8 ms·

> that's how America got populated in the first place This isn't 1910. We are the top 5 in the world in population. We don't need as much immigration as we use

> that's how America got populated in the first place This isn't 1910. We are the top 5 in the world in population. We don't need as much immigration as we used to. Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works.

jacquesm 10y ago
America never needed immigration, not since the first European landed there. Historically immigration has initially always been to the advantage of the immigrant, only later does the balance shift the other way and do subsequent generations contribute substantially to the bottom line. > Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works. First of all, that's not how every other country works, then besides that America is mostly empty space and Americans will benefit from the system before foreigners because they have been there longer, have more starting capital (which is the biggest lever you can have) and tend to know the rules better so they can be worked to their advantage.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  Historically America absolutely needed immigration. Early America lacked a lot of skilled laborers. England was opposed to allowing skilled workers to emigrate to the US for fear of the US competing with England. The preferred the US to provide them with cheap agricultural goods in exchange for high-priced steel, tools, and weapons. It wasn't until the mid 1800s that the US began work on the first steel mill because they couldn't get the expertise necessary to build one. At the time, Britain produced about half of all steel consumed in the world, once the US finally imported the skills necessary to produce steel, Britain's share of the global plunged by half. I'm certain this story can be repeated for many more industries throughout history, from chemistry, rockets, medicine, and technology. So yes, America has always needed immigrants.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Early America was full of Native Americans and they didn't need those immigrants at all. The people that needed the skilled laborers were immigrants themselves. By the way, the very best way to stop immigration is to make other countries wealthy.
    - mywittyname 10y ago
      You're being intentionally obtuse. Sure, the Native Americans would have gotten along fine with bows and horses. But we are discussing the economy. The growth the US economy throughout its history was driven heavily by immigration.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in your statements. The Native Americans had an economy too. > The growth the US economy throughout its history was driven heavily by immigration. Yes, because of the increase in demand for goods by those immigrants who brought their money/gold/silver if they had it but very little in terms of goods, and if they didn't have anything they immediately went to work in order to make ends meet. Immigration is good for the economy, which is exactly the conclusion I want you to reach but from the increased demand point of view rather than from the myth that the majority of immigrants in the past were skilled labor (they were rather, on the whole immigrating because of a bleak outlook on their situation in their home countries due to religious persecution or outright poverty, the skilled craftsmen were making good money back where they lived and were much more free in their choices to emigrate or not and contributed only a very small number to the total stream of immigrants).
        mywittyname 10y ago
        I'm not being hypocritical at all. The Native Americans had an economy, yes. But the economy was much, much bigger after immigration. That's my entire point: immigration fueled economic growth in America. Skilled labor (and investment capital) played a major part. From horticulturalist to provide plants for early agriculture, to carpenters and ship builders in Boston (and later steel and tools makers), to the physicists and engineers fleeing Europe during the World Wars, to the technology people today. All of these people contributed to the technological growth and dominance of the US. If none of these immigrants were skilled, the US would look more like China or India than it does.
- mc32 10y ago
  It helps if you're clear in you writing. When people say America they refer to the republic, they typically neither mean colonial America nor pre-European contact first nations. But in this discussion, you're using the term for all three distinct meanings.
lineindc 10y ago
> Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works. Found the fascist nazi bigot. /s
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Found the insulting novelty account. Please do not do this. Thank you.
  - lineindc 10y ago
    It was sarcasm, as the /s indicates. If you didn't like the joke downvote and move on.
    - ghurtado 10y ago
      1. "/s" -> those two characters are not a "get out of jail free card" that allows you to behave without respect and decorum. 2. On HN, flagging a comment like yours is a much more appropriate response than downvote. Maybe once you've had enough of our comments removed you'll start to understand the etiquette around here, but there's easier ways to fit in.
      - lineindc 10y ago
        If the "created" field in your profile is of any significance, I've been here for much longer than you. Stop bossing around other people just to feel morally superior.
        ghurtado 10y ago
        So you've already been banned once?
boomboomsubban 10y ago
We were fourth in 1910, and moving to third seems more to do with the breakup of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1907 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio...
maxerickson 10y ago
Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works. There will be specific Americans who benefit less than specific immigrants, but the net effect of immigration has pretty much always been a benefit to the economy. Why should we put the interests of specific Americans ahead of the interests of Americans overall?
- mc32 10y ago
  He's saying we should have a preference for existing Americans before we handicap foreigners. But with re Americans over other Americans, yes, it makes sense to handicap underprivileged Americans. Give them a leg up on education, training, tax breaks, etc. before we even begin to think of how we can benefit foreigners.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    He's saying we should have a preference for existing Americans before we handicap foreigners. Yes, I'm saying that it doesn't accomplish the stated goal. Restrictive immigration policy is worse than a more welcoming policy when you consider the impact on all existing Americans. Immigration is the better policy for Americans, it's just that the benefit is spread out across more people than the downside, so it is easy to think otherwise. As far as retraining and such, we should seek to design such things so that they are highly available and are beneficial to the United States as a whole regardless of whether you train an immigrant or a first, second, third, or fourth (or fifth or sixth or seventh) generation American.
    - mc32 10y ago
      So not only are we wrong, but so is every other country on earth. How is it all countries, many of which would like to become relatively more competitive than America, seem to all be making the same mistake you allude to? W/re training. America is responsible for training our own, I don't think we should think we should off load that job to say Canada, and in the same way people's home countries should be responsible for their own citizens wellbeing and development. We cannot be responsible for nor absorb the deficiencies by other countries with respect to their own citizens, in effect subsidizing malgovernance.
mc32 10y ago
In addition with looming automation, we simply cannot employ all the people who want to come here for a job, either skilled or unskilled. We have large swaths of underemployed Americans but it costs companies too much to recondition them, so they prefer new bodies over training the domestic workforce. This should be an opportunity for the likes of YC to double down on extending their know how to American women, American minorities and other underprivileged Americans, but instead they bemoan how a few foreigners are affected all the while ignoring how those same countries might treat not only foreigners, but their own minorities.
- malandrew 10y ago
  For what it's worth, unemployment is actually higher among men than women: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm That said, it's absurd to focus on individual identity groups. All who are willing to work and develop the necessary skills required by the market are deserving of employment irrespective of their demographic identity.
- nemtaro 10y ago
  The YCs and large companies can easily move their investments and offices to Canada and hire the world's best and brightest there. I'll give you the often conservative advice: Tough luck? pull yourself up by your own boot straps! Go to school. Go back to school. Work hard, and interview with Google/Amazon/Microsoft again. And stop perpetuating the idea that you are at a disadvantage because of immigrants and refugees. If you end up with a job at Apple or eBay or Expedia btw, remember that your livelihood was made possible because of the hard work of immigrants and refugees.
  - mc32 10y ago
    In tech you don't have to be the first to market, you only have to have a market that's ready for you. Xiaomi, tencent, alibaba. Not fist to market. All doing well. All done with a very predominant domestic labor force. My point, is it's not do much the foreigner, or even the local, but the opportunities made available by your domestic economy.
  - 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago

