3 ms·

Your country has detention centers as well: https://www.government.nl/topics/return-of-foreign-citizens/aliens-detention https://www.government.nl/topics/return

Your country has detention centers as well: https://www.government.nl/topics/return-of-foreign-citizens/aliens-detention https://www.government.nl/topics/return-of-foreign-citizens/.... The U.S. is an outlier in allowing deportable people to remain free pending their deportation proceedings. For deportation the only "due process" is checking that someone is not in the country legally. Many European countries use the military for policing, including your own. As a lawyer, what horrifies me is six decades of non-enforcement of our immigration laws.

jacquesm 1y ago
Yes, I know we have detention centers. Believe me I'm not happy about them. > The U.S. is an outlier in allowing deportable people to remain free pending their deportation proceedings. The US is an outlier in relying wholesale on an illegal workforce without representation and without healthcare or access to the legal system to keep their economy afloat. > For deportation the only "due process" is checking that someone is not in the country legally. Sorry, and given that this is a point of law, you are utterly wrong on this, which makes me wonder what else you are wrong about where you are so confident. https://www.vera.org/news/what-does-due-process-mean-for-immigrants-and-why-is-it-important https://www.vera.org/news/what-does-due-process-mean-for-imm... Have a read, and maybe adjust your priors a bit. > Many European countries use the military for policing, including your own. You keep saying that, here and elsewhere. But it just isn't true. > As a lawyer, what horrifies me is six decades of non-enforcement of our immigration laws. That is very much not true and you know it. The biggest problem with US immigration law is that it is (1) ridiculously complex (2) dealt with by understaffed entities (3) kept in place because industry and agriculture more or less depend on it and (4) effectively makes the country a vast amount of money. If you're so horrified by it then you can blame your parents for picking a country to emigrate to that was soft on emigration. You can't pin this on the emigrants, many of whom were in the USA well before you were even born. Meanwhile, you're on the record as a lawyer that argues incessantly on behalf of a government that is doing their level best to destroy the justice system that you've grown up in and that you - ostensibly - support. An extrajudicial assassination or two - let alone 11 - doesn't even cause a raised eyebrow, and mass deportations without so much as a chance of legal review doesn't either.
- rayiner 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    No, indeed I don't like Wilders and his ridiculous approach to immigration, which is utterly unrealistic and has caused the downfall of several of our governments. And every time someone actually wants to really do something that might just work Wilders is of course against it because if that were to happen his whole reason for his continued employment would fall away. > Maybe the problem is you? You mean: because I hold a minority opinion I'm the one that is wrong? No, that's not how it works, not here and not in the general case. The fact that someone holds an opinion and whether or not a larger group of individuals holds a different opinion is not how you determine where the problem lies or who is wrong. You do that by careful analysis of the underlying facts. And for NL those facts are quite complex, far more complex than Mr. Wilders and his merry band of incompetents makes it out to be. But that doesn't matter for him, in that sense Trump and Wilders are one and the same: push the fear button, as hard as you can and there will be plenty of people that vote for you. To assume that populism is automatically right is a fairly big error and history is rife with examples of proof of that so I take it you won't be asking for citations.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      It’s not complicated. The pro-immigration people proceeded from a premise that turned out to be false. They thought you could pluck someone out of Syria or Iraq and put them in the Netherlands and the result would be indistinguishable (except in superficial appearance) from descendants of William of Orange. Had that premise proven true, nobody would know Geert Wilders’s name. But it wasn’t true. It was a conceptual mistake closely related to George W. Bush’s erroneous belief that he could turn Afghanistan and Iraq into America through laws on paper. And that’s had tremendous downstream consequences.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        > The pro-immigration people proceeded from a premise that turned out to be false. They thought you could pluck someone out of Syria or Iraq and put them in the Netherlands and the result would be indistinguishable (except in superficial appearance) from descendants of William of Orange. I have absolutely no idea where you got this utterly bizarre notion of what went on in the Netherlands in the last 50 years or so. This is so far besides the point that you probably should just take the L and move on. But on the off chance that you are open to some input: Syrians and Iraqi people in NL are here predominantly as refugees. > Had that premise proven true, nobody would know Geert Wilders’s name. No, we've had Geert Wilders like persons in different guises in the past. None managed to convert it into a life-long jobs program for themselves though. > But it wasn’t true. This has to be the mother of all strawmen ever on HN. You are just simply clueless about this. > It was a conceptual mistake closely related to George W. Bush’s erroneous belief that he could turn Afghanistan and Iraq into America through laws on paper. That too is completely disconnected from reality as documented in untold millions of pages of history. > And that’s had tremendous downstream consequences. Yes, there were tremendous downstream consequences. But you utterly missed the connection about the causes, which in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq go back to 1839 or so.

