6 ms·

How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?" And why can't we tackle the

How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?" And why can't we tackle these problems at the same time? Why can't we even tackle these problems _one_ at a time? The Dream Act has been under review since 2001. It is a bill that can be voted on and passed in literally two days. Why not? ... I'll answer. Our impotent Congress, two year election cycles, and media that no longer holds anybody accountable.

haberman 15y ago
> How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?" Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. You got what you wanted faster because your family broke the law. I still believe that children who are brought here illegally should get a lot more leniency because they weren't responsible for their actions.
- jshen 15y ago
  You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. I'm inclined to question that assumption. I could also make the usual snarky comment and say that by the letter of the "law" we owe native americans a whole bunch of land. Maybe even the land your house is on.
  - haberman 15y ago
    > You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. No, I'm assuming that regulating immigration is right because not regulating it has demonstrably bad consequences, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift If regulating immigration is right, sidestepping that regulation is wrong, just like driving without a license, running a bank that doesn't keep enough reserves, or building a house that doesn't have safe wiring.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      I'm not seeing what the negative consequences are. Are you referring to the fact that some of the immigrants were criminals and mental patients, who were encouraged to emigrate from Cuba and take their problems with them? The article you cite says the scope of this problem is debatable and may well have been overstated. Even if we accept this premise, however, the same situation applies within the United States. Many people commit crimes in one state and later move to another, where they may or may not commit further crimes. This is such a widespread phenomenon that there's a constitutional clause requiring courts in each state to give 'full faith and credit' to courts in other states, so that criminals can't escape justice by just hopping over the nearest state border. Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first?
      - haberman 15y ago
        > Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first? Are you suggesting that US borders with Canada and Mexico, as well as our maritime borders, should be as open as the borders between states?
        _delirium 15y ago
        I'd like to move in the direction of eliminating them, yes. I don't see any reason to keep US/Canadian border controls, given that the relative parity of incomes means there isn't likely to be some huge, destabilizing migration. The EU's Schengen free-travel zone is a good precedent to follow on that, imo. Mexico is a harder case because of how screwed up the country currently is; opening borders tends to work better between relatively stable countries. But certainly we could start with Canada.
        anigbrowl 15y ago
        I think you should answer my question first, since the existence of interstate crime is indisputable and this doesn't seem qualitatively different from the deleterious effects which you are citing in the Cuban example. But yes, I think we should be moving towards abolition of external border controls over the long term and dissolution of geographic borders with immediate neighbors like Mexico and Canada in the short term.
  - lupatus 15y ago
    The Native Americans lost it fair-and-square through force of arms. Moreover, much of North America was unoccupied, unorganized territory open for colonization by Western Civilization. Whatever tribes were able to hold out are today richly compensated - see the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      I really can't tell if you're trolling or if you're serious, because I guarantee there's barely an Indian alive today who sees it the way you do.
    - jarek 15y ago
      So just to get this straight, you would have no probs if China were to declare war on the U.S. tomorrow, win, kill off people living in America, and settle it with their citizens?
- quanticle 15y ago
