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

501–510 of 532 posts

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#501

Post by joshuamorton »

scoofy wrote: post #496
empath75 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not someone who thinks all laws should be followed blindly. When human rights are on the line, yes, we have an obligation to resist. Some people think enforcing immigration law is a violation of human rights. I do not think it is a reasonable position to consider deportaion of folks overstaying visas as "a violation of human rights" in the vast majority of cases. Where we are breaking up families with young child…

> I do not think it is a reasonable position to consider deportaion of folks overstaying visas as "a violation of human rights" in the vast majority of cases.

This is a motte/bailey. Deporting people is not inherently a violation of human rights. However, when judges have to clarify that "detainees" must be provided water and toilets[0], I think it's pretty clear that their human rights are being violated. The significant objection is to that, not to any semblance of immigration enforcement.

> I think the ideal solution is to create a system where overstaying a visa is practically impossible.

I can assure you that you do not want this, it is predicated on a level of government invasiveness that would be unpalatable to both citizens and legal immigrants. Some abuse is the cost of many well functioning systems.

> However, since it has proven to be too practically difficult to negotiate comprehensive immigration reform for various reasons, the American left -- a left that I consider myself a part of -- has gone in the complete opposite direction for most of my lifetime. We have established an overt nullification policy that effectively facilitates folks ignoring immigration law.

It is somewhere between deeply misinformed and rhetorical malpractice to say this, pretending that the American right bears no responsibility for preventing progress on immigration reform and that there haven't been multiple attempts by the left to improve things here that were blocked by the right (including multiple iterations of DREAM and various attempts at asylum reform).

[0]: https://www.scribd.com/document/943713376/Broadview-TRO

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#502

Post by joshuamorton »

scoofy wrote: post #500
drewbug01 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a world of difference between “passing a state law that directly contradicts federal law” and “declining to proactively enforce federal laws in ways that are not required by those laws.” To drive the point home: federal immigration laws are already enforced by federal agencies. Here in IL, state and local officials cooperate to the extent required by law . There are no federal laws on the books requiring the…

>Here in IL, state and local officials cooperate to the extent required by law. This is clearly false in regards to most federal laws. To illustrate this, I'll take an exceptional example. If there where a serial killer who was living in IL, but had only killed anyone in other states, I suspect that IL government would likely go out of their way to assist the Feds in apprehending this killer, even though this is not…

You're doing a selective quoting thing.

Not assisting with enforcement acts you don't feel are worthwhile is not nullification. I'm not engaging in "nullification" when I don't call the police on a jaywalker. Or I mean maybe you think this is, but then police engage in wildcat strikes all the time, or change enforcement priorities, or whatever you want to frame it as. Calling a difference in prioritization "nullification" wrong, especially if local police in immigrant communities want to maintain good relationships with those communities. I think it's laudable that some police forces show an interest in serving their communities interests, as opposed to yearning to be fashy.

> but it becomes very obvious nullification when the state passes laws preventing individuals who would LIKE to help, like local policed departments, from helping even if they wanted to. And this is exactly what has happened in many blue states.

Can you give examples?

Keep in mind, "sanctuary city" policies are usually actually supported by local police forces, because while they may look not tough on crime (and for this reason sometimes police forces halfheartedly lobby against them), they actually make on-the-ground local policing easier, because they engender trust between the local police force and immigrant communities who otherwise might not report crimes at all.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#503

Post by tptacek »

jonway wrote: post #477
tptacek wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think over the long and even the median term, we benefit from arbitrarily-skilled migration over the southern border. I'm to the left of the median Democrat on immigration. But in the short term of 2023 and 2024, we had chaos and direct costs. Black voters in the west side of Chicago noticed that services for their neighborhoods, and for Black homeless people in particular, we underfunded, while large allocations f…

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to address this with me, I do appreciate it and I think I've a clearer view on perspectives. The language and rhetoric is harmful to society all while we are achieving the worst outcomes. We are doing a bad job. I can see that there is something grievously wrong with our country. For what its worth, I'm writing here as I would to a close friend in case you feel a question…

I think it's also possible for the party to maintain marginally unpopular positions to support their principles --- that's what the GOP does on reproductive health care --- but when you do that you have to be cognizant that you're paying a price and you have to make that cost up somewhere else. And then, you have some control over how painful that cost is.

I don't think there's a set of policies that puts our shared principles on immigration "into the black" (so to speak) with the median US voter. Immigration is unpopular worldwide right now, and some of that unpopularity is just human nature, some of the same forces that drive NIMBYism. But you can minimize the costs by changing up how you communicate on these issues, and I think the best way to do that is to empathize (even as you disagree) with the beliefs of the people who disagree with you.

There are lots of places where conservatives disagree with me where I have zero empathy and zero fucks to give about how they feel. But when we're on the wrong side of an issue electorally, when the margins are as slim as they are, and when the issue is as salient as it is (it was the 2nd highest polled issue in weighted exits in 2024), it behooves us to be more careful.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#504

Post by scoofy »

joshuamorton wrote: post #501
scoofy wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not someone who thinks all laws should be followed blindly. When human rights are on the line, yes, we have an obligation to resist. Some people think enforcing immigration law is a violation of human rights. I do not think it is a reasonable position to consider deportaion of folks overstaying visas as "a violation of human rights" in the vast majority of cases. Where we are breaking up families with young child…

> I do not think it is a reasonable position to consider deportaion of folks overstaying visas as "a violation of human rights" in the vast majority of cases. This is a motte/bailey. Deporting people is not inherently a violation of human rights. However, when judges have to clarify that "detainees" must be provided water and toilets[0], I think it's pretty clear that their human rights are being violated. The signif…

I mean, I disagree with you on all counts. I think it’s always fair to care about treatment of detainees… we don’t use the repeated inflammatory “kidnappings” of our concern is merely detainees treatment.

