When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
When America Tried to Deport Its Radicals
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/11/when-america-tried-to-deport-its-radicals
107 comments
>American exceptionalism
Almost the entire North and South America has it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Almost the entire North and South America has it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
The US is historically unique in its ability to Americanize immigrants and lift them into prosperity. Birthright citizenship isn’t unique to the US, but the is a pillar of what makes the US unique.
Honestly, Canada is actually doing better than the US in assimilating and lifting immigrants into prosperity these days, because it has a more modern immigration system (having avoided legislative gridlock and populist backlashes, for the most part) coupled with birthright citizenship. Consequently, Canada has a larger proportion of immigrants than the US. It also slightly beats the US on most measures of human development.
Canada is terrible at assimilating immigrants, the only reason we have less poverty is because our immigration laws are much tougher than the US' and we take in mostly richer immigrants.
As I mentioned below, Canada admits more immigrants per capita than the US does, and far more refugees (it surpasses the US in absolute numbers, not even per capita).
You're ignoring all the untalented, unskilled immigrants the U.S. admits, that aren't refugees, which is what drives down U.S. numbers.
That doesn't mean we're not more selective. Numbers per capita say nothing about the selection process, especially when it's far lower in terms of sheer numbers.
The refugees we do take in (28k per year is nothing) get a decent amount of support mainly because most of our immigrants are relatively rich Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, etc...
The refugees we do take in (28k per year is nothing) get a decent amount of support mainly because most of our immigrants are relatively rich Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, etc...
New U.S. immigrants are about as educated as new Canadian immigrants: https://www.cato.org/blog/new-us-immigrants-are-educated-new...
In fact, new U.S. immigrants are a bit more likely to have advanced degrees.
In fact, new U.S. immigrants are a bit more likely to have advanced degrees.
More likely to have advanced degrees but less educated overall.
The US takes in more outliers due to high-paying jobs in SV and on Wall Street, Canada takes in richer immigrants on average. Your own charts reflect that.
Edit - look at Figure 3. 40% of immigrants to Canada have a bachelors or advanced degree. Versus only 29% of US immigrants.
And that doesn't even take into account the fact that many immigrants to Canada come here to go to university (paying more than double what local students pay).
The US takes in more outliers due to high-paying jobs in SV and on Wall Street, Canada takes in richer immigrants on average. Your own charts reflect that.
Edit - look at Figure 3. 40% of immigrants to Canada have a bachelors or advanced degree. Versus only 29% of US immigrants.
And that doesn't even take into account the fact that many immigrants to Canada come here to go to university (paying more than double what local students pay).
How much immigration in Canada is undocumented/illegal (depending on your political persuasion)?
Almost none. It exists but not in any large numbers because illegal immigrants can't work, get bank accounts, drivers licenses, go to schools, etc...
If you're a business owner and hire illegal immigrants, you risk up to 2 years jail time personally and a $50k fine. So almost no one takes that risk.
The few that are here illegally generally come legally, overstay and have family to harbour them.
And keep in mind I'm in an industry that, in the US, is known for employing illegal immigrants (restaurants). In 17 years, I've never seen one nor heard of anyone hiring them. I'm sure it happens in a few ethnic enclaves but it's definitely not typical.
I read a statistic somewhere that California alone has more than 10x as many illegal immigrants as all of Canada.
Of course I should also add, we do of course allow more legal immigration per capita than the US, many irregular border crossers are granted temporary status while their cases are processed and in general our bureaucracy seems less insane than the US'.
If you're a business owner and hire illegal immigrants, you risk up to 2 years jail time personally and a $50k fine. So almost no one takes that risk.
The few that are here illegally generally come legally, overstay and have family to harbour them.
And keep in mind I'm in an industry that, in the US, is known for employing illegal immigrants (restaurants). In 17 years, I've never seen one nor heard of anyone hiring them. I'm sure it happens in a few ethnic enclaves but it's definitely not typical.
I read a statistic somewhere that California alone has more than 10x as many illegal immigrants as all of Canada.
Of course I should also add, we do of course allow more legal immigration per capita than the US, many irregular border crossers are granted temporary status while their cases are processed and in general our bureaucracy seems less insane than the US'.
I'm skeptical that Canada does better at assimilating, just based on first hand empirical evidence I've seen in Vancouver and Toronto. I would agree that Canada is doing better at lifting people out of poverty currently.
Canada doesn’t do better at lifting people out of poverty. They’re just more selective in who they let in and don’t have a huge second world country at their southern border.
Edit: I misread the comment. Sorry!
Please don't post flamebait to HN. We've had to ask you this before. We ban accounts that do it. I don't want to ban you, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this.
Please don't post flamebait to HN. We've had to ask you this before. We ban accounts that do it. I don't want to ban you, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this.
Hey dang, I agree with your warnings down thread. I let the person I was responding to get to me and I should have conducted myself better. Sorry. I’m having a hard time figuring out what the issue is with this particular comment, though.
