Hacker News Reader

In what way does the U.S. have "unchecked immigration"?

Edit: also, you have a bizarrely pessimistic view of immigrants' and refugees' potential to contribute to their host country. My parents were part of the flood of refugees that came after the fall of Saigon. Like the incoming Syrians today, they were taken in by American families and lived off of welfare for years. Now they, and their children, contribute to the nation's bottom-line, never mind the goodwill that America incurs by taking in people of need.

I am against indiscriminate immigration policies.

There are always trade-offs. For every good immigrants such as your folks, there are those who are utterly destructive. This is just a fact. Therefore, you cannot be careless about who comes into your country. Some people just don't want the same things that you do. They prefer chaos because after death, they will meet their maker and get rewarded for their fundamentalism.

It then becomes a question of, do you accept the downside if the upside is as mundane as perceived goodwill. I think not.

I repeat, not all can be saved and for that matter, not all want to be saved. Some of them actually hate America and as soon as they are in, they will hurt Americans on purpose.

Here's a woman who was travelling from Costa Rica to Scotland. The flight stops in the US. She had a correct transit visa. She was stoppend because of Trump's ban.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116

How many Americans have been killed by Scottish-Iranian vets?

How do you suppose you can deal with radicalized immigrants if you're indiscriminate about immigration?

It is a temporary ban first of all.

Secondly, it is not just about security. It is also about welfare.

I'm not a proponent of welfare but if you must have it, then you cannot possibly combine that with unrestricted immigration because the logical outcome of that is a population full of immigrants on welfare voting themselves more welfare. Is that how America was built? No. It was built by hard working intelligent people to a country that is the envy of many today.

What makes you think immigrants just come to vote "themselves more welfare"? Many groups of immigrants and refugees start off poor. I don't know where you learned about America, but we have enough resources that things aren't a zero sum game between immigrants and current citizens.

First of all, anyone can learn about anything now. Everything is everywhere now so you cannot lie to anyone about what America is like or what it isn't like. I suggest you forfeit that line of argument.

Secondly, riddle me this; do more immigrants vote for the party that promises more government welfare or less government welfare? I don't even know where you're going with this.

Finally, no one believes that resources aren't finite and as such it isn't a zero-sum game more than I do. However, when you have speak of how the wealthy/corporations should pay more taxes and those taxes should go to fund more welfare...clearly that's a mindset that says things are scarce and that it is a zero-sum game. One party says expropriate from producers to fund welfare the other says reduce regulation and taxes to incentivise more production. One has a producer mindset, the other has a consumer mindset.

– Steve Jobs was the son of Syrian immigrants

– Segej Brin's parents were also immigrants

– Most immigrants don't vote at all, because immigration does not imply citizenship

- (this argument intentionally left blank to make dang's life easier)

– Most naturalised citizen vote democratic, yes. Jews also voted for Hillary (74%:26% according to https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/11/14/examining-the-jewish-v...). So did Harvard grads. Are those two groups also lazy "people with a consumer mindset"?

>Most naturalised citizen vote democratic

Doesn't that mean something to you? It is no wonder many democrats want even more immigrants. Look at a state such as California...

27% of California's population was foreign born, about twice the US percentage.

Don't you think these politicians are aware of this and it is undoubtedly the reason they want even more immigrants? It has nothing to do with caring for other humans for them. It is all about increasing the number of democrats as much as possible irregardless of whether it is good for the country or not. Don't let them take you for a ride.

>Steve Jobs was the son of Syrian immigrants

These occurrences will be there from time to time but look at how and when these immigrants came to America.

There was a time when it was much harder to come to America and that meant that only the best people went to America. Not just everyone and anyone. The DV lottery program was the beginning of the end for the right kind of immigration to America.

When I look at the caliber of people that actually made it to America from my country before this was introduced, man, they were smart, hardworking and any country losing them to America felt the pinch. Now, the DV program has been sending just about anyone regardless of whether they were adding value to America. It is an indicator that it is on longer understood that even though immigration is good, it is only as good as the caliber of people you let in.

Who should be let in you ask? Those seeking education, expatriates, entrepreneurs, scientists etc. Not everyone.

> There was a time when it was much harder to come to America and that meant that only the best people went to America. Not just everyone and anyone. The DV lottery program was the beginning of the end for the right kind of immigration to America.

The diversity visa lottery program requires that you have a high school diploma and come from a country that has sent very small numbers of people to America. And the DV lottery includes only 50,000 winners. Are you aware of how large America's population is, and how small 50,000 people is relative to the U.S. and to the size of normal annual immigration?

Yes, the point of the diversity visa is to add diversity to the immigrant pool, so that it isn't totally dominated by Asia and Latin America, because the U.S. has had historical success with diversity.

>Are you aware of how large America's population is, and how small 50,000 people is relative to the U.S. and to the size of normal annual immigration?

