13 ms·

"…to lower overall pay rate." What's with this nationalism and view human value? Just because a person was or wasn't born in a certain place, something they had

"…to lower overall pay rate." What's with this nationalism and view human value? Just because a person was or wasn't born in a certain place, something they had no ability to affect, they have more or less right to a certain job with a certain salary in a certain place? Looking at it from the other perspective of the individual who can get a job, they are probably not lowering their salaries, but rather significantly increasing it. And looking at this from an historical context for the USA makes it even more absurd. Most people with these high paying jobs in the US are direct descendants of people who immigrated to the US with the sole purpose of getting a higher salary – because of poverty and lack of economic opportunities in their home countries.

em500 6y ago
There are no liberals in foxholes, to paraphrase an old aphorism. (See also: very strict zoning laws in the bluest states/counties.)
PeterisP 6y ago
The duty and role of a government is to act in the best interest of their citizens which that government represents. The interests of outsiders are simply not relevant to that - they have their own government to represent their interests, which can and should enact policies that benefit them, and negotiate in international agreements policies that will help their citizens. If it's a win-win situation (which is the expected situation for skilled immigration visas) then sure, we should look at how the incentives are aligned; but when it's a tradeoff between the interests of your citizens and foreigners, then the government is elected to ensure that the interests of their citizens are facilitated - if need be, at the expense of others, to whom the government has no inherent duty whatsoever except the voluntarily undertaken commitments to certain international treaties. And if the government is implementing some policies that hurt their citizens to benefit others (which it may well do for all kinds of reasons - e.g. governments do humanitarian aid, which costs your citizens and benefits others, but presumably with support from the voters/taxpayers), then that has to happen due to the choice and consent of these citizens, otherwise they have all right to replace the government with something that will act as the citizens desire.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kaens 6y ago
  > The duty and role of a government is to act in the best interest of their citizens which that government represents. According to who? I understand that this is a kind of framing used here often, but the federal government has been concerned primarily with itself for a long time now at least to my eyes.
  - _jgdh 6y ago
    According to ground realities. In a well functioning representative democracy, voters will kick out politicians/administrations that don’t represent their interests well. So if you want to be the one politician that values non-citizens’ rights over citizens’ rights, good luck getting re-elected. Or you could set up an autocracy and try to manage this anyway. For further reading, I recommend the book The Dictator’s Handbook or CGP Greg’s 20 minute summary of it.
    - kaens 6y ago
      ground realities are that, for example, flint michigan barely has clean water after seven years. if you are claiming the usa is not a well functioning representative democracy, i agree.
      - bumby 6y ago
        >if you are claiming the usa is not a well functioning representative democracy, i agree. A claim on the intent of a government can be made without making a claim whether that intent is being fulfilled
        kaens 6y ago
        right, that's why i put "if" there :P
      - 6y ago
roenxi 6y ago
> What's with this nationalism and view human value? Honestly it is probably just run-of-the-mill xenophobia, but looking at US Federal Tax revenue [0] I would like to point out that prior to ~1930 everyone was basically on their own and after that the government started really becoming a big chunk of the economic pie. In 1920, I expect it was a lot more practical to target an open-border policy. Economically, the failure of a migrant means nothing to a local. In 2020, if a migrant does not succeed then there is a risk that the locals will be paying for it. I argue that that would reasonably change someone's opinions. The idea that a person's location should have no impact is great, but sits in conflict with the US welfare system. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Government_Revenue_and_spending_GDP.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Governme...
- Aperocky 6y ago
  Are there any way a nonimmigrant in the US can get any of the welfare? If the answer is no, how does this apply?
  - JAlexoid 6y ago
    Even an immigrant cannot get welfare for a long time. This is typical American ignorance and xenophobia. - take it from an immigrant, that is not staying long term
    - tomp 6y ago
      > - take it from an immigrant, that is not staying long term But if the US is so terrible and xenophobic, why don't you go somewhere else? (Hint: other countries are even worse.)
      - JAlexoid 6y ago
        The horrible Switzerland, that literally voted for open borders a few weeks ago. But thank's for being that stereotype I was referring to.
  - 6y ago
literallycancer 6y ago
Future citizens don't vote today. Current citizens do. It's simple.
mc32 6y ago
Oddly the same could be said for Argentina, Mexico or Venezuela, but people aren’t knocking to get into their economies. Why does the US owe the world any more than other countries? At some point people have to be responsible for their own self determination —as leftists used to clamor for a couple of decades ago. Now they want a shortcut instead of doing the hard work to build viable economies. It took us a few hundred years to get where we are. It didn’t happen overnight. People still have no problem vilifying pioneers, but they’re the first to want the fruits of that hard labor centuries ago. Get to fixing your economies it takes time, but fortunately with the technology today and with the foundations today, we know it’s possible to turn things around in a few decades (China, S Korea, Panama, etc). Even Japan was extremely feudal up until the end of WWII.
