But for interesting HN discussion... anyone got any juice on why this is happening. Is there orders going down the chain of command from the president to do this sort of thing. Was this behaviour always there but less reported before? Are they more emboldened by the current environment?
The current administration has set targets for numbers of people deported(which ICE is currently behind on). That creates an incentive to skip due process in order to get more people deported more quickly (and the awareness that there will no consequences for doing so probably contributes as well)
They have other plans such as intimidating the judiciary. That’s just for starters. If you think the uphill battle of a constitutional amendment is going to save us I think you should pay closer attention to what’s been going on.
Screw intimidating the Judiciary, they're just not listening to them anymore at all - specifically for their rulings on our constitutional guarantees for Due Process as "persons" on U.S. soil.
9-0 with the Garcia case, and Trump told them all to kick rocks and that he's there for good - and that he won't "faciliate" and "effectuate" anything per their ruling. The SC's rulings - ESPCIALLY ON CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS (which is the *REAL* part you all should care about) mean nothing to him when they're inconvenient, now.
The executive doesn't care anymore, and is unchecked. The executive is ROGUE now, the executive is to be dealt with.
The administration has also been "defending" their absence of due process and trying to work around judge orders to stop, shaving as close to the letter of judicial orders as they could when they don't just ignore them entirely.
ICE taking that as carte blanche to smash and grab is perfectly logical given that agency is ICE.
And while trying to meet those numbers, they are being specifically told not to do mass raids of farms and other business in red states that will hurt Trump voters
Also, businesses caught employing illegal immigrants seemingly don't face any punishment either. Migrants wouldn't enter the US illegally if they couldn't find employment, and they wouldn't find employment if businesses were harshly punished. As it is, everyone is incentivized to keep this cat and mouse game going.
The problem is one of documentation. Our system does not provide an adequate means of identifying those of legal status--and I think that's actually a good thing because the illegals would work under stolen identities rather than fake identities. Worse for those whose identity gets stolen (my mother had a long battle with the IRS over this--the IRS insisted that it was her responsibility to get her "employer" to fix her W2. The employer that she had never even heard of and couldn't locate. With the hindsight of the internet I suspect she should have filed the form to amend a W2, but this was before the internet.)
And our work permit documentation is remarkably easy to fake and tricky for an employer to even verify. Consider: foreign passport. Social security card marked "not valid for employment". Letter from the Immigration department giving temporary work permission. Legal? Yes, that was my wife while we were going through the green card process.
THe FBI/ICE sure cam after a judge that helped an illegal immigrant. I'm sure the FBI/ICE is using the same zeal to go after employers who helped them.
Unless it’s Tyson chicken and the undocumented workers are getting a bit “uppitty” about OSHA stuff, then coordinate a raid but when the workers talk about the printed instructions they got from Tyson about how to fill out paperwork if you are undocumented, and what you plan to do about that, “we have no plans to investigate the company”.
Yep. Their rabble rousing lies are meeting the hard reality that the country depends on these workers. They can't deliver without destroying the food and construction industries. So it's random German tourists at the border.
I suspect it's Trump donors they may be looking to spare, at least a bit. I don't get the impression they care about previous Trump voters very much, except to buy merch at this point.
Because it's always been happening. If they didn't already have this sort of abuse practiced they wouldn't be so good at it. The ACLU used to write basically the same exact pieces about the DEA
Maybe it's 10% or 20% more prevalent or worse, I can't say from my vantage point, but it's a difference of degree, not a categorical one. You read these stories and they read exactly like all the other stories of how all sorts of "criminals" have been abused by the system for years, especially when they have a political blank check to do do. Making it hard for people to get a lawyer, moving too fast for people to appeal anything or get outside scrutiny is exactly how these systems have always behaved when they feel like it.
Now it's ICE and not DEA or whatever but this is basically the level of abuse with which the authorities have always treated with.
It's nice that the public is paying attention now, but I have very little hope that it will actually lead to systemic changes.
It has not. We have never previously sent immigrants to foreign concentration camps. There were internment camps which were bad enough during the war, but we're now kidnapping people, sending them to El Salvador, and locking them up for life.
Especially the part about “we imprisoned legal residents of the US in a foreign country without due process and now can’t do anything about it, even though the Supreme Court told us we have to return them to the USA, because, whoops, they are imprisoned in a foreign country!” bit.
I don't like this kind of response because it's basically kind of an assumption, and you don't really give any evidence for it.
On one hand, sure, abuses by people in positions of power have always happened, so if you're just making a general argument that enforcement authorities abuse power, I mean yeah, human nature.
But this article is making some specific points:
1. Those who were deported were given basically zero access to even talk to a lawyer, and that in at least one case a habeas corpus petition was deliberately avoided by deporting the family at 6 AM before courts opened.
2. Multiple US minor citizen children were deported.
So, no, without more evidence, I'm not willing to believe that it's just some minor increase of degree. While yes, I'm sure there have been abuses in the past, the current policy seems hellbent on deporting as many people as possible, due process be damned, and that was not the policy in previous years. I'd also highlight that the current President has said, explicitly, that deporting people without due process is his goal: https://truthout.org/articles/we-cannot-give-everyone-a-tria...
In other words, I don't believe this is just an aberrant, abusive exception to the policy. It very much seems like this is the policy now.
No, this kind of deportation and treatment of prisoners/detainees has been happening forever. This exact behavior has been happening forever, not just a general idea of malfeasance. The current attention on it smacks of politics in a way that is also very inhuman. Remember the "kids in cages" saga?
> No, this kind of deportation and treatment of prisoners/detainees has been happening forever.
Another assertion without any justification or data.
> Remember the "kids in cages" saga?
Yes, of course, and that's the point. There was huge outcry then, and that cruel policy was implemented by the same person responsible for this policy. It doesn't make sense to say "this has been happening forever" and then bring up an example from 2017-2020. We are all well aware of Trump's view on immigration and the rule of law. The whole point is that Trump's policies are a huge aberration from what any other administration, Republican or Democrat, has put forth in the past 50 years.
I almost completely agree with you here. But it is striking that they didn't need to create any new agencies to do this. All the parts of it were in place. They were in place already for trump to use the first time, and they were still in place when he got back into power.
Due process and transparency on border & immigration interactions has been alarmingly bad for a long time now. Has this never happened before, hidden inside this apparatus? I'm not confident of that. This is certainly different in its scale and ferocity. But I see where they are coming from too.
Much as I detest the current administration, the parent comment is correct. While things under both Trump administrations did get mildly worse than they were under his Democrat predecessors, they were plenty bad under Obama and Biden as well.
> The story featured photos taken by AP’s Ross D. Franklin at a center run by the Customs and Border Protection Agency in Nogales, Arizona. One photo shows two unidentified female detainees sleeping in a holding cell. The caption refers to U.S. efforts to process 47,000 unaccompanied children at the Nogales center and another one in Brownsville, Texas.
I don't know how else you're supposed to handle 47,000 unaccompanied children when there simply aren't the facilities to hold them all, e.g. in foster homes. I think that is fundamentally different than deporting US citizens.