I went back to look for the obvious flamebait which I saw in there, and realized that it was I who had misread your comment. Argh! I'm sorry.
Moderation is guesswork done in haste, because that's the only way to get through the mountain of content that piles up every day. But it's really bad to get scoldings wrong.
In case you're curious, I read your comment as from a Canadian perspective, referring to the U.S. as a second-world country as a snarky swipe. Most likely I was primed to do this because I'm Canadian and have sometimes heard people talk that way. But clearly you were making an economic argument with that statement, not taking a nationalistic swipe, so there was no need for a moderation reply. Now that I read more closely, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21495051 was the comment that actually did the thing I read into yours, so I'll post a moderation reply there.
Moderation is guesswork done in haste, because that's the only way to get through the mountain of content that piles up every day. But it's really bad to get scoldings wrong.
In case you're curious, I read your comment as from a Canadian perspective, referring to the U.S. as a second-world country as a snarky swipe. Most likely I was primed to do this because I'm Canadian and have sometimes heard people talk that way. But clearly you were making an economic argument with that statement, not taking a nationalistic swipe, so there was no need for a moderation reply. Now that I read more closely, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21495051 was the comment that actually did the thing I read into yours, so I'll post a moderation reply there.
No worries. I definitely need to work on my tone when I get riled up (as evidenced by my remarks down thread; European chauvinism regarding the US is a pet peeve of mine), so the larger point still stands.
Thanks again for what you do on here. HN is my favorite place to exchange ideas.
Thanks again for what you do on here. HN is my favorite place to exchange ideas.
Appreciated. And given your username I hope you saw the toaster threads!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21432144
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21164014
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21432144
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21164014
Canada's immigration rate is 5.3 per year per 1000 residents (200K per year, population 37.59M). The US immigration rate is 3.6 per year per 1000 residents (1.18M per year, population 327.2M). And in absolute (not per capita!) terms, Canada resettles more refugees than the US [1]. The US is in fact more selective (probably owing to decades of legislative gridlock leaving us with an outdated bureaucratic nightmare of an immigration system nobody on either the left or the right likes).
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/19/canada-now-...
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/19/canada-now-...
200k per year isn't that much. And yes Canada is more selective. Per capita numbers (especially when absolute numbers are that low) say nothing about how selective we are.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Canada has less selective immigration. The Canadian system is merit based and has a relatively low rate of illegal immigration. The US has 50 million hispanic Americans (about 13 million more people than the entirety of Canada). Almost all of their ancestors were not in this country 70 years ago. And many of their ancestors came to this country illegally and, thus, faced no sort of selective filter whatsoever.
Imagine two countries of 100,000 people. The first lets in 1,000 people per year, all of postgrad degrees. The second lets in 500 per year selected from a lottery.
Which is more selective?
Which is more selective?
From the same source you just shared there's a graph of refugee resettlements.
Canada only is ahead of the US as of 2018. Historically Canada hasn't even been close.
Canada only is ahead of the US as of 2018. Historically Canada hasn't even been close.
> and don’t have a huge second world country at their southern border.
Some might dispute that claim.
Some might dispute that claim.
Please don't post nationalistic flamebait to HN. We ban accounts that do that. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site in its intended spirit, we'd be grateful.
toasterlovin(1)
Hmm, I think the other countries in the Americas have been pretty successful at integrating immigrants as well. The prosperous ones also offer opportunities for those immigrants. I think being the largest economy and being so influential is more unique among other nations.
> the is a pillar of what makes the US unique.
Or perhaps you've not lived in other countries. Don't get me wrong; the US is doing fine, but honestly it's no so unique or even the best place for an average immigrant. For some highly-skilled immigrants, however, the US is unique in terms of opportunities.
Or perhaps you've not lived in other countries. Don't get me wrong; the US is doing fine, but honestly it's no so unique or even the best place for an average immigrant. For some highly-skilled immigrants, however, the US is unique in terms of opportunities.
I’m an immigrant to the US from an Asian country.
>“to restrict citizenship by birth within the United States to the children of parents who are of a race which is eligible for citizenship”—i.e., whites
White was also not considered a race in the 20's. There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. American eugenicists also were very much into "building" a race. They would have family breed competitions at fairs where families would compete like dogs or livestock for who were the best breeding stock. It wasnt a white vs colored, it was a tall, intelligent, hard-working, disease-free, group of mostly northern europeans vs anyone short, stalky, diseased, epileptic, mentally deficient, criminal, promiscuous, obsessed with art, etc. For instance, Irish were considered a problem because they didnt work hard, were obsessed with art and music, were short, and susceptible to tuberculosis. Mind you, this is not scientific fact, this is just the nonsense they spouted at the time. They also believed in a thing called "Germplasm" which roughly translated to gene pool, but of course even today we're not exactly clear on what's genetically inheritable and what isnt.
