6 ms·

I decide who I want to welcome in my home. I believe Thailand, Russia, Brazil, Germany are completely free to do the same and fix their own rules. But you don'

I decide who I want to welcome in my home. I believe Thailand, Russia, Brazil, Germany are completely free to do the same and fix their own rules. But you don't. Take the US, for example. Everyone born there is a citizen. Everyone born to an American parent is a citizen (or can be). None of the folks get a choice in where they were born, or what nationality they get. And you have all sorts of folks - people that will rape you and your family, and others that will give you food without going through a means check. You don't get to choose what the child next door will become any more than you chose your next-door neighbors. Yet somehow, keeping out "the others" is giving you a choice? You don't even get real say who they keep out and who they let in. It isn't choice at all, I think.

soueuls 5y ago
But you are surrounded by people whose parents contributed to your economy, who were more or less raised with at least a decent amount of shared values. People don't just come to a new country and just abandon their past. They bring their values, ideals, beliefs, problems and solutions. As the number of foreign people coming, cosmopolitanism increase. Then you quickly reach a point where you can eat a raclette anywhere, soccer is the most famous sports, Hollywood is the main entity broadcasting entertainment. There is no point in traveling, because every place more or less lost their spirit. And I am not talking about the fact that, if countries completely drop their requirements based on nationality, they will keep their "usefulness" requirements (who is able to take a job we are looking for) What's going to happen? Well educated people are going to move easily. Further depriving countries of the very ones they need to develop their countries. It will be a one way street. I don't imagine hundreds of thousands of Americans moving to eastern Africa anytime soon.
- stransky 5y ago
  - giantg2 5y ago
    The door isn't closed. People still immigrate.
  - soueuls 5y ago
    HN is supposed to be a place for civilized discussions. I am not allowed to go anywhere I want. There are plenty of countries refusing me entry, or access to land/property or force me to abide by strict business rule (like having a national owning > 51% of any company I might create there) this is fine. It's not my country. Plus, your "equality" is going to create other form of inequality. Any socialist countries relies on past contributions to finance most things like healthcare or unemployment income. In my country, immigrants are allowed to get unemployment income, without contribution anything beforehand. This just creates inequality to the ones who contributed. You seem just obsessed with equality for the sake of it. People have history, bonding among nations take time, suffering, dedication. You can't merely replace a Thai with a Columbian. They don't believe in the same things, they don't have the same values, they don't believe in the same God or divine figure, they don't speak the same language, they don't eat the same food, they don't use their money in the same way. It must take personal effort for someone to immigrate into another country.
    - stransky 5y ago
    - TheGigaChad 5y ago
    - mcv 5y ago
      > You can't merely replace a Thai with a Columbian. They don't believe in the same things, they don't have the same values, they don't believe in the same God or divine figure, they don't speak the same language, they don't eat the same food, they don't use their money in the same way. But this is not just true for people from different countries. It's also true for people from the same country. Especially in melting-pot countries like the US, but also in more supposedly homogenous countries; you still have people who believe different things, have different values, live their lives in different ways, etc. Insisting on conformity has lead to tons of strife in the past. Civil wars have been fought over this stuff. It's much more productive to accept these differences. (At least in so far as they don't hurt anyone.) Of course for that it's also important to be aware of and understand these differences. To bridge them, in some way. If you move to a different country, you should absolutely put some effort into understanding the local language and customs. You can't move to another country and expect to live like you did back home. If that's what you want, you should have stayed there. But it would be nice if we lived in a world where these cultural obstacles were the only obstacles, and they weren't amplified by massive wealth inequality.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  "But you are surrounded by people whose parents contributed to your economy, who were more or less raised with at least a decent amount of shared values." People used to say that folks with different color of skin had a different culture, and therefore interracial relationships do not work. People move across the country (in the US) and get culture shock. In other words, people don't really consider others as having the same values and culture. "Contribute to the economy" is a weird phrasing: Most of my family worked to not starve and immigrants contribute to economies as well. If you are afraid that someone from a "leser" country with a "lesser" value system is going to mess up your life, it isn't and the actual answer is for humans to make sure their global neighbors aren't crappy countries to live in. It is, after all, partly our fault (our = "developed countries") since we rely on the slave conditions in "developing" countries so that we have toys and food.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    The "actual answer" here seems just aspirational. If it basically means "you have to spend enough money until everywhere else is so nice that no one wants to move to your country" then that is more money than there is. In the meantime, how do you create a system that doesn't require that amount of money?