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  Open borders isn't a leftist idea. It's literally the opposite of control over private interactions. US gets huge financial benefits from being the world hegemon. Then there's the Northern Triangle that US messed up and Americans pretend that they have nothing to do with it.
  - mc32 6y ago
    I really don’t care who is for it. Migration has to be regulated, else we will return to the mean. Every other state exercises that right but when the US does it then it’s «bad» and «selfish», etc. We could do it the Canadian or Australian way. Remember all those Americans who thought they could simply slip across the Canadian border and be good? Even they don’t just let anyone in. I’ll believe the rhetoric when countries where it makes sense to federate federate (Caribbean, South America, Caucasus, etc).
    - JAlexoid 6y ago
      Regulations on migration are bad, all bad. So maybe you don't put words in my mouth. So if you want to regulate who I have in my home, then maybe I should regulate who your barber is.... and I would choose Sweeney Todd.
Xc43 6y ago
What's with that simplistic view of nationalism and reality? (caveat: I am an immigrant that came to Canada) Nationalism is more about culture than birth, albeit there is an expectation of both. Pride in your culture and love for your community which you call nation. As things are, you get more exposed to a culture by physical proximity to the source. Therefore being born within a culture makes you knowledgeable of that culture. More likely to be proud of it. (Note, as an immigrant, I do not partake in nationalism in either my current country or origin country. Albeit, I like their cultures.) Your idealism albeit commendable is far from reality. The world is unfair get over it. Everyone wants better for themselves. And like the latest hacktoberfest showed, not everyone has the same culture (1). Therefore not everyone should live in close proximity. It would lead to a disruption of social harmony. Take for example those from a honor/shame culture. They will literally beat you up for joking about their mother. Violence in the name of honor. In the West, that kind of violence is seen as outrageous. "Be stoic about it". People from both cultures do not mix well unless they are willing to adapt. I define human value as infinite. Also I am not responsible for the right treatment of those outside my sphere of control/influence. I refuse to take responsibility for everyone. It is not up to me to give a better wage to an ungrateful immigrant. Life is unfair, get over it. I agree. It is unfair that descendants of immigrants refuse to receive immigrants. As an immigrant that came to Canada, I am grateful for this opportunity. Also, I am grateful that those that would have not adapted to the Canadian mosaic of cultures were not allowed to come. I think another term is culture fit. If you do not fit the culture, you should not be allowed in. (1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24643894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24643894
- fesoliveira 6y ago
  >The world is unfair get over it. This kind of line of thought is the issue. Why should it be unfair? Or at least, why can't we make it fairer? >People from both cultures do not mix well unless they are willing to adapt. Those willing to adapt are usually those that are immigrating. Your argument does not make sense in this context, as we are talking about people that are, by definition, willing to move and be part of another country. Will there be a clash of cultures in some instances? Of course, but that will last at most for one generation. > I refuse to take responsibility for everyone. It is not up to me to give a better wage to an ungrateful immigrant. Life is unfair, get over it. No one is asking you to take responsibility for anyone. But why should you support policies that exclude those that are willing to come on their own volition and contribute to society? What makes you think that they are 'ungrateful'? Again, why should we not strive to make things fairer for everyone? >Also, I am grateful that those that would have not adapted to the Canadian mosaic of cultures were not allowed to come. I think another term is culture fit. If you do not fit the culture, you should not be allowed in. Culture is such a meaningless thing. Immigrants assimilate to the culture, willing or not, after a generation. Sure, some of the people that actually immigrate might not be want to change their ways, but their children will. Studies have shown that this is a moot point, used by those that are just scared of different things, when in reality those that immigrate do assimilate the culture of the place they are living. This mentality makes absolute no sense, specially coming from a child of immigrants. And I see you come from Canada. As someone who is about to immigrate there, it saddens me to see such display of hatred for those who are different. I spent a year studying in Canada a few years ago, and from my experience people there are very welcoming to immigrants. I had the pleasure to meet Chinese, Muslims, Indians and people from lots of different places and cultures while in Toronto, and guess what? Everyone got along very well. I don't understand where this fear and hatred comes from, but most people are good people, willing to work hard to earn their own if given the chance. And if this is naive idealism, well, then I am a naive idealist.

em500 6y ago

There are no liberals in foxholes, to paraphrase an old aphorism. (See also: very strict zoning laws in the bluest states/counties.)