I should also mention, this is the deeply disturbing origin of the progressive movement in america. Using what they thought was superior scientific understanding of the natural world, the IQ test, birth control, the gifted student program, the use of performance metrics in school and workplaces to justify glass ceilings, firings, mass deportation, and mass sterilizations of anyone deemed deficient in any way by society. The work americans did to create a legal framework for eugenics would be borrowed by the Nazis to create their own legal framework for the deportation and final solution of the jews.
White was also not considered a race in the 20's. There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. American eugenicists also were very much into "building" a race. They would have family breed competitions at fairs where families would compete like dogs or livestock for who were the best breeding stock. It wasnt a white vs colored, it was a tall, intelligent, hard-working, disease-free, group of mostly northern europeans vs anyone short, stalky, diseased, epileptic, mentally deficient, criminal, promiscuous, obsessed with art, etc. For instance, Irish were considered a problem because they didnt work hard, were obsessed with art and music, were short, and susceptible to tuberculosis. Mind you, this is not scientific fact, this is just the nonsense they spouted at the time. They also believed in a thing called "Germplasm" which roughly translated to gene pool, but of course even today we're not exactly clear on what's genetically inheritable and what isnt.
I should also mention, this is the deeply disturbing origin of the progressive movement in america. Using what they thought was superior scientific understanding of the natural world, the IQ test, birth control, the gifted student program, the use of performance metrics in school and workplaces to justify glass ceilings, firings, mass deportation, and mass sterilizations of anyone deemed deficient in any way by society. The work americans did to create a legal framework for eugenics would be borrowed by the Nazis to create their own legal framework for the deportation and final solution of the jews.
> White was also not considered a race in the 20's.
Yes, it was.
> There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans.
The existence of those groups, and the fact that then-current concepts of whiteness would exclude some or all of them, doesn't change the fact that “White” was the identity of the dominant racial group, and had been for quite some time by the 1920s.
> I should also mention, this is the deeply disturbing origin of the progressive movement in america.
No, it wasn't. Oh, deeply disturbing it was, but it wasn't the origin of the progressive movement in America. It's true that the eugenics movement occurred within one of many (often overlapping in time) movements that took the name “progressive” in US history, but it wasn't the first, nor one historically strongly connected to any of the modern groups with the name.
Yes, it was.
> There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans.
The existence of those groups, and the fact that then-current concepts of whiteness would exclude some or all of them, doesn't change the fact that “White” was the identity of the dominant racial group, and had been for quite some time by the 1920s.
> I should also mention, this is the deeply disturbing origin of the progressive movement in america.
No, it wasn't. Oh, deeply disturbing it was, but it wasn't the origin of the progressive movement in America. It's true that the eugenics movement occurred within one of many (often overlapping in time) movements that took the name “progressive” in US history, but it wasn't the first, nor one historically strongly connected to any of the modern groups with the name.
I respect your decision to be completely and utterly wrong. The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics. We were going to improve the human race through science, technology, and industrialization. Rockefeller Foundation funded eugenics research. Carnegie and Stanford created the scientific studies that would help support hundreds of new eugenics laws. UC Berkeley, Harvard, Columbia, etc would teach eugenics to students. We wiped the history clean of all this during WWII, but if you do some keen wikipedia'ing, or go oldschool and read some books, it's all there for you.
And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
> I respect your decision to be completely and utterly wrong
That’s hilarious but...
> The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics.
There, again, have been a number of separate “progressive” movements in US history, eugenics was a minority view within one of them. But, while you are wrong here, it's not nearly so flagrantly wrong as:
> And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
I don't think it ever happened; even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great. But, no, white racists that saw the race they favored as the “white” race did not first show up in the 1960s-1970s, as evidence by the Cornerstone Speech in which Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens laid out his view of the central case for the Confederate cause in 1861: “...Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. ...”
That’s hilarious but...
> The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics.
There, again, have been a number of separate “progressive” movements in US history, eugenics was a minority view within one of them. But, while you are wrong here, it's not nearly so flagrantly wrong as:
> And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
I don't think it ever happened; even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great. But, no, white racists that saw the race they favored as the “white” race did not first show up in the 1960s-1970s, as evidence by the Cornerstone Speech in which Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens laid out his view of the central case for the Confederate cause in 1861: “...Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. ...”
The progressive era was between the start of the industrial revolution and the start of WWII.
>even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great.
You are so committed to this modern liberal partisan revisionist historiography that you are willing to admit the narrative doesn't make any sense, and yet equally willing to keep at it. That's commitment.
Irish, Italians, russians, and other "inferior" whites were always considered white. "White" has never and will never be the barrier to entry into this country or into the american hierarchy. Looks, charm, stature, sharpness of mind, focus on meaningful pursuits like work, not being too interested in "meaningless pursuits" like art and music. Not being promiscuous, no criminality, no epilepsy, no "feeble-mindedness" or imbecility. This is what race was about. Virginia aristocracy, the Boston Brahmins etc, were spurred on by the leading science and technology of the day, to believe these attributes were genetically inherited and "selected" by nature, which meant they could also be selected with Mendelism. We were not interested in a "white race." Since race was something you could control, we were interested in a "superior american germplasm" a genepool of the best of the best while the rest were sterilized, aborted, deported, or imprisoned in jails, asylums, or reservations. American eugenicists were interested in "building a race." A concept Hitler adopted and was quoted talking about fairly often.
