5 ms·

If there's a dichotomy that I can't really reconcile politically, it's the fundamental idea that people coming here is bad. That we cannot allow anyone else in.

If there's a dichotomy that I can't really reconcile politically, it's the fundamental idea that people coming here is bad. That we cannot allow anyone else in. We can't even allow things from other countries to come here. The effects of this insular isolationism can only be explained by simplicity that doesn't hold up in reality: things will be more prosperous for us if we keep what we have to ourselves. But in truth growth is growth. To build prosperity, we need more production, which means more people. Perhaps your share gets bigger, but the pot gets smaller.

defen 1y ago
> If there's a dichotomy that I can't really reconcile politically, it's the fundamental idea that people coming here is bad. That we cannot allow anyone else in. We can't even allow things from other countries to come here. "People coming here" is not inherently good or bad. Some people would be good for the country, and some people would be bad. I'm speaking of individuals here, not groups. The issue is that the electorate at large feels like it has been given a choice between two extremes: "Effectively allow ANYONE to come here and stay as long as they want" and "Don't let ANYONE come here". If you give a people a choice of two extremes, don't be surprised if they choose the extremism you don't like. Reconceptualize MAGA as voting AGAINST what the Democrats are offering, instead of FOR what Trump is offering, and it might make more sense.
- lbrito 1y ago
  In what world were the dems advertising allowing anyone in though? Did I daydream Harris saying "do not come" a few years ago?
  - defen 1y ago
    I want to make it clear that we're not having an object-level discussion about this. This is not about "the actual stated policy" of the Democratic party. This is also not about "are those policies good or bad". It is not about my own views on those topics. So when I tell you my perception of other people's perception, please don't come back and say the equivalent "that's not actually what they said" or "yeah but that's a good policy." You might think that my perception of the electorate at large is inaccurate, and that's fine - it's purely based on vibes and anecdotal conversations with people. The issue is trust. Why should voters trust that Kamala Harris will implement immigration policies they want? Why should they expect her not to yield to the most extreme elements in her party, which believe that borders are a fiction and should not exist? Look at Barack Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage over the course of his political career. Now take an issue that is far more important than gay marriage - how is she going to stop unlimited unskilled immigration? How is she going to stop fraudulent claims of refugee status? How is the whole immigration problem itself going to be solved, if you posit that every one of the 10 million "unauthorized immigrants", and every one of the refugee claimants, needs multiple appearances in court to resolve their situation?
    - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
      I mean, doing what they do in the UK, where you need to provide proof of your right to work on day one of your job would help a lot. It seems to me that many US people want their cake and also eat it. Cheap workers are good, but also illegal immigration is bad. You kinda need to pick one.
      - nobody9999 1y ago
        >I mean, doing what they do in the UK, where you need to provide proof of your right to work on day one of your job would help a lot. Every job (as an employee) I've ever had has required me to submit IRS form W-9[0] on my first day of employment (or before). It's a standard part of the on-boarding process. To clarify, the W-9 form is to provide your "Taxpayer Identification number" (TIN) to those who will be handling payroll/tax withholding (that is, your employer). If you cannot provide a TIN, you are not allowed to begin working. If you don't have a TIN, presumably you don't have the right to work. Or is there something about the UK's processes I'm missing? [0] https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-w-9 https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-w-9
  - thereisnospork 1y ago
    What the Dems say doesn't matter, what matters is the consensus opinion of their position. E.g. If Harris said 'I don't want to pass gun control' I probably wouldn't believe her because that's a singular drop in a river of pro gun control rhetoric and action by her party. People apparently feel that the Dems are pro 'letting everyone in' -- an understanding created not just by what the Dems say and do on the topic (and others) but what their opponents say too. If they don't want people to think they aren't pro-immigration then the Dems have dropped the ball on their messaging and actions. For a similar and reasonably concrete example, the 'Harris is for they/them' ads and their impact is a worthy case study.
LexiMax 1y ago
> But in truth growth is growth. You are thinking of a tide that lifts all boats. The people supporting these policies don't want all boats to be lifted - they want prosperity for themselves and subjugation for anyone else. The power imbalance is the point. Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  This comment explains so much. Thank you. Some of the interaction on HN in the last weeks made no sense to me at all but you have actually provided an explanation that matches where I could find none so far.
seanw444 1y ago
Well it's easy to reconcile when you don't oversimplify the concerns. > it's the fundamental idea that people coming here is bad Too many people coming here that don't integrate and don't assimilate is bad. A nation cannot thrive with too many conflicting demographics. Multiculturalism working to the degree people want it to these days is a total fantasy. People coming here and extracting value from the economy to send home is also a problem. > We can't even allow things from other countries to come here. We don't want to be reliant on other nations. So we incentivize internal production, and disincentivize importing. You can argue that the way that the administration went about it was ineffective at accomplishing that, and that'd be another conversation. > To build prosperity, we need more production, which means more people. So incentivize the native population to have more kids. Incentivize technological innovation that doesn't require mass importation of foreigners.
- hebleb 1y ago
  This is all xenophobic nonsense
  - seanw444 1y ago
    Excellent counterpoint.
    - nkozyra 1y ago
      If I can shine some light on my specific qualms, it's these: > Too many people coming here that don't integrate and don't assimilate is bad. But ... why? This is stated as a matter of fact without any real qualification. Why is different "bad." We have far too many examples in our very own country of different - sometimes dissonant - cultures in the same space and still enjoying success as a society and a nation. > A nation cannot thrive with too many conflicting demographics. Again ... why not? NYC is our prime example of this working and the city succeeding despite some very, very different cultures side-by-side. There are also monoculture countries that have fallen far behind us to use as counterexamples. > People coming here and extracting value from the economy to send home is also a problem. This is my biggest issue. If you work here, you're producing something for this country. What you do with your money is frankly, your business. In either event, you're also spending money on housing, food, etc. You're both producing in this country and contributing to our economy. If you want to send the rest back to Mexico, why is that my business? Why does that hurt me?

