Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by shiven 5350 days ago
ecopoesis, there are laws and then there is the interpretation of those laws, right? you don't have to be lawyer to see that and i am not one. because there exists a law does not mean it is automatically just and 'right'. laws get changed all the time and examples as this are a good reason to re-evaluate their 'correctness' and discuss in a broader social context the changes that are required.
1 comments
ecopoesis 5350 days ago
It really doesn't matter if the law is right, what matters is the fairness in enforcement. In this case, he could followed the law, waited his turn and come to the US. Instead, he came to the US on an exchange visa, then stayed illegally when it expired. He claimed asylum, but after investigation, the INS/ICE found that he wasn't being persecuted. The US has even told him what he needed to do to become legal, he chose not too.

He's tried for twenty years find loopholes in US law because he didn't want to wait his turn with other would be immigrants.

So while US immigration law may be messed up, he's messing up far more by trying to cheat his way in.

link
georgecmu 5350 days ago
he could followed the law, waited his turn and come to the US

Could you elaborate more on this wating one's turn concept? When exactly does this turn come about?

link
angersock 5350 days ago
Much as I appreciate rules fetishism, this is the sort of view that screws up my country.

Look, elsewhere we've seen the wide variety of visas aimed at the "rich", "investors", and "job creators". So, clearly, enforcement isn't uniform across people who are immigrants.

Moreover, in your presumably simple moral system, any law regardless of how unfair in specification is fine so long as the implementation is uniform.

(note here I'm interpreting "fairness in enforcement" to mean uniform, as if we actually take into account "fairness" in the conventional sense your own statement is reduced to uselessness... and I'd rather not believe HN is frequented by the sort of drooling pedantic imbecile that would be necessary to make such a claim)

This being the case, you apparently would have no issue with a law that requires police officers to beat twelve citizens every day, provided they aren't biased in their selection?

link