And yes, when it comes to Trump's first term, I don't really see anything wrong with keeping unaccompanied children in detention centers, at least temporarily. The much bigger issue I had was the specific policy of separating families.
My point is more that I'm not sure exactly how much of what ICE does can particularly be attributed to the administration, on account of the same sorts of stuff happening under every administration, and the waters getting muddied by things being presented in false contexts, which is what I was trying to show with the link I posted.
The family separation policy was horrible, but it was yet another piece of cruel dehumanization on the cruel dehumanization pile that was already there. Secretly revoking student visas and then snatching that person off the street by masked plainclothes officers like happened to Rumeysa Ozturk is cruel and awful, but also, the personnel who did that and their attitude did not appear overnight; ICE is has ICE has always been, and all that changes is the length of the leash given by the President.
What I object to is the implicit framing of what was happening pre-Trump as being fine and correct, and it's only what Trump is doing that's beyond the pale. But I am glad that it's opening people's eyes to what is happening and hope that by shining light on it, perhaps post-Trump we can move to something better than pre-Trump.
The treatment part has happened for decades, Las Hieleras is one of many examples. But the deporting citizens part hasn’t happened for about 70 years since Operation Wetback which was nearly an identical playbook of today.
Mass visa revocations happened about 50 years ago since the Iran Hostage Crisis. And a few other events over the 20th century reflect well with today like Japanese internment camps. CECOT out does Gitmo and Angel Island, but damn, we just do a lot of fascist and unjust stuff as a nation.
The 1880’s resulted in us switching our attention from Native Americans to immigrants and we never really let off the gas on that front.
>I don't like this kind of response because it's basically kind of an assumption, and you don't really give any evidence for it.
Whether you like it or not, it has indeed been happening for a long time, and under multiple administrations from either party. If you're interested in the tragedy of it all enough to care, then go look these cases up instead of first accusing someone of lying because they might be smearing a politician that you preferred, and who isn't the current orangutan in the White House.
Trump's administration is notably and vocally hostile to illegal immigrants, to migrants and I suspect to immigrants in general, but it's mainly still using the tools and practices that have long since been refined by multiple federal agencies whenever opportunities for heavy-handedness presented themselves.
Because it's Trump's administration, and enough of the major media system is unsupportive of him (still, for now), the matter is gaining more attention. This attention is a good thing, but it shouldn't cloud one from considering the possibility that the bureaucratic defects and authoritarian inertia of federal policing exist beyond the confines of a single type of administration.
This is like the third or fourth response I've seen that keeps making the same assertion with no evidence to back up their position. So I'll be very clear on what I think is new and not just "more of the same":
1. The deliberate attempts to deny due process by scheduling deportations before filed writs can be responded to in court.
2. The deportation of US minor citizen children as a matter of policy.
If you have any evidence of the above by non-Trump administrations, again as a matter of policy, I'm all ears. Everything else is just "feels".
>If you have any evidence of the above by non-Trump administrations, again as a matter of policy, I'm all ears. Everything else is just "feels".
I assume you know how to use the internet, so please go do a few searches, on Google or the search system of your choice, for the sake of informing yourself better. They're there, and if you care about the subject enough to make claims, you should be aware of wider history.
Illegal actions, whether by policy or by bureaucratic inertia towards authoritarian tendencies, have been the case under multiple previous administrations. Under Obama these were even (in a very different context) taken to the level of outright killing American citizens without due process via drone strike. Under Bush II, they involved very illegal and repeated acts of "extraordinary" rendition to black sites. There are more examples, many involving deportations.
Trump getting attention for things that have also been the case since before him poses the risk of making people think that it will all be okay if they just get rid of Trump, even if it's good that the attention is at least being given to this finally.
None of this is to defend the Trump administration or ICE. The cases documented in the link in this post are grotesque, and deserve the full force of censure by other branches of government and the public, and the media, but that doesn't excuse simplistic examinations of a wider injustice.
JFC if someone asks you multiple times for a source then provide a fucking source, instead of continuing to be an obnoxious holier-than-thou "do your own research you ignoramus" asshole.
You are so completely incompetent when it comes to discourse that I have to assume you are purposefully spreading misinformation. Either provide evidence or do everyone else the favor of shutting the fuck up you intolerable asshat.
I guess the question is how frequent it's been. A big part of Trumpism is taking sketchy practices that used to be exceptional and turning them into standard operating procedure, and then claiming "oh look others did this before"
I mean, look at Hillary Clinton's emails, extorting of lawfirms, big tech, etc, his ignoring of court orders, etc. All are things that you can look at and say "he's not the first to do this" and be completely correct, but completely missing the point that he's doing it waay more aggressively.
I actually mentioned this same worry in a previous comment on this post thread, and I don't think that i'm missing the point about Trump doing certain things in way more aggressive and possibly new ways. It's something that should be cause for lots of worry.
However, as I explained above, the deportations of citizens are nothing new and though it's good that they now receive attention, they should be viewed from the wider context of decades of federal overreach and authoritarian practices by certain agencies.
No due process at the borders is a shame both now and before, but hopefully this time there is a willingness to change things. Probably not at the next swing of power.
It is genuinely an extremely difficult challenge to manage illegal crossings if every individual must be processed through the full U.S. legal system which has massive resourcing and backlog problems (3m+ cases).
Voters across the political spectrum have made it unmistakably clear — in poll after poll — that they are deeply dissatisfied with the current rate of illegal and asylum-seeking entries.
Is there a morally permissible way to enact their will?
Immigration courts are already separate from the rest of the legal system so the implication here is wrong.
Going too slow for you? Hire more immigration judges, which are executive employees not full article 3 judges.
Voters across the political spectrum have made it clear in poll after poll the last few weeks that they do not approve of the way this administration is grabbing whoever they can and shipping them out of the country without any check or verification that they are deporting the right people.
If the administration can declare you an illegal immigrant with no due process they can ship anyone they want out of the country. They could grab you off the street, ship you to and El Salvador torture prison intentionally or by mistake (as they have already admitted to) and there’s nothing you can do about it.
If the law exceeds the government's ability to enforce it, relax it. It's de facto relaxed because of the lack of fundamental resources to enforce it... Put the reality on paper.
Stop treating the southern border as a war zone and reopen it. It used to be more open. It was, in fact, more open in that magical America great period that MAGA ostensibly seems to be nostalgic for. Not only did the country survive the openness, it flourished.
If the law is too hard to enforce, have less of it. Lower scrutiny. Hand out day passes. Welcome The stranger with a smile and a friendly wave.
In fact, that process is why deportation courts exist: The theory goes that you're not really punishing anyone, you're just sending them straight back out the door they just came through, therefore, a lower intensity of process is acceptable.
However that rationale becomes evil nonsense the moment a government starts "deporting" arrivals into a damned concentration camp, or back into the hands of people that want to kill them, seizing their property, separating them from their children, etc. since all of that is obviously punitive.
Admit that the current and past efforts to keep people out and quickly deport people failed. And then set up reliable systems of verifying people's citizenship before they can get a job and quickly deport those who should be deported.
Make it easier to work here legally in the US like it used to be in the 90s, and threaten CEOs with jail time if their companies have a pattern of hiring ineligible workers.
