9 ms·

Feels like this conversation is full of people getting hung up on arguing the technicalities and exact phrasing of this situation. Is that really important to t

Feels like this conversation is full of people getting hung up on arguing the technicalities and exact phrasing of this situation. Is that really important to the broader conversation?

generalizations 1y ago
Either the technicalities matter, or our legal system runs on vibes. I think it is important.
- ridgeguy 1y ago
  Our legal system has always depended on vibes to mitigate technically correct unjust or catastrophic outcomes. It's broadly labelled "prosecutorial discretion", and operates at every level of the justice system. IMHO, it's essential.
  - nickff 1y ago
    Prosecutorial discretion hasn’t meant much to me since the Bond got prosecuted for violating a chemical weapons treaty, and Yates got prosecuted for fish-shredding. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States_(2015) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States_(2015...
    - Misdicorl 1y ago
      Sometimes the vibes are wrong, and things go haywire. This is why zero tolerance policies have to be instituted in schools. That doesnt mean the general idea is wrong. Strict adherence to written law will always fail justice. The world is too nuanced and too fractal to handle every edge case well.
      - IIsi50MHz 1y ago
        I seem to recall that zero-tolerance policies caused the expulsion of multiple Boy Scouts who were merely obeying the requirement that they always have a multifunction pocket tool with them (such as a Victorinox knife), and these caused the Scouts to rescind the rule. "Zero tolerance" policies are a generally a tool of the Sith.
    - noelwelsh 1y ago
      Every system fails sometimes. The only interesting question is whether it is systemic or not.
  - timewizard 1y ago
    > has always depended on vibes Jury trials do. Administrative trials never have. > It's broadly labelled "prosecutorial discretion", Federal DAs win 98% of their cases. This discretion is not what you think it is. > IMHO, it's essential. Well, unless they're J6 defendants, or any other group labeled by the media as undesirable.
  - generalizations 1y ago
    Good vibes, or bad vibes? The technicalities of the law keep both in check. Vibes don't just allow us to "mitigate technically correct unjust...outcomes" - they also let people in power "mitigate technically correct just...outcomes" to achieve their own desired ends.
- intermerda 1y ago
  I assume you believe it's important that the federal agents should raid every marijuana dispensary in the US and for the DOJ to prosecute dispensary owners and individuals who smoke and participate in weed consumption in each state. Is that correct? After all, technicalities matter.
  - the8472 1y ago
    The flip side is unevenly enforced laws, with parts of the government having discretion onto whom they bring down the monopoly on violence.
- rsoto2 1y ago
  It was once legal to own people so what the fuck do you think it runs on
  - ithkuil 1y ago
    Laws != Legal system
whoknowsidont 1y ago
When you're a sheltered suburbanite nerd (yeah, even the "rural" ones) who will never have to truly worry about being in this situation, this is just an exciting news story to squabble over and smugly flounder about on your keyboard. Deplorable.
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  I feel more disgusted by the Americans who know this is wrong but do nothing. I have no patience for evil people, but the truly damned are all the Americans who know and sense better but do not or cannot act properly. If deporting U.S. CITIZEN CHILDREN does not send you to the streets with fire and fury, you are well and truly lost. So much damn talk over the decades I've been alive about patriotism and liberty from America, but when a moment unquestionably calls for action, it turns out Americans were just unserious cosplayers the whole damn time.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    It’s worse than that. Far too many of us want this stuff. I understand the basic idea of how you fight an oppressive regime everyone hates. I have no idea how you go about fighting one that half the country supports. Protests aren’t going to fix that. Last time around, I could at least soothe myself with the idea that he only won because our electoral system is idiotic, and a lot of voters didn’t understand what they were voting for. This time? He won the most votes, and everyone had every opportunity to see what they were getting. I can only conclude that my countrymen are fucked in the head.
    - mystraline 1y ago
      > I understand the basic idea of how you fight an oppressive regime everyone hates. I have no idea how you go about fighting one that half the country supports. Protests aren’t going to fix that. In reality, around 22% of the US populace (not just voters, but everyone) voted for Trump. Similar voted for Harris. The rest didn't vote. I refuse to attribute justifications, since they are too numerous. But that is correct, peaceful protests like 50501 aren't going to do much. Their value is more networking and mutual aid creation/management. What does work, especially historically, is violence. As a historian, when you look at pivotal points in history, changes were only won after a LOT of violence was applied. The trick is that groups like 50501 are absolutely needed for a different reason. The governments cannot negotiate with 'terrorists', but can save face by negotiating with 'peaceful groups'. We see this recently with MLK and Malcolm X, Sinn Fein and IRA, Ghandi and dozens of separatist factions. I'm not publically advocating violence, but the more fascist they become, well, that will be inevitable. Different people and groups have different lines in the sand. We're already talking about breaching medical records for 'defectives' (autism) list, turning trans folk into non-humans, kidnapping/disappearing people off the street, tattle-tale emails and phone#s to report people, lebensraum (Canada, Greenland, etc), off-country concentration camps (CECOT), and more. And we're only 3 months in of 4 years. If I had the ability to get out, I would have. But I'm guessing that even the better off here also don't have the ability.
SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
