It's this type of black and white thinking that is so poisonous to current discourse. There are many people that are okay with deporting illegal immigrants, as long as they are treated with some modicum of respect during the process, families are not separated, asylum laws are upheld, and children brought across the border at a young age that know no other place are allowed to stay.
There are pretty reasonable solutions to these problems. Unfortunately, everyone prefers to see only my side versus your side.
Nothing I said contradicted any of that.
You made it seem as if the people arguing for decent treatment of illegal migrants are somehow for 'open borders', when nobody on the left is seriously talking about having open borders.
This is a blatant lie.
Where did I make it seem like that? I said that if you don't deport people, you have open borders. I don't recall making any statements about their treatment, express or implied.
> Nothing I said contradicted any of that.
On a purely logical level, you are correct. But presenting a complex problem as a binary choice between two un-nuanced options dismisses other significant considerations that people care about. In this case, presenting immigration as a simple choice between deportation and no deportation disregards all the other interests, such as treating people with dignity, creating a fair system, and many more.
Creating false dichotomies is a classic rhetorical strategy, but it is particularly insidious because it disregards any nuance which will be necessary to make any real-life policy work.
It's clear how automatic discovery of potential illegal immigrants can become problematic in such a "hostile environment". Some proportion of the accused will be false positives, and you can be double sure that immigration hawks are not massively concerned about this. Palantir and companies like it are partly responsible if their technologies are used in such a context.
That being said, if governments are going to use large data sifting operations, applying it to deportations (pretty much by definition non-citizens) first is the logical way to do it.
I think it would be nice if this was going to trigger a bipartisan call for small government - but that seems unlikely. I bet any organised opposition decides the real problem is the people who currently run the government rather than the capability of the government.
Why not exactly? I don't understand this argument that government should not use tools to enforce laws effectively.
I think few on the left are actually for 'open borders'. You generally need borders if you want some from of universal heath coverage for example, that's not disputed. The notion that 'open borders' is actually something a significant part of the left is for is a strawman.
What is however problematic is treating illegal migrants in an inhumane way. You don't need to separate families and to hold children in cages, nor do you need Stasi like surveillance to protect your borders. Most are simple visa overstays entered legally anyway.
Also surveillance and other dynamic defenses are needed to keep a safe border. What would be the alternative?
There have been reports of families being separated right as they cross the border. Is that the criminal act you're talking about? Because it in no way justifies separating families in my book.
Also, deporting migrants who were in the US since they were 5, know no other country but the US and now they're being deported say 30 years later, when they have families here etc. is another example of an inhumane policy.
The other issue is far more complex. Obviously there must be a cutoff with some path to citizenship for those allowed to stay but this is why strong border security helps by preventing the issue in the first place.
Right. So you think that a child should suffer the trauma of being in an unknown place without their parents just because they dared to try to cross the border, (without committing any other crime). Ok.
However I am sure you're able to see that i.e meddling in Venezuela as the Trump administration is doing is illegal, immoral and WILL produce more migrants. You can't have a policy that is very likely to result in more US-bound migrants, while at the same time being strongly for 'protecting borders'. Certainly not while maintaining any semblance of moral high-ground or legitimacy.
Yes, children suffer when enduring crime, war, and hunger all over the world. This is unfortunate but detainment happens because laws are enforced, just like when child services separates children from criminal parents.
Sometimes children are used by people who are not actually their family members (common in the illegal drug trade) and sometimes they need medical assistance. In all cases, using software to speed up detainment and case processing would greatly help reunite children who may have been detained separately.
The second part of your argument seems unrelated. Illegal immigration is still illegal and nothing causes as much emigration as a failed state. Venezuela and foreign policy is a separate topic.
Right, the keyword here is sometimes. Developing oppressive policies that punish a large number of children who are in fact with their legitimate parents is not a great way to structure society. It is generally accepted as being better to let a few guilty parties escape, rather than punishing innocent people.
I am not saying it's an easy thing to solve, but just because something is hard doesn't give you the moral justification to start acting all authoritarian.
> Venezuela and foreign policy is a separate topic.
No, it's not, a lot of U.S. foreign policy has increased the flow of immigrants and thus resulted in the sort of policies we're seeing now. If that wasn't the case, it is unlikely there would have been such a strong push for as draconian policies regarding immigration as there currently is.
That's like saying the US+EU destabilization of Libya, (and now Syria), have no bearing on the refugee flows to Europe from these countries. Of course they do. That in turn is then connected to rising Islamophobia and far-right activism. It's all connected, you can't look at these in isolation.