And let's be clear, a lot of this border security "crisis" is rooted in racism and Fox news alarmism. The GOP likes having the problem because it keeps the base angry.
Congress could increase funding for the courts enough so that they could do their job. But that would go against the Republican quest for smaller government and lower taxes.
This quest is a fig leaf. The expansion of the government has proceeded equally under both presidents. The republicans just choose to spend the budget on other things and are less willing to raise taxes to fund things. The current tariffs are an interesting PR workaround.
A world where the government gets to say "well it is annoying and expensive to follow the law give people rights so we just won't" is a horror show.
If the people really want a world where people are denied legal process then they can build the popular support for a constitutional amendment. Until then, the government is going to have to pay for this shit.
And we did have a legislative effort to reduce the number of illegal border crossings. Trump scuttled it.
Not the same thing. They are rushing people onto planes before the have any hope of seeing a judge, not documenting anything other than "we say so", and sometimes even sending deportees off to prisons well known for mistreatment and even torture of prisoners in El Salvador. This isn't even close to the same thing.
I think you’re overlooking the fact that our world - and the U.S. in particular - is sinking deeper and deeper into a deep crisis. No one knows exactly where this crisis will lead, but one thing is clear: everything around us is undergoing systematic change. And if you care about that, now is the time to get involved, because it’s during the moments of crisis that societies change.
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.
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.
In this case it's clear that the children were not literally deported. The parents were given the choice of taking their children with them, or leaving them with social services, and they did what any half decent parent would do. So they ended up given a "free flight" on a plane full of people being deported, which blurs the difference - but it's obviously there. The issue is that the parents were not granted access to legal counsel, though that's a consequence of expedited removal [1], which dates back to Clinton.
I think this issue mostly emphasizes the highly unpleasant issues that unrestricted bithright citizenship causes. There's a reason literally no other advanced economy, besides Canada, has maintained such a thing. [1] And Canada is probably the outlier there due to being geographically protected from illegal immigration. Even if somebody e.g. boats over to North America, they're going to be much more likely to head towards the US than Canada.
I say maintained because it's self evident that birthright citizenship would have been a given in the times before big government, if not only because it couldn't not be a given. But basically everywhere desirable started getting rid of it once it started being abused. The entry on Ireland, the last country in Europe to eliminate unrestricted birthright citizenship, is interesting:
---
On 1 January 2005, the law was amended to require that at least one of the parents be an Irish citizen; a British citizen; a resident with a permanent right to reside in Ireland or in Northern Ireland; or a legal resident residing three of the last four years in the country (excluding students and asylum seekers) (see Irish nationality law).[64] The amendment was prompted by the case of Man Chen, a Chinese woman living in mainland United Kingdom who traveled to Belfast (Northern Ireland, part of the UK) to give birth in order to benefit from the previous rule whereby anyone born on any part of the island of Ireland was automatically granted Irish citizenship. The Chinese parents used their daughter's Irish (and thereby European Union) citizenship to obtain permanent residence in the UK as parents of a dependent EU citizen. Ireland was the last country in Europe to abolish unrestricted jus soli. (see Irish nationality law).[107]
I don't think it was meant to devalue their citizenship, but citizenship doesn't trump their safety or need to be with their parents. The parents are going to be deported for being here illegally, would you have the child be separated and put in a foster/community home? Emotions are important but the only pragmatic solution here is to deport all 3, if your nation's policy is deportation for being here illegally. I agree with that policy in general but not with the US policy of Trump of manhandling illegal aliens or their children. Nor do I agree the lawlessness of what they're doing currently by sending off "suspected gang members" without due process to what amount to torture camps in El Salvador.
What you’re really saying is you want this family broken up for the rage bait. You want the picture of a child crying for their mother as the plane takes off for the views.
US constitution thoughtfully disagrees with you, elevating presence on the land at birth over bloodline wrt citizenship.
“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.” -US Constitution, 14th Amendment
Quite literally, US hospitals do have that magic pixie dust because they are on the land of this country.
Its not a coincidence that Switzerland is the longest-lasting democracy in the world by a factor of 4x, vs USA. Their framers had the foresight to enshrine their communities' common history, values, and culture.... over pixie dust.
> Parents pass on the shared history, values, and national culture to their kids.
Except our nation’s shared history, values, and national culture is that we’re a nation of immigrants, a melting pot of global cultures, a refuge for those in need, and a place where anyone can come to seek their fortune, so obviously American parents haven’t been passing on those values to their children if we’re still having this debate, and I think the only fair response to that is to deport all the children who don’t meet your standards of citizenship, by which I mean the entire cohort that’s arguing all this is OK.
To be blunt, America's children are getting a lot more of their shared cultural values from Bluey than their parents, so I think we could stand to pump the brakes on concern about whether children born in this country are as American as children born in this country to parents who were born in this country.
That way lies a very ugly argument about who is enough on the team. One that almost nobody who thinks themselves American wins, because the real winners of that argument should be the folks stuck into reservations by the alien ancestors of those who see themselves as "true Americans, born of Americans."
For Americans in particular, the best strategy for not having their own legitimacy challenged is definitely not to pull too hard on the legitimacy thread.
Yes. We are a nation of immigrants. But you are using the word "immigrant" very loosely. Illegal alien != immigrant. Today, the first 2 acts of an illegal alien arriving in this country are (1) breaking the law (2) lying on an application, another crime. This is wildly different from historical migrants.
In fact, all immigrants who came into this country, actually passed tests (education, work exp, english, etc) before being allowed in. Even in Ellis island at the height of the immigration boom, immigrants who could not support themselves, were sick, etc, were turned around [1]
So yes, we are a nation of immigrants, not a nation of illegal aliens
Do you really believe this? I've never met anyone opposed to birthright citizenship for the US. Our shared history, values, and national culture are all about immigration so this isn't computing for me. Plus the law seems settled on this issue, or at least was before Trump 2.0. I genuinely don't understand how thinking people can support the current administration's policies on numerous issues. Tried going to r/conservative, watching Fox News, etc. but it hasn't helped much to date.
It’s pretty easy to understand, you only need to look at which subset of immigrants they have a problem with. There’s one commonality with all of them, and it is (so to speak) only skin-deep.
The great irony of the American bigot arguing against "chain migration" is that their immediate forefathers not only allowed it as a compromise, but embraced it with open arms.
In the fifties and sixties, those in America who deeply concern themselves with average skin tone saw a darkening country. They believed that fast-tracking immigration for family members would allow Europeans escaping the aftermath of World War II to immigrate rapidly to America, which would bolster the numbers and tilt the national average a bit, if you will, caucasian.
... what they fundamentally failed to grasp is that after the war, America sent her fighting boys (and girls) out to enforce Democracy over Communism at the point of a sword. Sen them to countries where the average citizen was not, generally, bothered by intense direct sunlight. And those boys fell in love. With people who distinctly lacked a certain, shall we say, Innsmouth look that our bigot friends preferred in their fellow citizens. Plus, folks from geographically-adjacent countries who went through the arduous process of naturalization were able to bring their extended families in as well.
