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

Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 435 posts

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#141

Post by therealdrag0 »

2_listerine_pls wrote: post #99
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #81

It's us , the USA, that is causing this paper to shutdown. The cartels are financed by the insatiable drug appetite of its close neighbor. Our inability and/or unwillingness to legalize recreational drugs is the feeding tube for these vicious groups.

It's surprisingly simple to locate the plantations using LIDAR + spectrometry. Even easier in Afghanistan, where fields are cultivated in the open. It's so well documented that the UNDOC provides an anual report with the amount in acres. I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped.

Here's an interesting podcast on the supply of drugs: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/02/tom_wainwright.html The guest mentions that in the Ande's mountains it is still tough to identify drug growing.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#142

Post by LeanderK »

pdog wrote: post #133
_delirium wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My very limited experience with Mexico City is that I'd treat it like many U.S. cities: it's fine, if you know which areas to avoid after dark, and which areas to avoid entirely. It is not like a safe European city center where you can go almost anywhere alone on foot at any time of day. But most U.S. cities don't fit that description either. And it's not at the other extreme that some people imagine, some kind of So…

> It is not like a safe European city center where you can go almost anywhere alone on foot at any time of day. Which European city are you referring to? The major European cities (e.g., Paris, London, and Berlin) don't fit this description either.

don't agree with berlin either, of course some areas are more criminal (almost anywhere), but going on foot alone is still possible, even at night and i've been to most of the trouble-spots.

Also: Munich, it's unbelievable safe, more boring than berlin, but safer.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#143

Post by PhasmaFelis »

cpr wrote: post #95
mschuster91 wrote: post #37

Trumps goons are hunting immigrants as we write here. Trump supporters regularly beat up people of color. Police regularly shoots black people. And Trumps entire team believes climate change is fake news - this alone will lead the US and the world with it into a desaster.

Trump's "goons" (you mean ICE officers, right?) aren't "hunting immigrants." They're trying to enforce the laws about legal and illegal immigration. If you don't like the laws, work to change them. Don't demonize those who are enforcing them.

> If you don't like the laws, work to change them. Don't demonize those who are enforcing them.

We didn't accept "just following orders" at the Nuremburg trials, and those defendants could have been executed for disobeying. I don't see why we should accept it at home from police officers whose only risk is losing their job.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#144

Post by branchless »

_delirium wrote: post #137
pdog wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not like a safe European city center where you can go almost anywhere alone on foot at any time of day. Which European city are you referring to? The major European cities (e.g., Paris, London, and Berlin) don't fit this description either.

When were you last in central London or Paris? It's been a long time since Limehouse or Montparnasse were dangerous to walk in at night.

Head out of canary wharf onto the isle of dogs. Or parts of peckham. Or West Ham. Christ.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#145

Post by mikeash »

hwillis wrote: post #116
mikeash wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving immigration to the states would require internal border controls. This is not something most people want.

I don't think so. What I'm thinking is that "state green cards" would let you live in one state, and your residence will be checked up on periodically. If you don't live there, or if you're found in another state without a visa, you become an illegal immigrant, and fall under the purview of the federal immigration services. This has very little negative changes- since many/most illegal immigrants are here on overstay…

You're right that overstays are a big problem. Now imagine how much worse it would be if every state got to choose who comes in. The federal government tries real hard to issue visas only to people who won't break the law. They're not entirely successful, but the bar is decently high.

The Syrian refugee hypothetical would have a different problem altogether. The opposition to admitting refugees isn't economic, it's about terrorism. If you can't stop a terrorist posing as a refugee from traveling from California to Texas then the only way to keep Texas safe from that person is to keep him out of the country altogether.

(To be clear, I think the worry over terrorists posing as refugees is just paranoia. But the fear is real.)

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#146

Post by 2_listerine_pls »

jfim wrote: post #117
2_listerine_pls wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surprisingly simple to locate the plantations using LIDAR + spectrometry. Even easier in Afghanistan, where fields are cultivated in the open. It's so well documented that the UNDOC provides an anual report with the amount in acres. I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped.