That is not the point. I'm simply stating that lately America has been less strict with the caliber of immigrants allowed in and the DV program best exemplifies it.

Yes, it is the point. You're claiming that America's DV program is emblematic of how standards have fallen, as if there were a golden age in American immigration. You talk about how America was built by intelligent hard-working immigrants. Yes, it was, but those immigrants wouldn't have been let in with your mentality. How many of the millions of Italian and Irish immigrants during the late 19th century were college graduates? My understanding is that most of them arrived on American shores as extremely poor. Same with the Chinese during that time. Since you aren't American, maybe you weren't aware that one of America's golden ages was in the 1940s and 1950s, and those late 19th century immigrants would have played a large part in that.

Similarly, war refugees from the 1970s through the 1980s were not particularly high "caliber", and certainly not self-sufficient enough to survive without hundreds of millions in American government aid, nevermind the generosity of American families and churches in providing sponsorship.

Again, you're not from America, so maybe it's hard to understand that America is lucky enough to have the resources and geographical placement so that immigration can be a net benefit rather than a zero-sum drag on society. You seem to think that there is no regulation of immigration at all, when in fact, it has been the subject of several laws that specify the annual composition and allowance, and these are things based on the study of history and economic realities. And also, observations that American families are happier when they've been reunited, which is why family-based visas are a large part of the annual allocation [0]

[0] https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/family/f...

I suggest you understand that just because "anyone can learn about anything now" doesn't mean that you yourself have fulfilled that promise. For example, you seem to misunderstand the notion of welfare. The mindset behind it is not zero-sum, it's quite the opposite. The hope and expectation is that those who need welfare get the helping hand they need to establish themselves. Again, I can speak from personal experience growing up with food stamps, and now living and working in Silicon Valley.

How do you suppose you can deal with radicalized immigrants if you're indiscriminate about immigration?

I don't think it's fair to describe the current situation as indiscriminate. There are existing limits. One can reasonably argue whether they're appropriate or adequate or effective, but to imply that there are no limits or vetting at all is disingenuous.

It may not be so as it is but left to the devices of Trump's detractors, the ultimate goal is to be as limitless as you can.

Even if that isn't the case, can you honestly say we live in times where we can ignore that more needs to be done? To me, it is absolutely binary; either you think more should be done or you don't.

The real debate here is whether Trump's ban constitutes doing what's necessary and I say yes.

If you expect others to engage you in nuanced discussion, you need to do so yourself, which not only means being more careful with language like "indiscriminate", but also includes avoiding sweeping generalizations like "left to the devices of Trump's detractors, the ultimate goal is to be as limitless as you can."

All around are accusations of "they're not listening to us", "they don't really understand the problem", "they don't realize the logical conclusion of their positions". A lot of people are barely talking at each other, much less actually with each other.

I can — and do — honestly say we live in times where we need to spend a lot more effort in listening and understanding each other, as people, as opposed to partisans.

She's not immigrating to the US!!!!!

She lives and works in Scotland. She was on vacation in Costa Rica. Her plane flies from Costa Rica to Scotland, with a change in the US.

Like I said, it's a temporary ban to allow the President and his team to figure things such as these out.

It is also an edge case that can be overlooked because there are other routes to get to her desired destination.

She is an Iranian. You and I don't know her. We cannot speak to her credibility. We cannot even speak to the credibility of an actual American who goes to Iran and comes back after a spending some time there let alone hers. How can you know whether she is radicalized unless you're absolutely careful about who comes into your country? These things are happening and cannot be sugarcoated or denied any longer. Something must be done and I for one am glad that Trump is setting such a great example for all other countries.

You're insane. Could you kindly point out any terrorist acts in the US by any citizen of any of the nationalities now banned?

If you want Trump to "be an example for other countries", how should the woman ever get to Costa Rica, considering Costa Rica <-> Iran is probably not popular enough to warrant a direct flight?

How exactly is a woman that is not allowed to exit the terminal, and has been through three metal detectors a risk to America?

Considering there has been no single incident with any terrorists from the nations in the last 30 years (yeah, I just spoiled the answer for the first question, sorry), would I be expecting too much when asking why nobody thought to pick up the phone and ask immigrations "If I were to ban people from country X, is there anything I should keep in mind". After all, it took DHS less than 6 hours to identify ambiguities with regards to green cards and visas.

No name calling please. I'm very much sane and the furthest thing from a deplorable so to speak.

Please tell me we're not ignoring that most terrorism is Muslim affiliated. That, coupled with the fact that there have been many attacks all over the world by Muslim terrorists leads me to ask a simple question, does it then not make sense to ban people from largely Muslim countries until more can be done to thwart these attacks?

Should nothing be done according to you?

As for that woman, that is an edge case and it can be tolerated for now until travelers on transit can be isolated more carefully in the future. For now, the ban must be employed because more important things are at stake here i.e. security.

