5 ms·

No, that doesn't mean you're xenophobic. It just means you think that people from other countries are less deserving of job opportunities than people from your

by baddox 9y ago

No, that doesn't mean you're xenophobic. It just means you think that people from other countries are less deserving of job opportunities than people from your country. It's still not a quality I share or respect, but it's not xenophobia.

meesterdude 9y ago
FWIW, I read the parent comment as sarcasm, not a serious proposal of xenophobia.
- Ar-Curunir 9y ago
  I think the parent comment was saying that being against those policies will get you branded as a xenophobe. The tone was meant to elicit sympathy.
- baddox 9y ago
  My interpretation was that the parent commenter is against some aspect of immigration employment policy, but does not think that constitutes xenophobia.
olewhalehunter 9y ago
Folks who go through the trouble of immigrating here, many of whom are reliant on their job for renewing visas, have less bargaining power with their employers. Wages lower, standards for politics and labor rights lower, and standards of living lower. It's about the death of communities and societal trust, and and has nothing to do with people thinking who deserves what.
pdx 9y ago
It just means you think that people from other countries are less deserving of job opportunities than people from your country. Society is a hierarchy of loyalty. Unless you're a self-absorbed, autistic, single 20 something, you have loyalty to others in various degrees. You support your family above my family. You support your company above my company. You support your neighbors above my neighbors, and yes, you should support the citizens of your country above the citizens of my country. It's very fashionable to virtue signal that you have no loyalty to your country and that we should all live under a one world government. I do not share that wish. I love that we do not have a mono-culture of government in the world, but have 195 different decentralized experiments happening on how to best run the world. I would hate to have a single experiment running with nowhere to look to or flee to, if it all goes awry. But I live in one of those 195 experiments, and my fellows that share that with me, my countrymen, I support above the other 194. That's called being human.
- belltaco 9y ago
  To discriminate against someone born across a completely imaginary and arbitrarily drawn line is being human? Huh?
  - rtx 9y ago
    It is, but now we know better.
  - DanAndersen 9y ago
    Ingroup/outgroup dynamics are a pretty deeply-rooted aspect of human social behavior. Maybe it doesn't always manifest itself in the form of a Westphalian nation-state, but it does point to something deep inside us that we manifest at various levels. This sort of tactical nihilism is honestly pretty confusing to me. Borders, whether national, ideological, social, tribal, linguistic, etc. always have some level of arbitrariness to them, and yet they still represent useful categories. The house door that you lock every evening is merely a collection of arbitrary atoms arranged to separate what you imagine to be your property from others. In the framework of nations, the idea of treating citizens differently from non-citizens as being "discrimination" is an odd one. A country belongs to its people; it doesn't belong to those across the arbitrary border. We all make (sometimes arbitrary) restrictions on access to that which we value; humans who don't do that usually end up losing them to those who do.
    - baddox 9y ago
      I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue for dissolving borders or having a single world government (although a few people have been arguing vehemently against it). It's perfectly reasonable to support national borders with strong checks for safety, while still supporting an extremely welcoming immigrant worker policy.
- MarkMc 9y ago
  How do you feel about loyalty based on race? Is there a difference between race-based loyalty and citizenship-based loyalty?
- 9y ago
bluthru 9y ago
>It just means you think that people from other countries are less deserving of job opportunities than people from your country. What's the point of even having a country if citizens aren't prioritized over non-citizens? What's the point of banding together as a nation if you don't engage in policy that helps one another? I don't feel just as entitled to a job in Japan as a Japanese citizen. Do you advocate for one world government or something?
- baddox 9y ago
  > What's the point of even having a country if citizens aren't prioritized over non-citizens? For jobs? We're talking about welcoming immigrants into the country to work. My opinion doesn't extend to every possible way that a nation can prioritize its own citizens. If, for instance, there's an American citizen involved in some incident in another country (plane crash, terrorist attack, unjust arrest, etc.), of course I expect the USA to prioritize that. I also expect the USA to prioritize its own economy, infrastructure, education, etc. (although I think that is for the benefit of all legal residents, not just "citizens").
  - bluthru 9y ago
    >We're talking about welcoming immigrants into the country to work. Are you aware that there are negatives to this, or just that they're not important to you?
s73ver 9y ago
At the same time, my countrymen, my neighbors, being gainfully employed has far more benefit to me directly than people on the other side being gainfully employed. And while I'd like everyone, everywhere to be prosperous and happy, the people who live around me being prosperous and happy has more of a direct effect. For one, if the people in my neighborhood are employed and decently off, that means they're less likely to riot or steal my stuff.

by baddox 9y ago

meesterdude 9y ago

FWIW, I read the parent comment as sarcasm, not a serious proposal of xenophobia.

