Hacker News Reader

Comment by adfgaionio | Hacker News Reader

Remember those horrible vicious ni… I mean Haitians in Springfield? The ones who are "poisoning the blood of the country", "probably have AIDS", and are "eating the dogs" and "eating the cats"?

They were legal, every last one of them. They were under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). There was no "law and order" justification to object to their presence. Didn't stop the GOP from going after them. Trump and Vance viciously attacked them with the full support of the conservative media. The administration repealed their TPS protection, turning people who had done no wrong into fugitives.

This is about race. Always has been. When they run out of "illegals", they'll turn people into "illegals". When they run out of immigrants entirely, they'll overturn the 14th Amendment and start stripping citizenship from native-born Americans of the wrong color. They've already tried just that, and three motherfuckers on the Supreme Court voted to let them.

View on HN

what's the problem with ending a temporary protection status? it's supposed to be temporary it's in the name, unless I'm mistaken that program started 16 years ago that seems way past temporary.

The name for TPS is not the program is temporary, rather the protection itself is temporary protection (hurr durr) until either the person can return home or seek other means of legal status.

After 16 years why wouldn't they be able to return home? The protection was given due to an earthquake how long are we supposed to allow temporary protections to last?

Haiti is in a state of anarchy, completely taken over by gangs. There are no elected officials in the entire country. It is one of the most dangerous places in the world.

So the country is too dangerous because of the people? Why would we want people from one of the most dangerous places in the world in our country?

racism /rā′sĭz″əm/ noun

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Nobody has been in TPS for 16 years. The idea of TPS is that you can be provided with the ability to work and pull yourself up by the bootstraps then eventually transition into a more long-term status.

Because it was done for racist reasons. "Poisoning the blood of the country" and all that. The government is not allowed to do anything for an illegal reason.

The protection was given due to an earthquake it's been 16 years that crisis is over there is nothing racist about sending people home after the crisis we sheltered them for is over.

There is no problem if it is done for rational reasons and in a fair/unbiased way, but if it is done for irrational reasons (xenophobia, racisms, bigotry, etc) and in unfair/biased way then that is a major problem; the motivations and methods matter.

They were given protection status do to an earthquake it's been 16 years it seems rational to return them home. What would be a fair reason to end this temporary status to you?

I don't think length of time is the rational indicator of whether or not the status is still necessary, the present conditions within the country would be the rational indicator, yes?

What is the present condition in the country that prevents them from returning? What condition would be acceptable in your mind to make returning them ok?

Are you suggesting we should move people from safe conditions to unsafe conditions simply because you don't like the length of time they have been in safe conditions?

For me personally, the conditions should be as safe or safer than the current conditions under which a person resides before considering removal of protective status, or else it would be cruel and inhumane to move them (to worse conditions).

I think preventing unnecessary human suffering should be the number one concern, do you not?

So their country of origin has to become as safe as the United States? That sounds like we would have to keep most people practically indefinitely. If the goal is preventing unnecessary suffering why stop at those who are already here? there are 10s of millions maybe even hundreds of millions of people suffering. Shouldn't we bring them all to the US to reduce their suffering? The people currently in Haiti are in unsafe conditions why don't we bring them over that would reduce suffering.

You in a later comment:

> So the country is too dangerous because of the people? Why would we want people from one of the most dangerous places in the world in our country?

So it turns our you weren't "just asking questions" in good faith, but rather pushing the standard progressively-louder dog whistles. It always boils down to the collectivism of handwaving about "those people", doesn't it?

At this point I not longer give any credence to arguments about "immigration". There are legitimate criticisms to be made for sure, but they're utterly minuscule relative to this revanchist movement to destroy what little Constitutional liberties we have left.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com