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      In general, we'll all just have to do with less toys and disposable things and pay more for food. That is, until we do more with robotics in mining and food production and the like. More realistically, a good start would invest without expecting repayment, set standards for people and make sure others have rights, and stop meddling in other governments in general just because they aren't nice to your country. You won't be investing forever. None of it is a perfect answer, but striving for it is much better than simply reasoning, "I guess we'll just have to exploit these folks". Realistically, that's what we are doing with immigration: Keeping the folks we've exploited the most... out.
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
- mcv 5y ago
  > Then you quickly reach a point where you can eat a raclette anywhere, soccer is the most famous sports, Hollywood is the main entity broadcasting entertainment. There is no point in traveling, because every place more or less lost their spirit. Less traveling would probably be good for the world, but it's not true that places "lose their spirit" just because they've got football, Hollywood movies and raclette everywhere. They already have that everywhere, and almost everywhere is still interesting and unique. Just more accessible, leading to more travel. Cultural exchange is useful and valuable. What's a problem is when desperate people have no buy-in into the society. That leads to alienation, which can lead to all sorts of problems. But this can also happen to people whose parents, and possibly distant ancestors, already lived there.
  - soueuls 5y ago
    > but it's not true that places "lose their spirit" just because they've got football, Hollywood movies and raclette everywhere. I think the opposite.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I think this is awesome but I also believe the US pays a price for that. Few systems based on solidarity, a weak federal state and the culture promotes people being responsible for themselves instead of relying on public infrastructure or authority. It doesn't have to be this way if trust between groups improves such systems could appear. Ironically the ambitions to solve racism did create even more distrust as it seems, but the setback is hopefully temporary. I don't think a country with strong social security could ever survive open immigration for too long. It would have to adapt and restrict social security because the societal consent has to be reestablished. I am not from the US.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  I am from the US but do not live there - I live in Norway. Open immigration doesn't necessarily mean open rights to social structure: After all, most places have some limits on the safety net you are entitled to now - For example: Taking certain types of social help here in Norway hurts my own immigration. You can have some controls on this: One actual answer is to make sure everyone has basic things as rights (Such as food and shelter) and work on making everywhere decent enough places to live - but for this, we need less global exploitation.
giantg2 5y ago
To be honest, I think it would be a good idea to have people teach/test the citizenship test in high school. The content should mostly be covered under civics classes anyways. It always amazing to me just how many people are completely clueless on government structure, mechanics, rule of law, etc.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  I'm fine not having everyone take a citizenship test because the consequences are dire if you make people's citizenship dependent on the test. Statelessness is a cruel thing to put onto someone that can't seem to pass a test. At least the civics test I took was for immigration and I had multiple chances to pass - and mine was easier than the insane test folks take in the US and much more practical. I do agree that we should make sure everyone knows how the systems work in reality, but realistically I'd want to lean into things folks would actually use instead of memorizing dates and names: You don't need to know all the laws, just how they pertain to you. You don't need all government structure, but general and the things you'll probably deal with (local government, motor vehicle laws, etc), what to do if you find yourself disabled, poor, or needing time off for surgery. Making sure everyone knows worker and tenant rights would be a step in the right direction as well, as well as what to do about these sorts of things.
  - nradov 5y ago
    The US citizenship written exam is extremely easy and doesn't require memorizing many dates. Accommodations are available for those with legitimate disabilities. Failing the exam typically won't leave the candidate stateless as they still retain their existing citizenship in another country.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      Have you seen the questions and all the memorization you need to have for it? Dates, history stuff, names of people. Scroll down: They'll ask you 20 of these. Orally - it is not a written test. (I included a government link about it). On the other hand, I had practice tests on a computer (at a school). My test was full of practical things and only a little history: Mine asked me about using the health care system and the schooling system and things like that - the sort of thing that once you learned general knowledge, you didn't have to worry too much if you couldn't remember a historical name or date. I took the civics test required for Norway, by the way, and they have a list of languages you could take it in. Of course, I had to take it to continue my residence so more folks wind up taking it. Edit, forgotten thing: Whether or not someone is stateless depends on the home country, but generally, it won't - mostly because the US doesn't make you give up citizenship before you are granted on in the US. If you want to become a US citizen, though, your citizenship is going to depend, in part, on this civics test. This is what I was referring to. https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-resource-center/the-2020-version-of-the-civics-test/128-civics-questions-and-answers-with-mp3-audio-2020-version#:~:text=These%20questions%20cover%20important%20topics,version%20of%20the%20civics%20test https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-resource-center/the-2020-v....