The broader conversation is impossible to have. “What policies do we need to ensure due process without compromising the effectiveness of immigration enforcement?” Even trying to start the conversation feels like a troll, because when the system looks like it does today who’s going to concede the premise that immigration enforcement shouldn’t be compromised?
- tremon 1y ago
  You're starting from an unverified assumption (the presumed ineffectiveness of immigration enforcement), that's maybe why it feels off to you. How is it ineffective, and why? Once you have answers to that, you can start the conversation about policy.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    There's millions of people currently in the US who aren't authorized to be in the US. 11 million, if you believe Pew's estimate (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...). I'm not sure how it's possible to avoid the conclusion that immigration enforcement isn't effective. Why it's ineffective is, again, something that's been impossible to research for as long as I've been paying attention to immigration. I genuinely don't know where I could go to get answers. Other than a couple people spinning evidence-free conspiracy theories about their political opponents, nobody seems interested in analyzing it.
exceptione 1y ago
I think the one who derailed the conversation did not do that on purpose, but yes, throwing in a technicality to us/the HN crowd is like throwing red meat to the lions. It seems we as technical people give little reason for giving us a leading role in society. I admit that the media doesn't help as they keep the big picture out of frame, but then again, we are very easily cornered with minor details. Anne Frank's house is not far from where I live. I bet that the term "forcefully" in a sentence like "She was forcefully deported" could have been up for debate too, who knows, but in the end it would not have really helped the girl.
perihelions 1y ago
C-f "citizenship"—55 results C-f "metastatic cancer"—1 There's a poor child that's being withheld access to their medication and to their oncologists, and the adults in the room—adults in uniforms, adults with guns, adults in suits and adults in black robes—all of these adults are doing their adult things with their adult words, and the sum total of all that is the child still is without their cancer medicine. What good can we be, if *this* result is the sum total of our good intentions?
- freen 1y ago
  The purpose of a system is exactly what it does. This IS the point, the goal, and the purpose.
- mindslight 1y ago
  The assumption of "good intentions" is not really warranted at this point. This movement is mainly driven by people who feel they have been marginalized by our society, and they want to lash out and see other people get hurt, period. Regardless of the ways they have been marginalized, and how much marginalization they have done to themselves by failing to engage with the complexity of the world and following malicious leaders instead, this is where we are at. We need to stare this bare reality in the face lest the supporters, enablers, and fence-sitters continue soothing themselves with rationalizations.
  - worik 1y ago
    > This movement is mainly driven by people who feel they have been marginalized by our society, and they want to lash out and see other people get hurt, Yes. This. This is what drives facism: It is not your fault you feel bad, it's them, over there This is why it is so important to "cuddle a facist". Facism feeds on violence, showing love and compassion to those whom you disagree with robs fascism of its oxygen
    - heavyset_go 1y ago
      Fascists think your love and compassion are foolish weaknesses that should be mocked.
pyuser583 1y ago
Americans don’t trust the press. A lot of these technicalities are parsing “what did the press actually say” which is the first step in dealing with an untrustworthy source of truth.
- intermerda 1y ago
  The distrust of the press has been cultivated intentionally. A POTUS saying "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening" would have been seen too farcical for a comedy. And yet here we are.
  - lazide 1y ago
    The ‘press’ has been clear bullshit (for me) since Gulf War 1.
  - pyuser583 1y ago
    When you read article after article that imply one thing, but actually say something else, how should we respond? Parsing out what the article says is necessary. It’s how articles are written, and how reporters and editors ask they be read. “John Doe committed a terrible crime, the FBI said” does not mean the press is reporting the John Doe committed a terrible crime. I wish the press would respond to cultivated mistrust by committing to high standards, but they have not.
    - foxglacier 1y ago
      Absolutely. And this whole idea of demonizing misinformation just makes it worse by implying that true information presented in a way that intentionally and actually misleads readers is somehow OK.
      - IIsi50MHz 1y ago
        > true information presented in a way that intentionally and actually misleads readers …is also misinformation.
  - 1y ago
cryptoegorophy 1y ago
What’s the conversation? Separating kids from parents or deporting them with parents because we don’t want them to be separate? There is no question about breaking the law by parents. Question is do you let children be with their mothers(who apparently asked to do so) or no. As someone who came legally to Canada and went through thorough screening of 4 years before coming I just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system. “Think of the children” works when you are in a super white rich neighborhood, if you never lived in slums you won’t understand the abuse of the system by “think of the children”, you just don’t see it from the other side.
- bodiekane 1y ago
  > just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system. This is a story about citizens being deported without due process, without access to lawyers, without access to healthcare. You don't have to be "ok with cheaters" to still want those people to have basic human rights and to see the system have legitimate judicial review. The punishment here is far worse than the crime, and it's directed at children who didn't commit the crime, and it was doled out in a horrifyingly abusive totalitarian police-state style. Maybe you're not seeing things from the right side?
