5 ms·

I find it so incredible disappointing that discrimination by citizenship or country of birth is not just alive, but getting worse. I’m afraid if the US is start

I find it so incredible disappointing that discrimination by citizenship or country of birth is not just alive, but getting worse. I’m afraid if the US is starting with this, it won’t take long for others to catch up.

throw-the-towel 9mo ago
Who doesn't discriminate by citizenship, really?
- elevatortrim 9mo ago
  That’s the “is not just alive” part.
  - throw-the-towel 9mo ago
    Yeah, but then the "others will catch up" part does not make sense. Other countries don't need the US' example to do that.
testing22321 9mo ago
If the world learns anything from the celebration of stupidity that has become the US, I very much hope it’s “whatever they’re doing, we absolutely should not.”
Etheryte 9mo ago
Literally every country worldwide does this. The question is simply to what extent and to what countries. The whole difference between being a native an an alien is the rights you get. It's not a human right to be able to freely go into any country you please.
- lo_zamoyski 9mo ago
  It's interesting you got downvoted, perhaps for the sentence > The whole difference between being a native an an alien is the rights you get. A knee jerk and uncharitable reading might make this look bad, but it does require an uncharitable reading. It is clear what you mean. However, the claim > It's not a human right to be able to freely go into any country you please. is not false. The idea that open borders are a good thing is a very odd idea. It seems to grow out of a hyperindividualistic and global capitalist/consumerist culture and mindset that doesn't recognize the reality of societies and cultures. Either that, or it is a rationalization of one's own very domestic and particular choices, for example. In any case, uncontrolled migration is well-understood (and rather obviously!) as something damaging to any society and any culture. In hyperindividualistic countries, this is perhaps less appreciated, because there isn't really an ethnos or cohesive culture or society. In the US, for example, corporate consumerism dominates what passes as "culture" (certainly pop culture), and the culture's liberal individualism is hostile to the formation and persistence of a robust common good as well as a recognition of what constitutes an authentic common good. It is reduced mostly to economic factors, hence globalist capitalism. So, in the extreme, if there are no societies, only atoms and the void, then who cares how to atoms go? The other problem is that public discourse operates almost entirely within the confines of the false dichotomy of jingoist nationalism on the one hand and hyperindividualist globalism on the other (with the respective variants, like the socialist). There is little recognition of so-called postliberal positions, at least some of which draw on the robust traditional understanding of the common good and the human person, one that both jingoist nationalism and hyperindividualist globalism contradict. When postliberalism is mentioned, it is often smeared with false characterization or falsely lumped in with nihilistic positions like the Yarvin variety...which is not traditional! Given the ongoing collapse of the liberal order - a process that will take time - these postliberal positions will need to be examined carefully if we are to avoid the hideous options dominating the public square today.
  - omikun 9mo ago
    Pardon me if I’m misreading it but this sounds like disinformation. No examples in your example, a lot of abstract reasoning unmoored from facts. >uncontrolled migration is well-understood (and rather obviously!) as something damaging to any society and any culture. The US was built on unrestricted immigration for a long time. Was that destructive? I guess so if you count native Americans but not to the nation of USA. Capitalism wants closed borders to labor and open borders to capital. Thats how they can squeeze labor costs while maximizing profits. The US is highly individualistic but wants closed borders so how does your reasoning align with the news?
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - phainopepla2 9mo ago
      Capitalists in wealthy countries have absolutely no problem with effectively open borders, that's exactly how they squeeze labor costs
  - RealityVoid 9mo ago
    > The idea that open borders are a good thing is a very odd idea Passports were not common until the 20th century. Until then borders were mostly porous. There did use to be other cases some people couldn't leave a geografic confines, they used to call them serfs.
- lawn 9mo ago
  > The whole difference between being a native an an alien is the rights you get. It's not a human right to be able to freely go into any country you please. The first step for genocide is to dehumanize people. They're not humans, they're aliens. Therefore it's fine if we treat them as filth and throw them away (or gas them).
graemep 9mo ago