The final consequence was a policy that had been supported on one side for mostly economic and "melting pot" reasons that was also supported by bigots for decidedly bigot reasons... Turned out to make the country more diverse, not the less-diverse the bigots had hoped for.
> 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.
And then, what? Are citizens beating down the doors to do these jobs but getting out-competed by migrants? Are these the same citizens who are lining up to do sweatshop labor when manufacturing “returns” to the US?
If undocumented workers are finding productive work in an economy with low unemployment then the problem is that the government is not facilitating them gaining legal status.
The problem would be minimum wage and insurance requirements for employing citizens. There are plenty of citizens that would work those jobs but nobody would hire them because they cost too much. What you are arguing for is to continue allowing people to come here so employers can pay them less than a citizen is legally required to be paid. Once they become legal employers no longer want to employ them for the same reason they don't want to hire citizens.
US citizens by and large don't want to go work in tobacco fields for $15/hr, in a state with $7/hr min wage. But mexican workers coming over legally, getting the work visas and all that... will.
We do have a chicken and egg problem. I think the idea here is that it's a systemic issue and the enforcement is focussed on individuals. This is analogous to the concept of getting everyday people to recycle when the companies creating the products have greater control over how much garbage is produced.
Employers need to stop taking advantage of undocumented workers at artificially suppressed wages. This has acted like a subsidy keeping these poor business models afloat. This has led us to the situation we are in now, where we've become dependent on undocumented migrants (food production etc), who we are being taking advantage of (lower wages, less rights), and also trying to villanize & deport them (the article above). All simultaneously.
It's possible with careful coordination of industry, legislation, and immagration, we wouldn't be here. But now that we are, we need to either find a way to improve the situation or reverse it.
I don't think it's chicken and egg at all. I think lots of employers employ immigrants illegally, and then the immigrants take all the political heat. Anyone pissed about "all these illegals" should be at least just as pissed about all the businesses illegally employing them.
We should stop letting employers do this, and then we all discover that we still really want to employ immigrants, we should enable that, legally.
or alternatively that the US doesn't have a guest worker program similar in scope to most of the developed world, and this is at least partially due to political concerns around birthright.
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
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 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.
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 ?
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.)
We should go after it all to include implementing E-Verify for all. Republicans are also in favor of the guest worker program to legally meet the demand. But we have to stop the flow
I agree that we should do those things. But what I've seen for the past couple decades that I've been voting is that Republican politicians pretend to want to do those things, but refuse to do them "until we've stopped the flow" or "but the border has to be step 1".
This is a classic political tactic to be able to say you want to do something, but never actually have to do it. Politicians use this tactic when they don't actually want to do the thing for some reason. In this case, it's because it's really unpopular with business owners, who like to employ illegal immigrants.
It's perfectly reasonable to say "we need to crack down on employers in conjunction with aggressive border and deportation enforcement". But I'm very skeptical of anyone saying "stopping the flow is step 1". I've heard that story before!
> 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)
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.
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”.
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).
> 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.
> 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!"
> 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.
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.
Sure, the point is that the poster I was responding to said that the only way to avoid putting US citizen minor children in a position where they have to either leave the country, or stay in the country without their parents, is to effectively grant citizenship to the parents. My point is that that's a false choice, it would be possible to grant the parents a temporary, conditional status that's based on having minor US-citizen children. It's not an ideal solution, but it protects the constitutional rights of US-citizen minor children without granting citizenship to the parents.
How is that any different from granting parents citizenship. In some sense you presume birthright citizenship doesn’t make sense. Let us say an immigrant illegally comes into the country and becomes a robber. He in fact, just mugs people on the street. Clearly he’s a net negative, someone you want to deport. Now he has a child. Now by virtue of him having a child, we can no longer deport him, because then we make the child who’s a citizen less parent less. Also assume in this case the mother is some criminal too, to drive the point home.
The simpler, logically consistent solution would be that the child’s citizenship is only granted if the parents are citizens. (Or at least if parents are not illegal immigrants). Then when you deport the parents, you can legally deport the child too. It still is not a pleasant situation, there is no ideal solution here, except he should have never been let in at all, but once he is, these seem the only choices
It's completely different. A conditional work visa is just that, conditional. If you commit a crime you can lose status and be deported. In fact, DAPA eligibility was dependent on not having a felony record. That is not the same thing as citizenship. There's no reason to believe that because you give a temporary work authorization to someone that you have to then make that person a citizen.
Citizenship by blood creates its own problems. I am eligible for Polish citizenship if I choose to pursue it based on where my ancestors lived. I have never been to Poland, don't speak the language, and don't really know that much about the culture or feel any loyalty or even much affinity to Poland. On the other hand, let's say that someone is born in Poland to immigrant parents. Culturally they are entirely Polish - they lived their whole life there, speak the language, were educated by the Polish school system and consider themselves entirely Polish - they've never lived anywhere else. Yet they would not have the same ability to become a citizen that I have. If I got Polish citizenship, I'd just take whatever benefits I could from it and contribute nothing to Poland. How is it logical that I could be a Polish citizen and this person couldn't be?
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.
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.
Yep, the solution is pretty clear in broad strokes, as you described, but the bases of both parties advocate for radically opposed policy through executive action, which just makes the situation worse.
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.
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.
It's not quite that Congress has sat on its thumbs. Individual Congressmen have been (figuratively) screaming at each other. Committees are at each other's throats trying to get some sort of legislation to the table. Nobody can stand the possibility of giving the other side what they want -- at the insistence of their constituents.
The net result, of course, is identical to if they had all stayed home.
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.
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.
seems critical to make a determination on whether you are correct or not.
Take the act of a random french spy who goes to the UK for the purpose of defecting, without express permission of either government. Does that make him a subject to the UK crown? I think the historical outcome of such situation would be crystal-clear.
SCOTUS ruled on this over a hundred years ago, in the case of a child born in the US of Chinese immigrants who went to China in his 30s, and was denied re-entry. Denial theory: Chinese citizens are subject to the Chinese emperor annd therefore aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
SCOTUS response: “LOL”. 6-2 (1 abstention) in favor of him being a citizen. The majority assent lays out pretty clearly that the jurisdiction language was to except diplomats and Native American tribespeople who had different treaties and status.
The Wong Kim Ark ruling is super, super, super clear that it would only be in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances that the 14th wouldn’t apply. For instance, two people in an invasion force sent by King George to take back the colonies have a baby with each other on US soil: probably not a citizen. Even then, if those two were in prison and had the baby: probably a citizen. Baby of two diplomats: not a citizen (called out in the ruling).
The dissent says: The 14th was really about Dredd Scott, and giving former slaves born in US soil full citizenship rights, and therefore “jurisdiction” is obviously only for naturalized citizens: Mr. Ark didn’t seek citizenship and therefore didn’t have it, since he wasn’t a former slave or child of a former slave, the 14th doesn’t apply.
The current attempt to reframe the 14th while including the Ark ruling relies on the very novel idea that anyone in the country without permission is not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. ICE’s actions clearly bely that take. It’s not a tenable angle to try and get rid of birthright citizenship, full stop.
This is a good example and it puts the current de facto interpretation of the law very friendly towards birthright citizenship.
However, as you well said, this is the interpretation of the amendment at the time based on that particular case.