  - kcplate 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - LorenPechtel 1y ago
      Do you not recognize that that letter was most likely signed under duress? She was probably offered to permit her baby to be deported with or or the baby goes into the foster care system, not to the husband. The Felon has specifically used separation from families and destroyed records as a weapon before, why do you think he's not doing it now??
      - kcplate 1y ago
        Does it really matter? Of course it was stressful. Most parents would not opt to be separated from a child. Especially mother from a baby… If you make a decision that comes with a great deal of risk to you and by extension your family (like crossing a border without following a proper immigration procedure). If that gamble doesn’t go your way would you really opt to leave your child if you could? Perhaps you would. I wouldn’t. Apparently she didn’t want to do that either. I am not going to ascribe any alternative motive other than love between a parent and child. > She was probably… > The Felon yada yada yada… Do you any evidence at all that is what is being done here or are you just inventing a backstory and trying to pass it off as evidence?
TacticalCoder 1y ago
> Is that really important to the broader conversation? The broader conversation is simple: there's an estimated 10 million illegals (low ball estimate, some go as far as 22 million) in the US, what should be done? For if the numbers are really that gigantic, there are going to be a few revolting cases when people are getting expulsed. Dems have been hard at work, for many years, funding ONGs with US taxpayers dollars, ONGs that'd actively facilitate and help millions and millions of border crossing and relocating illegals all across the US. It certainly feels a bit like now is payback time: this may be one of the reason Trump won... US citizens being fed up with that "border" that was basically a wide-open highway. I want to go live to the US: I raised my kid for ten years in english, she's only ever been to english-speaking schools. But as a non-US citizen I can't. We can't come to the U.S. $5m to buy the golden visa is a bit steep. That's the broader conversation: close to 2 billion in africa, 1.5 billion chinese, 1.3 billion Indian many of whom (for a variety of reason) want to leave their country. For the EU. For the US. Some europeans, like me, who want to go to the US too. Can the U.S. take them all? Every single one of them that wants to go to the US? If there are 8 digits number of illegals, something has to be done. You ain't dealing with 8 digits number of illegals without having a few "revolting" cases. And of course leftist media and orgs (like the ACLU) are going to carefully pick their fight, here's an headline that'd be frontpage: "Trans autistic mixed-race dwarf sick kid forced to leave the US". Calling a majority of EU and US citizens "nazis" because they're fed up with uncontrolled, illegal, migration ain't intellectually honest.
3vidence 1y ago
This is what HN has felt like for the past ~year ish. Makes me realize this community has a lot of "bike shedding" types who easily miss the forest from the trees. Slowly stopped looking for insight here on any topic that involves even a small amount of larger picture thinking, really quite sad.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Is that really important to the broader conversation? Habeas corpus predates the Magna Carta [1]. A U.S. citizen's right to habeas has been wilfully abrogated by the state. If this stands, I'm absolutely for taking all the pardoned January 6th nutters and sticking them in Guantanamo or wherever come 2028 or 2032. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Origins_in_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Origins_in_Engla...
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  Classic becoming the thing which you hate.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > becoming the thing which you hate More an honest reading of the history of power. If one side seizes a previously norms-gated tactic and is allowed to use it, the other side either seizes it, too, or ceases to exist. (Obviously, the preferred outcome is this is not allowed to stand.)
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      I totally agree that is the common and probable outcome. However, is not the exclusive outcome, nor does it have to be enthusiastically supported. Norm erosion and law breaking often see tit for tat retaliation with the notable exception of when norms and order are productively restored. I follow your comments because I find them balanced and often insightful, even (or perhaps especially) when I disagree. For this reason, I was surprised to see you advocate more unjust and amoral behavior, even if it is in the form of retaliation.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        I’m frankly surprised where I find myself. But I don’t see another move. > even if it is in the form of retaliation The most important part is messaging the expectation of retaliation ex ante: If you break habeus, we—too—will use that power. (And it won’t be our moderates who will be the first to seize it!) Otherwise, we have a two-party system where one team seizes advantage through force while the other pudges along hamstrung by norms only they respect. Also: once a norm is eroded, it’s impossible to regain it through norms alone. (I don’t recall any historical example of norms escalation being peacefully rolled back. It takes a shock for people in the moment and in the future to be able to point to for why that norm is necessary. Somehow the Nazis, Japanese internment and the Argentinian economy aren’t enough anymore.) Unfortunately, the norms being violated now probably require a Constitutional amendment to reïnstate. So I’m pessimistic about an off-ramp versus this being the new status quo. Maybe both sides being clear about what suspending habeus really means is the kick in the ass America needs to restrict pardon powers and/or give the Congress and courts limited direct enforcement authority. (Or maybe, as it was with Jackson, it will be Trump’s economic ineptitude that brings the shock.)