Foreign policy increasing immigration does not make illegal immigration ok.
No, but it does make you a giant hypocrite when you're complaining about a 'crisis at the border', while perusing policies that make such crisis more likely.
These are entirely different issues and I want strong border security regardless of foreign policy. Choosing to leave a country, choosing to go to America, and choosing illegal entry are several steps that an illegal immigrant actively takes which are disconnected from border security issues.
Perhaps you should hold the governments and economies of those nations more responsible for their failure. Venezuela was doing fine before the socialist policies that bankrupted the nation.
I was actually talking about Trump and his rhetoric vs actions, which don't support his stated goal, however you apparently agree with him so I guess take it however you want.
> These are entirely different issues and I want strong border security regardless of foreign policy.
You keep saying that they're entirely different issues, but they're absolutely related. It's like if you get a cold because you went out in the winter in just a shirt and then saying that the cold you caught is unrelated to you not being warmly dressed. No, these are absolutely related. Just like the migrant crisis in the EU is related to its foreign policy blunders, so is the US crisis related to decades of meddling in Latin America. If you keep ignoring that, we can't move on.
> Venezuela was doing fine before the socialist policies that bankrupted the nation.
The situation is complex, yes. there's corruption, there's the issue of them having not diversified the economy away from oil, so when the price crashed in 2014, trouble started. Aggravating all this are the crippling U.S. sanctions, which are responsible for 40,000+ civilians not having the medicine etc. they need and dying as a result according to a recent study, the U.N. has also expressed that the sanctions mostly punish civilians and amount to a medieval siege.
The notion that Venezuela was "doing fine" before Chavez/Maduro is laughable. The reason Chavez was elected in a free and fair election, was precisely because Venezuela was not doing fine for large swaths of people. There was widespread poverty and illiteracy, something that was slowly being eradicated before the 2014 crisis. You may want to read "Venezuela Before Chávez: Anatomy of an Economic Collapse", it analyzes the economic situation fairly in detail. "The Shock Doctrine" is excellent for how South America more widely was doing in these times. Not a pretty picture.
Everything in the world is related but can still stay separate topics. Foreign policy may have affected other countries but that doesn't mean it's illegal immigrants are suddenly allowed, which is what we're discussing. Just because traffic lights can increase traffic doesn't mean you illegally run the red lights. Just because health insurance is expensive doesn't mean you can steal supplies from the hospital. All related, all different.
Venezuela wasn't perfect before, but it's a whole lot worse now isn't it? Socialism is attractive as can be seen in the rise of the left because it promises everything to everyone without any sense of reality on how such things are provided. Unfortunately they paid the price and have a long road to recovery now because socialism leads to catastrophe and ruin every single time.
It doesn't mean they're suddenly allowed, but it does mean that you have no (moral) leg to stand on when complaining about how much illegal immigrants are trying to cross the border. Actions have (unintended) consequences. There's blowback. You could have had strong borders, no need for a wall, much fewer agents and no justification for any of the brute tactics deployed, (which there isn't a justification for now either, but would be clear to everybody), if you stopped meddling aboard.
It's not just Venezuela, it's your War On Drugs, it's your financing of the Contras, supporting military takeovers in Chile, Argentina, Syria, Libya etc.
> Venezuela wasn't perfect before, but it's a whole lot worse now isn't it?
No it's not. It's not clear cut like that, however much would you like it to be. As I said before, prior to 2014, poverty & homelessness was decreasing & illiteracy was eliminated under Chavez.
Now Maduro is no Chavez and since 2014 when oil prices crashed, the oil dependent economy collapsed, (they should have diversified when oil prices were high and make themselves a lot less import dependent, they failed to do that), and inflation skyrocketed. Since 2015, when Obama decided Venezuela poses a national security risk to the US, (which it credibly doesn't), the crippling sanctions accelerated the job the oil crash started. Since Trump took office, the sanctions were increased to an even more crippling level, making it hard to import even medial supplies.
> Socialism is attractive as can be seen in the rise of the left because it promises everything to everyone without any sense of reality on how such things are provided
That's not what socialism is, but I don't expect you to know much about it, since you seem to have strong preconceived notions, without being interested in any actual facts.
It's worth noting that Venezuela's economy is actually not socialist, despite what Fox News would tell you. Large swaths of the economy are owned by private capital, who actually play a big role in the currency manipulation responsible for the current hyperinflation as well. Within the broader political debate, it's also worth noting that there's not just economics at play here, but racial politics as well. Notice how the vast majority of the opposition is white, despite that not being representative of the Venezuelan society? Wonder why? Also notice how they're dressed etc. It's a bit of a clue that there's a certain constituency within Venezuela they represent, rather than the population as a whole.