The SCOTUS ruling is based the understanding of the 14th amendment for that particular case. Laws are re-interpreted based on originalist or expansionist understanding of the law at the time is was written. It could very well be that this was one of the latter examples, and that there is ample evidence of it that simply didn't make it to Ark. A legal scholar will need to do the work to really understand what was the intent of the 14th as it was written, and present its case to SCOTUS to persevere. The administration could really be attempting to reframe without any legal basis, and if so, the EO won't survive, and we will be able to move on with a full understanding of the 14th.
I hear that, and this is no doubt headed to the Roberts court. That said, this would to my eyes need to be interpreted as an expansionist "new interpretation" decision by all counts if we're getting rid of birthright citizenship; caselaw, US practice before and after the Ark case (for 100 years!) and the UK Common Law basis of US law (done away with in the 80s by a new law: see https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/7... for much, much more detail), which had hundreds of years of birthright citizenship all point pretty strongly at this being unilaterally understood a certain way here in the US so far.
That Yale article points out European countries have more traditionally relied on "jus sanguinis" -- parentage-based nationality, where UK, US and LatAm countries are mostly "jus soli" with "sanguinis" additions for, say, kids born in foreign countries to nationals.
Anyway - it would be pretty surprising to hear that this is not a reframe. I'll be reading the case with interest.
That's been a fringe legal theory for a while. But historically it's been understood that even if in the country illegally, somebody driving too fast is going to get a ticket, right? If they commit a crime they are thrown in jail. Clearly they are subject to jurisdiction.
but they could very well be deported 1st. There's nothing stopping that, in fact.
The only reason they go to jail is because de-facto that is is fair for the victimm in that he/she gets "Restitution" in the form of jail time for the non-citizen, and presumably, the foreign country may even be able to challenge that.
The dejure interpretation may be he should be banished, although that would be unfair to the victim.
The 14th amendment discusses who is a citizen. It does not capture who is a subject to US jurisdictions, or not. That part is open to interpretation , likely because it is based in common law.
e: You've now edited your comment to be consistent with what you originally said. Before edit, the commenter said that the jurisdiction clause meant that at least one parent needed to be at least a legal visitor to the US.
Not only is that not in the text of the 14th, it's different from your original proposal two comments ago. If you really want to do this fine-grained reading to try to support your point, you might notice that 1. the subject to the jurisdiction clause is the baby, not the parents, 2. breaking a law does not mean you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state you reside in.
Please note that the 14th Amendment does not “discuss” who is a citizen, a better word would be “establishes” or “determines” - the “discussion” happened during the drafting and ratification processes and all of those records are available for you to read. Post ratification, the court system uses those discussions as part of their decisions on issues related to clarification of questions that arose after ratification. Those court decisions are also available for you to read.
It means that the parents must be immune from the US government actions. For example, if they are diplomats and literally can't be arrested even if they commit a murder in the plain sight.
Why does the birthright status quo need resolving? Why is there magic pixie dust based on who your parents are? None of these are fundamental truths. The US and the Swiss just chose different laws.
Exactly. Same for dual citizenship. I realize there is nothing right or wrong about whether a countries allows dual citizenship -- it's just two different ways of doing things. Although that's a bit of a stretch here.
> 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)
I like this a lot. That makes total sense and would take away the incentive to cross the border to give birth.
The people that come here legally don't really build anything of significant value when you compare it to entire immigrant communities. Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Irish, you name it, they build vast amounts of culture and businesses that get integrated into America. Even if you give me 2 million of the smartest legal immigrants, they will pale in comparison to what large immigrant communities offer to the fabric of America. This is deeply American issue, you either get it or you don't.
Just Apu from the Simpsons is only possible due to our immigration. Just the very fucking iconic cartoon character. This is not from legal immigration. Taco Tuesdays, every Irish pub, like, it sounds silly, but what they offer America is ten fold. I do not care about the best and the brightest, give us your tired and poor.
The American right-wing reeks of elitism (soft language for racist/xenophobic) and it is the antithesis of the American spirit and dream. I'm not with it.
This will be one of my final posts on this topic because I believe we are only in month five, and have 3.5 years to go. I pray the midterms are a landslide, and I pray the next Democrat grants Amnesty. See you all on the other side, because to me this issue is no different than the anit-gay marriage bullshit from the 2000s that we wiped the table clean of once and for all. We are a nation of immigrants and we will be so until eternity.
Common notion, but based in ignorance. I've found that the left wing is more idealistic, but in the sense that they have chosen not to learn from history and rely on immediate emotional values. The right wing sees second order effects and acts on them.
Thus, you get the left calling the right heartless/immoral/racist, and the right calling the left idiots.
No, they gave a list of policy differences - and justified them with an emotional argument: "cruel". They said nothing about the pragmatic justification of them. Which is exactly my point: the left tends to operate on ideological emotional values.
They could have said things like 'reproductive rights leads to X goods for the populace' or 'prohibition was a net positive in Y ways' or 'minimum wage laws are shown to improve GDP by Z amt on average' - but they didn't. They used an emotional argument. Like I said they would.
They used examples where almost every reasonable American knows what the right and wrong side of history ended up being. He doesn’t need to teach us with detailed policy that slavers ended up on the wrong side of history — we all know.
> The right wing sees second order effects and acts on them.
It’s hard to take this one at good faith. The right wing is very publicly melting down the CDC for glue while the second order effects of a preventable measles epidemic spreads through the country. Is there a more targeted claim you want to make?
The right wing had a big problem with the role the CDC played in the authoritarianism of the COVID era. Now they're melting down a weapon of that authoritarianism. What's more important, preserving civil rights by preventing authoritarianism, or a single epidemic? Gotta think long term here.
I suspect that you merely dislike the authoritarian things the government is currently doing; I dislike that the government is authoritarian. We are not the same.
"Not to learn from history"? We're in the twilight zone now. It's the right wing that is currently enacting tariffs, scapegoating immigrants, pushing for appeasement in Ukraine, etc.
The Republican party traded logic for populism long ago.
You've clearly only paid attention to ragebait. Because "integrated members of our society" is exactly what the right wing is interested in. But this is not what happened in recent years. The entire reason for the deportations is because they are not becoming "integrated members of our society" - it instead became "all crime-like" in places it wasn't before, and the correlation with the alien imports is just too obvious. It happened too fast and too much, and now the correction is just as hard.
"They are simply sick" and you're...... proving my point.
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.
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”.
> 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.
> 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.
To what degree do we let the people decide how their republic is structured?
Voters have rejected this sort of cosmopolitanism at the ballot box, repeatedly. To suggest that governments should open borders over the wishes of their citizens seems to simply be an object-level misunderstanding over the goals of statecraft.
Because voters decided there was a common interest, cultural identity, etc. and mutually agreed on political integration. Voters clearly do not want a unified Americas.
The purpose of a Republic is to be a stable entity that ensures the welfare of its citizens. It is not to have a single-minded obsession with global welfare at the expense of its own sustainability or the desires of its citizens.
> voters decided there was a common interest, cultural identity, etc. and mutually agreed on political integration.