Racism was not white vs black. Its nowhere near that simple
>even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great.
You are so committed to this modern liberal partisan revisionist historiography that you are willing to admit the narrative doesn't make any sense, and yet equally willing to keep at it. That's commitment.
Irish, Italians, russians, and other "inferior" whites were always considered white. "White" has never and will never be the barrier to entry into this country or into the american hierarchy. Looks, charm, stature, sharpness of mind, focus on meaningful pursuits like work, not being too interested in "meaningless pursuits" like art and music. Not being promiscuous, no criminality, no epilepsy, no "feeble-mindedness" or imbecility. This is what race was about. Virginia aristocracy, the Boston Brahmins etc, were spurred on by the leading science and technology of the day, to believe these attributes were genetically inherited and "selected" by nature, which meant they could also be selected with Mendelism. We were not interested in a "white race." Since race was something you could control, we were interested in a "superior american germplasm" a genepool of the best of the best while the rest were sterilized, aborted, deported, or imprisoned in jails, asylums, or reservations. American eugenicists were interested in "building a race." A concept Hitler adopted and was quoted talking about fairly often.
Racism was not white vs black. Its nowhere near that simple
> Racism was not white vs black.
Racism was and is more complex than just white vs. black, but that wasn't your claim upthread that I have been arguing against.
What you claimed previously was that white was not considered a race before the 1920s. It absolutely was, and there are copious prominent invocations of white racial identity in US history prior to that time—as I've shown with the Cornerstone speech—and while racism is more complex than just white vs. black (and ideas of just who is white have evolved), white vs. black has been a key racial divide for the whole history of the country.
Racism was and is more complex than just white vs. black, but that wasn't your claim upthread that I have been arguing against.
What you claimed previously was that white was not considered a race before the 1920s. It absolutely was, and there are copious prominent invocations of white racial identity in US history prior to that time—as I've shown with the Cornerstone speech—and while racism is more complex than just white vs. black (and ideas of just who is white have evolved), white vs. black has been a key racial divide for the whole history of the country.
[deleted]
I'm currently reading about this now on Wikipedia, and holy crap this a chunk of US history that I've not looked before. It seems that the eugenic movement was fully developed in California, way before the Nazis imported it from them and used it to their advantage...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
California sterilized more Americans under the eugenics movement than any other state. Virginia is second. This was not a small movement. I suggest reading the book "Imbeciles" by Adam Cohen. Most historical societies downplay a lot of what happened, so you can find things on wikipedia but to get a full picture, books are better. I'm right now looking to find what exactly the eugenics curriculum was at UC Berkeley and Stanford since it was an entire area of study at many universities at the time.
Ireland didn't get rid of it, they restricted it and it remains very generous compared to just about everywhere else. One parent an Irish or British citizen, or with right to residence in either Ireland or Northern Ireland - there may well be other categories acceptable. They retain the island of Ireland extra-territorial limit too.
This, along with the grandparent clause, has the probably unintended consequence that something astonishing like a sixth or eighth of the UK is eligible for Irish citizenship.
This, along with the grandparent clause, has the probably unintended consequence that something astonishing like a sixth or eighth of the UK is eligible for Irish citizenship.
Yep. Brexit caused a wave of people researching their Irish ancestry for the passports. Not to mention that children of NI residents can potentially claim two birthright citizenships.
Those restrictions are exactly what Steve King’s bill imposed. Citizenship would be limited to children born in the US with at least one parent that was a US citizen or legal permanent resident: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/140. It was deemed too racist to pursue even under the Trump administration.
There is no equivalent to the grandparent thing in the US, but that would be deemed even more racist.
There is no equivalent to the grandparent thing in the US, but that would be deemed even more racist.
this is worded on a way that suggests that because the Irish one isn't particularly racist, or at least not in a particularly bad way, that an equivalent law in the US shouldn't be considered racist.
That ignores the difference in immigration and emigration between the two countries. in Ireland, it enables ethnic Irish to return home if their ancestors moved away, whereas in America, it would promote migrants from one non-ethnically American country over another, which in the context of prioritizing white immigrants over anything else, makes it pretty racist
That ignores the difference in immigration and emigration between the two countries. in Ireland, it enables ethnic Irish to return home if their ancestors moved away, whereas in America, it would promote migrants from one non-ethnically American country over another, which in the context of prioritizing white immigrants over anything else, makes it pretty racist
> this is worded on a way that suggests that because the Irish one isn't particularly racist, or at least not in a particularly bad way, that an equivalent law in the US shouldn't be considered racist.