defen 1y ago

> If there's a dichotomy that I can't really reconcile politically, it's the fundamental idea that people coming here is bad. That we cannot allow anyone else in. We can't even allow things from other countries to come here. "People coming here" is not inherently good or bad. Some people would be good for the country, and some people would be bad. I'm speaking of individuals here, not groups. The issue is that the electorate at large feels like it has been given a choice between two extremes: "Effectively allow ANYONE to come here and stay as long as they want" and "Don't let ANYONE come here". If you give a people a choice of two extremes, don't be surprised if they choose the extremism you don't like. Reconceptualize MAGA as voting AGAINST what the Democrats are offering, instead of FOR what Trump is offering, and it might make more sense.

lbrito 1y ago
In what world were the dems advertising allowing anyone in though? Did I daydream Harris saying "do not come" a few years ago?
- defen 1y ago
  I want to make it clear that we're not having an object-level discussion about this. This is not about "the actual stated policy" of the Democratic party. This is also not about "are those policies good or bad". It is not about my own views on those topics. So when I tell you my perception of other people's perception, please don't come back and say the equivalent "that's not actually what they said" or "yeah but that's a good policy." You might think that my perception of the electorate at large is inaccurate, and that's fine - it's purely based on vibes and anecdotal conversations with people. The issue is trust. Why should voters trust that Kamala Harris will implement immigration policies they want? Why should they expect her not to yield to the most extreme elements in her party, which believe that borders are a fiction and should not exist? Look at Barack Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage over the course of his political career. Now take an issue that is far more important than gay marriage - how is she going to stop unlimited unskilled immigration? How is she going to stop fraudulent claims of refugee status? How is the whole immigration problem itself going to be solved, if you posit that every one of the 10 million "unauthorized immigrants", and every one of the refugee claimants, needs multiple appearances in court to resolve their situation?
  - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
    I mean, doing what they do in the UK, where you need to provide proof of your right to work on day one of your job would help a lot. It seems to me that many US people want their cake and also eat it. Cheap workers are good, but also illegal immigration is bad. You kinda need to pick one.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >I mean, doing what they do in the UK, where you need to provide proof of your right to work on day one of your job would help a lot. Every job (as an employee) I've ever had has required me to submit IRS form W-9[0] on my first day of employment (or before). It's a standard part of the on-boarding process. To clarify, the W-9 form is to provide your "Taxpayer Identification number" (TIN) to those who will be handling payroll/tax withholding (that is, your employer). If you cannot provide a TIN, you are not allowed to begin working. If you don't have a TIN, presumably you don't have the right to work. Or is there something about the UK's processes I'm missing? [0] https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-w-9 https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-w-9
- thereisnospork 1y ago
  What the Dems say doesn't matter, what matters is the consensus opinion of their position. E.g. If Harris said 'I don't want to pass gun control' I probably wouldn't believe her because that's a singular drop in a river of pro gun control rhetoric and action by her party. People apparently feel that the Dems are pro 'letting everyone in' -- an understanding created not just by what the Dems say and do on the topic (and others) but what their opponents say too. If they don't want people to think they aren't pro-immigration then the Dems have dropped the ball on their messaging and actions. For a similar and reasonably concrete example, the 'Harris is for they/them' ads and their impact is a worthy case study.

LexiMax 1y ago

> But in truth growth is growth. You are thinking of a tide that lifts all boats. The people supporting these policies don't want all boats to be lifted - they want prosperity for themselves and subjugation for anyone else. The power imbalance is the point. Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

jacquesm 1y ago
This comment explains so much. Thank you. Some of the interaction on HN in the last weeks made no sense to me at all but you have actually provided an explanation that matches where I could find none so far.

seanw444 1y ago

Well it's easy to reconcile when you don't oversimplify the concerns. > it's the fundamental idea that people coming here is bad Too many people coming here that don't integrate and don't assimilate is bad. A nation cannot thrive with too many conflicting demographics. Multiculturalism working to the degree people want it to these days is a total fantasy. People coming here and extracting value from the economy to send home is also a problem. > We can't even allow things from other countries to come here. We don't want to be reliant on other nations. So we incentivize internal production, and disincentivize importing. You can argue that the way that the administration went about it was ineffective at accomplishing that, and that'd be another conversation. > To build prosperity, we need more production, which means more people. So incentivize the native population to have more kids. Incentivize technological innovation that doesn't require mass importation of foreigners.

hebleb 1y ago
This is all xenophobic nonsense
- seanw444 1y ago
  Excellent counterpoint.
  - nkozyra 1y ago
    If I can shine some light on my specific qualms, it's these: > Too many people coming here that don't integrate and don't assimilate is bad. But ... why? This is stated as a matter of fact without any real qualification. Why is different "bad." We have far too many examples in our very own country of different - sometimes dissonant - cultures in the same space and still enjoying success as a society and a nation. > A nation cannot thrive with too many conflicting demographics. Again ... why not? NYC is our prime example of this working and the city succeeding despite some very, very different cultures side-by-side. There are also monoculture countries that have fallen far behind us to use as counterexamples. > People coming here and extracting value from the economy to send home is also a problem. This is my biggest issue. If you work here, you're producing something for this country. What you do with your money is frankly, your business. In either event, you're also spending money on housing, food, etc. You're both producing in this country and contributing to our economy. If you want to send the rest back to Mexico, why is that my business? Why does that hurt me?