I'm less confident that this was performed in either ___location due to direct democracy, and more because it made political sense and was expedient at the time that these locale enacted the governance structure.
In other words, it's not a one-and-done-forever type discussion, and things (clearly) evolve over time.
We don't elect an all powerful leader. The people did vote for Trump. But "well they voted for Trump" is not an excuse for him to do literally anything. If the people want legislative changed then they elect people in Congress. If the people want to change the constitution itself then they can seek that too.
But "well Trump won so just have ICE kill them all" (this is what my aunt, a republican lobbyist, wants) is not a thing.
> 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".
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.
The interesting thing about this parallel, is that the "final solution" in Germany was final because it was not the original solution.
Originally they wanted to, well, deport the undesirables to some far off country, initially to Madagascar if memory serves.
Managing mass incarceration and deportation is a difficult task however, and these people (both then and now) are not exactly competent at anything beyond bravado.
Watching this unfolding from afar is interesting, because I can do so with some healthy detachment. If I lived across the pond I would be pretty desperate right now.
Unfortunately, if this follows history, the safest thing to do is to not do anything, blend in, and wait for external help. Afaik, only a handful of Germans who resisted survived. But, I don’t see any help for us coming anytime soon.
Yeah, there are some possibilities. For example, if a strong resistance leader emerged. But, are there any good candidates for that role? I can't think of any.
Things like this are stopped by movements, not individual heroes. There are almost certainly organizations in your area already working against this. No one is coming to save us. But if anyone does it is the people who were already trying to, bolstered by people like you who see it now. Get in there.
I recognize the optimism, but realistically, without a strong and strategic leader, coordination will collapse into disorganization and infighting. Historical examples like Occupy Wall Street demonstrate that leaderless movements tend to self-sabotage and generate instability without achieving meaningful outcomes.
>Managing mass incarceration and deportation is a difficult task however, and these people (both then and now) are not exactly competent at anything beyond bravado.
The holocaust also required mass incarceration and deportation, except that the huge undertaking of deportation was towards death camps in occupied territories instead of some foreign land. On the first point above, I caution against thinking that it would be much easier; it wasn't really, they just decided that they wanted to kill the people they considered undesirable after all.
On the second point, it's worth noting that the efforts at expulsion partly failed because many other countries, despite knowing of the brutal repression being suffered by the jews (and others but the jews in particular) decided to stonewall most avenues of exit from Nazi domains. Deportation would have still been terrible, but at least it would have put millions of eventual victims outside the reach of gas chambers and death squads. Such as it was, a sort of tacit complicity of indifference didn't allow that to happen, by others who weren't even necessarily supporters of the Nazis.
In either case, be careful about calling evil people practicing evil ends incompetent. In so many ways they were very competent at far more than simple bravado, and underestimating the capabilities of barbaric monsters is always dangerous for future lessons.
> be careful about calling evil people practicing evil ends incompetent.
The Nazi were a mess, plagued with infighting, and completely incapable of measuring the strength of their opponents, which eventually led to their downfall.
Incompetent evil people can still do a lot of harm until they screw up for good. This doesn't stop them being incompetent.
>The Nazi were a mess, plagued with infighting, and completely incapable of measuring the strength of their opponents, which eventually led to their downfall.
no the Nazis weren't entirely a mess or completely incompetent.
There was lots of infighting, partly deliberately designed to be that way by Hitler's tactics for organizing his own subordinate leadership levels, but there was also a massive amount of military, industrial and logistical competence and a robust amount of cohesion and careful, powerful cooperation on fundamental aims.
Had there not been, the Nazi's never would have risen to power so effectively, formed their dictatorship so effectively or managed a colossal war against multiple enemies for so many years so effectively, and only been defeated at such a gargantuan cost in lives and resources. The Nazis underestimated the military strength of their enemies, but not nearly so badly as to not wage very effective war and pose a very, very serious threat to these enemies for several years.
I really suggest a book called "The Wages of Destruction: the making and breaking of the Nazi Economy" by Adam Tooze, as a nice basic primer on how wrong these ideas of supposedly incompetent Nazis are.
The above is all deviating a bit from the topic at hand but with this sidestep into a look at the Nazis, you're working from a simplistic caricature view of a more complex situation with complex evil people, and I fear that this is also all too common when many critics today view the Trump government. It's not staffed entirely by caricaturesque evil idiots. Many of its supporters are intelligent and cohesive in their guiding methodologies. (Also, no, the above isn't to compare the bad actions of Trump's government to the completely unrestrained monstrosities of the Nazis. I'm comparing defects of external analysis)
Seeing as how this article is talking about the deportation of US citizens, I'm going to question what exactly you mean by "here illegally".
Expanding the argument: I've just decided that you are illegally, and will thus be deported. As there is no due process, my word is law, have fun wherever you end up I literally do not care.
Does that seem fair? And before arguing "well this wouldn't happen, I'm not here illegally", again, this is an article about the deportation of US citizens. Children no less.
But their parents aren’t. Parents can be deported. So let’s imagine they did that. We’d have an article how cruel they stole / kidnapped a child from their parents. Would that be better?
Having a child doesn’t automatically provide a legal cover for staying and not getting deported. Maybe that’s a risk the parents didn’t know about?
No, that is a false dilemma. the right (and constitutional) thing to do is give all these people the due process and access to legal representation that they are entitled to, and work out a legal solution to all these conflicting concerns.
read the habeas petition for VMS (the two year old). The child has a US citizen relative and the father seems to have transferred provisional rights of custody to them.
> The child has a US citizen relative and the father seems to have transferred provisional rights of custody to them.
Right, I think that's the issue here it's not that the parents should be automatically allowed to say, it's that they were not given a chance in court to allow for that process - to find a relative.
There is a complication in the case because the provisional custody was canceled then renewed and transferred to Trish Mack.
> Also on April 22, 2025, V.M.L.’s father executed a Provisional Custody by Mandate under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:951, temporarily “delegat[ing] the provisional custody of” his two daughters to his U.S. citizen sister-in-law, who also lives in Baton Rouge, LA. The Mandate was notarized by a valid notary public in the state of Louisiana
> On April 24, 2025, the mandatary named in the Provisional Custody by Mandate terminated the agreement for personal reasons,
> V.M.L.’s father and Next Friend Petitioner Trish Mack executed a new notarized Provisional Custody by Mandate, delegating custodial authority to Ms. Mack
That sounds like something where due process is supposed to come into play. The best of a series of bad alternatives are worked out in a steady manner by a court system, rather than a hopped up racist at the border bragging about the president being in their corner.
I'm all right with changing that rule - anchor babies means we get two people and one them is brand new. Considering people are the most valuable resource, I think we should take all the potential anchors possible - let's give both parents citizenship automatically if they are parents of a citizen.
Let's fast track Aunts and Uncles too - maybe we can get the whole family.
> let's give both parents citizenship automatically if they are parents of a citizen.
Yeah that might work. Wonder if there is any legislative effort on that front. I guess with the current congress it won't happen, so perhaps nobody is trying.
What's the point in arguing about what-ifs? The children were deported. In real life. There's no need for hypothetical scenarios, focus on the actual point of the article and thread.