America never needed immigration, not since the first European landed there. Historically immigration has initially always been to the advantage of the immigrant, only later does the balance shift the other way and do subsequent generations contribute substantially to the bottom line. > Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works. First of all, that's not how every other country works, then besides that America is mostly empty space and Americans will benefit from the system before foreigners because they have been there longer, have more starting capital (which is the biggest lever you can have) and tend to know the rules better so they can be worked to their advantage.

mywittyname 10y ago
Historically America absolutely needed immigration. Early America lacked a lot of skilled laborers. England was opposed to allowing skilled workers to emigrate to the US for fear of the US competing with England. The preferred the US to provide them with cheap agricultural goods in exchange for high-priced steel, tools, and weapons. It wasn't until the mid 1800s that the US began work on the first steel mill because they couldn't get the expertise necessary to build one. At the time, Britain produced about half of all steel consumed in the world, once the US finally imported the skills necessary to produce steel, Britain's share of the global plunged by half. I'm certain this story can be repeated for many more industries throughout history, from chemistry, rockets, medicine, and technology. So yes, America has always needed immigrants.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Early America was full of Native Americans and they didn't need those immigrants at all. The people that needed the skilled laborers were immigrants themselves. By the way, the very best way to stop immigration is to make other countries wealthy.
  - mywittyname 10y ago
    You're being intentionally obtuse. Sure, the Native Americans would have gotten along fine with bows and horses. But we are discussing the economy. The growth the US economy throughout its history was driven heavily by immigration.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in your statements. The Native Americans had an economy too. > The growth the US economy throughout its history was driven heavily by immigration. Yes, because of the increase in demand for goods by those immigrants who brought their money/gold/silver if they had it but very little in terms of goods, and if they didn't have anything they immediately went to work in order to make ends meet. Immigration is good for the economy, which is exactly the conclusion I want you to reach but from the increased demand point of view rather than from the myth that the majority of immigrants in the past were skilled labor (they were rather, on the whole immigrating because of a bleak outlook on their situation in their home countries due to religious persecution or outright poverty, the skilled craftsmen were making good money back where they lived and were much more free in their choices to emigrate or not and contributed only a very small number to the total stream of immigrants).
      - mywittyname 10y ago
        I'm not being hypocritical at all. The Native Americans had an economy, yes. But the economy was much, much bigger after immigration. That's my entire point: immigration fueled economic growth in America. Skilled labor (and investment capital) played a major part. From horticulturalist to provide plants for early agriculture, to carpenters and ship builders in Boston (and later steel and tools makers), to the physicists and engineers fleeing Europe during the World Wars, to the technology people today. All of these people contributed to the technological growth and dominance of the US. If none of these immigrants were skilled, the US would look more like China or India than it does.
mc32 10y ago
It helps if you're clear in you writing. When people say America they refer to the republic, they typically neither mean colonial America nor pre-European contact first nations. But in this discussion, you're using the term for all three distinct meanings.