PeterisP 6y ago

The duty and role of a government is to act in the best interest of their citizens which that government represents. The interests of outsiders are simply not relevant to that - they have their own government to represent their interests, which can and should enact policies that benefit them, and negotiate in international agreements policies that will help their citizens. If it's a win-win situation (which is the expected situation for skilled immigration visas) then sure, we should look at how the incentives are aligned; but when it's a tradeoff between the interests of your citizens and foreigners, then the government is elected to ensure that the interests of their citizens are facilitated - if need be, at the expense of others, to whom the government has no inherent duty whatsoever except the voluntarily undertaken commitments to certain international treaties. And if the government is implementing some policies that hurt their citizens to benefit others (which it may well do for all kinds of reasons - e.g. governments do humanitarian aid, which costs your citizens and benefits others, but presumably with support from the voters/taxpayers), then that has to happen due to the choice and consent of these citizens, otherwise they have all right to replace the government with something that will act as the citizens desire.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kaens 6y ago
> The duty and role of a government is to act in the best interest of their citizens which that government represents. According to who? I understand that this is a kind of framing used here often, but the federal government has been concerned primarily with itself for a long time now at least to my eyes.
- _jgdh 6y ago
  According to ground realities. In a well functioning representative democracy, voters will kick out politicians/administrations that don’t represent their interests well. So if you want to be the one politician that values non-citizens’ rights over citizens’ rights, good luck getting re-elected. Or you could set up an autocracy and try to manage this anyway. For further reading, I recommend the book The Dictator’s Handbook or CGP Greg’s 20 minute summary of it.
  - kaens 6y ago
    ground realities are that, for example, flint michigan barely has clean water after seven years. if you are claiming the usa is not a well functioning representative democracy, i agree.
    - bumby 6y ago
      >if you are claiming the usa is not a well functioning representative democracy, i agree. A claim on the intent of a government can be made without making a claim whether that intent is being fulfilled
      - kaens 6y ago
        right, that's why i put "if" there :P
    - 6y ago

roenxi 6y ago

> What's with this nationalism and view human value? Honestly it is probably just run-of-the-mill xenophobia, but looking at US Federal Tax revenue [0] I would like to point out that prior to ~1930 everyone was basically on their own and after that the government started really becoming a big chunk of the economic pie. In 1920, I expect it was a lot more practical to target an open-border policy. Economically, the failure of a migrant means nothing to a local. In 2020, if a migrant does not succeed then there is a risk that the locals will be paying for it. I argue that that would reasonably change someone's opinions. The idea that a person's location should have no impact is great, but sits in conflict with the US welfare system. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Government_Revenue_and_spending_GDP.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Governme...

Aperocky 6y ago
Are there any way a nonimmigrant in the US can get any of the welfare? If the answer is no, how does this apply?
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  Even an immigrant cannot get welfare for a long time. This is typical American ignorance and xenophobia. - take it from an immigrant, that is not staying long term
  - tomp 6y ago
    > - take it from an immigrant, that is not staying long term But if the US is so terrible and xenophobic, why don't you go somewhere else? (Hint: other countries are even worse.)
    - JAlexoid 6y ago
      The horrible Switzerland, that literally voted for open borders a few weeks ago. But thank's for being that stereotype I was referring to.
- 6y ago

literallycancer 6y ago

Future citizens don't vote today. Current citizens do. It's simple.

mc32 6y ago

Oddly the same could be said for Argentina, Mexico or Venezuela, but people aren’t knocking to get into their economies. Why does the US owe the world any more than other countries? At some point people have to be responsible for their own self determination —as leftists used to clamor for a couple of decades ago. Now they want a shortcut instead of doing the hard work to build viable economies. It took us a few hundred years to get where we are. It didn’t happen overnight. People still have no problem vilifying pioneers, but they’re the first to want the fruits of that hard labor centuries ago. Get to fixing your economies it takes time, but fortunately with the technology today and with the foundations today, we know it’s possible to turn things around in a few decades (China, S Korea, Panama, etc). Even Japan was extremely feudal up until the end of WWII.

