Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 130 posts

Re: Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

#91

Post by jacquesm »

dragandj wrote: post #84
jacquesm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think underage muslim girls are normally going to go against the wishes of their father then you clearly don't know much about the kind of patriarchy they are exposed to. Fathers word > law.

Maybe in Middle East. Not in Switzerland.

You'd think so but in plenty of those households when you cross the threshold you might as well be in the middle east. I've had plenty of contact with Muslim families living in the West and the range is very wide, given that these girls were not allowed to swim with the boys it isn't a wild guess at all that their family is on the traditional side of the spectrum.

Re: Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

#92

Post by ZoF »

ddeck wrote: post #87
Houshalter wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It remains this way because Americans do not generally consider or believe Econ 101 ideas It's not at all clear this violates "Econ 101". Supply and demand set prices, and wages are basically the price for labor. Increasing the supply of labor should necessarily decrease wages, and vice versa. Imagine the extreme, worst case scenario. If the US opened it's borders completely, and imported every poor worker in the en…

>Increasing the supply of labor should necessarily decrease wages, and vice versa. This assumes everyone is taking jobs and noone is creating them. America has a strong tradition of immigrants building businesses.

No, it assumes that less are created than are taken, not that none are created at all.

Re: Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

#93

Post by erlehmann_ »

zappo2938 wrote: post #67
lisper wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we need to compare everybody to Hitler? Trump's policies are eerily reminiscent of Hitler's. Seriously, go look up some transcripts of Hitler's speeches, especially the early ones, and substitute "Muslim" for "Jew" and compare the results to Trump's rhetoric. Better yet, show the results to some Trump supporters and ask them if they agree with the sentiments. But I don't really care what color their shirts are.…

Both my grandparents survived the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. The only time my grandmother mentioned Nazi Germany to me was when Schindler's List was in theaters and she asked if I've seen it yet. Hitler didn't just start killing Jews and others. He slowly progressed to that. Of course, each step towards the final solution didn't seem like a large jump from the previous one. That is what I was told the power…

> We are in 2016. We should be past this by now.

I have read arguments of the form “It is [the current year]. We should be past this by now.” a lot lately, but I do not understand how referring to time provides a useful starting point for an argument about morality. Can anyone tell me?

Re: Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

#94

Post by drdeadringer »

linkregister wrote: post #57
drdeadringer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a perfect job for Congress. More at 11, here on Fox.

I disagree with using "Congress" as a euphemism for the political party one is in opposition to. Clearly a majority of Americans believe in their own senators and representatives. It's the "other guys" who are bad. Call a spade a spade.

I was using the word "Congress" as I intended, which was to refer to Congress as a whole.

Re: Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

#95

Post by [deleted] »

lisper wrote: post #81
bruceb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending people back who came illegally while people all around the world are waiting to come legally has zero in common with Nazis.

Actually it has everything in common with the Nazis. The Nazis were the law-and-order party of their day. Very nearly everything they did was legal. That is why they documented everything so meticulously. They really believed they were the good guys. The main reason the Nazis are the iconic villains is not because what they did was that much worse than other atrocities that humans have committed through the ages, but…

[deleted]

Re: Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

#96

Post by erlehmann_ »

lisper wrote: post #81
bruceb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending people back who came illegally while people all around the world are waiting to come legally has zero in common with Nazis.

Actually it has everything in common with the Nazis. The Nazis were the law-and-order party of their day. Very nearly everything they did was legal. That is why they documented everything so meticulously. They really believed they were the good guys. The main reason the Nazis are the iconic villains is not because what they did was that much worse than other atrocities that humans have committed through the ages, but…

I think the Nazis can serve as iconic villains mainly because a lot of their value system seems so alien compared to what we have in the western world today.

Besides, many people like to believe they are the “good guys”.

Re: Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

#97

Post by lisper »

erlehmann_ wrote: post #93
zappo2938 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both my grandparents survived the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. The only time my grandmother mentioned Nazi Germany to me was when Schindler's List was in theaters and she asked if I've seen it yet. Hitler didn't just start killing Jews and others. He slowly progressed to that. Of course, each step towards the final solution didn't seem like a large jump from the previous one. That is what I was told the power…

> We are in 2016. We should be past this by now. I have read arguments of the form “It is [the current year]. We should be past this by now.” a lot lately, but I do not understand how referring to time provides a useful starting point for an argument about morality. Can anyone tell me?

In 1933 anti-semitism was a respectable political position. Hitler didn't have to hide the fact that he was anti-semitic. He explicitly ran on anti-semitism, and the German people voted for him because of his anti-semitism, not in spite of it. It was only when faced with the reality of what it actually means to carry this moral position to its logical conclusion that the world finally recoiled in horror and said, "Never again." That is what it means to say, "It's 2016." It means that we live in a world where someone actually did this experiment in the not-so-distant past. It didn't end well. And so we should be able to see that doing the same experiment again with Muslims standing in for Jews might not be such a hot idea.

Re: Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

#98

Post by lisper »

erlehmann_ wrote: post #96
lisper wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it has everything in common with the Nazis. The Nazis were the law-and-order party of their day. Very nearly everything they did was legal. That is why they documented everything so meticulously. They really believed they were the good guys. The main reason the Nazis are the iconic villains is not because what they did was that much worse than other atrocities that humans have committed through the ages, but…

I think the Nazis can serve as iconic villains mainly because a lot of their value system seems so alien compared to what we have in the western world today. Besides, many people like to believe they are the “good guys”.

Everyone thinks they're the good guys. Even the ISIS folks think they are the good guys, that they are fighting the good fight against the infidel for the greater glory of God. That's the whole point. That's the reason that, "It's OK because we're the good guys" is not a valid argument, because everyone applies it to themselves.

"Sending people back who came illegally [is OK]" is a thinly disguised argument of that same form because we are the ones who decide what is legal. In that respect we are like the Nazis. They thought that what they were doing was OK because it was "legal", because they were "just following orders." Well, no, it was not OK. And deporting people who grew up here "illegally" through no fault of their own but rather because their adoptive parents didn't fill out the right paperwork and xenophobia happens to be running amok is likewise not OK no matter what the law says.

Re: Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

#99

Post by wildmusings »

douche wrote: post #78
wildmusings wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've chosen a nice arbitrary point to start judging people. Europeans didn't disturb some idyllic peace in the Americas. The natives were slaughtering and conquering each other left and right. The difference is that the Europeans had the advanced technology and culture to win.

Unwitting biological warfare helps too. Conquest is a whole lot easier when something that gives your people the sniffles more than decimates your enemies. But yeah, the Aztecs and the Incas didn't become great empires by sitting around the campfire and singing kumbaya. Which is part of the reason Cortez and Pizarro were able to beat them with such small armies of Spaniards... backed up by tens of thousands of native…

Yeah, the Aztecs were particularly brutal. They would actually hold off from fully conquering some neighboring tribes to use them as punching bags for ritual warfare and the taking of captives for human sacrifice.

Re: Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

#100

Post by dragandj »

jacquesm wrote: post #91
dragandj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in Middle East. Not in Switzerland.

You'd think so but in plenty of those households when you cross the threshold you might as well be in the middle east. I've had plenty of contact with Muslim families living in the West and the range is very wide, given that these girls were not allowed to swim with the boys it isn't a wild guess at all that their family is on the traditional side of the spectrum.

I know. I meant: maybe that is acceptable in Middle East, but it is not acceptable in Switzerland.
Post reply on HN