Feels like this conversation is full of people getting hung up on arguing the technicalities and exact phrasing of this situation. Is that really important to the broader conversation?

generalizations 1y ago

Either the technicalities matter, or our legal system runs on vibes. I think it is important.

ridgeguy 1y ago
Our legal system has always depended on vibes to mitigate technically correct unjust or catastrophic outcomes. It's broadly labelled "prosecutorial discretion", and operates at every level of the justice system. IMHO, it's essential.
- nickff 1y ago
  Prosecutorial discretion hasn’t meant much to me since the Bond got prosecuted for violating a chemical weapons treaty, and Yates got prosecuted for fish-shredding. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States_(2015) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States_(2015...
  - Misdicorl 1y ago
    Sometimes the vibes are wrong, and things go haywire. This is why zero tolerance policies have to be instituted in schools. That doesnt mean the general idea is wrong. Strict adherence to written law will always fail justice. The world is too nuanced and too fractal to handle every edge case well.
    - IIsi50MHz 1y ago
      I seem to recall that zero-tolerance policies caused the expulsion of multiple Boy Scouts who were merely obeying the requirement that they always have a multifunction pocket tool with them (such as a Victorinox knife), and these caused the Scouts to rescind the rule. "Zero tolerance" policies are a generally a tool of the Sith.
  - noelwelsh 1y ago
    Every system fails sometimes. The only interesting question is whether it is systemic or not.
- timewizard 1y ago
  > has always depended on vibes Jury trials do. Administrative trials never have. > It's broadly labelled "prosecutorial discretion", Federal DAs win 98% of their cases. This discretion is not what you think it is. > IMHO, it's essential. Well, unless they're J6 defendants, or any other group labeled by the media as undesirable.
- generalizations 1y ago
  Good vibes, or bad vibes? The technicalities of the law keep both in check. Vibes don't just allow us to "mitigate technically correct unjust...outcomes" - they also let people in power "mitigate technically correct just...outcomes" to achieve their own desired ends.
intermerda 1y ago
I assume you believe it's important that the federal agents should raid every marijuana dispensary in the US and for the DOJ to prosecute dispensary owners and individuals who smoke and participate in weed consumption in each state. Is that correct? After all, technicalities matter.
- the8472 1y ago
  The flip side is unevenly enforced laws, with parts of the government having discretion onto whom they bring down the monopoly on violence.
rsoto2 1y ago
It was once legal to own people so what the fuck do you think it runs on
- ithkuil 1y ago
  Laws != Legal system