I’m pretty sure it’s worded to imply that the Irish one is pretty racist, but they just don’t realize it because the Overton window in Europe is very skewed on this issue.
> That ignores the difference in immigration and emigration between the two countries. in Ireland, it enables ethnic Irish to return home if their ancestors moved away, whereas in America, it would promote migrants from one non-ethnically American country over another, which in the context of prioritizing white immigrants over anything else, makes it pretty racist
Why should ethnic Irish migrants get preference over anyone else? Would it be okay if the US did something similar for ethnic British?
I’m pretty sure it’s worded to imply that the Irish one is pretty racist, but they just don’t realize it because the Overton window in Europe is very skewed on this issue.
> That ignores the difference in immigration and emigration between the two countries. in Ireland, it enables ethnic Irish to return home if their ancestors moved away, whereas in America, it would promote migrants from one non-ethnically American country over another, which in the context of prioritizing white immigrants over anything else, makes it pretty racist
Why should ethnic Irish migrants get preference over anyone else? Would it be okay if the US did something similar for ethnic British?
The wikipedia map shows it better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
"We say that if America has entered the war to make the world safe for democracy, she must first make democracy safe in America. How else is the world to take America seriously, when democracy at home is daily being outraged, free speech suppressed, peaceable assemblies broken up by overbearing and brutal gangsters in uniform; when free press is curtailed and every independent opinion gagged? Verily, poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? "
Emma Goldman, one of the deported radicals, wrote this 1917.
Emma Goldman, one of the deported radicals, wrote this 1917.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman
>>She and anarchist writer Alexander Berkman, her lover and lifelong friend, planned to assassinate industrialist and financier Henry Clay Frick as an act of propaganda of the deed. Frick survived the attempt on his life in 1892, and Berkman was sentenced to 22 years in prison
>>She and anarchist writer Alexander Berkman, her lover and lifelong friend, planned to assassinate industrialist and financier Henry Clay Frick as an act of propaganda of the deed. Frick survived the attempt on his life in 1892, and Berkman was sentenced to 22 years in prison
I also remember when Frick was kicked out of the country for having unionists murdered and flooding Johnstown. Oh wait...
She also did not condemn the murder of president McKinley. So? Does that invalidate anything of what she wrote?
Without delving deeper into the facts, it raises the possibility that what she’s portraying as suppression of free speech and independent thinking is actually a legitimate reaction to someone engaged in criminal activity.
Individually there were indeed quite some anarchists and communistsengaged in criminal activity.
But not at all, all of them. And this is the point: Radical people do want to change the current system completely.
But there is a big difference between working on peacefull opposition and organizing in unions for example, than active terrorism.
Those raids in the article were targeted on radicals, no matter the criminal activity of them - they targeted simply political opponents. Did raids, beatings and torture without warrants. Eventually deporting. Not really democratic.
And when you have the state doing this, than it is hypocrisy for this state to go to war for democracy.
And this criticism is valid, even if the person expressing it, did engage in criminal herself earlier in her life.
And when you have the state doing this, than it is hypocrisy for this state to go to war for democracy.
And this criticism is valid, even if the person expressing it, did engage in criminal herself earlier in her life.
The British empire essentially deported many of its criminals to Australia. The USSR banished their radicals to Siberia... I’m sure others have done similar.
Yeah but none of those claim to be the "land of the freedom" and other platitudes as loudly as the Americans
This seems to be written in mean spirit, but is essentially true. America is supposed to be founded upon an ideology, and deserves scrutiny whether this ideology is upheld. (Incidentally, USSR, albeit not Russia, was also this way.) I'm not American, for example, and my sympathy for that country tends to be proportional to how much free and constitutional I find it.
The article is somewhat biased, but includes enough information to invite some reflecting on those problems. It paints an image of how many people might have been actually fearing a violent revolution, for example. It also shows how such fears can interplay with how law is executed.
The article is somewhat biased, but includes enough information to invite some reflecting on those problems. It paints an image of how many people might have been actually fearing a violent revolution, for example. It also shows how such fears can interplay with how law is executed.
> This seems to be written in mean spirit, but is essentially true. America is supposed to be founded upon an ideology, and deserves scrutiny whether this ideology is upheld.
This is why I admire China, and think they will win, even if they had to tie one hand behind their back. This Western notion that we have to uphold certain principles, without actually upholding them, is one of our many Achilles heels. We have to struggle with all this theoretical and historical baggage that people take soooóooo seriously, regardless of whether it really matters, sowing social discontent, and they just continue to do what's pragmatic, sowing social harmony over time as those slighted see that it is for the greater good.
The ego of the Western mind is a force to be reckoned with, for the West.
This is why I admire China, and think they will win, even if they had to tie one hand behind their back. This Western notion that we have to uphold certain principles, without actually upholding them, is one of our many Achilles heels. We have to struggle with all this theoretical and historical baggage that people take soooóooo seriously, regardless of whether it really matters, sowing social discontent, and they just continue to do what's pragmatic, sowing social harmony over time as those slighted see that it is for the greater good.