jacquesm 1y ago

Yes, I know we have detention centers. Believe me I'm not happy about them. > The U.S. is an outlier in allowing deportable people to remain free pending their deportation proceedings. The US is an outlier in relying wholesale on an illegal workforce without representation and without healthcare or access to the legal system to keep their economy afloat. > For deportation the only "due process" is checking that someone is not in the country legally. Sorry, and given that this is a point of law, you are utterly wrong on this, which makes me wonder what else you are wrong about where you are so confident. https://www.vera.org/news/what-does-due-process-mean-for-immigrants-and-why-is-it-important https://www.vera.org/news/what-does-due-process-mean-for-imm... Have a read, and maybe adjust your priors a bit. > Many European countries use the military for policing, including your own. You keep saying that, here and elsewhere. But it just isn't true. > As a lawyer, what horrifies me is six decades of non-enforcement of our immigration laws. That is very much not true and you know it. The biggest problem with US immigration law is that it is (1) ridiculously complex (2) dealt with by understaffed entities (3) kept in place because industry and agriculture more or less depend on it and (4) effectively makes the country a vast amount of money. If you're so horrified by it then you can blame your parents for picking a country to emigrate to that was soft on emigration. You can't pin this on the emigrants, many of whom were in the USA well before you were even born. Meanwhile, you're on the record as a lawyer that argues incessantly on behalf of a government that is doing their level best to destroy the justice system that you've grown up in and that you - ostensibly - support. An extrajudicial assassination or two - let alone 11 - doesn't even cause a raised eyebrow, and mass deportations without so much as a chance of legal review doesn't either.

rayiner 1y ago
[flagged]
- jacquesm 1y ago
  No, indeed I don't like Wilders and his ridiculous approach to immigration, which is utterly unrealistic and has caused the downfall of several of our governments. And every time someone actually wants to really do something that might just work Wilders is of course against it because if that were to happen his whole reason for his continued employment would fall away. > Maybe the problem is you? You mean: because I hold a minority opinion I'm the one that is wrong? No, that's not how it works, not here and not in the general case. The fact that someone holds an opinion and whether or not a larger group of individuals holds a different opinion is not how you determine where the problem lies or who is wrong. You do that by careful analysis of the underlying facts. And for NL those facts are quite complex, far more complex than Mr. Wilders and his merry band of incompetents makes it out to be. But that doesn't matter for him, in that sense Trump and Wilders are one and the same: push the fear button, as hard as you can and there will be plenty of people that vote for you. To assume that populism is automatically right is a fairly big error and history is rife with examples of proof of that so I take it you won't be asking for citations.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    It’s not complicated. The pro-immigration people proceeded from a premise that turned out to be false. They thought you could pluck someone out of Syria or Iraq and put them in the Netherlands and the result would be indistinguishable (except in superficial appearance) from descendants of William of Orange. Had that premise proven true, nobody would know Geert Wilders’s name. But it wasn’t true. It was a conceptual mistake closely related to George W. Bush’s erroneous belief that he could turn Afghanistan and Iraq into America through laws on paper. And that’s had tremendous downstream consequences.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      > The pro-immigration people proceeded from a premise that turned out to be false. They thought you could pluck someone out of Syria or Iraq and put them in the Netherlands and the result would be indistinguishable (except in superficial appearance) from descendants of William of Orange. I have absolutely no idea where you got this utterly bizarre notion of what went on in the Netherlands in the last 50 years or so. This is so far besides the point that you probably should just take the L and move on. But on the off chance that you are open to some input: Syrians and Iraqi people in NL are here predominantly as refugees. > Had that premise proven true, nobody would know Geert Wilders’s name. No, we've had Geert Wilders like persons in different guises in the past. None managed to convert it into a life-long jobs program for themselves though. > But it wasn’t true. This has to be the mother of all strawmen ever on HN. You are just simply clueless about this. > It was a conceptual mistake closely related to George W. Bush’s erroneous belief that he could turn Afghanistan and Iraq into America through laws on paper. That too is completely disconnected from reality as documented in untold millions of pages of history. > And that’s had tremendous downstream consequences. Yes, there were tremendous downstream consequences. But you utterly missed the connection about the causes, which in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq go back to 1839 or so.