I am not sure what you're arguing for? Take the children away in real life and hand off to a random foster family. Sometimes they can stay with aunts or uncles. Sometimes there are no aunts or uncles.
> There's no need for hypothetical scenarios, focus on the actual point of the article and thread.
Ok, so what should we discuss about the article? To help the conversation move along it's easier to say "here is what I think" as opposed to tell someone "don't think or say that!" and leave it a that.
US citizen father wasn't allowed to take custody of his US citizen child, who was subsequently removed from the country to a place where the child presumably is not a citizen.
That's where court proceedings to establish custody would be necessary. But regardless, it's illegal to deport a citizen, especially to a third country where they are not a citizen.
> What's the point in arguing about what-ifs? The children were deported.
Anyone arguing in what-ifs agrees with the deportation but can't be that blatantly racist on here. Ignoring this specific case allows them to muddy the waters. Anyone playing Devil's Advocate consistently are usually part of the devil's party.
How do you know they are "illegally" shielding people? Was there any kind of process to figure this out?
Also, a few days back, you made the same point and someone furnished you links where legal migrants are being caught in a net. This is not an argument in good faith.
> When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration.
Technically Secretary Clinton called half of her opponent’s supporters a “basket of deplorables.” So 0.25 of the voting population at most.
But if that sounds worse than anything uttered by this administration, you’re not listening closely. I’m Canadian and we’ve been called “one of the nastiest countries.”
> We're not deporting "undesirables", just those who flooded in here illegally.
Ironically you say that in the comments section of a US citizen being held prior to deportation. Maybe those pesky children are flooding in there illegally?
> if we didn't have people trying to illegally shield them from ICE.
If only those annoying people weren't trying to hide Jews from the SS back in the day eh?
> Equating that to Nazi Germany is disingenuous and completely off the mark.
By all means, proceed. I am watching from afar with amusement as the US descends into banana Republic status with a sprinkle of old school European fascism now that the ICE is basically acting like Stasi or Gestapo from years past.
I wonder what you would consider to be enough for the comparison to not be disingenuous anymore. Perhaps when the ovens are burning in some Central American death camp.
Why then are people with legal visas being detained or having their visas revoked if it is just those who "flooded here illegally" under threat?
Clinton said that many Trump voters were deplorables. Trump said that many immigrants are not human. Now I know which sounds more like the Nazis to me.
> "The Democrats say, 'Please don't call them animals. They're humans.' I said, 'No, they're not humans, they're not humans, they're animals,'" said Trump, president from 2017 to 2021.
I agree that "alien" is a fairly dehumanizing term, but this isn't what I am talking about. Trump said "No, they're not humans, they're not humans, they're animals."
>When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration.
Lol. That was three campaigns ago, and she was correct, and you guys are still whining about it like a bunch of snowflakes. Let it go. Hillary Clinton can't hurt you anymore.
> When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration.
Here’s Trump straight-up uding white nationalist rhetoric:
> Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions [and] insane asylums. We know they're terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we're witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It's poisoning the blood of our country. It's so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have.
Now, it’s telling that you’re pretending not to have heard your guy say things like that while his administration is sending people to concentration camps without due process but are still upset about something from a decade ago which you are misrepresenting.
Here’s the full quote, which is notable because she identified the specific behaviors she considered deplorable AND explicitly called for sympathy for the large group of people who are motivated by problems in their lives rather than bigotry. Also note that she’s talking about half of the third of the country which votes for him.
> You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
> But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
That makes quite the contrast where he looks worse the more of his speech you read while her speech looks better in context and makes it clear that while he hates people based on who they are, she reserved judgement based on what they do.
The end goal was world domination, as in owning whole world. So, they would eventually come to Madagascar too.
Majority of Jews killed in Hocaust were not Germans. They were from conquered countries.
So, while there was some Madagascar plans floating and while they tried to deport as many German Jews (majority of who were atheists, considered themselves Germans etc) in first stages, they were aware there is going to be showdown later on anyway.
I too have noticed the same language coming out of folks here, folks that have had accounts for over 10 or 15 years. They were always here, but now they emboldened and they are doing their best to make sure that overton window stays very very open on the right.
I had a friend until recently. Really nice guy. Always looking out for people. Never said a bad word. In the last couple of years he turned into a nasty piece of work jumping on every politicised story out there and treating it as gospel. He alienated everyone around him.
It turns out that some people don't have a mind of their own and are waiting for orders.
Here is no exception. Look at the foaming at the mouth praise of the second coming of Microsoft when Satya took over. And where we are now? Look at the hype as well - blockchain, crypto and AI now. Mindless people slithering all over everything.
In fact I find a lot of the people in the technology sector to either be entirely morally bankrupt or lack any kind of self or societal awareness of their speech of actions. It disgusts me. I've been on HN pretty much since day one but the accounts last perhaps 6 months before I tire of it.
I moved out of the tech-first industry about 10 years ago and into a position of tech as a tool not a reason for a business existing and there are better people here.
I’ve been in tech for about 2 decades now, and the general culture has always been to disregard ethics and social impact. How many times have we heard “We’re just building tools. Tools are apolitical and ethically neutral, it’s how you use them that matters!” It turns out that is actually not the case.
Plus the insistence that we can cordon off an area of life and designate it non political is incredibly common but also pretty naive (and dare I say privileged).
That is to say, we in the tech industry often encourage this sort of moral bankruptcy and like to pretend we’re above it all.
I think a lot of that attitude is self-justification to proceed as they intend without moral compass. Personally I can't do that. Everything we do has a consequence.
I've got a copy of Careless People sitting in front of me I'm scared to read at the moment.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
It’s definitely a factor (perhaps the dominant factor) and the easiest place to see it at play is on HN whenever the adtech industry is being criticized.
Since we are quoting, I quote FDR: "Democracy has disappeared in several other great nations--not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and government weakness through lack of leadership in government."
True, we are not in bad shape like 1930s Germany or United States but as neoliberalism rot has really set in, people feel economically shaky, and government clearly is not responsive to them. Combined with Social Media warping people brain on what is "success" and "strong man" who will take care of things is clearly appealing. Many of them can also be turned around but it's going to take some doing.
Previously with the family separation policy it was part of an aggressive campaign led by Stephen Miller personally. There are now a few more people who want to do this as much as he does, all in the administration. It was Trump who hired those people, and then it was Trump who rescinded family separations and fired Neilsen over it, because it made bad media. The public has a template for exactly how to stop it. All that said, this is what the Republican base wants.
Your last statement is correct. They are just emboldened by the current political environment. Any law enforcement has a problem where all they see is criminals all day everyday, now we know they aren't always criminals, but that's their view point. There should be sufficient checks and balances to ensure that due process is still upheld. What we're seeing now is the lack of checks because law enforcement feels they will never be held accountable for violating due process. This, while likely not a direct order of the president, it is an environment that his rhetoric has fostered. Even in the cases where the supreme court has said, unanimously, that people have been deported improperly this environment causes those in positions to correct it to ignore the courts.
I support the general idea of expedited deportation of those here illegally, those without valid documents to be here, I don't automatically have a problem if there is greater restrictions on entering or issuing new visas, but I have a major problem with violating due process and these kind of mistakes that's are a result of lack of due diligence.
