221–230 of 908 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why then are people with legal visas being detained or having their visas revoked if it is just those who "flooded here illegally" under threat? Clinton said that many Trump voters were deplorables. Trump said that many immigrants are not human . Now I know which sounds more like the Nazis to me.
> Trump said that many immigrants are not human. I am very much not a Trump fan, but I need to see a source for that claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but interpretation of: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" seems critical to make a determination on whether you are correct or not. Take the act of a random french spy who goes to the UK for the purpose of defecting, without express permission of either government. Does that make him a subject to the UK crown? I think the historical outcome of such situation would be crystal-clear.
Are only people with at least 1 naturalized citizen parent the only people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
The 14th amendment discusses who is a citizen. It does not capture who is a subject to US jurisdictions, or not. That part is open to interpretation , likely because it is based in common law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every day across the world thousands of people are removed from countries around the world for violating immigration laws. Except in cases of where it coincided with criminality, it's always going to be very ugly, because it means somebody had built up a life for themselves somewhere and that is now ended due to them having been born in a different place and then overstayed their permission, or never received such, t…
> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent There is a moral answer, the practical answer, and two popular answers, none of which are particularly satisfying. The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless all or a large bloc of countries allow it in reciprocity, or at least…
Voters have rejected this sort of cosmopolitanism at the ballot box, repeatedly. To suggest that governments should open borders over the wishes of their citizens seems to simply be an object-level misunderstanding over the goals of statecraft.
The value of citizenship is being eroded each year, with governments increasingly keen to strip people of citizenship [0]. First they came for the terrorists, then they came for the dual citizenship lesser criminals. We're getting a glimpse of who's next. The Dutch government wanted to strip citizenship from people convicted of a crime with an "antisemitic element" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/26/how-id…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh wow, what a choice! Imagine, having a gun to your head and saying "but i had a choice!" In no way can you say that these people, given no legal advocates, chose to bring their children, or at least freely chose.
Being eventually forced to decide whether to leave your child behind or take them with you out of the USA is a direct consequence of the choice to illegally enter the country. Are you suggesting we never deport parents under any circumstance? Having a citizen child is not some get-out-deportation-free card.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you arrange this when not allowed to speak with anyone?
The mother and child were in custody, the father was not, and was prompt in acquiring legal counsel, arranging this, and suing, leading to exceptionally clear circumstances in this case. This is the docket for the lawsuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-harper... The mother was also technically able to speak with the father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and they were interrupted wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things like this are stopped by movements, not individual heroes. There are almost certainly organizations in your area already working against this. No one is coming to save us. But if anyone does it is the people who were already trying to, bolstered by people like you who see it now. Get in there.
(Edited based on comment below) I recognize the optimism, but realistically, without a strong and strategic leader, coordination will collapse into disorganization and infighting. Historical examples like Occupy Wall Street demonstrate that leaderless movements tend to self-sabotage and generate instability without achieving meaningful outcomes.
From what research I've seen, the phrasing here should be that non-citizens were deported and chose to bring their US citizen children with them. The children themselves were not deported. This in no way excuses any of the other issues like not allowing contact with legal advocates / attorneys.
> But for interesting HN discussion... anyone got any juice on why this is happening. Is there orders going down the chain of command from the president to do this sort of thing. Was this behaviour always there but less reported before? Are they more emboldened by the current environment?
Every day across the world thousands of people are removed from countries around the world for violating immigration laws. Except in cases of where it coincided with criminality, it's always going to be very ugly, because it means somebody had built up a life for themselves somewhere and that is now ended due to them having been born in a different place and then overstayed their permission, or never received such, t…
A fair trial in court for a start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent There is a moral answer, the practical answer, and two popular answers, none of which are particularly satisfying. The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless all or a large bloc of countries allow it in reciprocity, or at least…
> The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless .. A strong no on this being "the moral answer". If people are permitted to vote with their feet maybe people are also permitted to build pickets around communities. That sounds more "moral" to me than entirely ignoring the wishes of the c…