  So, just because your mother put you on a plane with a complete stranger when you were 12, you should be thrown back to a third world country for a decade, even though your contributions to American society outweigh most native born citizens? Yeah, that's real fair.
  - haberman 15y ago
    Are you replying to the right comment? Nowhere in this thread have I advocated deporting people who were brought here as children. I have advocated the opposite.
- coryl 15y ago
  Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. And some are lucky enough to simply be born in the US, and squander those opportunities anyway. I think its a bit funny to be citing "the law" as a grounds for which to argue this. It really has to go above and beyond what current laws are, into a moral and philosophical discussion of how people should treat each other. After all, in a time where there were no "laws", the settlers who landed in America pretty much raped the native population and took what they wanted. Where's their (the natives') justice? The entire south west coast (texas, arizona, california) was taken in wars from ACTUAL native mexicans. And now, a mexican can't walk across his ancestral land because of "immigration law". That seems kind of funny and wrong to me. I would love if everyone could look up the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" - its something similar to the concept of the "golden rule". We're all human beings, this isn't just "ours", "theirs, and "yours".
  - qohen 15y ago
    > I would love if everyone could look up the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
  - haberman 15y ago
    I'm not sure whose viewpoint your arguing against, because it's sure not mine. If we opened our border with Mexico, there would be a flood of immigration that would make the southern states a lot more like the Mexico they are trying to escape from than the US they are trying to escape to. This is purely a pragmatic argument. No one wins in this case (in the long term at least). It's also harder to provide for our national security if we can't control our borders (think how the borders were frozen for the few days after 9/11 -- no one knew what was going to happen next). Since having an open border would be good for no one, it must be regulated. Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here. These are purely pragmatic arguments. Waxing poetic about history and philosophy is a rathole that won't actually help solve this problem. The Trail of Tears is a terrible mark on our history, but opening our borders with Mexico isn't going to give Native Americans their civilization back.
aaronblohowiak 15y ago
You're blaming the laws of the country you want to recognize you instead of your parents who did not recognize the laws of the country they smuggled you into.
- fastfinner 15y ago
  Exactly. Many, many laws were broken to get this person in and let him stay in the US. I don't see how "feeling like an American" justifies all that.
lutorm 15y ago
I agree it seems heartless to not grant kids like this guy residency. The problem I have with this is that that would just make the moral hazard stronger. Parents already smuggle their kids into the US to give them a better life. If they knew that these kids would then be eligible for legalization, it's hard to see how even more people wouldn't try. I'm not a Minuteman and I'm not going to argue for any border fences, but it seems like the root cause of the problem is that the risk of getting caught is so low that many people try it. The real solution would be to make people not want to immigrate illegally in the first place.
- kelnos 15y ago
  Or do the opposite: make it so easy to immigrate legally that few want or need to do it illegally.
  - lutorm 15y ago
    Well, that's true. But it's hard to see how that would not be very disruptive.
    - kelnos 15y ago
      A lot of things are disruptive. Doesn't make them bad or undesirable. We talk about "disruptive" new technologies here on HN all the time and how the best progress is made by disrupting the status quo. I won't claim that all disruption is good, but who's to say a little disruption in the immigration world wouldn't be?
      - lutorm 15y ago
        All the unemployed people, that's who...
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        Immigrants are more likely to create businesses and therefore they tend to lower unemployment.
cookiecaper 15y ago
s/media/electorate