> I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped. Except for that pesky sovereignty thing.

Is that the same sovereignty that stopped the US from from drilling their oil after overthrowing their government?

It's odd reason given that narcotics are/were supposedly one of the principal sources of the Taliban’s financing.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#147

Post by PhasmaFelis »

mschuster91 wrote: post #17
caiob wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And "Freedom of Speech" is a broad term, with a wide variety of implications. Freedom of speech also means being able to channel ideas that aren't as popular and most of the mainstream media may not agree with. People should be able to express those ideas as well.

> People should be able to express those ideas as well No. There is no place in the world for antisemitism, homophobia or other right-extremist views. These "opinions" are direct threats to people. And when the state, as it often does, fails to protect the marginalized, then in my opinion nearly anything is acceptable to stop these "opinions" from being expressed. We in Germany already have seen what happens when you…

> We in Germany already have seen what happens when you let Nazis speak out and act in free, and the same goes for Stalinist ideologies

This is your major fallacy. You're trying to imply that the Holocaust was possible because Germany had free speech for all, which is completely wrong--it was possible because the Nazis were successful in denying free speech to their opponents.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#148

Post by Trill-I-Am »

_delirium wrote: post #139
homakov wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I was lucky, but I never felt in danger in major US cities walking literally everywhere. While in D.F. I had some anxiety outside of central roads.

It's hard to give some objective analysis, but I don't personally feel safe walking alone at night in large areas of NYC, Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, St Louis, Miami, etc.

What parts of NYC?

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#149

Post by AnthonyMouse »

hwillis wrote: post #126
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about work. To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigra…

>To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you…

> This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa.

The whole premise is that some states want to make it easier than that. What is a state green card even for if it's just redundant with an existing H1B visa and doesn't increase the total number of immigrants whatsoever?

> Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants.

And if the number of immigrants increases, so does the cost to the school system.

> Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out.

Welfare is redistributive. (The programs that aren't are net harmful and do nothing but sell you your own money with bureaucratic waste and corruption-induced strings attached). Its purpose is to transfer resources from those who have more to those who need more.

The only way anyone should give more than they get is if they have above average earnings, which is true of current legal immigrants (because that's basically the criteria that gets them accepted), but not true of the typical unskilled workers who would be the apparent target of this program.

> Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for.

Sure they do, in the US Senate. No federal money gets spent without majority approval from both houses of Congress.

To make this happen you need their approval.

> I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime.

And the political consequences?

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#150

Post by lazaroclapp »

function_seven wrote: post #134
lazaroclapp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about that? I am usually a pretty strong free speech advocate, up to toeing the line of being a free speech absolutist at some points in my life (of the: "nuclear weapon blueprints posted online are just as valid speech as any other sequence of bits, information wants to be free!" variety). But I still think you can design speech codes that are not prone to slippery slope under any sane interpretation. I…

I’m pretty sure that whatever parent would come up with, I could shoot full of holes, yeah. Their statement was that some “opinions” (their scare quotes, not mine) are dangerous and should not be tolerated. This is far different than fighting words or other existing carve outs. For example, antisemitism and homophobia are two concepts that the parent thinks should be banned. But that right away leads to contradiction…

Actually, it is not hate speech to disagree with the Jewish religion or specific customs (that is protected instead by freedom of religion, which is a different argument, and an important one, but probably not with the same weight as basic personhood). That's not what people usually talk about when they mention antisemitism. Antisemitism, taken in the Nazi way, is the 'disagreement' over whether Jewish people as an ethnic group deserve rights as people or citizens.

Edit: But even with that said, I agree restrictions to speech should rather be too few than to many, and too narrow rather than too broad. Which is why I think the line should never remotely try to cover every degree of racism or xenophobia at all. I could be convinced of the need to restrict public calls for genocide, for example, though.

Post reply on HN