4 ms·

> Or conversely if you don’t want that welfare program to exist vote that way. This doesn’t work with open boarders where those who get in will eventually be a

> Or conversely if you don’t want that welfare program to exist vote that way. This doesn’t work with open boarders where those who get in will eventually be allowed to vote, the US has had amnesties before. A case of the government choosing their constituents rather than the other way around. Most people that I know my age (millennials) pretty much assume SS will have run out by the time they need it. I can only imagine gen Z would be expecting social overhaul sometime during their working careers.

pjc50 4y ago
This is a pretty strange claim to make from a country that's made up of immigrants (well, colonists) and that hasn't had open borders for a century.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  The US is mostly made of up people who were born in the US. Of course, everyone in the US (including Native Americans) have ancestors who moved here from elsewhere, but that's true everywhere (even within Africa where humans originated, there's tons of movement). Moreover, none of this is relevant as the US government is responsible to its citizens, full stop.
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  I would be pro open boarders if there was no welfare state. You can’t have both and expect it to last.
snarf21 4y ago
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > You clearly have a "pull the ladder up behind you" ideology ... How generous of you to demand no one else get what you got for free just by born. You're violating quite a few of the HN guidelines here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html You can make your points without asserting bad motives on other commenters or otherwise raising the rhetorical temperature.
  - amusedcyclist 4y ago
    Uh when the motives are clearly bad it's less neutral to disallow calling it out
    - cjbgkagh 4y ago
      I’m not American nor do I live in the US. I have visited and worked there many times and have many friends from there. I know for certain I will not get any SS despite paying into it for a number of years.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      In this case, there's nothing in the text that suggests ill intent; u/snarf21 had to parse subtext to find "bad motives". This sort of "assuming bad faith without any sort of evidence" violates this guideline: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

pjc50 4y ago

This is a pretty strange claim to make from a country that's made up of immigrants (well, colonists) and that hasn't had open borders for a century.

throwaway894345 4y ago
The US is mostly made of up people who were born in the US. Of course, everyone in the US (including Native Americans) have ancestors who moved here from elsewhere, but that's true everywhere (even within Africa where humans originated, there's tons of movement). Moreover, none of this is relevant as the US government is responsible to its citizens, full stop.
cjbgkagh 4y ago
I would be pro open boarders if there was no welfare state. You can’t have both and expect it to last.

snarf21 4y ago

throwaway894345 4y ago
> You clearly have a "pull the ladder up behind you" ideology ... How generous of you to demand no one else get what you got for free just by born. You're violating quite a few of the HN guidelines here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html You can make your points without asserting bad motives on other commenters or otherwise raising the rhetorical temperature.
- amusedcyclist 4y ago
  Uh when the motives are clearly bad it's less neutral to disallow calling it out
  - cjbgkagh 4y ago
    I’m not American nor do I live in the US. I have visited and worked there many times and have many friends from there. I know for certain I will not get any SS despite paying into it for a number of years.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    In this case, there's nothing in the text that suggests ill intent; u/snarf21 had to parse subtext to find "bad motives". This sort of "assuming bad faith without any sort of evidence" violates this guideline: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.