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

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#71

Post by JamesBarney »

pcwalton wrote: post #33
toasterlovin wrote: post #30

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 The US is in fact more selective (probably owing to decades of legislative gridlock leaving us with an outdated bureaucratic nightmare of…

Imagine two countries of 100,000 people. The first lets in 1,000 people per year, all of postgrad degrees. The second lets in 500 per year selected from a lottery.

Which is more selective?

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#72

Post by dragonwriter »

Braggadocious wrote: post #70
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…

>“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 White was also not considered a race in the 20's. There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. American eugenicists also were very much into "building" a race. They would have family breed competitions at fairs where families would comp…

> White was also not considered a race in the 20's.

Yes, it was.

> There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans.

The existence of those groups, and the fact that then-current concepts of whiteness would exclude some or all of them, doesn't change the fact that “White” was the identity of the dominant racial group, and had been for quite some time by the 1920s.

> I should also mention, this is the deeply disturbing origin of the progressive movement in america.

No, it wasn't. Oh, deeply disturbing it was, but it wasn't the origin of the progressive movement in America. It's true that the eugenics movement occurred within one of many (often overlapping in time) movements that took the name “progressive” in US history, but it wasn't the first, nor one historically strongly connected to any of the modern groups with the name.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#73

Post by manigandham »

danharaj wrote: post #43
deogeo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

A trespasser is someone who trespasses. You wouldn't call a trespasser an "illegal walker" if they were taking a stroll through your plot of land.

Immigration over national borders is more serious and lacks a specific term so "illegal immigrant" is used instead.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#74

Post by manigandham »

crooked-v wrote: post #59
Mikeb85 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it was a crime, there would need to be a trial before deporting them.

Trials are for citizens. Immigrants do get due process though and stand before a judge.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#75

Post by manigandham »

pjc50 wrote: post #65
Mikeb85 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quite often the border crossing was legal. Then someone overstays or fails to comply with the (often obscure) requirements. Then they are .. existing illegally? Or in the case of asylum seekers and refugees, what is effectively being said is that it's illegal for them to flee a war zone?

Overstaying a visa means they are an illegal resident and must leave or get new permission to stay. Obscurity is not an excuse to not follow the law.

Likewise for asylum seekers, it's illegal to cross into a country without permission. You can flee, apply for asylum, and enter when that asylum is granted. There are also rules on when, where, and which countries you're allowed to apply for.

These terms and concepts are not difficult, if you have no intention of misconstruing or creating outrage.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#76

Post by manigandham »

pjc50 wrote: post #66
Mikeb85 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should call them illegal citizens. Then we can start working towards deporting such criminals as the article demonstrates. Well international law prevents you from making someone stateless so they get thrown in jail instead. But yes, non-citizens who commit crimes are generally deported. Also, the US classes crimes as either felonies or misdemeanours (possibly more categories?). In Canada we have indictable crim…

That was kind of my point, that immigration belongs in the same category as jaywalking and not "actual crimes". In both cases all someone is doing is stepping across a line.

There is a massive difference between a national border and a crosswalk.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#77

Post by pjc50 »

manigandham wrote: post #75
pjc50 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite often the border crossing was legal. Then someone overstays or fails to comply with the (often obscure) requirements. Then they are .. existing illegally? Or in the case of asylum seekers and refugees, what is effectively being said is that it's illegal for them to flee a war zone?

Overstaying a visa means they are an illegal resident and must leave or get new permission to stay. Obscurity is not an excuse to not follow the law. Likewise for asylum seekers, it's illegal to cross into a country without permission. You can flee, apply for asylum, and enter when that asylum is granted. There are also rules on when, where, and which countries you're allowed to apply for. These terms and concepts ar…

> You can flee, apply for asylum, and enter when that asylum is granted.

Other way round. Asylum application must be made after arrival. You made a mistake in knowing what the rules are, so clearly it's only fair that you and your family are deported now.

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#78

Post by hutzlibu »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #58
hutzlibu wrote: post #50

"We say that if America has entered the war to make the world safe for democracy, she must first make democracy safe in America. How else is the world to take America seriously, when democracy at home is daily being outraged, free speech suppressed, peaceable assemblies broken up by overbearing and brutal gangsters in uniform; when free press is curtailed and every independent opinion gagged? Verily, poor as we are i…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman >>She and anarchist writer Alexander Berkman, her lover and lifelong friend, planned to assassinate industrialist and financier Henry Clay Frick as an act of propaganda of the deed. Frick survived the attempt on his life in 1892, and Berkman was sentenced to 22 years in prison

She also did not condemn the murder of president McKinley. So? Does that invalidate anything of what she wrote?

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#79

Post by logimame »

Braggadocious wrote: post #70
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…

>“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 White was also not considered a race in the 20's. There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. American eugenicists also were very much into "building" a race. They would have family breed competitions at fairs where families would comp…

I'm currently reading about this now on Wikipedia, and holy crap this a chunk of US history that I've not looked before. It seems that the eugenic movement was fully developed in California, way before the Nazis imported it from them and used it to their advantage...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

Re: When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals

#80

Post by toasterlovin »

teh_klev wrote: post #48
toasterlovin wrote: post #30

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.

> and don’t have a huge second world country at their southern border. Some might dispute that claim.

To be honest, glib remarks about how the US is a second world country play well to a certain crowd, but they make the person making them look like a biased hack to anybody who engages in serious thinking.
Post reply on HN