4 ms·

Respectfully, I don't think immigrants belong in a list including felons and addicts. Can't we just get along?

• jMyles 12y ago
  Why do felons and addicts belong on the same list?
  • rayiner 12y ago
    Why do felons belong on a list?
    • addicted44 12y ago
      It's a list of groups of people who are traditionally ignored by most companies, but are hired by this one. If Harvard grads were traditionally unemployable, but employed by this bakery, they would also be on the list along with felons, immigrants and addicts.
      • rayiner 12y ago
        But I was responding to someone arguing we shouldn't put addicts and felons in the same list.
        • jMyles 12y ago
          OK, I suppose you're right - both lists are very noisy with little signal. I just meant to point out that addicts aren't fundamentally criminal.
          • Dylan16807 12y ago
            >addicts aren't fundamentally criminal I think you have your ranking backwards. Having committed a crime means you screwed up. Being an addict means a life-destroying drive that never truly goes away.
    • venomsnake 12y ago
      Logically they should not. After all the whole point of the sentence is that what they owe society is payed so they are clean.
    • ars 12y ago
      Because that same lack of empathy for other people, together with a lack of self control also affects other parts of their life. If that's the kind of person they are then people have a right to now that and judge them for it, because they are likely to do it again. It doesn't mean never hire them, but it does mean don't put them in a position where they have a larger ability to hurt others. Obviously some crimes are of the "stupid teen" variety, and other motivations - those should be categorized differently.
• joshuapants 12y ago
  Unlawful entry into the US can be a felony in some circumstances. The list isn't conflating them morally or something, it's just saying that each entry is a group that typically has issues finding proper employment. edit: given the ambiguous nature of the headline, maybe you were referring to immigrants as a whole and not simply people who migrated here illegally. In that case I agree with you, but given the context of the article I think they meant to refer to illegal immigrants. This, of course, doesn't make much sense because there are penalties for hiring illegal immigrants. The article hardly mentions immigrants, and it isn't clear which category they refer to. I don't think there is a broad assumption that immigrants on the whole are unemployable, as the article claims. I'd like to see some clarification from Grist.