3 ms·

It's entirely relevant. It's about how you organize your own society, which has little to do with China. China allows little immigration so by your logic US sho

It's entirely relevant. It's about how you organize your own society, which has little to do with China. China allows little immigration so by your logic US should ban immigration from China too.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
robomartin 4y ago
I am now wondering if you are Chinese and don't like what I am saying because it exposes a fundamental issue. Why should the US allow, say, a million people, to emigrate from China to the US when China might not allow a million from the US to emigrate to China? This isn't about banning. This is about equal treatment. You could call it equity at an international level. The question you are not answering (or don't want to approach) is: Why is it OK for one side of a relationship to be restrictive? China is an easy example of the dichotomy. I am sure we can find others. You have also conveniently avoided the issues presented in that legal brief about owning property in China. Why is it OK for China to not allow foreigners to really own property? Why is it OK for China to not allow foreigners to own land? Farm land? Why is it OK for them to expect (and even demand) to be able to make those purchases anywhere else in the world? Can you clearly state your thinking on these last three questions or are you simply going to continue to attack me because you know there is no argument in defense of one-sided protectionist restrictive policies. We have to treat each other equally. We demand that at a personal level. Why not at the international level?
- fspeech 4y ago
  Now you are actually sounding like a racist. Just dressing it up in some "principle" isn't going to change that fact. Where did I defend protectionist policies? Instead you, from the very beginning, tried to reverse engineer a so-called principle to mollify your paranoia of yellow peril. If you actually think your principle is neutral, maybe you should explain why the US shouldn't be forced by your principle to allow more immigration until say it achieves the average population density of the world, or average GDP per capita, or average energy consumption. We don't do what you suggest because we have our own values and we think treating people as equal individuals is good for our country. What China does has no bearing on our value.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > Now you are actually sounding like a racist Wow. @dang: This guy belongs in HN jail. Not acceptable. At all. Insults and 100% flame-war incitement. Truly regrettable behavior.

It's entirely relevant. It's about how you organize your own society, which has little to do with China. China allows little immigration so by your logic US should ban immigration from China too.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

robomartin 4y ago

I am now wondering if you are Chinese and don't like what I am saying because it exposes a fundamental issue. Why should the US allow, say, a million people, to emigrate from China to the US when China might not allow a million from the US to emigrate to China? This isn't about banning. This is about equal treatment. You could call it equity at an international level. The question you are not answering (or don't want to approach) is: Why is it OK for one side of a relationship to be restrictive? China is an easy example of the dichotomy. I am sure we can find others. You have also conveniently avoided the issues presented in that legal brief about owning property in China. Why is it OK for China to not allow foreigners to really own property? Why is it OK for China to not allow foreigners to own land? Farm land? Why is it OK for them to expect (and even demand) to be able to make those purchases anywhere else in the world? Can you clearly state your thinking on these last three questions or are you simply going to continue to attack me because you know there is no argument in defense of one-sided protectionist restrictive policies. We have to treat each other equally. We demand that at a personal level. Why not at the international level?

fspeech 4y ago
Now you are actually sounding like a racist. Just dressing it up in some "principle" isn't going to change that fact. Where did I defend protectionist policies? Instead you, from the very beginning, tried to reverse engineer a so-called principle to mollify your paranoia of yellow peril. If you actually think your principle is neutral, maybe you should explain why the US shouldn't be forced by your principle to allow more immigration until say it achieves the average population density of the world, or average GDP per capita, or average energy consumption. We don't do what you suggest because we have our own values and we think treating people as equal individuals is good for our country. What China does has no bearing on our value.
- robomartin 4y ago
  > Now you are actually sounding like a racist Wow. @dang: This guy belongs in HN jail. Not acceptable. At all. Insults and 100% flame-war incitement. Truly regrettable behavior.