lineindc 10y ago

> Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works. Found the fascist nazi bigot. /s

jacquesm 10y ago
Found the insulting novelty account. Please do not do this. Thank you.
- lineindc 10y ago
  It was sarcasm, as the /s indicates. If you didn't like the joke downvote and move on.
  - ghurtado 10y ago
    1. "/s" -> those two characters are not a "get out of jail free card" that allows you to behave without respect and decorum. 2. On HN, flagging a comment like yours is a much more appropriate response than downvote. Maybe once you've had enough of our comments removed you'll start to understand the etiquette around here, but there's easier ways to fit in.
    - lineindc 10y ago
      If the "created" field in your profile is of any significance, I've been here for much longer than you. Stop bossing around other people just to feel morally superior.
      - ghurtado 10y ago
        So you've already been banned once?

boomboomsubban 10y ago

We were fourth in 1910, and moving to third seems more to do with the breakup of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1907 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio...

maxerickson 10y ago

Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works. There will be specific Americans who benefit less than specific immigrants, but the net effect of immigration has pretty much always been a benefit to the economy. Why should we put the interests of specific Americans ahead of the interests of Americans overall?

mc32 10y ago
He's saying we should have a preference for existing Americans before we handicap foreigners. But with re Americans over other Americans, yes, it makes sense to handicap underprivileged Americans. Give them a leg up on education, training, tax breaks, etc. before we even begin to think of how we can benefit foreigners.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  He's saying we should have a preference for existing Americans before we handicap foreigners. Yes, I'm saying that it doesn't accomplish the stated goal. Restrictive immigration policy is worse than a more welcoming policy when you consider the impact on all existing Americans. Immigration is the better policy for Americans, it's just that the benefit is spread out across more people than the downside, so it is easy to think otherwise. As far as retraining and such, we should seek to design such things so that they are highly available and are beneficial to the United States as a whole regardless of whether you train an immigrant or a first, second, third, or fourth (or fifth or sixth or seventh) generation American.
  - mc32 10y ago
    So not only are we wrong, but so is every other country on earth. How is it all countries, many of which would like to become relatively more competitive than America, seem to all be making the same mistake you allude to? W/re training. America is responsible for training our own, I don't think we should think we should off load that job to say Canada, and in the same way people's home countries should be responsible for their own citizens wellbeing and development. We cannot be responsible for nor absorb the deficiencies by other countries with respect to their own citizens, in effect subsidizing malgovernance.

mc32 10y ago

In addition with looming automation, we simply cannot employ all the people who want to come here for a job, either skilled or unskilled. We have large swaths of underemployed Americans but it costs companies too much to recondition them, so they prefer new bodies over training the domestic workforce. This should be an opportunity for the likes of YC to double down on extending their know how to American women, American minorities and other underprivileged Americans, but instead they bemoan how a few foreigners are affected all the while ignoring how those same countries might treat not only foreigners, but their own minorities.

malandrew 10y ago
For what it's worth, unemployment is actually higher among men than women: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm That said, it's absurd to focus on individual identity groups. All who are willing to work and develop the necessary skills required by the market are deserving of employment irrespective of their demographic identity.
nemtaro 10y ago
The YCs and large companies can easily move their investments and offices to Canada and hire the world's best and brightest there. I'll give you the often conservative advice: Tough luck? pull yourself up by your own boot straps! Go to school. Go back to school. Work hard, and interview with Google/Amazon/Microsoft again. And stop perpetuating the idea that you are at a disadvantage because of immigrants and refugees. If you end up with a job at Apple or eBay or Expedia btw, remember that your livelihood was made possible because of the hard work of immigrants and refugees.
- mc32 10y ago
  In tech you don't have to be the first to market, you only have to have a market that's ready for you. Xiaomi, tencent, alibaba. Not fist to market. All doing well. All done with a very predominant domestic labor force. My point, is it's not do much the foreigner, or even the local, but the opportunities made available by your domestic economy.
- 10y ago