Other states, such as the UK, make it obscenely difficult to exist without documentation. They certainly do not tacitly endorse it. To suggest “I wouldn’t like” policies that plenty of western countries engage in seems naive.

Finally, the Republicans temperament on legal immigration is horrific, but they are in the position to ignore attempts to change the law because the law is on their side… like any issue in democracy, that means the Democrats are the party that needs to change minds.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#505

Post by scoofy »

joshuamorton wrote: post #502
scoofy wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Here in IL, state and local officials cooperate to the extent required by law. This is clearly false in regards to most federal laws. To illustrate this, I'll take an exceptional example. If there where a serial killer who was living in IL, but had only killed anyone in other states, I suspect that IL government would likely go out of their way to assist the Feds in apprehending this killer, even though this is not…

You're doing a selective quoting thing. Not assisting with enforcement acts you don't feel are worthwhile is not nullification. I'm not engaging in "nullification" when I don't call the police on a jaywalker. Or I mean maybe you think this is, but then police engage in wildcat strikes all the time, or change enforcement priorities, or whatever you want to frame it as. Calling a difference in prioritization "nullifica…

I’m not going to engage with you if you’re going to get in multiple threads and refer to things as “fashy.”

It’s difficult enough to engage in a heterodox view in good faith. I don’t need to deal with slapdash bullshit.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#506

Post by keeda »

_zagj wrote: post #481
keeda wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not actually recommending anything. (Edited to add: I can totally see how unchecked immigration can be disruptive.) I'm saying that looking back, there is a credible theory along with evidence that increased immigration helped boost the US economy and maybe even manage inflation. That seems to be an insufficiently discussed aspect.

I'm not at all familiar with Canada, but a Google AI overview for "canada housing affordability crisis due to immigration" suggests that immigration is one of the smaller factors (11%?) in driving house prices up. The citations include these:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/co...

https://www.torontomu.ca/diversity/news-events/2025/07/immig... (Probably the study referenced above.)

As an aside, as a resident of the Bay Area where the housing market is probably the most twisted of them all, I would kill to find a $800K home!!

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#507

Post by joshuamorton »

scoofy wrote: post #504
joshuamorton wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not think it is a reasonable position to consider deportaion of folks overstaying visas as "a violation of human rights" in the vast majority of cases. This is a motte/bailey. Deporting people is not inherently a violation of human rights. However, when judges have to clarify that "detainees" must be provided water and toilets[0], I think it's pretty clear that their human rights are being violated. The signif…

I mean, I disagree with you on all counts. I think it’s always fair to care about treatment of detainees… we don’t use the repeated inflammatory “kidnappings” of our concern is merely detainees treatment. Other states, such as the UK, make it obscenely difficult to exist without documentation. They certainly do not tacitly endorse it. To suggest “I wouldn’t like” policies that plenty of western countries engage in se…

> we don’t use the repeated inflammatory “kidnappings” of our concern is merely detainees treatment.

No, but we do use it for otherwise unlawful stops without probable cause that lead to people being put in detention facilities that don't have water or food.

> like any issue in democracy, that means the Democrats are the party that needs to change minds.

This is not the argument you just made. You were (and are) arguing for collaboration. That's not "changing minds". In my opinion, being loud and not collaborating with federal forces, to make them engage in violence themselves is very effective at changing minds, as we see with cratering public support for these kinds of things.

I admit I can't quite follow what your philosophy seems to be here, at best I could summarize what I've seen as "Republican immigration policy is bad and has grown more unconscionable but I actively support it because Democrats didn't fix it already", but that seems weird.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#508

Post by [deleted] »

scoofy wrote: post #505
joshuamorton wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing a selective quoting thing. Not assisting with enforcement acts you don't feel are worthwhile is not nullification. I'm not engaging in "nullification" when I don't call the police on a jaywalker. Or I mean maybe you think this is, but then police engage in wildcat strikes all the time, or change enforcement priorities, or whatever you want to frame it as. Calling a difference in prioritization "nullifica…

I’m not going to engage with you if you’re going to get in multiple threads and refer to things as “fashy.” It’s difficult enough to engage in a heterodox view in good faith. I don’t need to deal with slapdash bullshit.

[deleted]

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#509

Post by inemesitaffia »

UncleMeat wrote: post #497
inemesitaffia wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell it's you that down voted me. Agents can enter buildings without warrants under limited circumstances. It's not a hard bar. Ordinarily when any crime is in plain view or in chase of a fleeing suspect, or (dubiously) when the individual is believed to be part of a proscribed organisation. Administrative warrants are okay when there's a specific record of an individual being there. Like if the website for the…

The comment is sufficiently old and deep that I cannot downvote your post. 1983 claims have been winnowed away into basically nothing by the courts. They aren't a meaningful path to justice.

I just found out the daycare "teacher" allegedly wasn't.

Was actually a fleeing suspect.

I look forward to it being brought up as fact in the next election.

Justice isn't getting what you want. Sometimes it's going back to your country which has stricter immigration requirements than the USA. With guns showing up the day after your Visa expires.

Re: I Want You to Understand Chicago

#510

Post by jamtur01 »

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…

I am sorry but you're delusional if you think any of that is happening and they're acting in a legal manner. A small sample of the links in that post show ICE are actively violating constitutional rights and flaunting the rule of law. This same organization is actively ignoring a federal judge's orders to not use crowd control weapons on people who pose no threat.
Post reply on HN