whoknowsidont 1y ago

When you're a sheltered suburbanite nerd (yeah, even the "rural" ones) who will never have to truly worry about being in this situation, this is just an exciting news story to squabble over and smugly flounder about on your keyboard. Deplorable.

Waterluvian 1y ago
I feel more disgusted by the Americans who know this is wrong but do nothing. I have no patience for evil people, but the truly damned are all the Americans who know and sense better but do not or cannot act properly. If deporting U.S. CITIZEN CHILDREN does not send you to the streets with fire and fury, you are well and truly lost. So much damn talk over the decades I've been alive about patriotism and liberty from America, but when a moment unquestionably calls for action, it turns out Americans were just unserious cosplayers the whole damn time.
- wat10000 1y ago
  It’s worse than that. Far too many of us want this stuff. I understand the basic idea of how you fight an oppressive regime everyone hates. I have no idea how you go about fighting one that half the country supports. Protests aren’t going to fix that. Last time around, I could at least soothe myself with the idea that he only won because our electoral system is idiotic, and a lot of voters didn’t understand what they were voting for. This time? He won the most votes, and everyone had every opportunity to see what they were getting. I can only conclude that my countrymen are fucked in the head.
  - mystraline 1y ago
    > I understand the basic idea of how you fight an oppressive regime everyone hates. I have no idea how you go about fighting one that half the country supports. Protests aren’t going to fix that. In reality, around 22% of the US populace (not just voters, but everyone) voted for Trump. Similar voted for Harris. The rest didn't vote. I refuse to attribute justifications, since they are too numerous. But that is correct, peaceful protests like 50501 aren't going to do much. Their value is more networking and mutual aid creation/management. What does work, especially historically, is violence. As a historian, when you look at pivotal points in history, changes were only won after a LOT of violence was applied. The trick is that groups like 50501 are absolutely needed for a different reason. The governments cannot negotiate with 'terrorists', but can save face by negotiating with 'peaceful groups'. We see this recently with MLK and Malcolm X, Sinn Fein and IRA, Ghandi and dozens of separatist factions. I'm not publically advocating violence, but the more fascist they become, well, that will be inevitable. Different people and groups have different lines in the sand. We're already talking about breaching medical records for 'defectives' (autism) list, turning trans folk into non-humans, kidnapping/disappearing people off the street, tattle-tale emails and phone#s to report people, lebensraum (Canada, Greenland, etc), off-country concentration camps (CECOT), and more. And we're only 3 months in of 4 years. If I had the ability to get out, I would have. But I'm guessing that even the better off here also don't have the ability.

SpicyLemonZest 1y ago

The broader conversation is impossible to have. “What policies do we need to ensure due process without compromising the effectiveness of immigration enforcement?” Even trying to start the conversation feels like a troll, because when the system looks like it does today who’s going to concede the premise that immigration enforcement shouldn’t be compromised?

tremon 1y ago
You're starting from an unverified assumption (the presumed ineffectiveness of immigration enforcement), that's maybe why it feels off to you. How is it ineffective, and why? Once you have answers to that, you can start the conversation about policy.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  There's millions of people currently in the US who aren't authorized to be in the US. 11 million, if you believe Pew's estimate (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...). I'm not sure how it's possible to avoid the conclusion that immigration enforcement isn't effective. Why it's ineffective is, again, something that's been impossible to research for as long as I've been paying attention to immigration. I genuinely don't know where I could go to get answers. Other than a couple people spinning evidence-free conspiracy theories about their political opponents, nobody seems interested in analyzing it.

exceptione 1y ago

I think the one who derailed the conversation did not do that on purpose, but yes, throwing in a technicality to us/the HN crowd is like throwing red meat to the lions. It seems we as technical people give little reason for giving us a leading role in society. I admit that the media doesn't help as they keep the big picture out of frame, but then again, we are very easily cornered with minor details. Anne Frank's house is not far from where I live. I bet that the term "forcefully" in a sentence like "She was forcefully deported" could have been up for debate too, who knows, but in the end it would not have really helped the girl.

