7 ms·
Why are Americans more deserving of jobs then other people?
by Zetice 3y ago
Why are Americans more deserving of jobs then other people?
- dudul 3y agoBecause this is in America.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- paint 3y agoI know you're joking but some people actually think that way and it's so disgusting. No borders no nations no walls
- dudul 3y agoI am not joking. Countries are made to protect their citizens first.
- Zetice 3y ago[flagged]
- dudul 3y agoPeople immigrated there because it was needed at the time. What was good centuries ago may not apply today. Yes permanent residents in the US/Iceland/Australia/Spain/whatever should get priority over temporary visa holders in their respective country. This is the whole point of countries.
- Zetice 3y agoNo, people immigrated here because it was better here, and it was better here because people immigrated. And no, permanent residents do not have anything about them that is inherently more deserving of anything. That is in no way what a country is for. A country provides social services to people in exchange for some control, so as to keep order. If you give control, you get services. Land borders are not an important aspect of a country’s decision of who to provide services to, who that country can provide order to is.
- dudul 3y agoOnce we reach level 4 or 5 of replies I think it's not really worth pursuing so I'll just give my take on this one and leave it there. That's probably a case where principles/values or whatever you want to call it differ too much for anything to come out of it. People were allowed and welcome to immigrate because there was a gigantic country to fill. Now this policy makes no sense so rules have changed. It's just common sense. The way a country was built/populated doesn't need to persist forever and should adapt to whatever works best at a given time. Otherwise let's push the logic: mostly white people immigrated at the beginning, should we stick to this? It makes no sense. It's not about "deserving". It's about the common good of the population. I believe in helping people who are already here better their life instead of relocating someone. One could argue that having access to good jobs is part of the nebulous "social services" you mention. As a side note, it's interesting how the interest of the immigrant seems to always be superficially taken into consideration. Immigrants don't all want to move. I would bet a lot of them would much prefer to have a better life where they are to begin with.
- Zetice 3y agoYou keep getting stuck in the bureaucracy, presuming it results in just outcomes. It doesn’t. If the concept of citizenship was simply an agreement to the social contract, open to all, you could start to favor those who’ve agreed over those who haven’t, though even then you can’t say from a moral perspective the lives of those who’ve agreed are superior. However you seem overly attached to the concept of soil and citizenship, both of which can be manipulated by bigots to hurt the people they’re hateful towards. This is why “Americans” can’t be considered first; what even qualifies is set based on a wildly racist past, riddled with hateful people making nationalistic laws that remain in effect today.
- spaceprison 3y agoIf the contract is this simple then is it surprising that existing control givers (aka permanent residents) may have a sense that as long as they're still 'giving' they should still be 'getting' or at least have a place in line to 'get' ahead of a prospective 'giver' (h1b).
- thfuran 3y agoWhere's the joke? The purpose of any government ought to be to benefit its citizens. Certainly there's a moral obligation to not unduly wrong others in the course of that pursuit, but it is contrary to the mission of a government to benefit foreigners at the expense of its own population.
- Zetice 3y agoThe purpose of government is to provide social goods to everyone who agreed to give up some freedoms to be part of that government. Non citizens have equal right to feed their families, and anyone who has agreed to the social contract has equal rights to the social services the government has agreed to provide, regardless of citizenship.
- pacerier 3y agoreplace the word "citizen" with "consenter" to understand where the mistake is in your argument.
- dudul 3y agoDo you have walls and doors in your house?
- Zetice 3y agoIdiotic argument, nobody's house is 3.7 million sq miles, nor do 350 million people live in anybody's "house".
- nec4b 3y agoSo it's inconvenient for you to open your house to anyone?
- Zetice 3y agoIf my house were like a country, it would be quite convenient and I would indeed open my home to everyone willing to participate in my social contract. But my home isn’t in any way like a country, so this question isn’t meaningful.
- nec4b 3y agoSo your logic doesn't apply for your home, for your neighborhood or your city? Does it hold for you state or do you need to become completely independent country?
- dixie_land 3y agoAnd in America we earn our keep. Life is not fair, if someone's willing to work for less, you simply show up and do a better job and demand a better salary. Entitlement is not America, it's communism
- vacuity 3y agoLife isn't fair, but we could do a lot better than imposing even more unfairness. Sexual harrassment and sexism, LGBT discrimination, racism, nepotism, etc. We're not quite living in a meritocracy.
- orochimaaru 3y agoBecause a nation should put its citizens interests first. This isn’t a hard concept. There’s plenty of companies though that don’t do h1b. Major telcos, defense contractors (those are us citizen only), a lot of small hedge funds, etc.
- Zetice 3y agoNo, a nation should not put just its citizens first, that’s nationalistic garbage. Firstly it presumes a nation decides who its citizens are through some fair system, and secondly it presumes its citizens are somehow inherently more deserving than its non citizens. Anyone who agrees to the social contract gets to benefit from the nation. That’s what a country actually is.
- dudul 3y agoYou throw a lot of half baked assertions on this thread but it doesn't seem to go anywhere. Who should a nation put first then? I dont see the connection between how citizenship is acquired (AFAIK each nation is free to set the rules/laws that they think is fair) and if citizens should get special treatment or not. If citizens can't get "special" treatment over non resident in their own country what's the point of countries? How people become residents and what "rights" they have die to this status is part of the "social contract".
- Zetice 3y agoA nation supports the people who agree to the social contract upon which the nation is founded, citizenship be damned. Citizenship in the US is a profoundly broken system with a horrendous and racist past, and using it to decide who deserves the benefit of the social contract and who doesn’t is actively buying into the nationalistic and false idea that Americans are superior just because they were born somewhere and foreigners weren’t. You wouldn’t argue that black slaves weren’t worthy of US protection and services until the 14th Amendment was passed, would you? You wouldn’t pretend like the US granting and then revoking citizenship from Mexican settlers repeatedly in the 19th and 20th century was acceptable, would you? Was the Chinese Exclusion Act acceptable? A foreign life is worth exactly the same as an American life, and the difference is completely arbitrary.
- nec4b 3y agoWhen you play sports and your team is winning, do you stop trying to give a chance for the competitor team?