haberman 15y ago

> How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?" Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. You got what you wanted faster because your family broke the law. I still believe that children who are brought here illegally should get a lot more leniency because they weren't responsible for their actions.

jshen 15y ago
You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. I'm inclined to question that assumption. I could also make the usual snarky comment and say that by the letter of the "law" we owe native americans a whole bunch of land. Maybe even the land your house is on.
- haberman 15y ago
  > You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. No, I'm assuming that regulating immigration is right because not regulating it has demonstrably bad consequences, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift If regulating immigration is right, sidestepping that regulation is wrong, just like driving without a license, running a bank that doesn't keep enough reserves, or building a house that doesn't have safe wiring.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    I'm not seeing what the negative consequences are. Are you referring to the fact that some of the immigrants were criminals and mental patients, who were encouraged to emigrate from Cuba and take their problems with them? The article you cite says the scope of this problem is debatable and may well have been overstated. Even if we accept this premise, however, the same situation applies within the United States. Many people commit crimes in one state and later move to another, where they may or may not commit further crimes. This is such a widespread phenomenon that there's a constitutional clause requiring courts in each state to give 'full faith and credit' to courts in other states, so that criminals can't escape justice by just hopping over the nearest state border. Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first?
    - haberman 15y ago
      > Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first? Are you suggesting that US borders with Canada and Mexico, as well as our maritime borders, should be as open as the borders between states?
      - _delirium 15y ago
        I'd like to move in the direction of eliminating them, yes. I don't see any reason to keep US/Canadian border controls, given that the relative parity of incomes means there isn't likely to be some huge, destabilizing migration. The EU's Schengen free-travel zone is a good precedent to follow on that, imo. Mexico is a harder case because of how screwed up the country currently is; opening borders tends to work better between relatively stable countries. But certainly we could start with Canada.
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        I think you should answer my question first, since the existence of interstate crime is indisputable and this doesn't seem qualitatively different from the deleterious effects which you are citing in the Cuban example. But yes, I think we should be moving towards abolition of external border controls over the long term and dissolution of geographic borders with immediate neighbors like Mexico and Canada in the short term.
- lupatus 15y ago
  The Native Americans lost it fair-and-square through force of arms. Moreover, much of North America was unoccupied, unorganized territory open for colonization by Western Civilization. Whatever tribes were able to hold out are today richly compensated - see the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    I really can't tell if you're trolling or if you're serious, because I guarantee there's barely an Indian alive today who sees it the way you do.
  - jarek 15y ago
    So just to get this straight, you would have no probs if China were to declare war on the U.S. tomorrow, win, kill off people living in America, and settle it with their citizens?
quanticle 15y ago
So, just because your mother put you on a plane with a complete stranger when you were 12, you should be thrown back to a third world country for a decade, even though your contributions to American society outweigh most native born citizens? Yeah, that's real fair.
- haberman 15y ago
  Are you replying to the right comment? Nowhere in this thread have I advocated deporting people who were brought here as children. I have advocated the opposite.
coryl 15y ago
Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. And some are lucky enough to simply be born in the US, and squander those opportunities anyway. I think its a bit funny to be citing "the law" as a grounds for which to argue this. It really has to go above and beyond what current laws are, into a moral and philosophical discussion of how people should treat each other. After all, in a time where there were no "laws", the settlers who landed in America pretty much raped the native population and took what they wanted. Where's their (the natives') justice? The entire south west coast (texas, arizona, california) was taken in wars from ACTUAL native mexicans. And now, a mexican can't walk across his ancestral land because of "immigration law". That seems kind of funny and wrong to me. I would love if everyone could look up the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" - its something similar to the concept of the "golden rule". We're all human beings, this isn't just "ours", "theirs, and "yours".
- qohen 15y ago
  > I would love if everyone could look up the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
- haberman 15y ago
  I'm not sure whose viewpoint your arguing against, because it's sure not mine. If we opened our border with Mexico, there would be a flood of immigration that would make the southern states a lot more like the Mexico they are trying to escape from than the US they are trying to escape to. This is purely a pragmatic argument. No one wins in this case (in the long term at least). It's also harder to provide for our national security if we can't control our borders (think how the borders were frozen for the few days after 9/11 -- no one knew what was going to happen next). Since having an open border would be good for no one, it must be regulated. Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here. These are purely pragmatic arguments. Waxing poetic about history and philosophy is a rathole that won't actually help solve this problem. The Trail of Tears is a terrible mark on our history, but opening our borders with Mexico isn't going to give Native Americans their civilization back.

aaronblohowiak 15y ago

You're blaming the laws of the country you want to recognize you instead of your parents who did not recognize the laws of the country they smuggled you into.

fastfinner 15y ago
Exactly. Many, many laws were broken to get this person in and let him stay in the US. I don't see how "feeling like an American" justifies all that.

lutorm 15y ago

I agree it seems heartless to not grant kids like this guy residency. The problem I have with this is that that would just make the moral hazard stronger. Parents already smuggle their kids into the US to give them a better life. If they knew that these kids would then be eligible for legalization, it's hard to see how even more people wouldn't try. I'm not a Minuteman and I'm not going to argue for any border fences, but it seems like the root cause of the problem is that the risk of getting caught is so low that many people try it. The real solution would be to make people not want to immigrate illegally in the first place.

kelnos 15y ago
Or do the opposite: make it so easy to immigrate legally that few want or need to do it illegally.
- lutorm 15y ago
  Well, that's true. But it's hard to see how that would not be very disruptive.
  - kelnos 15y ago
    A lot of things are disruptive. Doesn't make them bad or undesirable. We talk about "disruptive" new technologies here on HN all the time and how the best progress is made by disrupting the status quo. I won't claim that all disruption is good, but who's to say a little disruption in the immigration world wouldn't be?
    - lutorm 15y ago
      All the unemployed people, that's who...
      - dennisgorelik 15y ago
        Immigrants are more likely to create businesses and therefore they tend to lower unemployment.

cookiecaper 15y ago

s/media/electorate