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.
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.
> 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.
> In 1919, alarmed by the growing presence of “peoples of Asiatic races,” the Anti-Alien League called for a constitutional amendment “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. Senator Wesley Jones, of Washington State, promised to introduce such a measure—a proposal not unlike today’s calls to end birthright citizenship.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
To be honest, glib remarks about how the US is a second world country play well to a certain crowd, but they make the person making them look like a biased hack to anybody who engages in serious thinking.
Basically the only countries (excluding city states) that beat the US by a significant margin are the Scandinavian countries. Sweden is the largest of those countries at about 10.5 million people. For a point of reference, that's about the size of Georgia, the 8th largest state. If you compare US median household income to the larger European countries (Germany, France, UK, etc.), the comparison is devastating. The US has a household median income of around $43,500. Germany comes in at $33,000, with France and the UK trailing closely behind that. That's a 30% lead to the US. And, yes, those are purchasing power parity numbers.
So, let me re-iterate: when you assert that the US is anything other than a first world country you look like an idiot who is too lazy to spend the the 5 minutes on Wikipedia necessary to disabuse themselves of their prejudices and foolish notions.
"glib remarks" and "making them look like a biased hack to anybody who engages in serious thinking."
> you look like an idiot who is too lazy to spend the the 5 minutes on Wikipedia
Yes, thank you for insulting me a second time. And sorry, I don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, despite its selective citations.
Median income is a single measurement, it doesn't mean an iota if your country can't provide universal healthcare, free (or inexpensive) education, social security that is a genuine safety net for those who're in desperate circumstances, etc, etc. I consider these important elements of being a first world country.
You casually slandered my entire country and now you have a problem with my tone? What, exactly, do you expect? Especially when you’re just flat out wrong. I’m not even arguing that the US is the best, merely that it’s clearly a first world country, as evidenced by the incredible prosperity that most Americans participate in.
And regarding health care and a social safety net: you should familiarize yourself with Medicaid and our welfare programs. Many of the poorest Americans receive assistance of various kinds, on par with many first world nations.
As a 2nd data point, the median income response is about economic power. It's obviously possible to be economically strong whilst at the same time having poor culture.
There seem to be several current examples of this in the world. :/
“Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the definition has instead largely shifted to any country with little political risk and a well functioning democracy, rule of law, capitalist economy, economic stability, and high standard of living. Various ways in which modern First World countries are often determined include GDP, GNP, literacy rates, life expectancy, and the Human Development Index.”
“Subsequently the actual meaning of the terms "First World", "Second World" and "Third World" changed from being based on political ideology to an economic definition.”
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.
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.
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.
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).
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...
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).
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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
> 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?
Even if we choose to keep birthright citizenship, it must be clarified such that only the children of people here legally for some extended period of time gain American citizenship.
The rule in its current interpretation incentivizes illegal immigration and other bad behavior.
>“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.
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.
> 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. ...”
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
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.
Who flags posts they disagree with? If you had a valid argument and were discussing this in good faith, do you think you still would've flagged me?
You: >You claimed previously was that white was not considered a race before the 1920s. Me: >White was also not considered a race in the 20's.
Again this is a perfect example of you making up facts to serve your narrative. A narrative which doesnt even help you. In the spirit of the OP I was discussing the 1920's. But since I've clearly read more than you on american history prior to the gilded age, I'll explain to you where "white vs black has been a key racial divide" has validity, and where it doesn't.
The rhetoric you're referring to of "white vs black" is from the South where all the slave owners were scots-irish, speaking to one another as scots-irish. Second, the south was limited in their exposure to immigrants as all the immigrants went to the north for factory work, or to work as serfs on northern farms where slavery was not used. The south did not like immigrants, or the jews who've had maybe the worst ad campaigns written for them in the Holy Bible.
They were also far less educated. While america by the 1860's had the second largest public education system in the world behind germany, the south had almost no public education system. But they did have the Holy Bible. Those southerners that did interact with northerners did not like immigrants. There were constant, what we would call today "terrorist attacks" between the north and south before and after the civil war, most of which happened across the missouri river. Confederates would go up north and light a village on fire. German immigrants from the north would go south and bomb a town. Confederates would go back north and mass murder everyone on a train, etc, etc. Not really any camaraderie among whites to be found there, now is there?
The civil war also saw 750,000 men die. Mostly, as you would say, white men, dead at the hands of other white men. The civil war would kick off a major industrial revolution. In the years after, finding work would be difficult, although the population was severely decimated, problems in europe were driving mass immigration to the states. Factory work was difficult to find. Factory owners realized the larger the laborpool, the less they had to pay people, so factories often tried to hire men and women of as many different ages and backgrounds as they could. For reasons that were as racist as they were economic, labor unions were born and would limit an entire industry to one race/nationality or another to restrict the labor pool. Because of this european immigrants assimilated and dressed/spoke like anglo saxons. Unfortunately for chinese and black, they couldn't do that, so they were hit with the worst labor laws restricting where they could work.
