
U.S. Sues California to Void Illegal Immigrant Protection Laws - meri_dian
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-07/u-s-sues-california-to-nullify-three-immigration-related-laws
======
carbocation
The Bloomberg title does not include the word “Illegal”, which appears to be
an editorialization in the title posted here on HN.

~~~
meri_dian
The original Bloomberg article was misleading because there are many laws
which concern immigrants, but the US is specifically going after those
protecting immigrants here illegally.

Hence my more precise title.

~~~
eesmith
The HN guidelines recommend not changing the title unless it is misleading or
linkbait.

It sounds like you think that leaving out the "illegal" part is misleading,
rather than a simplification used to make a shorter headline.

If that's so, why did you clarify it as "illegal immigrant" rather than
"undocumented immigrant"? That is the term used several times in the text, and
it follows the AP Stylebook recommendation, described at
[https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-
more](https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more) .

As you wish people to have a respectful manner appropriate to HN, surely you
must agree that the clarification " _undocumented_ immigrant" would be more
respectful of the source material, yes?

Given your view that "illegal immigration is bad"
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16009093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16009093)
), I cannot help but interpret your choice of inserting "illegal" here instead
of "undocumented" as editorializing.

------
meri_dian
Interesting to note that this was one of the top 10 articles on the front page
then in the space of 5 seconds dropped off entirely.

Very odd...

~~~
mc32
Because in the US, at least, illegal forms of immigration can be a contentious
issue where it's proven difficult for many to discuss the issue civilly and
productively.

~~~
meri_dian
Those who have trouble discussing the issue in a respectful manner appropriate
to HN should be removed from the conversation, rather than the conversation
itself being removed.

------
glup
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...

~~~
volgo
Do you believe the government is overstepping its authority by stopping people
from entering the country without permission? I’m curious if you support an
open border and how you want to deal with the ramificiations?

~~~
eesmith
The parent comment was rhetorical baffelgab. You are unlikely to get a
meaningful response.

Your questions have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand, which
concerns state laws that restrict state and local law enforcement officials,
and private companies, from voluntarily sharing certain information with
federal agents, and a law which allows state officials to review and inspect
federal detention facilities in California.

What are your views on the topic? Can a state prevent voluntary sharing of
information with the federal government?

I know of few people who call for truly open borders where the government has
no authority to stop people from entering the country, so I don't understand
why you posed your questions.

The one exception I know of is Svalbard. You can move there without a visa, if
you can support yourself, live there for 7 years, and then get Norwegian
citizenship.