Also, it's interesting how the US is so strongly against any Socialist policy, (still no universal health coverage for example), yet when American financial institutions, car makers etc. are personally irresponsible and fail on the free market, they're being bailed out with public money. Is that succeeding on the free market? And didn't they got themselves into the situation they were in playing the Capitalist game?
You see, no system is perfect, which is why I am personally in favor of a combination of the good aspects of both, simply screaming Socialism == bad is childish, intellectually dishonest and incredibly simplistic way to look at the world.
Bearing all that in mind, I'll reiterate: Venezuela is actually not a Socialist economy. It has a large state and a large private sector. There was no revolution like in Cuba, where everything was transferred under state control, (arguably, the Cuban economy is doing considerably better right now, than the Venezuelan one).
As for the sanctions, why? If the system is so bad, let it collapse on its own on the 'free market', no? But that's not the point is it? The point is to get the assets back under U.S. influence ASAP, which sanctions would greatly accelerate. If the administration truly believed the system in Venezuela is completely unsustainable, there's no need for crippling sanctions. It would simply fail on its own, no need to nudge it, (same goes for the Cuban sanctions btw).
Within the U.S., there are more homeless people than there is the entire population of Venezuela, Flint still has poisonous water, there are cities and areas within the U.S. that have 3rd world-grade infrastructure. You just don't hear about that every day on the evening news.
> socialism leads to catastrophe and ruin every single time
Not more so than free market capitalism does, in fact socialism wouldn't exist if capitalism was so perfect. The fact is that you need a mix of both, no one or the other in their purest form works well.
The Nordic countries seem to have figured out the right blend, which is why their model is never seriously discussed by the right in the U.S. For that, they'd had to confront real facts, instead of just strawmaning and that has proven difficult, because the U.S doesn't even have the 'socialist' policies that have been proven in other Western countries, like single payer, paid vacation, maternity leave etc.
Lastly, before you respond with some PR nonsense about human rights etc. take a look at Yemen and the U.S. role there first, OK?
The situation is different with illegal immigrants.
- Do illegal immigrants with families mostly have significant existing criminal records in the destination jurisdiction? The ones that do should of course be treated more harshly, but most do not.
- Do illegal immigrants with families mostly have outstanding warrants in the destination jurisdiction? The outstanding warrant should of course be honored in that case, but most do not.
- Or are we imprisoning people for sometimes over a year, placing their children in (at best) the care of strangers, purely as a mechanism to ensure that they show up to court? Could you imagine the outcry if we did that for speeding?
And yes, even if you are a citizen and you get arrested, you will be separated from your family. If you have children, they will be placed in protective services. They do not go with you to jail. Whether you are arrested for speeding is explained in my prior post.
Homeless people also don't have a legal address, but a homeless person won't be imprisoned for a year pretrial and separated from their kids for speeding in the car they live in.
And no, if you get arrested for most misdemeanor crimes, you will usually not be imprisoned and separated from your family for sometimes over a year with no planned method to ever contact each other again. You are just wrong about this. I'm aware of (and rather outraged by) cases where people convicted of serious felonies (in one case, assault with a deadly weapon) are given sentences that still allow them to live with their children most of the time.
However they do have due-process and have access to lawyers and communications. Detainment is the only answer if you want their cases to be processed, and detainment may sometimes result in families being separated.
Homeless people can be in the country and have the ability to show up in court but they do often spend time in jail and sometimes even commit crime because it ensures food and housing.
Detainment is not the only answer if you want these cases to be processed. I cite as evidence the fact that there was a backlog of these cases to be processed when the zero-tolerance policy was implemented. If cases were not being processed, there would be no backlog.
Homeless people sometimes going to prison is not relevant to whether or not every illegal immigrant should go to prison.
The backlog is a resource issue. Precisely the kind of thing that can be helped with better software.
U.S. citizens do have the (pretty sure only legislative) right to obtain a U.S. passport, which may be presented at a port of entry. Entry may not be denied to someone carrying a genuine and current U.S. passport, though they might be immediately imprisoned upon doing so for unrelated crimes. Entry of a U.S. citizen by other means, however, is just as illegal as a noncitizen overstaying their visa.
Re: "no answer", I had been operating under the assumption that we could take the entire history of the United States prior to April 2018 as evidence that there are other ways of doing things. A variety of solutions were employed prior to that date, with only one solution being employed after. This is sufficient evidence that other approaches are indeed possible.