perihelions 1y ago

C-f "citizenship"—55 results C-f "metastatic cancer"—1 There's a poor child that's being withheld access to their medication and to their oncologists, and the adults in the room—adults in uniforms, adults with guns, adults in suits and adults in black robes—all of these adults are doing their adult things with their adult words, and the sum total of all that is the child still is without their cancer medicine. What good can we be, if *this* result is the sum total of our good intentions?

freen 1y ago
The purpose of a system is exactly what it does. This IS the point, the goal, and the purpose.
mindslight 1y ago
The assumption of "good intentions" is not really warranted at this point. This movement is mainly driven by people who feel they have been marginalized by our society, and they want to lash out and see other people get hurt, period. Regardless of the ways they have been marginalized, and how much marginalization they have done to themselves by failing to engage with the complexity of the world and following malicious leaders instead, this is where we are at. We need to stare this bare reality in the face lest the supporters, enablers, and fence-sitters continue soothing themselves with rationalizations.
- worik 1y ago
  > This movement is mainly driven by people who feel they have been marginalized by our society, and they want to lash out and see other people get hurt, Yes. This. This is what drives facism: It is not your fault you feel bad, it's them, over there This is why it is so important to "cuddle a facist". Facism feeds on violence, showing love and compassion to those whom you disagree with robs fascism of its oxygen
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    Fascists think your love and compassion are foolish weaknesses that should be mocked.

pyuser583 1y ago

Americans don’t trust the press. A lot of these technicalities are parsing “what did the press actually say” which is the first step in dealing with an untrustworthy source of truth.

intermerda 1y ago
The distrust of the press has been cultivated intentionally. A POTUS saying "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening" would have been seen too farcical for a comedy. And yet here we are.
- lazide 1y ago
  The ‘press’ has been clear bullshit (for me) since Gulf War 1.
- pyuser583 1y ago
  When you read article after article that imply one thing, but actually say something else, how should we respond? Parsing out what the article says is necessary. It’s how articles are written, and how reporters and editors ask they be read. “John Doe committed a terrible crime, the FBI said” does not mean the press is reporting the John Doe committed a terrible crime. I wish the press would respond to cultivated mistrust by committing to high standards, but they have not.
  - foxglacier 1y ago
    Absolutely. And this whole idea of demonizing misinformation just makes it worse by implying that true information presented in a way that intentionally and actually misleads readers is somehow OK.
    - IIsi50MHz 1y ago
      > true information presented in a way that intentionally and actually misleads readers …is also misinformation.
- 1y ago

cryptoegorophy 1y ago

What’s the conversation? Separating kids from parents or deporting them with parents because we don’t want them to be separate? There is no question about breaking the law by parents. Question is do you let children be with their mothers(who apparently asked to do so) or no. As someone who came legally to Canada and went through thorough screening of 4 years before coming I just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system. “Think of the children” works when you are in a super white rich neighborhood, if you never lived in slums you won’t understand the abuse of the system by “think of the children”, you just don’t see it from the other side.

bodiekane 1y ago
> just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system. This is a story about citizens being deported without due process, without access to lawyers, without access to healthcare. You don't have to be "ok with cheaters" to still want those people to have basic human rights and to see the system have legitimate judicial review. The punishment here is far worse than the crime, and it's directed at children who didn't commit the crime, and it was doled out in a horrifyingly abusive totalitarian police-state style. Maybe you're not seeing things from the right side?
- kcplate 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - LorenPechtel 1y ago
    Do you not recognize that that letter was most likely signed under duress? She was probably offered to permit her baby to be deported with or or the baby goes into the foster care system, not to the husband. The Felon has specifically used separation from families and destroyed records as a weapon before, why do you think he's not doing it now??
    - kcplate 1y ago
      Does it really matter? Of course it was stressful. Most parents would not opt to be separated from a child. Especially mother from a baby… If you make a decision that comes with a great deal of risk to you and by extension your family (like crossing a border without following a proper immigration procedure). If that gamble doesn’t go your way would you really opt to leave your child if you could? Perhaps you would. I wouldn’t. Apparently she didn’t want to do that either. I am not going to ascribe any alternative motive other than love between a parent and child. > She was probably… > The Felon yada yada yada… Do you any evidence at all that is what is being done here or are you just inventing a backstory and trying to pass it off as evidence?