JAlexoid 6y ago
Open borders isn't a leftist idea. It's literally the opposite of control over private interactions. US gets huge financial benefits from being the world hegemon. Then there's the Northern Triangle that US messed up and Americans pretend that they have nothing to do with it.
- mc32 6y ago
  I really don’t care who is for it. Migration has to be regulated, else we will return to the mean. Every other state exercises that right but when the US does it then it’s «bad» and «selfish», etc. We could do it the Canadian or Australian way. Remember all those Americans who thought they could simply slip across the Canadian border and be good? Even they don’t just let anyone in. I’ll believe the rhetoric when countries where it makes sense to federate federate (Caribbean, South America, Caucasus, etc).
  - JAlexoid 6y ago
    Regulations on migration are bad, all bad. So maybe you don't put words in my mouth. So if you want to regulate who I have in my home, then maybe I should regulate who your barber is.... and I would choose Sweeney Todd.

Xc43 6y ago

What's with that simplistic view of nationalism and reality? (caveat: I am an immigrant that came to Canada) Nationalism is more about culture than birth, albeit there is an expectation of both. Pride in your culture and love for your community which you call nation. As things are, you get more exposed to a culture by physical proximity to the source. Therefore being born within a culture makes you knowledgeable of that culture. More likely to be proud of it. (Note, as an immigrant, I do not partake in nationalism in either my current country or origin country. Albeit, I like their cultures.) Your idealism albeit commendable is far from reality. The world is unfair get over it. Everyone wants better for themselves. And like the latest hacktoberfest showed, not everyone has the same culture (1). Therefore not everyone should live in close proximity. It would lead to a disruption of social harmony. Take for example those from a honor/shame culture. They will literally beat you up for joking about their mother. Violence in the name of honor. In the West, that kind of violence is seen as outrageous. "Be stoic about it". People from both cultures do not mix well unless they are willing to adapt. I define human value as infinite. Also I am not responsible for the right treatment of those outside my sphere of control/influence. I refuse to take responsibility for everyone. It is not up to me to give a better wage to an ungrateful immigrant. Life is unfair, get over it. I agree. It is unfair that descendants of immigrants refuse to receive immigrants. As an immigrant that came to Canada, I am grateful for this opportunity. Also, I am grateful that those that would have not adapted to the Canadian mosaic of cultures were not allowed to come. I think another term is culture fit. If you do not fit the culture, you should not be allowed in. (1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24643894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24643894

fesoliveira 6y ago
>The world is unfair get over it. This kind of line of thought is the issue. Why should it be unfair? Or at least, why can't we make it fairer? >People from both cultures do not mix well unless they are willing to adapt. Those willing to adapt are usually those that are immigrating. Your argument does not make sense in this context, as we are talking about people that are, by definition, willing to move and be part of another country. Will there be a clash of cultures in some instances? Of course, but that will last at most for one generation. > I refuse to take responsibility for everyone. It is not up to me to give a better wage to an ungrateful immigrant. Life is unfair, get over it. No one is asking you to take responsibility for anyone. But why should you support policies that exclude those that are willing to come on their own volition and contribute to society? What makes you think that they are 'ungrateful'? Again, why should we not strive to make things fairer for everyone? >Also, I am grateful that those that would have not adapted to the Canadian mosaic of cultures were not allowed to come. I think another term is culture fit. If you do not fit the culture, you should not be allowed in. Culture is such a meaningless thing. Immigrants assimilate to the culture, willing or not, after a generation. Sure, some of the people that actually immigrate might not be want to change their ways, but their children will. Studies have shown that this is a moot point, used by those that are just scared of different things, when in reality those that immigrate do assimilate the culture of the place they are living. This mentality makes absolute no sense, specially coming from a child of immigrants. And I see you come from Canada. As someone who is about to immigrate there, it saddens me to see such display of hatred for those who are different. I spent a year studying in Canada a few years ago, and from my experience people there are very welcoming to immigrants. I had the pleasure to meet Chinese, Muslims, Indians and people from lots of different places and cultures while in Toronto, and guess what? Everyone got along very well. I don't understand where this fear and hatred comes from, but most people are good people, willing to work hard to earn their own if given the chance. And if this is naive idealism, well, then I am a naive idealist.