5 ms·

> That's always been true. Except it is completely contrary to how the immigration system has worked in the US for decades. It is absolutely standard for peopl

> That's always been true. Except it is completely contrary to how the immigration system has worked in the US for decades. It is absolutely standard for people who are already in the US on other types of visas to apply for Green Cards.

portmanteur 5mo ago
[flagged]
- DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
  More like he's been given a political mandate to be needlessly cruel to non-citizens, and he's constantly finding new ways to do so - whether legal or illegal. The latest move even forces spouses of US citizens to leave the country before they can apply for a Green Card. Why? No reason except spite. Hating on foreigners is good politics. And then all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork to try to explain that this is all normal and fine, and that nobody should be upset by it.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    It took decades of bait and switch and not enforcing the immigration laws to get to this point: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi... The last time the U.S. had this level of foreign born population, it enacted extremely restrictive immigration laws and the foreign born population dropped from 15% to under 5%.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
      "Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades. Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politics.
      - rayiner 5mo ago
        > Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades. The law was marketed to voters as a temporary worker program. That’s not what it ended up being. That’s the bait and switch. > Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politic The immigration restriction was necessary to Americanize the immigrants culturally and dissolve their foreign identities and affinity for their own cultural groups. It was fairly successful, too! It’s bizarre to have to explain this concept on HN. Silicon Valley companies spend so much time on culture and fit, and with good reason. Cultivating a successful culture is extremely important. It’s curation, not “xenophobia.”
        DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
        A country is not a company. The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution. The attempt by Trump and his supporters (yourself included) to replace that American identity with a xenophobic, exclusionary identity is a major deviation from traditional American values.
        rayiner 5mo ago
        > The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution. Insofar as America has a "civic creed," it's principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty.[1] We know that, because America's founders were prolific writers and wrote down everything they thought was important: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text It's definitely not immigration. Here's Alexander Hamilton on immigration: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-view-on-immigration/ https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie... ("The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.") Alexander Hamilton thought you needed a "common national sentiment," "uniformity of principles and habits," and "love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family." Hamilton would have hated Mamdani.
- nsonha 5mo ago
  not just de facto standard and not just in the US, it's a logical way to intepret the laws, in many western countries. The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America. It makes no sense for people to have to leave the country to apply for permanent resident, and be treated like all those to-be immigrants who have never lived in America.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    > The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America The law should do what it was designed to do. The H1 system reflects a compromise between people who wanted skilled workers and those who didn’t want foreigners becoming permanent residents. So the compromise was a temporary worker program where most people would go home afterwards. The law should be interpreted to give effect to that compromise. Your approach of streamlining immigration wipes away that compromise.
    - nsonha 5mo ago
      they still need to file for permanent residency and you can still reject them. If the laws need to "wipe away that compromise", better just disqualify them from filing in the first place. It makes no sense to deport some of the people that you're going to give permanent residency to, while you're giving permanent residency to them.
- mrgoldenbrown 5mo ago
  For him to have been given a mandate, he would have had to stick to one well defined, self consistent position for more than a day.

portmanteur 5mo ago

[flagged]

DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
More like he's been given a political mandate to be needlessly cruel to non-citizens, and he's constantly finding new ways to do so - whether legal or illegal. The latest move even forces spouses of US citizens to leave the country before they can apply for a Green Card. Why? No reason except spite. Hating on foreigners is good politics. And then all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork to try to explain that this is all normal and fine, and that nobody should be upset by it.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  It took decades of bait and switch and not enforcing the immigration laws to get to this point: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi... The last time the U.S. had this level of foreign born population, it enacted extremely restrictive immigration laws and the foreign born population dropped from 15% to under 5%.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
    "Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades. Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politics.
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      > Bait and switch"? Applying for a Green Card while in the US is allowed by the law, and has been the norm for decades. The law was marketed to voters as a temporary worker program. That’s not what it ended up being. That’s the bait and switch. > Yes, the US has had other xenophobic phases in its history. That doesn't justify the new wave of xenophobic politic The immigration restriction was necessary to Americanize the immigrants culturally and dissolve their foreign identities and affinity for their own cultural groups. It was fairly successful, too! It’s bizarre to have to explain this concept on HN. Silicon Valley companies spend so much time on culture and fit, and with good reason. Cultivating a successful culture is extremely important. It’s curation, not “xenophobia.”
      - DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
        A country is not a company. The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution. The attempt by Trump and his supporters (yourself included) to replace that American identity with a xenophobic, exclusionary identity is a major deviation from traditional American values.
        rayiner 5mo ago
        > The central belief that defines Americans is that the country is open to immigrants, and that it will accept anyone who embraces the civic creed: democracy and civil rights, as defined by the Constitution. Insofar as America has a "civic creed," it's principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty.[1] We know that, because America's founders were prolific writers and wrote down everything they thought was important: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text It's definitely not immigration. Here's Alexander Hamilton on immigration: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-view-on-immigration/ https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie... ("The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.") Alexander Hamilton thought you needed a "common national sentiment," "uniformity of principles and habits," and "love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family." Hamilton would have hated Mamdani.
nsonha 5mo ago
not just de facto standard and not just in the US, it's a logical way to intepret the laws, in many western countries. The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America. It makes no sense for people to have to leave the country to apply for permanent resident, and be treated like all those to-be immigrants who have never lived in America.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  > The laws should streamline and welcome people who have already established connection and contributed to the success of America The law should do what it was designed to do. The H1 system reflects a compromise between people who wanted skilled workers and those who didn’t want foreigners becoming permanent residents. So the compromise was a temporary worker program where most people would go home afterwards. The law should be interpreted to give effect to that compromise. Your approach of streamlining immigration wipes away that compromise.
  - nsonha 5mo ago
    they still need to file for permanent residency and you can still reject them. If the laws need to "wipe away that compromise", better just disqualify them from filing in the first place. It makes no sense to deport some of the people that you're going to give permanent residency to, while you're giving permanent residency to them.
mrgoldenbrown 5mo ago
For him to have been given a mandate, he would have had to stick to one well defined, self consistent position for more than a day.