Live data from Hacker News

When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

newyorker.com

31–40 of 114 posts

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#31
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.

You can be in administrative violation of a statute without being criminally liable. This distinction matters a lot in law because in the former case any litigation is a civil, not criminal matter.

As an everyday example, suppose you park carelessly and get a lot of parking tickets and then don't pay them. You could run into all sorts of problems and eventually your car might be towed away and sold but generally you can't be arrested over it (unless you have a habit of illegally parking in disability spaces, also please don't treat this as a legal opinion), and your history of illegal parking won't show up on a criminal background check.

This maters a lot because people who are anti-immigration love presenting all illegal immigrants as criminals and use that to justify all sorts of human rights violations with 'but they're criminals!!!' Even the immigration violations that are crimes (like illegally crossing a border after having previously being deported) are misdemeanor-type crimes, but to listen to some political types you'd think it was worse than murder.

Bear in mind too that such misleading rhetoric is used to justify private as well as public atrocities, such as the shooting in El Paso earlier this year where 22 people were murdered.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#32
post #24
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ENFORCE…

[deleted]

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#33
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Canada's immigration rate is 5.3 per year per 1000 residents (200K per year, population 37.59M). The US immigration rate is 3.6 per year per 1000 residents (1.18M per year, population 327.2M). And in absolute (not per capita!) terms, Canada resettles more refugees than the US [1]. The US is in fact more selective (probably owing to decades of legislative gridlock leaving us with an outdated bureaucratic nightmare of an immigration system nobody on either the left or the right likes).

[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/19/canada-now-...

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#34
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…

Canada is terrible at assimilating immigrants, the only reason we have less poverty is because our immigration laws are much tougher than the US' and we take in mostly richer immigrants.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#35
post #34

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…

Canada is terrible at assimilating immigrants, the only reason we have less poverty is because our immigration laws are much tougher than the US' and we take in mostly richer immigrants.

As I mentioned below, Canada admits more immigrants per capita than the US does, and far more refugees (it surpasses the US in absolute numbers, not even per capita).

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#36
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.

They committed a crime (crossing a border illegally). What should you call it if not illegal immigration?

What do you call robbing a bank? Undocumented withdrawal? No, it's a crime.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#37
post #28
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.

> 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.

I’m an immigrant to the US from an Asian country.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#38
post #16

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.

> "when criminality under a given law starts to show significant correlations with an ethnicity/nationality/race/gender/orientation/etc."

Yes, immigration law - both application and enforcement - tends to correlate highly with nationality. I'd wager speeding tickets also correlate with drivers.

What should it correlate with?

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#39
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada is terrible at assimilating immigrants, the only reason we have less poverty is because our immigration laws are much tougher than the US' and we take in mostly richer immigrants.

As I mentioned below, Canada admits more immigrants per capita than the US does, and far more refugees (it surpasses the US in absolute numbers, not even per capita).

That doesn't mean we're not more selective. Numbers per capita say nothing about the selection process, especially when it's far lower in terms of sheer numbers.

The refugees we do take in (28k per year is nothing) get a decent amount of support mainly because most of our immigrants are relatively rich Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, etc...

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Canada's immigration rate is 5.3 per year per 1000 residents (200K per year, population 37.59M). The US immigration rate is 3.6 per year per 1000 residents (1.18M per year, population 327.2M). And in absolute (not per capita!) terms, Canada resettles more refugees than the US [1]. The US is in fact more selective (probably owing to decades of legislative gridlock leaving us with an outdated bureaucratic nightmare of…

200k per year isn't that much. And yes Canada is more selective. Per capita numbers (especially when absolute numbers are that low) say nothing about how selective we are.
Post reply on HN