalized then your citizenship is solely by birthright. The vast majority of US citizens are this way. Insisting that this is somehow worth less in terms of legal protections is just frankly wrong. Imagine you said this for other circumstances. "Well, a parent going to prison is always going to be hard for the family - better imprison the whole family!"

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

nikanj 2y ago

The previous time the big mad that Obama was (supposedly) not born on the US soil, now the problem is that someone was born in the US. Is there an acceptable way for POC to get citizenship anymore, if it's not by inheritance and it's not by being born in the US?

tuan 2y ago
5mil for a gold card and expedited path to citizenship I’ve heard.
- chasd00 2y ago
  Just like everywhere else.
  - usernomdeguerre 2y ago
    There are places that do not have pay-for-citizenship.
tastyfreeze 2y ago
A quarter of US citizens are not white. Maybe POC isn't the best term to use here.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

__turbobrew__ 2y ago

> Like in this case, what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people? I like how nobody has actually answered this question yet, and have only harped on your birthright comment. The parents are in the US illegally, ICE deports people who are in the US illegally. Presumably the parents didn’t want to leave their USC kids behind so they brought them. I guess possible options are 1. Allow illegal parents to designate USC kids a guardian who has legal US immigration status 2. Dont deport illegal immigrants who have USC kids (basically making birthright transitive to parents)

Swizec 2y ago
> 2. Dont deport illegal immigrants who have USC kids (basically making birthright transitive to parents) Birthright is somewhat transitive. US citizens can sponsor family members for a green card once they’re 18.
Volundr 2y ago
While plenty of people would prefer 2) there would be a lot less outcry if they were allowing 1) especially in cases where the kid already has a legal USC guardian like the one discussed here where the father couldn't even speak with the mother before her and his child was deported.
FireBeyond 2y ago
> The parents are in the US illegally No, the father is not. And when trying to get the mother legal help for her situation was cut off from her. Same when the court tried to get information, ICE ignored it, got her on a plane and then shortly after said “sorry, too late”.
- __turbobrew__ 2y ago
  The question then is the mother the legal guardian of the kids and was she given a choice to hand off the kids to someone else? If the mother was the legal guardian and she decided to take the USC kids with her, that is her right. I think the details will matter here, it does seem like ICE skrewed the pooch here in not giving the family recourse to get the kids out of the detainee facility. If the USC kids were involuntarily detained that is a problem (despite it may be legal to do that according to US federal law).

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago

First, the US needs to resolve its issue of citizenship. It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time. Instead we defaulted to "anyone born in a US hospital is a citizen" Then, as welfare, lack of law enforcement and border grew, the broken citizenship process became a larger problem that now we have to deal with. To me, the answer to your question of what is the alternative is as follows: The sole act of breaking laws and cutting the line to come into the country, to then birth babies here for the pusposes of straightjacketing the host's own response seems like should not be allowed, full stop. The premise of becoming a US citizen cannot be grounded in 2 crimes being committed before you are a citizen (1 illegal entry, 1 lying about your asylum petition). We then have the issue of citizenship. It cannot be that because you come out of a womb that happens to be passing by a US hospital, you are a US citizen. US hospitals do not have magic pixie dust that grant american-ness. The Swiss have the right model that you actually have to come from at least 1 national parent, to foster national unity. The Swiss have the longest-lasting democracy in the world for a reason. Ignoring this seems suicidal. In nature and history, no humans prospered without an organized tribe centered around shared history and values. Then there are the cases of people that came here, all legally, and found a life worth having by contributing to society. There should be a path for them to be citizens. What that path looks like, I dont know. But that's a conversation worth having soon since they are paying the price for the crimes and abuse committed by the 1st group.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
whimsicalism 2y ago
Let's remind ourselves of the text of the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” > It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time. I think any clear reading of the 14th amendment shows that you are incorrect.

mayneack 2y ago

> That's not only completely unrealistic I don't see how it's unrealistic.

tomrod 2y ago

> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent There is a moral answer, the practical answer, and two popular answers, none of which are particularly satisfying. The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless all or a large bloc of countries allow it in reciprocity, or at least countries with an EU-like agreement. It would make a lot of sense for all of North America to have an EU-like agreement, economically, militarily, and legally. The practical answer: amnesty for parents of children who are born here, conditional on criminality aversion. Like a form of probation. The right-wing propaganda answer: immigrants somehow took jobs they are unwilling to do and therefore, while we might crack a few eggs making the omelette, all immigrants must go. Authoritarians love this view. The left-wing propaganda: all immigrants are noble victims of evil capitalist systems, and therefore any control over borders is inherently racist and fascist. This is clearly also unsustainable, and authoritarians love for their opponents to have this view.

yubblegum 2y ago
> The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless .. A strong no on this being "the moral answer". If people are permitted to vote with their feet maybe people are also permitted to build pickets around communities. That sounds more "moral" to me than entirely ignoring the wishes of the chosen destination's "people". IFF the destination is happy to welcome people who think their community better than their own and want to move over, then fine, that is a much better candidate for "the moral answer".
- tomrod 2y ago
  We already do this between states in the US and in the EU, so clearly it can work in practice. We don't normally look at it that way, but that is precisely how we structured things.
  - yubblegum 2y ago

exe34 2y ago

"what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people?" A fair trial in court for a start.

p_j_w 2y ago

> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people? How about real actual fucking due process? Maybe they can NOT cut off communication when the citizen father tried to provide her with a phone number for legal counsel. Anything else is ghoulish. Keep defending it if you really don’t give a shit about your level of humanity.

rdtsc 2y ago
> Maybe they can NOT cut off communication when the citizen father tried Is father a US citizen? Based on https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.210781/gov.uscourts.lawd.210781.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21... assuming that's the right case it doesn't seem like he is
- jolmg 2y ago
  Possibly meant "the citizen's father"
  - rdtsc 2y ago
    That could be, but I see other comments also indicating the father is a U.S. citizen.

shadowgovt 2y ago

> also a complete slap in the face to the millions of people who try to migrate legally and are refused entry. Yeah, it sounds like a completely unworkable situation. If only there was some way to make it easier for people to stay in the United States with much relaxed concern about their citizenship status or documentation. ... Oh wait, we could just do that. Because it's our laws, which means it's rules for a game we made up for ourselves. The universe does not care about the lines drawn on a map. People do. If the lines drawn on a map and the separation of human beings across those lines is becoming painful... Maybe we stop hurting ourselves? We could care less. We did care less in the past. It seemed to work pretty well.