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

I Want You to Understand Chicago

aphyr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 532 posts

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#481

Post by _zagj »

keeda wrote: post #343
tptacek wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so, I'm not making a normative claim about the right about of immigration. I don't know if I'd go so far as to call myself an "open borders" person, but I'm very pro-immigration. Pro-immigration in the sense of believing we benefit from the mix of new Americans we get over our southern border, not in the weird doublespeak sense of appreciating skilled immigration from Europe. But from 2021-2023, we experienced…

That makes sense, and I agree with your assessments about the voting population's priorities. But maybe the inflation / immigration aspects were much more intertwined than we realized. Maybe (being very generous to him) Biden didn't do a tradeoff between inflation vs employment... maybe the gamble was that increased immigration would boost the economy enough that citizens were not as bothered by the immigrants. In ot…

> Maybe (being very generous to him) Biden didn't do a tradeoff between inflation vs employment... maybe the gamble was that increased immigration would boost the economy enough that citizens were not as bothered by the immigrants.

> In other words, the very valid "its' the economy stupid" theory would imply that if people can comfortable provide for themselves and their families, they'd be less bothered by what they saw as competition for jobs.

Have you not looked at Canada recently? They've done exactly what you're suggesting, and the result is a country that is now completely unaffordable for Canadians, with the median home price now over $800k. Is that the kind of future you want for Americans?

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#482

Post by ssl-3 »

atmavatar wrote: post #220
throwaway173738 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the people who suggest voting doesn’t matter are either suffering from some nihilistic delusion or they’re spreading a self-serving lie.

Or, they live in one of the 40-something states where the election margins are large enough that it doesn't matter whether they vote. My state hasn't voted Democrat since 1964. The only two elections with less than a 10-point spread since then were in 1976 (7.5% spread) and 1992 (5% spread due to Perot stealing votes from Bush Sr.). I moved to this state in 1993.

I have three general questions:

---

1. So it's about odds?

By what mechanism do you think that refusing to vote will improve your favored diminutive party's odds in your state?

---

2. Or maybe it's about cost, instead?

What does it cost to vote in your state? How much time, and how much money, does a voter need to put forth in order to cast a vote in [wherever you are]?

---

3. Are you a masochist? (Are you sure about that?)

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#484

Post by ssl-3 »

gishh wrote: post #260
ssl-3 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most sure method any of us can individually enact to help to ensure that our favored candidate is not elected is to declare that it doesn't matter, and then just give up and not vote. This method is literally an example of nihilism.

So are you saying that, in this instance, understanding your vote doesn’t matters is delusional, or not? You never addressed that. You latched onto the nihilistic part, which I suppose isn’t surprising.

Your vote always matters. Your vote gets tallied up along with all of the other votes, each of which individually have exactly equal weight compared to your own vote.

By extension: Any suggestion to the contrary is delusional.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#486

Post by muddi900 »

chasil wrote: post #333
Uehreka wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that you’re trying to help, but trying to find a bureaucratic/technical workaround through original research and proffering it as advice is not a super helpful thing to do right now. At this phase of the game, the best advice you can give people is to follow immigration lawyers and long-time activists on social media and do what they advise. I know we’re all used to being the problem-solvers in the room, but th…

I get that you yourself have not researched this problem. These are worthless? Notice this section: "Carry with you evidence of lawful entry or current lawful status in the United States if you have it." https://www.nilc.org/resources/know-your-rights-expedited-re... Edit: I went to Medellín, Colombia recently, and going through immigration, I said that I was there for my birthday. The officer then asked me, "That wa…

Aside; If the months are correct, the birthday is very easy to guess.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#487

Post by galangalalgol »

tastyface wrote: post #463
galangalalgol wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violent resolution of the situation would almost certainly result in a society with even fewer freedoms. That is the historical lesson. Violent resistance to authoritarian takeovers gives them an air of legitimacy they need. That is the whole point of chicago and the attempt in Portland. They want violent resistance to justify crack downs. Instead they look like storm troopers. I am in awe of the restraint of those l…

I do not advocate violence, but I do often think back to this quote: "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the ent…

If I thought violence would fix this I would certainly advocate for it, I am not a pacifist, or anything approaching one. But all the historical examples I have looked at indicate that a domestic authoritarian takeover in a polarized society cannot be violently overthrown without the overthrowers becoming roughly as autocratic if not more so. Trump is not that popular by the standard pf authoritarian takeovers. General strikes and mass nonviolent protests worked better in these situations. Though the number of times it worked is disturbingly low.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#488

Post by empath75 »

scoofy wrote: post #379
jamtur01 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are familiar with the 4th Amendment? These acts are a clear violation of 4th Amendment rights, rights which extend to both citizens and non-citizens.

>When do ICE agents need a warrant to arrest immigrants? >A judicial warrant is a legal order authorizing law enforcement’s search, seizure or arrest on private property. Judicial warrants are signed by a judge. >Immigration agents also use administrative warrants, which carry lower legal weight. Administrative warrants are signed by federal agents such as immigration judges or officers. These warrants allow ICE agen…

You are making a legalistic argument to justify absolutely monstrous behavior and you should probably spend some time examining why you are doing that. If the law justifies an atrocity, you should not defend the law.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#489

Post by UncleMeat »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #473
fogzen wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not immigration policy — it’s using terror, illegal detainment, and negligent and excessive force to detain people. Breaking into a daycare with no warrant, no identification (they wear masks and refuse to identify themselves to avoid justice for their crimes), with guns, and dragging a woman out kicking and screaming is both completely illegal in every way and extremely traumatic for everyone - regard…

I don't think the courts will agree. The presence of a person without a valid visa is illegal and the person working without a working visa is another illegality. Not reporting your presence to the authorities is another level. Otherwise doesn't erase that. >avoid justice for their crimes Some other fact free nonsense. Yes the drama and force is extra, but it's not illegal, or unprecedented as I'll have you know from…

The state is not allowed to use unlimited force against people suspected of having broken the law. Half of the bill of rights is about the rights of criminal and civil defendants (more if we include the 9th).

The law requires that law enforcement has a specific kind of warrant in order to enter a location without permission and detain somebody. This law is regularly being broken by agents. "Oh, they are illegal so whatever" is horrifying.

Post reply on HN