To equate immigrants who have followed due process to a homeless person insisting on staying in a property owner's living room is appalling.

It's understandable for everyone to have varying views on immigration and immigrants, but this sort of rhetoric is a vile, racist and xenophobic dog whistle.

An immigrant who has followed due process is equivalent to a homeless person who has convinced the property owner to willingly let the homeless person stay in the property owner's living room. The property owner is allowed to change their mind about the arrangement at any point, unless and until the person obtains part ownership of the property (citizenship).

The property owner in this case is the American people, who I'm pretty sure don't support this.

They may have hired a property manager, but if the manager goes rogue, what the owners say is more important.

OK but that's a much different argument from "the cruelty is the point".

The legal perspective doesn't preclude that the cruelty is the point.

Consider the possibility that people might simply have different views from you.

You're right, that is always a possibility for any random thing.

Okay, done. Now you do the same.

I'm looking for the view you guys have beneath all the performative outrage and I haven't been able to discover it yet. For example, this user wasn't able to explain why foreigners shouldn't vote in US elections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49465747

I think you responded to the wrong post. Try going to your link to respond to a post about your link.

Back to this topic: have you yet considered the possibility that people might simply have different views from you on what constitutes unreasonable cruelty? Doing that consideration yourself might help you understand why people do not agree with you, or take seriously your performative outrage on the matter.

This is a vile analogy, whose implication so twists the American tradition that I blush with shame to read it from a possible countryman.

What American tradition? I'll let Lincoln speak, since you have already given voice to his opposition.

"As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

If "all men are created equal" applies to foreign citizens, why not just go all the way and let them vote in US elections? We can elect the US president on the basis of the entire world population. Is that the American tradition?

Leftists tell me the US is an irredeemable and illegitimate settler colonial project founded on slavery, white supremacy, and genocide.

When the US has an active foreign policy, I'm told we are "destabilizing foreign nations", or engaging in "neo-imperialism".

When we have a passive foreign policy, I'm told we are "complicit", or "abandoning allies".

There's nothing the US can do, or not do, which doesn't get demonized to the Moon and back. Right here in this thread, someone is trashing us for our WW2 involvement.

HN has been basically silent on the Swiss referendum to put a hard stop to immigration to Switzerland. But all the US has to is pause immigration for a bit, and I'm told we are "vile".

And now, I'm told about an "American tradition" that we are supposedly "twisting". You sure that isn't a good thing? Look where those "American traditions" got us. Our nation is a DISASTER, right? Shouldn't we be keeping out brown people for their own safety?

You're not arguing against leftists, you're arguing against Abraham Lincoln.

If you want to know the answers to your questions, read about Abraham Lincoln.

And no I will never agree that policies created out of racism will somehow bear sweet fruit from poisoned water.

All over this thread you have been misreading and strawmaning others in order to seem more reasonable. Even in this thread you misread me: the vile part was the homeless analogy, not the policy.

It's just time to draw the line in the sand: yours are the ideas lead to suffering and genocide and nobody whose words are worth reading wants that.

It sounds like you haven't actually thought much about these issues, and you're quoting Lincoln, and fearmongering about "suffering and genocide", as a sort of thought-terminating cliche.

If you want to argue against the administration policies, I suggest you articulate a coherent and attractive philosophy of immigration instead of mudslinging. I'm not arguing with Lincoln--I'm arguing with you.

"yours are the ideas lead to suffering and genocide and nobody whose words are worth reading wants that"

Why aren't you saying this about the much harsher Swiss policy which was proposed?

I just don't think a country closing its borders is equivalent to "suffering and genocide". It's not the policy I favor for the US. I think you and I might even agree in terms of our preferred policies! But I still find your rhetoric annoying as heck. I want people to argue about immigration on the merits, not engage in melodramatic pearl-clutching.

Let me guess: You would probably claim that when white settlers first came to this continent, if they settled on Native land, and the Natives attacked them for being unwanted immigrants, that would be an act of genocide on the part of the settlers. Am I right?

Yes, all men are created equal. They have the equal right to live in their country. A Russian has just as much a right to live in Russia as an American does in America. And I have just as much a right to move to Russia as a Russian has to move to America—i.e. none at all, it's a privilege than the government of each country may or may not grant.

Btw, I am a naturalized US citizen. I'm talking about myself here. I'm very grateful for what this country has given me, because I know it had no obligation whatsoever to do so.

"due process" means in concordance with the law. And the law is drafted and implemented by our elected politicians. As a sovereign country, we're allowed to change our laws and our policies.

The homeless person thought experiment is meant to illustrate the existence of tradeoffs. "The cruelty is the point" is essentially rhetoric meant to demonize political opponents, and sweep under the rug the existence of tradeoffs and differences of opinion.

If immigration is such a good idea, people ought to be able to defend it on the merits, instead of pearl-clutching and playing dishonest rhetorical games.

I'm not exactly sure what is so racist or xenophobic about my thought experiment. Homeless people are people too. I'm tempted to pearl-clutch just like you, and accuse you of denying their humanity. Want me to do it?

It is sufficiently incoherent as to suggest you aren't interested in the serious discussion you are requesting in response. You could better refute this by starting with a policy you would consider cruel, and the in turn demonstrating how this one doesn't fit it.

Historically i've tended to agree that "the cruelty is the point" was too dismissive for the policies in question. But with immigration policy of this admin, I'm not sure that's the case. For a while they were deporting people to the equivalent of a Gulag, and literally suggested that if people were afraid of that outcome they should self deport. I think that would be a pretty fair example of a policy where the cruelty was the literal point: The hope was it would be viewed with sufficient fear as to dissuade people from staying in the country illegally. However seriously you think immigration should be taken, and however many people you feel should be deported, there are policy choices that do not involve that level of cruelty that could be chosen instead. That they are intentionally not is what the term "The cruelty is the point" is meant to imply.

>You could better refute this by starting with a policy you would consider cruel, and the in turn demonstrating how this one doesn't fit it.

I actually don't think it is that common for policy to be cruel just for the sake of being cruel ("the cruelty is the point")

>For a while they were deporting people to the equivalent of a Gulag, and literally suggested that if people were afraid of that outcome they should self deport. I think that would be a pretty fair example of a policy where the cruelty was the literal point: The hope was it would be viewed with sufficient fear as to dissuade people from staying in the country illegally.

The point of law enforcement is to deter and prevent lawbreaking, not be cruel for its own sake. Suppose you observe that meals in prison aren't very tasty. Would you criticize this policy on the grounds that "the cruelty is the point"?

You can argue that the punishment is too harsh, but that still doesn't prove that cruelty was the point.

Nobody is buying the analogy comparing deportation to Gulag equivalents to imperfect prison meals

Government cruelty as such has been an explicit subject of American constitutional discourse since the founding - its in the Bill of Rights even. It comes out of a political tradition deeply suspicious of rulers using punishment to terrorize, humiliate, or vindictively hurt people.

Case in point Obama was deporting just as many people as Trump and it didnt require cruelty to do so. Which begs the question, why is a Gulag needed by Trump? The "cruelty is the point" argument is that 1) it isnt, and 2) they know that.

Do you have an argument or do you just want to play leftist thought-terminating slur bingo?