The ego of the Western mind is a force to be reckoned with, for the West.
[deleted]
> The British empire essentially deported many of its criminals to Australia.
That's not really deportation. They were sent from one part of the British Empire to another. They remained British subjects.
That's not really deportation. They were sent from one part of the British Empire to another. They remained British subjects.
Amusingly, a question today is what to do with people who left their country to fight with the Islamic State? Take them back? Keep them out? Send them to re-education camps?
Turkey has a lot of them, and they're not Turkish. Turkey wants to unload them. "There is no need to try to escape from it, we will send them back to you. Deal with them how you want."
The UK doesn't want theirs back. France has decided to take theirs back. Sweden is taking theirs back but sending them to re-education camps. The US only has a few, so they can be dealt with individually.
This kind of thing is why it's important to challenge the framing of people as "illegal"; citizenship is an administrative category, and abusive governments can find all sorts of excuses to end or revoke it.
> challenge the framing of people as "illegal"
A brilliant rhetorical sleight of hand - the people aren't illegal - their act of immigration is. By this logic, we should refer to trespassers as "undocumented guests".
A brilliant rhetorical sleight of hand - the people aren't illegal - their act of immigration is. By this logic, we should refer to trespassers as "undocumented guests".
A trespasser is someone who trespasses. You wouldn't call a trespasser an "illegal walker" if they were taking a stroll through your plot of land.
Immigration over national borders is more serious and lacks a specific term so "illegal immigrant" is used instead.
[deleted]
They committed a crime (crossing a border illegally). What should you call it if not illegal immigration?
What do you call robbing a bank? Undocumented withdrawal? No, it's a crime.
What do you call robbing a bank? Undocumented withdrawal? No, it's a crime.
Quite often the border crossing was legal. Then someone overstays or fails to comply with the (often obscure) requirements. Then they are .. existing illegally?
Or in the case of asylum seekers and refugees, what is effectively being said is that it's illegal for them to flee a war zone?
Or in the case of asylum seekers and refugees, what is effectively being said is that it's illegal for them to flee a war zone?
Overstaying a visa means they are an illegal resident and must leave or get new permission to stay. Obscurity is not an excuse to not follow the law.
Likewise for asylum seekers, it's illegal to cross into a country without permission. You can flee, apply for asylum, and enter when that asylum is granted. There are also rules on when, where, and which countries you're allowed to apply for.
These terms and concepts are not difficult, if you have no intention of misconstruing or creating outrage.
Likewise for asylum seekers, it's illegal to cross into a country without permission. You can flee, apply for asylum, and enter when that asylum is granted. There are also rules on when, where, and which countries you're allowed to apply for.
These terms and concepts are not difficult, if you have no intention of misconstruing or creating outrage.
pjc50(1)
If it was a crime, there would need to be a trial before deporting them.
Trials are for citizens. Immigrants do get due process though and stand before a judge.
> Trials are for citizens.
Wrong. Non-citizens who are accused of committing crimes get trials.
Wrong. Non-citizens who are accused of committing crimes get trials.
People that smoke Marijuana have also committed a crime. As well as people that jaywalk, or violate any of the obscure laws the various states have on the books. They're all criminals, wouldn't you agree?
We should call them illegal citizens. Then we can start working towards deporting such criminals as the article demonstrates.
We should call them illegal citizens. Then we can start working towards deporting such criminals as the article demonstrates.
> We should call them illegal citizens. Then we can start working towards deporting such criminals as the article demonstrates.
Well international law prevents you from making someone stateless so they get thrown in jail instead. But yes, non-citizens who commit crimes are generally deported.
Also, the US classes crimes as either felonies or misdemeanours (possibly more categories?). In Canada we have indictable crimes, summary offences and things like jaywalking aren't even crimes, just ticketable offences. It's disingenuous of you to compare something like jaywalking to actual crimes.
Well international law prevents you from making someone stateless so they get thrown in jail instead. But yes, non-citizens who commit crimes are generally deported.
Also, the US classes crimes as either felonies or misdemeanours (possibly more categories?). In Canada we have indictable crimes, summary offences and things like jaywalking aren't even crimes, just ticketable offences. It's disingenuous of you to compare something like jaywalking to actual crimes.
The US term you are looking for is “infraction”, which applies to traffic tickets and the like.
Felony is overused at the moment, IMHO. Lawmakers that want to appear tough on crime make felonies out of non-violent crimes.
Felony is overused at the moment, IMHO. Lawmakers that want to appear tough on crime make felonies out of non-violent crimes.
That was kind of my point, that immigration belongs in the same category as jaywalking and not "actual crimes". In both cases all someone is doing is stepping across a line.
There is a massive difference between a national border and a crosswalk.
International law hasn't stopped the US before. So why bother? We can just deport these illegal citizens to the place that best matches their heritage. Problem solved.