This is probably the only time you could point where there may have been a "white race." In factory labor unions just trying to get a job, but even then, the managerial class was also white, and if the labor union didnt get what they wanted, they would riot and kill the lot of them. No unity there either.
The problem with this narrative is that it also deprives you of learning about carrie buck, the eugenics movement, the reason for American support of the Nazi party, America's many attempts at building a race like the Boston Brahmins, the progressive institutions like the rockefeller foundation and stanford university leading the eugenics charge, Harry Laughlin (university professor of sociology) awarded an honorary Doctorate of Medicine from the University of Heidelberg in Germany by the nazis for masterminding the 1924 immigration act, America's apprehension to enter war in WWII, our mass deportations, our mass sterilization of 70,000 poor in the 1920's and 30's, and potentially 400,000 sterilization of poor americans during the Nixon administration. It also deprives you of learning how eugenic...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That ignores the plain fact that certain "groups" commit certain crimes more than others, which is often a source of "group" correlation with crime and punishment.
Assuming oppression is usually just the result of a superficial reading of the data.
> "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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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?
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
> You can flee, apply for asylum, and enter when that asylum is granted.
Other way round. Asylum application must be made after arrival. You made a mistake in knowing what the rules are, so clearly it's only fair that you and your family are deported now.
Asylum seekers can apply at or within the border, refugees can apply outside the border. This is how people defect from foreign countries.
Applying does not give you permission to enter a country, that's only once you are granted protection. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes temporary entry is allowed. However if you're inside the border without permission then currently you're detained instead of immediately deported while the case is processed to help asylum seekers.
Those are the rules, and as a legal immigrant and naturalized US Citizen, I have absolutely no fear of deportation.
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.
>what to do with people who left their country to fight with the Islamic State
having them piecemeal in prisons/camps/etc. around the world is inefficient and is basically letting the cancer to metastasize. These people explicitly refused to live in our societies/states, and de-facto had their own state. I think we should have left them to their own devices - a 10m high wall with machine gun turrets each 1000ft accompanied by 10m deep moat and 1mile width minefield around that patch of the desert in Syria and/or Iraq where those believers wanted to have their own kind of heaven on Earth (until we can send them to Moon/Mars - worked great for Britain/Australia). Shoot on sight anybody trying to cross out of that heaven. To each their own. Right for self-determination and choosing your own poison.
"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.
>>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
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.
113 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 173 ms ] threadThe 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 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.
That's not really deportation. They were sent from one part of the British Empire to another. They remained British subjects.
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.)
Almost the entire North and South America has it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/19/canada-now-...
Canada only is ahead of the US as of 2018. Historically Canada hasn't even been close.
Which is more selective?
Some might dispute that claim.
Basically the only countries (excluding city states) that beat the US by a significant margin are the Scandinavian countries. Sweden is the largest of those countries at about 10.5 million people. For a point of reference, that's about the size of Georgia, the 8th largest state. If you compare US median household income to the larger European countries (Germany, France, UK, etc.), the comparison is devastating. The US has a household median income of around $43,500. Germany comes in at $33,000, with France and the UK trailing closely behind that. That's a 30% lead to the US. And, yes, those are purchasing power parity numbers.
So, let me re-iterate: when you assert that the US is anything other than a first world country you look like an idiot who is too lazy to spend the the 5 minutes on Wikipedia necessary to disabuse themselves of their prejudices and foolish notions.
"glib remarks" and "making them look like a biased hack to anybody who engages in serious thinking."
> you look like an idiot who is too lazy to spend the the 5 minutes on Wikipedia
Yes, thank you for insulting me a second time. And sorry, I don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, despite its selective citations.
Median income is a single measurement, it doesn't mean an iota if your country can't provide universal healthcare, free (or inexpensive) education, social security that is a genuine safety net for those who're in desperate circumstances, etc, etc. I consider these important elements of being a first world country.
And regarding health care and a social safety net: you should familiarize yourself with Medicaid and our welfare programs. Many of the poorest Americans receive assistance of various kinds, on par with many first world nations.
I made an observation about the state and its governance, not the inhabitants. These are two quite different things.
It's a literal grouping of countries by an old system, rather than meaning "economic" or "cultural" backwater.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-world_model
As a 2nd data point, the median income response is about economic power. It's obviously possible to be economically strong whilst at the same time having poor culture.
There seem to be several current examples of this in the world. :/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
“Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the definition has instead largely shifted to any country with little political risk and a well functioning democracy, rule of law, capitalist economy, economic stability, and high standard of living. Various ways in which modern First World countries are often determined include GDP, GNP, literacy rates, life expectancy, and the Human Development Index.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World
“Subsequently the actual meaning of the terms "First World", "Second World" and "Third World" changed from being based on political ideology to an economic definition.”