A lot of countries already do this. You cannot get visas to most developed countries if you are likely to become a "public charge". In general, its a lot easier to get a visa if you are from a rich and stable country (or are rich yourself), and if you look at where countries allow visa free travel to citizens of another country the countries on this list are unlikely to qualify!
- garbawarb 9mo ago
  In that case, why not have some measurement of what makes a person likely to be a public charge that applies to every country, rather than a blanket ban on everyone from targeted countries?
  - graemep 9mo ago
    There are lots of possible reasons. Some good, some bad. A possible good reason might be that there is a higher level of fraud (e.g. faked financial statements), or a higher level of public charge in applications from some countries - especially if it is a pause while procedures are changed. On the other hand the true motive might be something else. That said, I have no idea why its this particular list of countries. Why Thailand or Jamaica or Nepal?
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    H1B processing is hopelessly backed up for the 60-70 thousand visas we give out annually. We would have to massively cut immigration inflow, from the 1-3 million annually we have today, to make those granular determinations feasible. I don't think individualized determination are even possible. Unless you take very few people from each country, they'll inevitably find each other and form communities. And the kinds of communities they form will be driven by their cultures. The question isn't "would this one Bangladeshi be a good immigrant." It is "when 100,000 Bangladeshis inevitably form a cultural enclave in some city, will that be better or worse than what was there before?"
  - tshaddox 9mo ago
    They already literally review on a case by case basis regardless of country of origin. Providing evidence of financial support is a big part of visa and green card applications.
shimman 9mo ago
You need to learn your history because one of the first immigration laws this country passed was exclusively banning Chinese people for nearly an entire human lifespan.
pembrook 9mo ago
While I don't agree with the haphazard and seemingly random policy changes coming from the US lately -- this is a bad take. You do realize that discrimination by citizenship is conducted by basically every government on earth in the context of visas and tourism and residency? In fact, what made the US so bizarre up until about 1914 was that they were the only major country that effectively had open borders. There was no welfare state to take advantage of back then, and you literally did have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. This only started to shift after the US began constructing its welfare state (welfare state expansion correlates with increasingly closed immigration policy, hence where we find ourselves today).
rayiner 9mo ago
That's the wrong way of looking at it. We have evidence that national cultures affect prosperity, and that, at scale, immigrants bring their cultures with them: https://www.rorotoko.com/11/20230913-jones-garett-on-book-culture-transplant-how-migrants-make-economies-they-move-to-a-lot-like-the-ones-they-left https://www.rorotoko.com/11/20230913-jones-garett-on-book-cu... ("For the last twenty years I’ve been asking the Adam Smith question: Why are some nations so much more productive than others? I’d found some new answers in my own research, summed up in my earlier book Hive Mind. But at the same time, I kept reading findings by a separate group of researchers, especially three excellent professors at Brown University: David Weil, Louis Putterman, and Oded Galor. Their work on the 'Deep Roots' of economic prosperity suggested that many of the important economic differences across countries began centuries, even millennia ago."). The U.S. takes in millions of immigrants a year. At that scale, it's not a question of the individual merits of a single immigrant from a country. It's about the merits of the community that will be formed when 100,000 immigrants from that country come to the U.S. and settle in the same place and socialize their children into their culture. And the evidence we have is that, when that happens, they'll bring with them a lot of characteristics of their origin countries.
- selimthegrim 9mo ago
  This is a gigantic middle finger to pre-1965 South Asian immigrants, which you continue to pretend don't exist.
  - LexiMax 9mo ago
    A few days ago he was claiming that the most orderly societies had the least seasoned food.
    - rayiner 9mo ago
      Am I wrong? You acknowledge that food preferences are cultural, right? Wouldn’t it be weird if culture just affected the kinds of food people like and how they dress, but not the kinds of civic institutions they form?
  - 9mo ago
ReptileMan 9mo ago
Good. I like having distinct nation states with different cultures and ethnicity instead of bland homogenized globalized grayness - the thing that could be seen in every mall in a city that has international airport. From Jakarta trough Kenya, Berlin and NY - it is all the same. There should be breaks on the whole immigration and asylum things.