And in the US, jaywalking is a crime. A crime is a crime, which makes jaywalking a crime all the same. If they decided to jaywalk, then they deserve to be deported for their criminal actions.
For reference: Crossing the boarder illegally is a misdemeanor just like jaywalking.
And in the US, jaywalking is a crime. A crime is a crime, which makes jaywalking a crime all the same. If they decided to jaywalk, then they deserve to be deported for their criminal actions.
For reference: Crossing the boarder illegally is a misdemeanor just like jaywalking.
Crossing a federal border to enter a sovereign nation is nothing like jaywalking. Crimes have levels of seriousness, and non-citizens have more serious consequences from committing crimes including deportation.
>International law hasn't stopped the US before. So why bother?
Because we should try to improve the situation not make it worse. I'm also not sure which international law violations you're talking about.
Because we should try to improve the situation not make it worse. I'm also not sure which international law violations you're talking about.
They are not citizens. That's like calling a car thief an "illegal owner of a car".
[deleted]
This doesn’t make sense to me. Aren’t all laws then “administrative categories”, of those who commit or don’t commit the corresponding crimes? Breaking the law means, per definition, that someone has committed an illegal action. Calling someone an “illegal immigrant” is appropriate when the crime is immigration related.
You can be in administrative violation of a statute without being criminally liable. This distinction matters a lot in law because in the former case any litigation is a civil, not criminal matter.
As an everyday example, suppose you park carelessly and get a lot of parking tickets and then don't pay them. You could run into all sorts of problems and eventually your car might be towed away and sold but generally you can't be arrested over it (unless you have a habit of illegally parking in disability spaces, also please don't treat this as a legal opinion), and your history of illegal parking won't show up on a criminal background check.
This maters a lot because people who are anti-immigration love presenting all illegal immigrants as criminals and use that to justify all sorts of human rights violations with 'but they're criminals!!!' Even the immigration violations that are crimes (like illegally crossing a border after having previously being deported) are misdemeanor-type crimes, but to listen to some political types you'd think it was worse than murder.
Bear in mind too that such misleading rhetoric is used to justify private as well as public atrocities, such as the shooting in El Paso earlier this year where 22 people were murdered.
As an everyday example, suppose you park carelessly and get a lot of parking tickets and then don't pay them. You could run into all sorts of problems and eventually your car might be towed away and sold but generally you can't be arrested over it (unless you have a habit of illegally parking in disability spaces, also please don't treat this as a legal opinion), and your history of illegal parking won't show up on a criminal background check.
This maters a lot because people who are anti-immigration love presenting all illegal immigrants as criminals and use that to justify all sorts of human rights violations with 'but they're criminals!!!' Even the immigration violations that are crimes (like illegally crossing a border after having previously being deported) are misdemeanor-type crimes, but to listen to some political types you'd think it was worse than murder.
Bear in mind too that such misleading rhetoric is used to justify private as well as public atrocities, such as the shooting in El Paso earlier this year where 22 people were murdered.
Deportation is also an administrative punishment similar, since you brought this analogy, to impounding an illegally parked car. People who are anti-immigration are not demanding prison sentences for illegal aliens, are they? They demand the appropriate administrative action - deportation.
Deportation is significantly more disruptive to life than having your car impounded. It's also a lifetime punishment, since it nearly always bars you from further re-entry.
Deporting people to certain countries can get them killed.
Deporting people to certain countries can get them killed.
>Deportation is significantly more disruptive to life than having your car impounded.
Illegally being in the country and drawing on its resources is also significantly more disruptive to the life of the society than illegally parking a car so it is only natural.
>It's also a lifetime punishment, since it nearly always bars you from further re-entry.
It is not a punishment - nobody but citizens have a right to be in the country so no rights have been denied. Most people in the world are already being "punished" this way since they have no chance to get any visa to the US.
>Deporting people to certain countries can get them killed.
Deportation per se? How? Does it mean that if a car is impounded, and I get to the bad part of town where the impound lot usually is, and some undocumented immigrants or other oppressed minorities who live around those kinds of place rob/kill me then a car getting impounded can also can get me killed?
Illegally being in the country and drawing on its resources is also significantly more disruptive to the life of the society than illegally parking a car so it is only natural.
>It's also a lifetime punishment, since it nearly always bars you from further re-entry.
It is not a punishment - nobody but citizens have a right to be in the country so no rights have been denied. Most people in the world are already being "punished" this way since they have no chance to get any visa to the US.
>Deporting people to certain countries can get them killed.
Deportation per se? How? Does it mean that if a car is impounded, and I get to the bad part of town where the impound lot usually is, and some undocumented immigrants or other oppressed minorities who live around those kinds of place rob/kill me then a car getting impounded can also can get me killed?
To be honest, this seems like hand wringing about the degree of consequence for a given law-breaking act. It isn’t unfair to label someone who parks illegally an “illegal parker”. I understand that law may distinguish between different violations and establish terminologies (like “misdemeanor”) to classify them into categories and enable discussion around them and affix penalties based on those categories. But all these violations are in breach of the law and therefore illegal. If they weren’t illegal there wouldn’t be grounds for any consequence, after all.
