6 ms·

Ah, don't you miss good old xenophobia and isolationism?

by wdcgu 10y ago

muninn_ 10y ago
When every country on the planet hasn't open borders, the US can too. Until then, we will manage and judge who gets to come here. End of story. Calling it xenophobia is meaningless here, unless you're characterizing every country on the planet that way, in which case your comment has no teeth.
- wdcgu 10y ago
  Are you going to comment on the isolationism part too? Or do you lack a good argument for it?
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    What isolationism part?
- wdcgu 10y ago
  Btw, I'm calling you xenophobic not "it". Unless you want to be an "it".
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    That just makes it even dumber
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
cpburns2009 10y ago
Preferring to hire people from already in your own country would be patriotic rather than isolationist. That's not xenophobia though because there's no irrational or intense fear of foreigners. That is unless "xenophobia" has been perverted to now mean anything that isn't hardcore globalist.
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  What's an objective reason to hire someone born locally vs someone born abroad? Apart from saying "patriotism", what other advantages does it offer?
  - cpburns2009 10y ago
    I meant anyone already in the country and legally permitted to work, not the country you were born in. One objective reason to favor hiring a candidate living locally over one abroad is effective communication. The less local a candidate is, the greater the chance of poor communication due to increasingly diverging dialects and cultures and a lack of knowledge about the local culture.
    - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
      > I meant anyone already in the country and legally permitted to work, not the country you were born in. Ah, fair enough, I guess the reason is to "avoid the process of bringing someone from abroad". Sounds pragmatic enough to me. > One objective reason to favor hiring a candidate living locally over one abroad is effective communication. The less local a candidate is, the greater the chance of poor communication due to increasingly diverging dialects and cultures and a lack of knowledge about the local culture. You have just contradicted yourself; but let's bite: Even if this looks reasonable to you, it's nowhere near the problem you think it is and most of the times far outweighed by the other reasons you had to choose a non-locally-born-or-raised candidate. It also decreases diversity, which studies show is an advantage and not just a nicety.
      - cpburns2009 10y ago
        > You have just contradicted yourself; but let's bite: Even if this looks reasonable to you, it's nowhere near the problem you think it is and most of the times far outweighed by the other reasons you had to choose a non-locally-born-or-raised candidate. I listed that was a reason, not the only reason. Skill sets being equal, the candidate with a knowledge of the local culture will likely be the better candidate. That's not saying choose the local candidate solely because he is local. I fail to see how it's contradictory. I think we're talking about two subtlety different things. I'm talking about where someone currently resides, not where that person was born or raised. > It also decreases diversity, which studies show is an advantage and not just a nicety. I'm pretty sure you meant "increases diversity" because that's the popular trend. I've never comprehended why the "diversity" attribute magically makes a candidate superior. Typically, "diversity" superficially targets ethnic diversity rather than diversity in expertise, experience, or thought. Granted, those aren't mutually exclusive but they're not mutually inclusive either.

Ah, don't you miss good old xenophobia and isolationism?

by wdcgu 10y ago

Ah, don't you miss good old xenophobia and isolationism?

When every country on the planet hasn't open borders, the US can too. Until then, we will manage and judge who gets to come here. End of story. Calling it xenophobia is meaningless here, unless you're characterizing every country on the planet that way, in which case your comment has no teeth.

wdcgu 10y ago
Are you going to comment on the isolationism part too? Or do you lack a good argument for it?
- muninn_ 10y ago
  What isolationism part?
wdcgu 10y ago
Btw, I'm calling you xenophobic not "it". Unless you want to be an "it".
- muninn_ 10y ago
  That just makes it even dumber
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

cpburns2009 10y ago

Preferring to hire people from already in your own country would be patriotic rather than isolationist. That's not xenophobia though because there's no irrational or intense fear of foreigners. That is unless "xenophobia" has been perverted to now mean anything that isn't hardcore globalist.

NetStrikeForce 10y ago
What's an objective reason to hire someone born locally vs someone born abroad? Apart from saying "patriotism", what other advantages does it offer?
- cpburns2009 10y ago
  I meant anyone already in the country and legally permitted to work, not the country you were born in. One objective reason to favor hiring a candidate living locally over one abroad is effective communication. The less local a candidate is, the greater the chance of poor communication due to increasingly diverging dialects and cultures and a lack of knowledge about the local culture.
  - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
    > I meant anyone already in the country and legally permitted to work, not the country you were born in. Ah, fair enough, I guess the reason is to "avoid the process of bringing someone from abroad". Sounds pragmatic enough to me. > One objective reason to favor hiring a candidate living locally over one abroad is effective communication. The less local a candidate is, the greater the chance of poor communication due to increasingly diverging dialects and cultures and a lack of knowledge about the local culture. You have just contradicted yourself; but let's bite: Even if this looks reasonable to you, it's nowhere near the problem you think it is and most of the times far outweighed by the other reasons you had to choose a non-locally-born-or-raised candidate. It also decreases diversity, which studies show is an advantage and not just a nicety.
    - cpburns2009 10y ago
      > You have just contradicted yourself; but let's bite: Even if this looks reasonable to you, it's nowhere near the problem you think it is and most of the times far outweighed by the other reasons you had to choose a non-locally-born-or-raised candidate. I listed that was a reason, not the only reason. Skill sets being equal, the candidate with a knowledge of the local culture will likely be the better candidate. That's not saying choose the local candidate solely because he is local. I fail to see how it's contradictory. I think we're talking about two subtlety different things. I'm talking about where someone currently resides, not where that person was born or raised. > It also decreases diversity, which studies show is an advantage and not just a nicety. I'm pretty sure you meant "increases diversity" because that's the popular trend. I've never comprehended why the "diversity" attribute magically makes a candidate superior. Typically, "diversity" superficially targets ethnic diversity rather than diversity in expertise, experience, or thought. Granted, those aren't mutually exclusive but they're not mutually inclusive either.