throw-the-towel 9mo ago

Who doesn't discriminate by citizenship, really?

elevatortrim 9mo ago
That’s the “is not just alive” part.
- throw-the-towel 9mo ago
  Yeah, but then the "others will catch up" part does not make sense. Other countries don't need the US' example to do that.

testing22321 9mo ago

If the world learns anything from the celebration of stupidity that has become the US, I very much hope it’s “whatever they’re doing, we absolutely should not.”

Etheryte 9mo ago

Literally every country worldwide does this. The question is simply to what extent and to what countries. The whole difference between being a native an an alien is the rights you get. It's not a human right to be able to freely go into any country you please.

lo_zamoyski 9mo ago
It's interesting you got downvoted, perhaps for the sentence > The whole difference between being a native an an alien is the rights you get. A knee jerk and uncharitable reading might make this look bad, but it does require an uncharitable reading. It is clear what you mean. However, the claim > It's not a human right to be able to freely go into any country you please. is not false. The idea that open borders are a good thing is a very odd idea. It seems to grow out of a hyperindividualistic and global capitalist/consumerist culture and mindset that doesn't recognize the reality of societies and cultures. Either that, or it is a rationalization of one's own very domestic and particular choices, for example. In any case, uncontrolled migration is well-understood (and rather obviously!) as something damaging to any society and any culture. In hyperindividualistic countries, this is perhaps less appreciated, because there isn't really an ethnos or cohesive culture or society. In the US, for example, corporate consumerism dominates what passes as "culture" (certainly pop culture), and the culture's liberal individualism is hostile to the formation and persistence of a robust common good as well as a recognition of what constitutes an authentic common good. It is reduced mostly to economic factors, hence globalist capitalism. So, in the extreme, if there are no societies, only atoms and the void, then who cares how to atoms go? The other problem is that public discourse operates almost entirely within the confines of the false dichotomy of jingoist nationalism on the one hand and hyperindividualist globalism on the other (with the respective variants, like the socialist). There is little recognition of so-called postliberal positions, at least some of which draw on the robust traditional understanding of the common good and the human person, one that both jingoist nationalism and hyperindividualist globalism contradict. When postliberalism is mentioned, it is often smeared with false characterization or falsely lumped in with nihilistic positions like the Yarvin variety...which is not traditional! Given the ongoing collapse of the liberal order - a process that will take time - these postliberal positions will need to be examined carefully if we are to avoid the hideous options dominating the public square today.
- omikun 9mo ago
  Pardon me if I’m misreading it but this sounds like disinformation. No examples in your example, a lot of abstract reasoning unmoored from facts. >uncontrolled migration is well-understood (and rather obviously!) as something damaging to any society and any culture. The US was built on unrestricted immigration for a long time. Was that destructive? I guess so if you count native Americans but not to the nation of USA. Capitalism wants closed borders to labor and open borders to capital. Thats how they can squeeze labor costs while maximizing profits. The US is highly individualistic but wants closed borders so how does your reasoning align with the news?
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - phainopepla2 9mo ago
    Capitalists in wealthy countries have absolutely no problem with effectively open borders, that's exactly how they squeeze labor costs
- RealityVoid 9mo ago
  > The idea that open borders are a good thing is a very odd idea Passports were not common until the 20th century. Until then borders were mostly porous. There did use to be other cases some people couldn't leave a geografic confines, they used to call them serfs.
lawn 9mo ago
> The whole difference between being a native an an alien is the rights you get. It's not a human right to be able to freely go into any country you please. The first step for genocide is to dehumanize people. They're not humans, they're aliens. Therefore it's fine if we treat them as filth and throw them away (or gas them).