So I still don’t see why people are averse to the term “illegal immigrant”. It seems accurate to me. The rest of what you point out - like people equating an illegal border crossing with murder - seems like an orthogonal discussion.
So I still don’t see why people are averse to the term “illegal immigrant”. It seems accurate to me. The rest of what you point out - like people equating an illegal border crossing with murder - seems like an orthogonal discussion.
Nobody was complaining about the term 'illegal immigrant'. My post was about the common misconception that everyone covered by that is a criminal, a misconception which the grandparent comment made twice.
If you had paid attention to the context perhaps you would have saved yourself the effort of making a throwaway account to add a moot point.
If you had paid attention to the context perhaps you would have saved yourself the effort of making a throwaway account to add a moot point.
Well, in "common law" jurisdictions the common law is supposed to consist of all those things that are traditionally regarded as wrong, as distinct from "statute law" which has been explicitly defined. They are considered different sources of law by legal scholars. And as far as I'm aware immigration has never been considered part of common law.
French law has a similar kind of droit administrativ / droit naturel distinction.
More importantly, immigration is particularly prone to the law changing under you, so even if you have complied entirely up to that point, you may become "illegal" despite not having done anything, and it may not be possible to regularise your situation.
French law has a similar kind of droit administrativ / droit naturel distinction.
More importantly, immigration is particularly prone to the law changing under you, so even if you have complied entirely up to that point, you may become "illegal" despite not having done anything, and it may not be possible to regularise your situation.
when criminality under a given law starts to show significant correlations with an ethnicity/nationality/race/gender/orientation/etc. - i.e. with the characteristics acquired by birth, not by choice - it gives rise to the reasonable doubt whether the law (or its application) is just or whether it is just an oppressive tool against a specific class of people.
That does not necessarily follow. Geography is highly ethnically divided, generally speaking, and globalism is a new phenomenon. The fact that US immigration laws predominantly affect Hispanic people in a negative way is not racist, it's because we share a land border which nearly only has Hispanic people on the other side of it to the tip of the continent and beyond.
Where you have to have a concern is about ENFORCEMENT. Because the laws applied equally to a white Canadian sneaking across the border as they do to a Mexican sneaking across the border, but one is more likely to receive enforcement action than the other.
But it's important to understand the distinction between enforcement and legislation. Both should be addressed, but it's silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater and fail to understand the mechanism of action.
Where you have to have a concern is about ENFORCEMENT. Because the laws applied equally to a white Canadian sneaking across the border as they do to a Mexican sneaking across the border, but one is more likely to receive enforcement action than the other.
But it's important to understand the distinction between enforcement and legislation. Both should be addressed, but it's silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater and fail to understand the mechanism of action.
[deleted]
> "when criminality under a given law starts to show significant correlations with an ethnicity/nationality/race/gender/orientation/etc."
Yes, immigration law - both application and enforcement - tends to correlate highly with nationality. I'd wager speeding tickets also correlate with drivers.
What should it correlate with?
Yes, immigration law - both application and enforcement - tends to correlate highly with nationality. I'd wager speeding tickets also correlate with drivers.
What should it correlate with?
If application and enforcement correlates with nationality because those violating the law are more likely to be of a given nationality, then I don’t think that is a problem. But I think enforcing the law to a different degree against similar violations of distant nationalities wouldn’t be fair.
That is, if 10 Canadians and 10 Mexicans crossed into the US illegally, and all faced similar consequences, I think that’s fine. If there are only 1 Canadian and 10 Mexican violators and this causes limited border patrols to be distributed proportionally between the US-Canada and US-Mexico border, I think that’s still fine. But if 10 violating Canadians and 10 violating Mexicans who were all apprehended faced different consequences, that would not be fair.
That is, if 10 Canadians and 10 Mexicans crossed into the US illegally, and all faced similar consequences, I think that’s fine. If there are only 1 Canadian and 10 Mexican violators and this causes limited border patrols to be distributed proportionally between the US-Canada and US-Mexico border, I think that’s still fine. But if 10 violating Canadians and 10 violating Mexicans who were all apprehended faced different consequences, that would not be fair.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing, about how laws against murdering disproportionately affect men. Surely there is reasonable doubt that the law is just our matriarchal society doing testes-policing.
Fascinating thread. Would be interesting to see the racial and socioeconomic breakdown of its participants.
judging from title it sounds interesting. But I wish it was written more in wikipedia style, without book-like descriptions of shackles etc
The majority of countries don’t have birthright citizenship, and Ireland and New Zealand got rid of it in the 21st century. Yet in the view of the New Yorker, that common rule is “not unlike” a rule that would limit citizenship to a specific race.
(I’m a big proponent of birthright citizenship. But the New Yorker’s framing of it devalues it by making it seem like the baseline, instead of an example of American exceptionalism.)