4 ms·
I feel like a lot of the arguments around immigration - including H1-Bs - boil down to two pretty straightforward opposing views of immigration: 1) "We" have b
by 1_2__4 9y ago
I feel like a lot of the arguments around immigration - including H1-Bs - boil down to two pretty straightforward opposing views of immigration:
1) "We" have built something great and unique, and we want others to be able to partake of and contribute to it, but the greatness and uniqueness of it is special and we want to preserve that. This is the more conservative view.
2) "We" have an environment where great things can happen, and so we want to bring people into it and add their greatness to it to make it even greater. There is nothing special about what we have, nothing that warrants preserving, and in fact change - constant, disruptive change - is naturally good. This is the more liberal view.
It bothers me that (1) is often conflated with racism, admittedly (the bothering part) because it's something I happen to agree with despite being mostly liberal on other issues. I DO think we here in America have a culture worth preserving, and while I want to open it up as much as possible to the world, I won't support doing so to the detriment and/or dissolution of what we have. I don't think constant disruption is naturally good; I didn't when I was younger and I don't think it is now.
But anything even approaching a whiff of something like "preservation" is immediately labeled racist dog-whistling (which seems insane to me). Any kind of "hey, maybe non-Americans are trying to exploit this and that's not good" is racism. Saying that perhaps as much diversity as possible even if just for diversity's sake in all things is maybe not the best thing - again, racism.
We need to recognize that there are real, non-racist and completely rational and informed reasons why people are uncomfortable with things like H1-B abuse, and that we don't all agree on what immigration should be or accomplish.
- tkahnoski 9y agoI don't understand this view of the world. I'd like to ask some questions to better understand. Not debate, understand. I spent a lot of time picking apart the various parts. I largely see immigration issues as capitalist vs. socialist spectrum. The capitalist wants little control over the flow of resources for a more efficient distribution of resources. The socialist wants to control the flow allocation of resources for a fair distribution of resources. So when you state the conservative position, I see that you want to control the flow of labor. What threats do you see from the flow of labor posing to the greatness and uniqueness of the US? Currently I see it as the opposite of imposing socialist tendencies impairing US companies from being able to compete with other countries that don't have the similar controls. Maybe we disagree on what makes the US culture unique. With the liberal point of view stated, I can understand the parts about disruption and change as the capitalist point of view except for the claim about "there is nothing special about what we have, nothing that warrants preserving". I don't see how immigration jeopardizes 'specialness' nor how it harms the preservation of things. We already have a wide dirth of cultural diversity dating back over many centuries, my guess is there is something in particular you value. I could look at things like Cinco de Mayo or St Patrick's day as examples of immigration both preserving special things as well as harming these through dilution and cultural appropriation. Maybe what your trying to say in many words is liberals are pro-change and conservatives are anti-change? Which is kind of the dictionary definition of the words, but I digress... I have more thoughts on how quick people are to throw 'racist' around, but that'll have to wait for another time. All I can say is that we're probably trying to preserve different things we consider great about our country.