graemep 9mo ago

A lot of countries already do this. You cannot get visas to most developed countries if you are likely to become a "public charge". In general, its a lot easier to get a visa if you are from a rich and stable country (or are rich yourself), and if you look at where countries allow visa free travel to citizens of another country the countries on this list are unlikely to qualify!

garbawarb 9mo ago
In that case, why not have some measurement of what makes a person likely to be a public charge that applies to every country, rather than a blanket ban on everyone from targeted countries?
- graemep 9mo ago
  There are lots of possible reasons. Some good, some bad. A possible good reason might be that there is a higher level of fraud (e.g. faked financial statements), or a higher level of public charge in applications from some countries - especially if it is a pause while procedures are changed. On the other hand the true motive might be something else. That said, I have no idea why its this particular list of countries. Why Thailand or Jamaica or Nepal?
- rayiner 9mo ago
  H1B processing is hopelessly backed up for the 60-70 thousand visas we give out annually. We would have to massively cut immigration inflow, from the 1-3 million annually we have today, to make those granular determinations feasible. I don't think individualized determination are even possible. Unless you take very few people from each country, they'll inevitably find each other and form communities. And the kinds of communities they form will be driven by their cultures. The question isn't "would this one Bangladeshi be a good immigrant." It is "when 100,000 Bangladeshis inevitably form a cultural enclave in some city, will that be better or worse than what was there before?"
- tshaddox 9mo ago
  They already literally review on a case by case basis regardless of country of origin. Providing evidence of financial support is a big part of visa and green card applications.

shimman 9mo ago

You need to learn your history because one of the first immigration laws this country passed was exclusively banning Chinese people for nearly an entire human lifespan.

pembrook 9mo ago

While I don't agree with the haphazard and seemingly random policy changes coming from the US lately -- this is a bad take. You do realize that discrimination by citizenship is conducted by basically every government on earth in the context of visas and tourism and residency? In fact, what made the US so bizarre up until about 1914 was that they were the only major country that effectively had open borders. There was no welfare state to take advantage of back then, and you literally did have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. This only started to shift after the US began constructing its welfare state (welfare state expansion correlates with increasingly closed immigration policy, hence where we find ourselves today).

rayiner 9mo ago

That's the wrong way of looking at it. We have evidence that national cultures affect prosperity, and that, at scale, immigrants bring their cultures with them: https://www.rorotoko.com/11/20230913-jones-garett-on-book-culture-transplant-how-migrants-make-economies-they-move-to-a-lot-like-the-ones-they-left https://www.rorotoko.com/11/20230913-jones-garett-on-book-cu... ("For the last twenty years I’ve been asking the Adam Smith question: Why are some nations so much more productive than others? I’d found some new answers in my own research, summed up in my earlier book Hive Mind. But at the same time, I kept reading findings by a separate group of researchers, especially three excellent professors at Brown University: David Weil, Louis Putterman, and Oded Galor. Their work on the 'Deep Roots' of economic prosperity suggested that many of the important economic differences across countries began centuries, even millennia ago."). The U.S. takes in millions of immigrants a year. At that scale, it's not a question of the individual merits of a single immigrant from a country. It's about the merits of the community that will be formed when 100,000 immigrants from that country come to the U.S. and settle in the same place and socialize their children into their culture. And the evidence we have is that, when that happens, they'll bring with them a lot of characteristics of their origin countries.

selimthegrim 9mo ago
This is a gigantic middle finger to pre-1965 South Asian immigrants, which you continue to pretend don't exist.
- LexiMax 9mo ago
  A few days ago he was claiming that the most orderly societies had the least seasoned food.
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    Am I wrong? You acknowledge that food preferences are cultural, right? Wouldn’t it be weird if culture just affected the kinds of food people like and how they dress, but not the kinds of civic institutions they form?
- 9mo ago

ReptileMan 9mo ago

Good. I like having distinct nation states with different cultures and ethnicity instead of bland homogenized globalized grayness - the thing that could be seen in every mall in a city that has international airport. From Jakarta trough Kenya, Berlin and NY - it is all the same. There should be breaks on the whole immigration and asylum things.