TacticalCoder 1y ago

> Is that really important to the broader conversation? The broader conversation is simple: there's an estimated 10 million illegals (low ball estimate, some go as far as 22 million) in the US, what should be done? For if the numbers are really that gigantic, there are going to be a few revolting cases when people are getting expulsed. Dems have been hard at work, for many years, funding ONGs with US taxpayers dollars, ONGs that'd actively facilitate and help millions and millions of border crossing and relocating illegals all across the US. It certainly feels a bit like now is payback time: this may be one of the reason Trump won... US citizens being fed up with that "border" that was basically a wide-open highway. I want to go live to the US: I raised my kid for ten years in english, she's only ever been to english-speaking schools. But as a non-US citizen I can't. We can't come to the U.S. $5m to buy the golden visa is a bit steep. That's the broader conversation: close to 2 billion in africa, 1.5 billion chinese, 1.3 billion Indian many of whom (for a variety of reason) want to leave their country. For the EU. For the US. Some europeans, like me, who want to go to the US too. Can the U.S. take them all? Every single one of them that wants to go to the US? If there are 8 digits number of illegals, something has to be done. You ain't dealing with 8 digits number of illegals without having a few "revolting" cases. And of course leftist media and orgs (like the ACLU) are going to carefully pick their fight, here's an headline that'd be frontpage: "Trans autistic mixed-race dwarf sick kid forced to leave the US". Calling a majority of EU and US citizens "nazis" because they're fed up with uncontrolled, illegal, migration ain't intellectually honest.

3vidence 1y ago

This is what HN has felt like for the past ~year ish. Makes me realize this community has a lot of "bike shedding" types who easily miss the forest from the trees. Slowly stopped looking for insight here on any topic that involves even a small amount of larger picture thinking, really quite sad.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Is that really important to the broader conversation? Habeas corpus predates the Magna Carta [1]. A U.S. citizen's right to habeas has been wilfully abrogated by the state. If this stands, I'm absolutely for taking all the pardoned January 6th nutters and sticking them in Guantanamo or wherever come 2028 or 2032. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Origins_in_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Origins_in_Engla...

s1artibartfast 1y ago
Classic becoming the thing which you hate.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > becoming the thing which you hate More an honest reading of the history of power. If one side seizes a previously norms-gated tactic and is allowed to use it, the other side either seizes it, too, or ceases to exist. (Obviously, the preferred outcome is this is not allowed to stand.)
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    I totally agree that is the common and probable outcome. However, is not the exclusive outcome, nor does it have to be enthusiastically supported. Norm erosion and law breaking often see tit for tat retaliation with the notable exception of when norms and order are productively restored. I follow your comments because I find them balanced and often insightful, even (or perhaps especially) when I disagree. For this reason, I was surprised to see you advocate more unjust and amoral behavior, even if it is in the form of retaliation.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      I’m frankly surprised where I find myself. But I don’t see another move. > even if it is in the form of retaliation The most important part is messaging the expectation of retaliation ex ante: If you break habeus, we—too—will use that power. (And it won’t be our moderates who will be the first to seize it!) Otherwise, we have a two-party system where one team seizes advantage through force while the other pudges along hamstrung by norms only they respect. Also: once a norm is eroded, it’s impossible to regain it through norms alone. (I don’t recall any historical example of norms escalation being peacefully rolled back. It takes a shock for people in the moment and in the future to be able to point to for why that norm is necessary. Somehow the Nazis, Japanese internment and the Argentinian economy aren’t enough anymore.) Unfortunately, the norms being violated now probably require a Constitutional amendment to reïnstate. So I’m pessimistic about an off-ramp versus this being the new status quo. Maybe both sides being clear about what suspending habeus really means is the kick in the ass America needs to restrict pardon powers and/or give the Congress and courts limited direct enforcement authority. (Or maybe, as it was with Jackson, it will be Trump’s economic ineptitude that brings the shock.)