6 ms·

"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 pha

"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.
    - Terr_ 5mo ago
      > principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty. A laundry-list of principles the current federal Republican regime has been destroying or violating the last two years, and surely each one far more important than (non-)immigration. It started by abusing the responsibility of "immigration" to violate the First Amendment, punishing people purely for op-eds and opinions the President didn't like. [0] Then he unilaterally declared an "invasion" by a Venezuelan street gang, using that as an excuse to round up dozens of people (without charges, let alone evidence) based on a crazy "any tattoo I can't recognize" rubric (for a gang that doesn't even use tattoos) and violating court orders to deliberately ship them into a third-world dictator's brutal gulag. [1] That was, what, just the first month? We've had dozens of other things that ought to have been scandals worse than Watergate since then. > Hamilton would have hated Mamdani. Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother, if the alternative was Trump having any position of public trust. Discussing immigration, it seems a little strange to target the mayor of a particular single city, instead of the enormous cartload of impeachable offenses being committed by the highest office of the land that actually does immigration stuff. [0] https://www.aclu.org/cases/khalil-v-trump https://www.aclu.org/cases/khalil-v-trump [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pro-soccer-player-sent-to-el-salvador-over-tattoo-details-hell-on-earth-at-cecot/ar-AA1JMaHo https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pro-soccer-player-sent-...
      - rayiner 5mo ago
        > Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother No. Hamilton was very worried about immigrants bringing foreign social and political views to the U.S. Jefferson, meanwhile, though the immigrants would support the Democratic Party, and favored those radical ideas. It's the same debate we have today: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-view-on-immigration https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie.... Hamilton was the MAGA of his day.
        Terr_ 5mo ago
        That's unfair to Hamilton: There's huge difference between "kinda wanted a kingly system" versus "would have approved of that becoming king while breaking the rules of a different system."

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.
  - Terr_ 5mo ago
    > principles like limited government, federalism, property rights, free markets, and individual liberty. A laundry-list of principles the current federal Republican regime has been destroying or violating the last two years, and surely each one far more important than (non-)immigration. It started by abusing the responsibility of "immigration" to violate the First Amendment, punishing people purely for op-eds and opinions the President didn't like. [0] Then he unilaterally declared an "invasion" by a Venezuelan street gang, using that as an excuse to round up dozens of people (without charges, let alone evidence) based on a crazy "any tattoo I can't recognize" rubric (for a gang that doesn't even use tattoos) and violating court orders to deliberately ship them into a third-world dictator's brutal gulag. [1] That was, what, just the first month? We've had dozens of other things that ought to have been scandals worse than Watergate since then. > Hamilton would have hated Mamdani. Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother, if the alternative was Trump having any position of public trust. Discussing immigration, it seems a little strange to target the mayor of a particular single city, instead of the enormous cartload of impeachable offenses being committed by the highest office of the land that actually does immigration stuff. [0] https://www.aclu.org/cases/khalil-v-trump https://www.aclu.org/cases/khalil-v-trump [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pro-soccer-player-sent-to-el-salvador-over-tattoo-details-hell-on-earth-at-cecot/ar-AA1JMaHo https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pro-soccer-player-sent-...
    - rayiner 5mo ago
      > Hamilton would have embraced Mamdani as a brother No. Hamilton was very worried about immigrants bringing foreign social and political views to the U.S. Jefferson, meanwhile, though the immigrants would support the Democratic Party, and favored those radical ideas. It's the same debate we have today: https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-view-on-immigration https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie.... Hamilton was the MAGA of his day.
      - Terr_ 5mo ago
        That's unfair to Hamilton: There's huge difference between "kinda wanted a kingly system" versus "would have approved of that becoming king while breaking the rules of a different system."