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

When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 114 posts

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#21

Post by Aloha »

pcwalton wrote: post #13
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is historically unique in its ability to Americanize immigrants and lift them into prosperity. Birthright citizenship isn’t unique to the US, but the is a pillar of what makes the US unique.

Honestly, Canada is actually doing better than the US in assimilating and lifting immigrants into prosperity these days, because it has a more modern immigration system (having avoided legislative gridlock and populist backlashes, for the most part) coupled with birthright citizenship. Consequently, Canada has a larger proportion of immigrants than the US. It also slightly beats the US on most measures of human devel…

I'm skeptical that Canada does better at assimilating, just based on first hand empirical evidence I've seen in Vancouver and Toronto. I would agree that Canada is doing better at lifting people out of poverty currently.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#22

Post by oh_sigh »

trhway wrote: post #16
throwawaysea wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Aren’t all laws then “administrative categories”, of those who commit or don’t commit the corresponding crimes? Breaking the law means, per definition, that someone has committed an illegal action. Calling someone an “illegal immigrant” is appropriate when the crime is immigration related.

when criminality under a given law starts to show significant correlations with an ethnicity/nationality/race/gender/orientation/etc. - i.e. with the characteristics acquired by birth, not by choice - it gives rise to the reasonable doubt whether the law (or its application) is just or whether it is just an oppressive tool against a specific class of people.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, about how laws against murdering disproportionately affect men. Surely there is reasonable doubt that the law is just our matriarchal society doing testes-policing.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#23

Post by corporate_shi11 »

rayiner wrote: post #4

> In 1919, alarmed by the growing presence of “peoples of Asiatic races,” the Anti-Alien League called for a constitutional amendment “to restrict citizenship by birth within the United States to the children of parents who are of a race which is eligible for citizenship”—i.e., whites. Senator Wesley Jones, of Washington State, promised to introduce such a measure—a proposal not unlike today’s calls to end birthright…

Even if we choose to keep birthright citizenship, it must be clarified such that only the children of people here legally for some extended period of time gain American citizenship.

The rule in its current interpretation incentivizes illegal immigration and other bad behavior.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#24

Post by tristor »

trhway wrote: post #16
throwawaysea wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Aren’t all laws then “administrative categories”, of those who commit or don’t commit the corresponding crimes? Breaking the law means, per definition, that someone has committed an illegal action. Calling someone an “illegal immigrant” is appropriate when the crime is immigration related.

when criminality under a given law starts to show significant correlations with an ethnicity/nationality/race/gender/orientation/etc. - i.e. with the characteristics acquired by birth, not by choice - it gives rise to the reasonable doubt whether the law (or its application) is just or whether it is just an oppressive tool against a specific class of people.

That does not necessarily follow. Geography is highly ethnically divided, generally speaking, and globalism is a new phenomenon. The fact that US immigration laws predominantly affect Hispanic people in a negative way is not racist, it's because we share a land border which nearly only has Hispanic people on the other side of it to the tip of the continent and beyond.

Where you have to have a concern is about ENFORCEMENT. Because the laws applied equally to a white Canadian sneaking across the border as they do to a Mexican sneaking across the border, but one is more likely to receive enforcement action than the other.

But it's important to understand the distinction between enforcement and legislation. Both should be addressed, but it's silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater and fail to understand the mechanism of action.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#25

Post by pjc50 »

throwawaysea wrote: post #10
pjc50 wrote: post #8

This kind of thing is why it's important to challenge the framing of people as "illegal"; citizenship is an administrative category, and abusive governments can find all sorts of excuses to end or revoke it.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Aren’t all laws then “administrative categories”, of those who commit or don’t commit the corresponding crimes? Breaking the law means, per definition, that someone has committed an illegal action. Calling someone an “illegal immigrant” is appropriate when the crime is immigration related.

Well, in "common law" jurisdictions the common law is supposed to consist of all those things that are traditionally regarded as wrong, as distinct from "statute law" which has been explicitly defined. They are considered different sources of law by legal scholars. And as far as I'm aware immigration has never been considered part of common law.

French law has a similar kind of droit administrativ / droit naturel distinction.

More importantly, immigration is particularly prone to the law changing under you, so even if you have complied entirely up to that point, you may become "illegal" despite not having done anything, and it may not be possible to regularise your situation.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#26

Post by pjc50 »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #15
rayiner wrote: post #4

> In 1919, alarmed by the growing presence of “peoples of Asiatic races,” the Anti-Alien League called for a constitutional amendment “to restrict citizenship by birth within the United States to the children of parents who are of a race which is eligible for citizenship”—i.e., whites. Senator Wesley Jones, of Washington State, promised to introduce such a measure—a proposal not unlike today’s calls to end birthright…

Ireland didn't get rid of it, they restricted it and it remains very generous compared to just about everywhere else. One parent an Irish or British citizen, or with right to residence in either Ireland or Northern Ireland - there may well be other categories acceptable. They retain the island of Ireland extra-territorial limit too. This, along with the grandparent clause, has the probably unintended consequence that…

Yep. Brexit caused a wave of people researching their Irish ancestry for the passports. Not to mention that children of NI residents can potentially claim two birthright citizenships.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#27

Post by corporate_shi11 »

trhway wrote: post #16
throwawaysea wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Aren’t all laws then “administrative categories”, of those who commit or don’t commit the corresponding crimes? Breaking the law means, per definition, that someone has committed an illegal action. Calling someone an “illegal immigrant” is appropriate when the crime is immigration related.

when criminality under a given law starts to show significant correlations with an ethnicity/nationality/race/gender/orientation/etc. - i.e. with the characteristics acquired by birth, not by choice - it gives rise to the reasonable doubt whether the law (or its application) is just or whether it is just an oppressive tool against a specific class of people.

That ignores the plain fact that certain "groups" commit certain crimes more than others, which is often a source of "group" correlation with crime and punishment.

Assuming oppression is usually just the result of a superficial reading of the data.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#28

Post by namirez »

rayiner wrote: post #7
tormeh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>American exceptionalism Almost the entire North and South America has it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

The US is historically unique in its ability to Americanize immigrants and lift them into prosperity. Birthright citizenship isn’t unique to the US, but the is a pillar of what makes the US unique.

> the is a pillar of what makes the US unique.

Or perhaps you've not lived in other countries. Don't get me wrong; the US is doing fine, but honestly it's no so unique or even the best place for an average immigrant. For some highly-skilled immigrants, however, the US is unique in terms of opportunities.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#29

Post by deogeo »

pjc50 wrote: post #8

This kind of thing is why it's important to challenge the framing of people as "illegal"; citizenship is an administrative category, and abusive governments can find all sorts of excuses to end or revoke it.

> challenge the framing of people as "illegal"

A brilliant rhetorical sleight of hand - the people aren't illegal - their act of immigration is. By this logic, we should refer to trespassers as "undocumented guests".

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#30

Post by toasterlovin »

Aloha wrote: post #21
pcwalton wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, Canada is actually doing better than the US in assimilating and lifting immigrants into prosperity these days, because it has a more modern immigration system (having avoided legislative gridlock and populist backlashes, for the most part) coupled with birthright citizenship. Consequently, Canada has a larger proportion of immigrants than the US. It also slightly beats the US on most measures of human devel…

I'm skeptical that Canada does better at assimilating, just based on first hand empirical evidence I've seen in Vancouver and Toronto. I would agree that Canada is doing better at lifting people out of poverty currently.

Canada doesn’t do better at lifting people out of poverty. They’re just more selective in who they let in and don’t have a huge second world country at their southern border.
Post reply on HN