soueuls 5y ago

But you are surrounded by people whose parents contributed to your economy, who were more or less raised with at least a decent amount of shared values. People don't just come to a new country and just abandon their past. They bring their values, ideals, beliefs, problems and solutions. As the number of foreign people coming, cosmopolitanism increase. Then you quickly reach a point where you can eat a raclette anywhere, soccer is the most famous sports, Hollywood is the main entity broadcasting entertainment. There is no point in traveling, because every place more or less lost their spirit. And I am not talking about the fact that, if countries completely drop their requirements based on nationality, they will keep their "usefulness" requirements (who is able to take a job we are looking for) What's going to happen? Well educated people are going to move easily. Further depriving countries of the very ones they need to develop their countries. It will be a one way street. I don't imagine hundreds of thousands of Americans moving to eastern Africa anytime soon.

stransky 5y ago
- giantg2 5y ago
  The door isn't closed. People still immigrate.
- soueuls 5y ago
  HN is supposed to be a place for civilized discussions. I am not allowed to go anywhere I want. There are plenty of countries refusing me entry, or access to land/property or force me to abide by strict business rule (like having a national owning > 51% of any company I might create there) this is fine. It's not my country. Plus, your "equality" is going to create other form of inequality. Any socialist countries relies on past contributions to finance most things like healthcare or unemployment income. In my country, immigrants are allowed to get unemployment income, without contribution anything beforehand. This just creates inequality to the ones who contributed. You seem just obsessed with equality for the sake of it. People have history, bonding among nations take time, suffering, dedication. You can't merely replace a Thai with a Columbian. They don't believe in the same things, they don't have the same values, they don't believe in the same God or divine figure, they don't speak the same language, they don't eat the same food, they don't use their money in the same way. It must take personal effort for someone to immigrate into another country.
  - stransky 5y ago
  - TheGigaChad 5y ago
  - mcv 5y ago
    > You can't merely replace a Thai with a Columbian. They don't believe in the same things, they don't have the same values, they don't believe in the same God or divine figure, they don't speak the same language, they don't eat the same food, they don't use their money in the same way. But this is not just true for people from different countries. It's also true for people from the same country. Especially in melting-pot countries like the US, but also in more supposedly homogenous countries; you still have people who believe different things, have different values, live their lives in different ways, etc. Insisting on conformity has lead to tons of strife in the past. Civil wars have been fought over this stuff. It's much more productive to accept these differences. (At least in so far as they don't hurt anyone.) Of course for that it's also important to be aware of and understand these differences. To bridge them, in some way. If you move to a different country, you should absolutely put some effort into understanding the local language and customs. You can't move to another country and expect to live like you did back home. If that's what you want, you should have stayed there. But it would be nice if we lived in a world where these cultural obstacles were the only obstacles, and they weren't amplified by massive wealth inequality.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
"But you are surrounded by people whose parents contributed to your economy, who were more or less raised with at least a decent amount of shared values." People used to say that folks with different color of skin had a different culture, and therefore interracial relationships do not work. People move across the country (in the US) and get culture shock. In other words, people don't really consider others as having the same values and culture. "Contribute to the economy" is a weird phrasing: Most of my family worked to not starve and immigrants contribute to economies as well. If you are afraid that someone from a "leser" country with a "lesser" value system is going to mess up your life, it isn't and the actual answer is for humans to make sure their global neighbors aren't crappy countries to live in. It is, after all, partly our fault (our = "developed countries") since we rely on the slave conditions in "developing" countries so that we have toys and food.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  The "actual answer" here seems just aspirational. If it basically means "you have to spend enough money until everywhere else is so nice that no one wants to move to your country" then that is more money than there is. In the meantime, how do you create a system that doesn't require that amount of money?
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    In general, we'll all just have to do with less toys and disposable things and pay more for food. That is, until we do more with robotics in mining and food production and the like. More realistically, a good start would invest without expecting repayment, set standards for people and make sure others have rights, and stop meddling in other governments in general just because they aren't nice to your country. You won't be investing forever. None of it is a perfect answer, but striving for it is much better than simply reasoning, "I guess we'll just have to exploit these folks". Realistically, that's what we are doing with immigration: Keeping the folks we've exploited the most... out.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
mcv 5y ago
> Then you quickly reach a point where you can eat a raclette anywhere, soccer is the most famous sports, Hollywood is the main entity broadcasting entertainment. There is no point in traveling, because every place more or less lost their spirit. Less traveling would probably be good for the world, but it's not true that places "lose their spirit" just because they've got football, Hollywood movies and raclette everywhere. They already have that everywhere, and almost everywhere is still interesting and unique. Just more accessible, leading to more travel. Cultural exchange is useful and valuable. What's a problem is when desperate people have no buy-in into the society. That leads to alienation, which can lead to all sorts of problems. But this can also happen to people whose parents, and possibly distant ancestors, already lived there.
- soueuls 5y ago
  > but it's not true that places "lose their spirit" just because they've got football, Hollywood movies and raclette everywhere. I think the opposite.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I think this is awesome but I also believe the US pays a price for that. Few systems based on solidarity, a weak federal state and the culture promotes people being responsible for themselves instead of relying on public infrastructure or authority. It doesn't have to be this way if trust between groups improves such systems could appear. Ironically the ambitions to solve racism did create even more distrust as it seems, but the setback is hopefully temporary. I don't think a country with strong social security could ever survive open immigration for too long. It would have to adapt and restrict social security because the societal consent has to be reestablished. I am not from the US.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
I am from the US but do not live there - I live in Norway. Open immigration doesn't necessarily mean open rights to social structure: After all, most places have some limits on the safety net you are entitled to now - For example: Taking certain types of social help here in Norway hurts my own immigration. You can have some controls on this: One actual answer is to make sure everyone has basic things as rights (Such as food and shelter) and work on making everywhere decent enough places to live - but for this, we need less global exploitation.