If the argument is that all of these previous solutions were in fact illegal, then I'm not really qualified to have that argument. Most legal scholars seem to disagree, though.
The backlog is indeed a resource issue. Resource issues are evidence of demand for resources. Demand for these resources is driven by the need to process immigration cases. The backlog is therefore evidence that cases were being processed.
They are illegal immigrants. They cannot be in this country so you have to detain them while being processed or deport them immediately. There is no middle ground. I'm not sure what you're referring to as before April 2018 because it's the same process, only the enforcement was worse back then was lacking to the detriment of the nation. Laws are now being followed properly with some adjustments to the queue.
The cases are being processed, and will continue to do so. Better software will only help this situation, along with actually knowing where the person is.
>Before Trump came into office, families were detained together, sent back immediately or paroled into the country, said Peter Margulies, an immigration law and national security law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. Now, prosecution is happening across the board and has become the uniform policy.
Were the options to "[detain them] together, [send them] back immediately, or [parole them] into the country" somehow impossible even when this was being done?
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jun/06...
1. Are you trying to talk about separation instead? Detaining together is because many people weren't prosecuted, so enforcing the law will lead to possible separation. From your own article: "Prosecutions were rare prior to the Trump administration... The fact that previous administrations did not broadly prosecute all illegal entries..."
2. Parole is not related to illegal immigration. It's for humanitarian emergencies and granted in rare cases where family is dying or other extenuating circumstances. It specifically authorizes the person to enter and therefore they are actually allowed to be in the country. An illegal immigrant may be granted parole the same way they may be granted asylum and will no longer have an illegal status for the duration. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-or-significa...
So parole is one outcome of processing but while they are waiting to be processed it is again only 2 options: detain or deport. And detainment might lead to separation during prosecution. None of this is new, it's just actually being done as the law states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor#United_States
Public drunkenness can also be punished by 6 months imprisonment in California (not my state, but many HNers live there). Most cases of such are still "punished" by either a reprimand or being kept in a holding cell long enough to sober up.
I meant most cases of public drunkenness are punished by a reprimand or short arrest, not most cases of unlawful entry. Previously, most unlawful entries were punished by deportation. Obviously unlawful entry is currently being punished by imprisonment for over a year awaiting hearing, followed by deportation and no plan to ever reunite you with your family.
This seems to be technically legal, but the law surely does not require it.
And that's my point. It makes no sense to equate an offense, which is usually punished by reprimand, with an offense which is routinely punished with months of arrest, deportation and a ban on entry.
You're equivocating civil and criminal law. Illegal (re)-entry is a civil offense, as it's not directed against a person.
Anyway, the controversy is specifically about the recently implemented Family Separation Policy[1] and the fact that the government claims it does not have the desire or ability to reunite families[2]. This is very new and what most people are outraged about.
Especially since its being used as a political cudgel, as illegal immigration has been declining precipitously for well over a decade[3] with existing measures in place.
The whole debate does have a tinge of irony: illegal European immigrants flooded across the Canadian border, to avoid quotas, after immigration reform passed in the early 20th century; their ancestors are now complaining about the same acts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_se... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/politics/family-separations-r... [3] https://www.pewhispanic.org/2018/11/27/u-s-unauthorized-immi...
This administration is enforcing laws that have already been there. They also reprioritized families with children. Perhaps these pieces should explore just how many of these children are actually related to the group of adults they enter with. Detainment procedures are not as simple as you think. How is software that improves case processing time not a good thing in this situation?
How can you know how many illegal immigrants are here? If you know where they are then they would be detained. They are not taking census. These are basically guesses, as stated right in that article.
1. These families are often permanently separated. In the process of separation they do not keep any records or information needed to unite the families back together. I shouldn't need to offer a reason why this is incredibly barbaric.
2. These families are often denied due process of law. In addition to using legal gotchas to ensure even valid applicants violate the law such as moving ports of entry to ensure they have to illegally cross the border.
3. The conditions that these immigrants are held in are barbaric. Children are denied the care they need and are abused, assaulted etc because there is zero oversight on the detention centers.
4. You're literally giving up all of your privacy rights [1] for the sake of potentially catching a non-citizen. You're allowing the government to massively overstep it's authority and the end result is generally a Bad Thing for your own rights.
Do you mean that the US can't afford to give universal heath coverage to everyone if the entire world migrated in or is there another reason?
Pretty much. I doubt much of Europe, who already do have universal coverage, would migrate, but there would still probably be too much migration at once to handle with an open borders policy if you wanted to give everyone coming in the same quality of care, (which of course you would).