The courts need to get more heavily involved here. It's easy to blame the president but short of some directive telling people to violate the law the blame is misdirected (until it's election time). The blame needs to be on those individuals doing this thing or seeing it and ignoring it. This is where the courts need to totally strip away default qualified immunity, especially for immigration officers. Because qualified immunity allows them to just say they were following orders without them having to evaluate if what they are doing is legal or not.
I believe if qualified immunity was gone a lot of this nonsense would stop. They would make sure that anyone who was deported was meant to be deported.
I have a friend who is here legally awaiting an asylum hearing, been waiting for 5 years. They were stopped by police for a valid reason and, from what was described the police had probable cause, but the charge itself is very minor. Because she's documented waiting asylum they contacted immigration, for no reason. There was no probable cause to think she was in violation of her immigration status, but they still contacted them and they requested she be held. So now she detained and there's probable cause to do so but it's immigration so they can.
This is where no qualified immunity would make these officers think twice. They know they have no probable cause to continue to hold her beyond the initial charge. Without qualified immunity they would understand that continuing to hold someone after a judge has allowed their release means that they would lose their house their life their future. So I really think we need to end to qualified immunity across the board. Have the people who are supposed to protect us and be responsible for their actions.
Without qualified immunity, no one in their right mind would want to work in law enforcement. LE would become an easy target for malicious litigation where the cost/effort to defend would, itself, be the weapon, regardless of whether or not the lawsuits were won.
LE personnel would have to get insurance, like doctors, which would be crazy expensive and, considering their pay scale, unaffordable.
I don't like some of the implications of qualified immunity, but I understand why it's there and needed.
I think the only real solution to LE abuses is criminal accountability and prosecution. We already have the laws and processes in place to make that happen. It's hindered by the tribal nature of the human condition and I'm not sure you get around that very easily, at least, not at scale.
"Qualified Immunity" comes from the fact Americans have independent judicial branch and can directly bring law enforcement into that judiciary. In most countries, any action against law enforcement for their official duties is limited to government/department so they have large scale defense anyways.
> LE personnel would have to get insurance, like doctors, which would be crazy expensive and, considering their pay scale, unaffordable.
So pay would have to go up?
There'd probably also have to be something where if they were following department policy, then the officer (well, their insurance) can turn around and demand reimbursement from the department.
Qualified immunity, as it is today, is far too broad. Because literally any action that an officer takes that has not been specifically ruled on by the courts is a defaulted as being immune to prosecution. Even when that officer is knowingly violating department policy even when they're reasonably aware they are a violating the law. They still retain qualified immunity.
It's nice to live in that dreamland that we can resort to criminal prosecutions for officers who violate the law that does not happen as often as it should. As part of their job, what they are trained to do, is to be able to evaluate a reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Yet you regularly see officers violate those standards with impunity. The problem is when someone violates your rights by arresting you without sufficient probable cause there is nearly no recourse for the average person.
If immigration took you and held you for 2 weeks, how disruptive would that be to your life? Would you lose your house, your job, more than that? If it was found that they had no probable cause to for an arrest what realistic legal recourse do you have, and how many years would it take for that recourse?
So if you want to maintain qualified immunity because you believe it's a requirement for these people to do their jobs then where is the balance to that? Because right now there is no balance. If you don't want officers to be held directly responsible or to have to pay for expensive insurance policies somebody needs to pay because without a financial incentive things don't change. What about something that puts a strict financial incentive on getting things right at the first time. Obviously this would be a burden that the taxpayers share but when the taxpayers realize they're shelling out money for people who are not diligent in their work that will change very quickly. If someone is arrested and the courts find there was no probable cause for the arrest. How about $10,000 a day for every day that that person was held. That puts a meaningful financial burden on getting it right. Because then it becomes readily apparent which officers are problematic and which ones are not.
The situation we're in right now is not working and there doesn't seem to be any plans to fix it. Because literally my friend where there is no probable cause for them to be arrested and held by immigration is being held by immigration. Like most people they live month to month. So if they're not working nobody pays their bills nobody pays for their apartment. If they're held for 2 weeks or a month or God forbid even longer before they're let go where is the actual financial recourse because they lost everything in their life? Because your suggestion doesn't solve for that problem and provides no incentive for immigration to follow the laws or even follow the courts.
Because the interesting thing is with the original arrest they would have been released the next day on their own recognizance. Police that do not care about the constitutions or due process or the rights of individuals proactively contacted immigration and immigration requested that she be turned over to them. No reason given and there's no reason for the police to have suspected that a person with all the proper documentation and identification is in violation of any federal immigration law. So tell me honestly what is your solution if it's not to strip away qualified immunity and if it's not to place a heavy financial burden on these agencies in some way that directs back to the individuals that are willfully violating people's rights?
I completely disagree. It still blows my mind that Law Enforcement Officers are the only group of people for whom ignorance of the law is an acceptable defense.
Are you serious? Trump campaigned on spreading cruelty to these people and he's doing it. There's financial incentive to keep people in private prisons, and we're paying to send them to concentration camps, so it's not money. It's just bigotry.
The suffering is the point. The current administration thinks that by publicly treating anyone vaguely foreign horribly they will be able to end the allure illegal immigration. I guess the dirty secret is that this sort of stuff has been happening, the difference is that now the government wants everyone to know about it
I didn't know it was gonna be the pandemic that did it. I was getting ready to get in because I saw the tiny yield curve inversion in like August or September of 2019 and was preparing to make up for lost decades of not investing at all. I learned all I needed to know in three weeks on youtube and I dunno, it worked for me.
I'm no expert myself in anything, but I pick my experts carefully
You can be incredibly fucking lazy for most of your life except for a few key hinges
Abbreviations :-) being defined or not depends on the audience, so it is not a law that you need to define them. PMF (product-market fit) and GTM (go to market) I would define though.
I am not sure if they serve the same purpose or how the venn diagrams overlap on this, but in 2000 I loved the idea of the assersion in Ada, and I love even more the idea the type system can prove your number is between 1 and 10 (etc.).
I reckon it occasionally will catch a bug, but more than that is perfect documentation. I don't want delay to be an int, I want it to be a RateLimitBackoffDelaySeconds which is between >0 and <60, for example.
As I understand the nomenclature liquid types are refinement types and they are dependent types, but typically when people say "dependent types" without qualification they mean the much more powerful (and difficult) "full" dependent types where you can do stuff like returning an int or a string depending on some runtime value.
MCP is just another way to use LLMs more in more dangerous ways. If I get forced to use this stuff, I'm going to learn how to castrate some bulls, and jump on a train to the countryside.
I have to say I had a very good results creating and optimizing quite complex queries with Sonnet. But letting LLM run them on their own in production is quite a different beast.
No mention of https://nodejs.org/api/cluster.html#cluster? Not sure if NextJS supports it even, but if you are only using one core of your webserver for node, you are leaving stuff on the table.
But for interesting HN discussion... anyone got any juice on why this is happening. Is there orders going down the chain of command from the president to do this sort of thing. Was this behaviour always there but less reported before? Are they more emboldened by the current environment?
reply