giantg2 5y ago

To be honest, I think it would be a good idea to have people teach/test the citizenship test in high school. The content should mostly be covered under civics classes anyways. It always amazing to me just how many people are completely clueless on government structure, mechanics, rule of law, etc.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
I'm fine not having everyone take a citizenship test because the consequences are dire if you make people's citizenship dependent on the test. Statelessness is a cruel thing to put onto someone that can't seem to pass a test. At least the civics test I took was for immigration and I had multiple chances to pass - and mine was easier than the insane test folks take in the US and much more practical. I do agree that we should make sure everyone knows how the systems work in reality, but realistically I'd want to lean into things folks would actually use instead of memorizing dates and names: You don't need to know all the laws, just how they pertain to you. You don't need all government structure, but general and the things you'll probably deal with (local government, motor vehicle laws, etc), what to do if you find yourself disabled, poor, or needing time off for surgery. Making sure everyone knows worker and tenant rights would be a step in the right direction as well, as well as what to do about these sorts of things.
- nradov 5y ago
  The US citizenship written exam is extremely easy and doesn't require memorizing many dates. Accommodations are available for those with legitimate disabilities. Failing the exam typically won't leave the candidate stateless as they still retain their existing citizenship in another country.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    Have you seen the questions and all the memorization you need to have for it? Dates, history stuff, names of people. Scroll down: They'll ask you 20 of these. Orally - it is not a written test. (I included a government link about it). On the other hand, I had practice tests on a computer (at a school). My test was full of practical things and only a little history: Mine asked me about using the health care system and the schooling system and things like that - the sort of thing that once you learned general knowledge, you didn't have to worry too much if you couldn't remember a historical name or date. I took the civics test required for Norway, by the way, and they have a list of languages you could take it in. Of course, I had to take it to continue my residence so more folks wind up taking it. Edit, forgotten thing: Whether or not someone is stateless depends on the home country, but generally, it won't - mostly because the US doesn't make you give up citizenship before you are granted on in the US. If you want to become a US citizen, though, your citizenship is going to depend, in part, on this civics test. This is what I was referring to. https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-resource-center/the-2020-version-of-the-civics-test/128-civics-questions-and-answers-with-mp3-audio-2020-version#:~:text=These%20questions%20cover%20important%20topics,version%20of%20the%20civics%20test https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-resource-center/the-2020-v....