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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.
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.
Thanks again for what you do on here. HN is my favorite place to exchange ideas.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21432144
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21164014
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...
In fact, new U.S. immigrants are a bit more likely to have advanced degrees.
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).
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'.
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.
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.
There is no equivalent to the grandparent thing in the US, but that would be deemed even more 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
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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
The rule in its current interpretation incentivizes illegal immigration and other bad behavior.
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.
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.
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.
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. ...”
>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 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.
You: >You claimed previously was that white was not considered a race before the 1920s. Me: >White was also not considered a race in the 20's.
Again this is a perfect example of you making up facts to serve your narrative. A narrative which doesnt even help you. In the spirit of the OP I was discussing the 1920's. But since I've clearly read more than you on american history prior to the gilded age, I'll explain to you where "white vs black has been a key racial divide" has validity, and where it doesn't.
The rhetoric you're referring to of "white vs black" is from the South where all the slave owners were scots-irish, speaking to one another as scots-irish. Second, the south was limited in their exposure to immigrants as all the immigrants went to the north for factory work, or to work as serfs on northern farms where slavery was not used. The south did not like immigrants, or the jews who've had maybe the worst ad campaigns written for them in the Holy Bible.
They were also far less educated. While america by the 1860's had the second largest public education system in the world behind germany, the south had almost no public education system. But they did have the Holy Bible. Those southerners that did interact with northerners did not like immigrants. There were constant, what we would call today "terrorist attacks" between the north and south before and after the civil war, most of which happened across the missouri river. Confederates would go up north and light a village on fire. German immigrants from the north would go south and bomb a town. Confederates would go back north and mass murder everyone on a train, etc, etc. Not really any camaraderie among whites to be found there, now is there?
The civil war also saw 750,000 men die. Mostly, as you would say, white men, dead at the hands of other white men. The civil war would kick off a major industrial revolution. In the years after, finding work would be difficult, although the population was severely decimated, problems in europe were driving mass immigration to the states. Factory work was difficult to find. Factory owners realized the larger the laborpool, the less they had to pay people, so factories often tried to hire men and women of as many different ages and backgrounds as they could. For reasons that were as racist as they were economic, labor unions were born and would limit an entire industry to one race/nationality or another to restrict the labor pool. Because of this european immigrants assimilated and dressed/spoke like anglo saxons. Unfortunately for chinese and black, they couldn't do that, so they were hit with the worst labor laws restricting where they could work.
This is probably the only time you could point where there may have been a "white race." In factory labor unions just trying to get a job, but even then, the managerial class was also white, and if the labor union didnt get what they wanted, they would riot and kill the lot of them. No unity there either.
The problem with this narrative is that it also deprives you of learning about carrie buck, the eugenics movement, the reason for American support of the Nazi party, America's many attempts at building a race like the Boston Brahmins, the progressive institutions like the rockefeller foundation and stanford university leading the eugenics charge, Harry Laughlin (university professor of sociology) awarded an honorary Doctorate of Medicine from the University of Heidelberg in Germany by the nazis for masterminding the 1924 immigration act, America's apprehension to enter war in WWII, our mass deportations, our mass sterilization of 70,000 poor in the 1920's and 30's, and potentially 400,000 sterilization of poor americans during the Nixon administration. It also deprives you of learning how eugenic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
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.
Assuming oppression is usually just the result of a superficial reading of the data.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Deporting people to certain countries can get them 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?
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".
What do you call robbing a bank? Undocumented withdrawal? No, it's a crime.
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.
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.
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.
Felony is overused at the moment, IMHO. Lawmakers that want to appear tough on crime make felonies out of non-violent crimes.
Wrong. Non-citizens who are accused of committing crimes get trials.
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?
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.
Other way round. Asylum application must be made after arrival. You made a mistake in knowing what the rules are, so clearly it's only fair that you and your family are deported now.
Applying does not give you permission to enter a country, that's only once you are granted protection. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes temporary entry is allowed. However if you're inside the border without permission then currently you're detained instead of immediately deported while the case is processed to help asylum seekers.
Those are the rules, and as a legal immigrant and naturalized US Citizen, I have absolutely no fear of deportation.
having them piecemeal in prisons/camps/etc. around the world is inefficient and is basically letting the cancer to metastasize. These people explicitly refused to live in our societies/states, and de-facto had their own state. I think we should have left them to their own devices - a 10m high wall with machine gun turrets each 1000ft accompanied by 10m deep moat and 1mile width minefield around that patch of the desert in Syria and/or Iraq where those believers wanted to have their own kind of heaven on Earth (until we can send them to Moon/Mars - worked great for Britain/Australia). Shoot on sight anybody trying to cross out of that heaven. To each their own. Right for self-determination and choosing your own poison.
Emma Goldman, one of the deported radicals, wrote this 1917.
>>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
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.