Ar-Curunir 9y ago
I think the parent comment was saying that being against those policies will get you branded as a xenophobe. The tone was meant to elicit sympathy.
baddox 9y ago
My interpretation was that the parent commenter is against some aspect of immigration employment policy, but does not think that constitutes xenophobia.

olewhalehunter 9y ago

Folks who go through the trouble of immigrating here, many of whom are reliant on their job for renewing visas, have less bargaining power with their employers. Wages lower, standards for politics and labor rights lower, and standards of living lower. It's about the death of communities and societal trust, and and has nothing to do with people thinking who deserves what.

pdx 9y ago

It just means you think that people from other countries are less deserving of job opportunities than people from your country. Society is a hierarchy of loyalty. Unless you're a self-absorbed, autistic, single 20 something, you have loyalty to others in various degrees. You support your family above my family. You support your company above my company. You support your neighbors above my neighbors, and yes, you should support the citizens of your country above the citizens of my country. It's very fashionable to virtue signal that you have no loyalty to your country and that we should all live under a one world government. I do not share that wish. I love that we do not have a mono-culture of government in the world, but have 195 different decentralized experiments happening on how to best run the world. I would hate to have a single experiment running with nowhere to look to or flee to, if it all goes awry. But I live in one of those 195 experiments, and my fellows that share that with me, my countrymen, I support above the other 194. That's called being human.

belltaco 9y ago
To discriminate against someone born across a completely imaginary and arbitrarily drawn line is being human? Huh?
- rtx 9y ago
  It is, but now we know better.
- DanAndersen 9y ago
  Ingroup/outgroup dynamics are a pretty deeply-rooted aspect of human social behavior. Maybe it doesn't always manifest itself in the form of a Westphalian nation-state, but it does point to something deep inside us that we manifest at various levels. This sort of tactical nihilism is honestly pretty confusing to me. Borders, whether national, ideological, social, tribal, linguistic, etc. always have some level of arbitrariness to them, and yet they still represent useful categories. The house door that you lock every evening is merely a collection of arbitrary atoms arranged to separate what you imagine to be your property from others. In the framework of nations, the idea of treating citizens differently from non-citizens as being "discrimination" is an odd one. A country belongs to its people; it doesn't belong to those across the arbitrary border. We all make (sometimes arbitrary) restrictions on access to that which we value; humans who don't do that usually end up losing them to those who do.
  - baddox 9y ago
    I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue for dissolving borders or having a single world government (although a few people have been arguing vehemently against it). It's perfectly reasonable to support national borders with strong checks for safety, while still supporting an extremely welcoming immigrant worker policy.
MarkMc 9y ago
How do you feel about loyalty based on race? Is there a difference between race-based loyalty and citizenship-based loyalty?
9y ago

bluthru 9y ago

>It just means you think that people from other countries are less deserving of job opportunities than people from your country. What's the point of even having a country if citizens aren't prioritized over non-citizens? What's the point of banding together as a nation if you don't engage in policy that helps one another? I don't feel just as entitled to a job in Japan as a Japanese citizen. Do you advocate for one world government or something?

baddox 9y ago
> What's the point of even having a country if citizens aren't prioritized over non-citizens? For jobs? We're talking about welcoming immigrants into the country to work. My opinion doesn't extend to every possible way that a nation can prioritize its own citizens. If, for instance, there's an American citizen involved in some incident in another country (plane crash, terrorist attack, unjust arrest, etc.), of course I expect the USA to prioritize that. I also expect the USA to prioritize its own economy, infrastructure, education, etc. (although I think that is for the benefit of all legal residents, not just "citizens").
- bluthru 9y ago
  >We're talking about welcoming immigrants into the country to work. Are you aware that there are negatives to this, or just that they're not important to you?

s73ver 9y ago

At the same time, my countrymen, my neighbors, being gainfully employed has far more benefit to me directly than people on the other side being gainfully employed. And while I'd like everyone, everywhere to be prosperous and happy, the people who live around me being prosperous and happy has more of a direct effect. For one, if the people in my neighborhood are employed and decently off, that means they're less likely to riot or steal my stuff.