>How exactly is a woman that is not allowed to exit the terminal

>If you want Trump to "be an example for other countries", how should the woman ever get to Costa Rica, considering Costa Rica <-> Iran is probably not popular enough to warrant a direct flight?

I would suggest that they be stopped before coming to America in the first place. Let them use another route until authorities can figure out what the hell is going on. America is after all high on extremists' target priority lists.

Don't use this small instance of this woman to discredit the entire ban on these 7 nations' emigrants.

> Should nothing be done according to you?

Not sure if you're aware of this but America has a Department of Homeland Security as well as USCIS, both funded to the tune of billions of dollars to provide screening of the immigration process. There is a lot more than "nothing" that has been done to regulate immigration before Trump's executive order.

Clearly whatever is being done is insufficient and that's why there are attacks by Islamists. As such Trump has decided to be more proactive. He needs more support and accolades for being brave enough to do what's needed even though it is controversial.

How many people have died in America due to Islamist attacks since 9/11, nevermind immigrant Islamist attacks?

What? Why would you even ask that?

Do you want America to be like France where because of insufficient immigration controls they get an attack every so often from these Islamic immigrants?

> Why would you even ask that?

You said,

> Clearly whatever is being done is insufficient and that's why there are attacks by Islamists.

If, as the parent is hinting, there have been few-to-no attacks by immigrant Islamists (and few attacks by Islamists of any stripe) in the US, I don't see how it's remotely clear that "whatever is being done is insufficient". What the hell does "sufficient" look like?

> Do you want America to be like France where because of insufficient immigration controls they get an attack every so often from these Islamic immigrants?

Personally? Maybe. If the cost of getting rid of it was zero, then no, of course not. But I choose to bear much higher risks because I don't like the trade-offs necessary to eliminate them. There is no reason this should be different.

>What the hell does "sufficient" look like?

Exactly what President Trump has done. Impose a ban until it can be figured out, what the hell is going on.

But its been established, nothing is going on. Except for fear-mongering at the highest levels. Its a circus, designed to distract from the real crimes, which are stealing the entire US economy out from under us.

Its a circus, designed to distract

Okay, I'm with you. A lot of Trump's behavior during the campaign and leading up to the inauguration can be interpreted in this way as well.

from the real crimes,

It's been (just over) a week since the inauguration. I'm sure I could have missed something. The only thing I can think of right now is the emoluments-related matters, and other conflicts of interest. The Executive Order stuff is pretty nasty as well, and looks to be the beginning of a judicial (and perhaps congressional) fight, arguably a crime, but that remains to be seen.

which are stealing the entire US economy out from under us.

Okay, now I'm not following at all. What am I missing? I plead naiveté and ignorance and throw myself at the mercy of the court.

After soaking up 99% of American wealth in the last 20 years, the new cabinet consisting of Wall Street executives (among the friends and family) is designed to scrape up any morsels left to the rest of us.

Oh. Let's not with the general ideological comments, then. They don't foster substantive discussion.

>which are stealing the entire US economy out from under us.

How so?

The only stealing going on is that targeted at the wealthy. High taxes and innumerable regulations are an atrocity. Inflation is even more atrocious.

However, here's what Keynesian economics proponents never get; even though you try to rob the rich by currency devaluation, you end up doing quite the opposite and that is actually hurt the poor who are the worst affected by inflation all while saying that in the end, we're all dead anyway.

Let's not continue on with general ideological comments unless you have something new or interesting to add.

Again, with the level of scrutiny we had before we haven't had a problem. Why is "what the hell is going on" suddenly unknown?

Why would I ask that? Because I wonder if you actually know. You said you weren't from America, so I can understand if most of your knowledge about America comes from the news, rather than a view of the facts over a timeframe longer than last week.

I mean, to equate America with France, as if geography and economics had nothing to do with immigration, makes me think that you come in with flawed assumptions about how the world works.

>You said you weren't from America, so I can understand if most of your knowledge about America comes from the news, rather than a view of the facts over a timeframe longer than last week.

Surely that's a low blow or as Watson might phrase it, a wang bang and you know it.

I already said I'm not an American. I do however support Trump. I read many of his books right out of high school and I'm re-reading The Art of the deal.

I see a global shift to the right wing going forward. I mean can you believe that in France the Socialist party stands no chance because even the French, yes the French cannot stand what the left has done.

I'm glad people from all races have woken up and are saying no to unrestricted immigration, no to excessive taxes and regulation, no to welfare states, and no to egalitarianism. Luckily, this transcends racism. It is about reason as Ayn Rand would put it.

> Why is it okay for previous presidents who won in the electoral college to be legitimized but not Trump?

The only other president who won EC but not popular vote was George W Bush.

Yes but all others weren't legitimized because of the popular vote. It was because of the electoral college. If ever there was a problem with the current system, you should have fixed it then and not complain now that Trump won.