[masterponomo]

In the 1990's in Gwinnett County, GA, you could not enroll your child in school unless he/she had a Social Security number. Non-citizens (including illegal aliens) were exempt from this rule. I considered declaring my children non-citizens as a minor protest, but really didn't care to make an issue of it. Would today's hysterics classify that 1990's policy as hatred, bigotry, and racism agains the (then) largely white, legal citizens of the county? Or would it simply be selective enforcement of the law? The fact is, the executive branch always practices selective enforcement, and the range of emphasis on some policies can vary wildly from one administration to another, and seemingly arbitrary exceptions can be made. In my opinion, Trump is delivering the revised emphasis on immigration that he promised during the campaign, and so far is doing so entirely within the law. People are free to react as they will, but I do hope they learn to recognize selective enforcement in all its glory, as a concept separate and distinct from the over-emotional labels now being applied to it.

[hacknat]

Nah. The barring of perminent residents from reentry is both illegal (evidenced by the fact that a circuit judge had no problem reversing the that portion of the executive order and the subsequent retreat the administration made on the particulars of that issue), a strong break from what has ever been done, by past administrations, something that goes beyond the rhetoric Trump illucidated on the campaign trail, racist though it was, and is, quite simply, un-American.

While I am pleased to see our justice system work vigorously to rollback what it can, the administration showed a strong disregard for the law with these orders. It is unclear yet whether the Deparment of Homeland Security is even complying fully with the stays (the TSA administrator for Dulles refused to meet with a Democratic congressional delegation that went to the airport to make sure the judge's ruling was even being followed).

The Department of Homeland Security's own press release was scary in its own right claiming that they were deciding "at the moment" to comply with the court's ruling.

It's important to remember how much our system relies on tradition to operate effectively. The law/government is not a perfectly reactive state machine. It assumes a certain level of good faith and judement from all the nodes, and the executive is a powerful node in the graph, it has the ability to clog up its edges and render a lot of the other nodes feckless.

I think a lot of what Trump has done has been horrifying, but I, like you have felt that it has been in line with what he campaigned on and legal. In this case I simply have to disagree. This is over the line.

[burkaman]

> Trump is delivering the revised emphasis on immigration that he promised during the campaign, and so far is doing so entirely within the law.

I know, I think everyone knows this. I didn't vote for him because I was afraid he would follow through on his promises, not the opposite. I don't get why people keep bringing this up as an argument in favor of the order. The fact that you promised to do something does not mean it's a good thing to do.

[attaboyjon]

If you read the article linked by the AVC author you will think otherwise.

https://lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-tr...

[zzleeper]

Are you implying that asking for SSN was being racist against white people?

More likely than not, they just wanted everyone to have a SSN so they required it for kids. But non-residents cannot have SSNs (even if legally there), so they had to make an exemption for them.

In a way, you can argue the opposite. By making sure that kids have SSNs, they get access to credit and much more, while those without SSNs get stuck in a limbo.

[masterponomo]

No. I am asking those hysterical about recent events to tell me why one form of selective enforcement is accepted as a matter of course, while another is not. I am using this example to show that selective enforcement of laws is not automatically hatred/bigotry/racism, but may be a matter of different policy goals. BTW, aliens can get ITIN's which are similar to SSN's except they are used only for tax matters. That is another abuse of citizens, if you care to be rigorous. Citizens are required to obtain a number and to supply it as a condition of receiving a benefit. In effect, the dreaded "show me your papers" which is posited as an abuse of power if used against a suspected illegal alien standing on the street is an entry requirement for a born citizen to walk through the door of kindergarten--but not for any non-citizen.

[zzleeper]

I feel like in your book, having an ID is a bad thing. You would be surprised that this is a very American thing (and which surprised me a lot when I first learned it); no foreigner thinks like that (bar people that don't want to be found).

In fact, you would be surprised at the number of doors that close if you don't have ID or have that crappy ITIN. EG: while I was studying, my friend only had an ITIN on his first year, and it sucked really bad for him. No access to credit, no access to most rentals (because no credit check to run!), etc. Even stuff was more expensive, as I could get the 10% Target discount and he couldn't.

(I was lucky enough to had a SSN from when I worked with a sort-of-diplomatic G4 visa, and it was incredibly useful, and allowed me to get a good credit score, a nice apt close to campus, etc.)

I understand that you are annoyed by having to hand over information about your kids to the govt, and maybe the process of getting them a SSN is a chore. But believe me, both legal and illegal immigrants would love to have SSNs.

[masterponomo]

My point was about the selective enforcement of a requirement, not about the merits of government-issued ID. But it's fair to discuss all aspects of my comment. You are absolutely right that having a government-issued ID and providing it upon demand of government agencies aids the efficient operation of the government. It also is indispensable for efficient government tracking and control of individuals. You might even paraphrase all that as "it helps the trains run on time." Look up that phrase if you are interested in the difference between individual freedom and government efficiency/convenience. I was only annoyed by the more strict requirements for citizens vs non-citizens. Perhaps you missed one of my points (the show-us-your-papers thing) about how it is considered a violation of civil rights for the police to simply request your ID (your papers) without probably cause. How nice for illegal aliens. And to your point about how glad immigrants would be to have SSNs, I question that. The current largest dispute around voting rights is whether requiring a government-issued ID in order to vote is a violation of civil rights. The largest outcry against voter ID requirements comes from the black community and from illegal immigrant rights organizations. Now, why shouldn't they gladly show that ID in order to exercise the right to vote, just as I duly registered and identified my children to receive their rightful education? We are back to the issue of selective enforcement, and selective outrage over this or that brand or degree of selective enforcement. ID for white kids to go to kindergarten? That's good! ID for non-whites and illegals to vote? That's bad! Strict entry requirements for almost every country on Earth? That's good! A pause and reexamination of historically lax US entry requirements? That's bad!