undefined | Better HN

0 pointstptacek9y ago0 comments

There are generations of families --- literally millions of people --- that are linked together through people who are in the US "illegally". People were brought here as children and have known no other life. People who were born in this country and are unassailably citizens, deserving of all the protections previous generations of Americans died on beaches to defend for them, whose parents were brought here illegally as children.

Do not casually dismiss these people by appealing to "legal immigration". The Obama Administration had to fight hard to secure continued residency for some of these children, and Trump's 100 Day Plan includes a pledge to revoke that security.

This is a real concern deserving your careful consideration. It's not a sound bite. You can disagree, but if you're disagreeing that we should be concerned about a pledge to rend families apart, you owe a more careful and honest articulation of your disagreement than you gave here.

0 comments

hueving9y ago

Why are you scare quoting "illegally"? They are here in violation of the law. If you don't believe in controlled immigration, just state that up front rather than trying to hide behind an appeal to emotion via stories of tearing families apart.

Your argument seems to be either that long time violators of a law should gain immunity to the law; or that we should grant citizenship to anyone who enters the country. Which is it?

idlewords9y ago

Because it is the only case in which "illegal" refers to a status rather than an action, as if the very act of existing in the United States without correct documentation was an affront against justice.

This is a very un-American view of how the law works, and so the scare quotes are merited.

piaste9y ago

> Because it is the only case in which "illegal" refers to a status rather than an action [..] a very un-American view of how the law works

That's because the illegal action consists of being in a location where you have no right to be. And it's not, in fact, the only case. Compare it to its close relative, trespassing:

An "illegal resident" is someone living in a country of which they have neither citizenship nor visa.

An "illegal occupant" is someone living in a building of which they have neither possession nor tenancy.

It seems rather straightforward to me. Whether such a view is "un-American" or not I legitimately do not know, not being an American myself. Though I can say that that word doesn't have the proudest of histories, to put it mildly.

1 more reply

tptacekOP9y ago

I just described people who are not here in violation of the law and yet will be gravely harmed by Trump's immigration policies.

hueving9y ago

They will be harmed by their parents' decision to break the law. The same thing would happen if their parents violated any other law. Why would this be different?

sangnoir9y ago

> They are here in violation of the law.

Serious question: which law?

edblarney9y ago

"The illegal entry of non-nationals into the United States is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits non-nationals from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer, and also prohibits non-nationals from eluding inspection by immigration officers"

Even though it's nice to know the specifics, really, it's absurd.

A nation will not exist unless in the 21st century unless it manages its borders reasonably.

2 more replies

hueving9y ago

You need a visa to be here if you're not a US citizen.

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/law...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointstptacek9y ago0 comments

0 comments

hueving9y ago

Your argument seems to be either that long time violators of a law should gain immunity to the law; or that we should grant citizenship to anyone who enters the country. Which is it?

idlewords9y ago

This is a very un-American view of how the law works, and so the scare quotes are merited.

piaste9y ago

> Because it is the only case in which "illegal" refers to a status rather than an action [..] a very un-American view of how the law works

That's because the illegal action consists of being in a location where you have no right to be. And it's not, in fact, the only case. Compare it to its close relative, trespassing:

An "illegal resident" is someone living in a country of which they have neither citizenship nor visa.

An "illegal occupant" is someone living in a building of which they have neither possession nor tenancy.

1 more reply

tptacekOP9y ago

I just described people who are not here in violation of the law and yet will be gravely harmed by Trump's immigration policies.

hueving9y ago

They will be harmed by their parents' decision to break the law. The same thing would happen if their parents violated any other law. Why would this be different?

sangnoir9y ago

> They are here in violation of the law.

Serious question: which law?

edblarney9y ago

Even though it's nice to know the specifics, really, it's absurd.

A nation will not exist unless in the 21st century unless it manages its borders reasonably.

2 more replies

hueving9y ago

You need a visa to be here if you're not a US citizen.

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/law...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse