5 ms·

> Hopefully this will get more Americans politically active at the very least FWIW, many of us became politically active for the first time in our lives specif

by thraway2016 10y ago

> Hopefully this will get more Americans politically active at the very least FWIW, many of us became politically active for the first time in our lives specifically because of the candidacy of DJT and the promises he made to deal with this issue. A couple questions for HN, that I've yet to see answered without appeal to emotion: 1. By what moral principle do noncitizens have the right to reside in a sovereign country? 2. What is so morally outrageous about a sovereign country choosing to reduce its non-citizen : citizen ratio?

literallycancer 10y ago
By what moral principle are citizens valued more than non-citizens?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- thraway2016 10y ago
  There are many answers to this question, that have been rehashed elsewhere. Everything from citizens having more vested interest (skin in the game) in the future of their lands than noncitizens, to the protection of shared cultural heritage, to social cohesion borne of cultural integration and higher-trust societies, etc. But I'm genuinely interested in answers to my questions devoid of appeal to emotion, not deflection to other questions.
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    > Everything from citizens having more vested interest (skin in the game) in the future of their lands than noncitizens An illegal immigrant from a poor country sells everything, and by a stroke of luck is successful in coming to the US. Then they spend some time there (say 15 years). Surely they have more to lose than a legal qualified immigrant (now a citizen) that spent some 8 years jumping through the hoops? The qualified immigrant could just pick a country at random and have reasonable chance of starting over, while the minimum wage illegal can't do the same (and so has to hope the country doesn't crap itself). >protection of shared cultural heritage How much cultural heritage does a white protestant factory worker share with an illegal Chinese immigrant? Is it more or less than they share with legal Chinese programmer who had recently been granted a citizenship?
- Dagwoodie 10y ago
  The Government is elected by the people, who have specific rights under the Consitution. Once you start letting other cultures, many of whom are hostile to US Culture walk freely across the border, the country won't last very long. You're seeing it play out in Germany, Sweden and other places where mass migrations has disrupted cultures and created pockets of lawlessness because the people have no affinity for their new governments. You might think they would be the most grateful people on earth, but that naive perspective assumes they were all really 'refugees' and that they all can simply forget their old cultures as soon as they cross the border.
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    Can you define "US Culture" for me real quick? >You're seeing it play out in Germany, Sweden and other places where mass migrations has disrupted cultures and created pockets of lawlessness because the people have no affinity for their new governments. Next you are going to tell me there are no-go zones in European cities, right?
    - Dagwoodie 10y ago
      By US Culture my simple definition is the respect of the current laws of the US. The left doesn't respect some laws like immigration, so it's quite logical that they are for the mass influx of others who don't respect them either. That's how cultures change, quickly. Not sure on "no-go zones", but did you see some jouralists got assaulted [0] when they went to investigate the crazy claims of violent muslim immigrants in Sweden? [0] http://www.dailywire.com/news/13664/american-journalist-savagely-beaten-sweden-asking-michael-qazvini# http://www.dailywire.com/news/13664/american-journalist-sava...
      - literallycancer 10y ago
        >By US Culture my simple definition is the respect of the current laws of the US. The left doesn't respect some laws like immigration, so it's quite logical that they are for the mass influx of others who don't respect them either. That's how cultures change, quickly. I doubt that the "left doesn't respect some laws like immigration". (I doubt that there even exists such a group as "the left" but that's for another discussion) There are only people who don't come in contact with illegals very often, people who come into contact with them but don't know about their status, and then the people who employ them while knowing their status (and it would make sense to solve the issue there). After all, who would come to the US illegally when no one would give them a job? >jouralists got assaulted Yes, I've seen that clip. It still doesn't indicate a wider long-term issue.
tremon 10y ago
2. The outrage is about the how, not the if. The easiest solution would be to simply nationalize everyone within its borders. Every other distinction falls foul of my sibling's response to your question #1.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
What moral principle is required to refuse to deport people to a place where they have a good chance of being killed?
- refurb 10y ago
  Non-citizens can still seek asylum in the US. That doesn't change.
megous 10y ago
USG is not founded on moral principles. All moral principles were so far overriden by expediency. So the question 1. seems to me beside the point. Rape, torture, murder, all justifiable in the hands of your government at some point in the name of expediency, with no remorse or reparations provided. 2. All you need to do is watch the implementation carefully. You'll find reasons for outrage soon enough.
stupidcar 10y ago
What "sovereign country" do you think you're talking about here? Are you a direct descendant of pre-Columbian indigenous inhabitants of the North American landmass? Because if not, then you are not a citizen of a sovereign country, you are an European illegal alien, trespassing on land to which you have no legal claim of ownership or occupation, let alone sovereignty. Come back when you have repatriated yourself to your proper country.
throwayawnotime 10y ago
You write like an angry squaw.
- dang 10y ago
  We've banned this account for trolling. Abusing HN this way will eventually get your main account banned as well.

literallycancer 10y ago

By what moral principle are citizens valued more than non-citizens?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
thraway2016 10y ago
There are many answers to this question, that have been rehashed elsewhere. Everything from citizens having more vested interest (skin in the game) in the future of their lands than noncitizens, to the protection of shared cultural heritage, to social cohesion borne of cultural integration and higher-trust societies, etc. But I'm genuinely interested in answers to my questions devoid of appeal to emotion, not deflection to other questions.
- literallycancer 10y ago
  > Everything from citizens having more vested interest (skin in the game) in the future of their lands than noncitizens An illegal immigrant from a poor country sells everything, and by a stroke of luck is successful in coming to the US. Then they spend some time there (say 15 years). Surely they have more to lose than a legal qualified immigrant (now a citizen) that spent some 8 years jumping through the hoops? The qualified immigrant could just pick a country at random and have reasonable chance of starting over, while the minimum wage illegal can't do the same (and so has to hope the country doesn't crap itself). >protection of shared cultural heritage How much cultural heritage does a white protestant factory worker share with an illegal Chinese immigrant? Is it more or less than they share with legal Chinese programmer who had recently been granted a citizenship?
Dagwoodie 10y ago
The Government is elected by the people, who have specific rights under the Consitution. Once you start letting other cultures, many of whom are hostile to US Culture walk freely across the border, the country won't last very long. You're seeing it play out in Germany, Sweden and other places where mass migrations has disrupted cultures and created pockets of lawlessness because the people have no affinity for their new governments. You might think they would be the most grateful people on earth, but that naive perspective assumes they were all really 'refugees' and that they all can simply forget their old cultures as soon as they cross the border.
- literallycancer 10y ago
  Can you define "US Culture" for me real quick? >You're seeing it play out in Germany, Sweden and other places where mass migrations has disrupted cultures and created pockets of lawlessness because the people have no affinity for their new governments. Next you are going to tell me there are no-go zones in European cities, right?
  - Dagwoodie 10y ago
    By US Culture my simple definition is the respect of the current laws of the US. The left doesn't respect some laws like immigration, so it's quite logical that they are for the mass influx of others who don't respect them either. That's how cultures change, quickly. Not sure on "no-go zones", but did you see some jouralists got assaulted [0] when they went to investigate the crazy claims of violent muslim immigrants in Sweden? [0] http://www.dailywire.com/news/13664/american-journalist-savagely-beaten-sweden-asking-michael-qazvini# http://www.dailywire.com/news/13664/american-journalist-sava...
    - literallycancer 10y ago
      >By US Culture my simple definition is the respect of the current laws of the US. The left doesn't respect some laws like immigration, so it's quite logical that they are for the mass influx of others who don't respect them either. That's how cultures change, quickly. I doubt that the "left doesn't respect some laws like immigration". (I doubt that there even exists such a group as "the left" but that's for another discussion) There are only people who don't come in contact with illegals very often, people who come into contact with them but don't know about their status, and then the people who employ them while knowing their status (and it would make sense to solve the issue there). After all, who would come to the US illegally when no one would give them a job? >jouralists got assaulted Yes, I've seen that clip. It still doesn't indicate a wider long-term issue.

tremon 10y ago

2. The outrage is about the how, not the if. The easiest solution would be to simply nationalize everyone within its borders. Every other distinction falls foul of my sibling's response to your question #1.

bryanlarsen 10y ago

What moral principle is required to refuse to deport people to a place where they have a good chance of being killed?

refurb 10y ago
Non-citizens can still seek asylum in the US. That doesn't change.

megous 10y ago

USG is not founded on moral principles. All moral principles were so far overriden by expediency. So the question 1. seems to me beside the point. Rape, torture, murder, all justifiable in the hands of your government at some point in the name of expediency, with no remorse or reparations provided. 2. All you need to do is watch the implementation carefully. You'll find reasons for outrage soon enough.

stupidcar 10y ago

What "sovereign country" do you think you're talking about here? Are you a direct descendant of pre-Columbian indigenous inhabitants of the North American landmass? Because if not, then you are not a citizen of a sovereign country, you are an European illegal alien, trespassing on land to which you have no legal claim of ownership or occupation, let alone sovereignty. Come back when you have repatriated yourself to your proper country.

throwayawnotime 10y ago

You write like an angry squaw.

dang 10y ago
We've banned this account for trolling. Abusing HN this way will eventually get your main account banned as well.