Hacker News Reader

Comment by averagewall | Hacker News Reader

Can someone explain the apparent cognitive dissonance of popular HN opinion which seems to be:

1) Working on US border security is bad.

2) US Soldiers are good. Even though their job is ultimately for border security and border security in other countries.

Is it that they see the idea of a defensive military as good and tolerate it doing any amount of bad as long as it might also do good too? Are they following the Nuremberg defense of soldiers not being accountable for their actions as long as they're following orders?

Does 1) extend to other countries? Is border security for, say, Nigeria a bad thing? Or is it a good thing if it's enforced by Nigerian soldiers and bad if it's enforced by more efficient technology?

View on HN

Working on border security because you want to keep armed groups out is perfectly reasonable and admirable, working on border security because you want to keep poor and terrified people fleeing armed groups out is pretty detestable. Unfortunately, I don't believe the current U.S. administration makes that distinction (and it is very arguable whether the U.S. military abroad, or even the U.N. peace-keepers do, but that's another story).

When the institutional reaction to a reporter fleeing death threats from agents of his government, by voluntarily surrendering at your border and asking for asylum, is to lock him up, then I can see reasons to criticize those working to empower said institutions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/07...).

Also amusing is to observe the HN/SV attitude towards skilled immigration vs otherwise.

When President Trump issued an Executive Order banning immigrants from seven countries, over 100 tech companies showed up at the courts opposing the move. But support for skilled immigration - i.e. immigrants working at these tech companies - is scant. For instance, so far only Microsoft [2] has come forward to support legislation fixing systemic discrimination against skilled immigrants from the most populous countries.

Sure, the firms are free to choose the causes they support. But it sounds hollow when they are blind to plight of their own employees who they come across every day, but are able to manufacture anguish for others they often have very little contact.

[1]: https://www.recode.net/2017/4/19/15363806/trump-amazon-googl...

[2]: https://www.facebook.com/CongressmanJasonChaffetz/posts/1222...

If you truly think that tech companies haven't been lobbying to change the H1B program for ages... then you really live in a bubble.

They have been arguing for increasing the number of H1Bs. But when those H1Bs arrive in the country, work for their employers and then apply for permanent residentship, most of them - those from populous countries - are faced with wait times that last decades.

Note that I was talking about relief for current employees of these tech companies. Please direct me to evidence supporting massive support for this cause from tech companies.

I'm not really sure I understand your point. What you are saying is that companies:

1) Lobby to increase H1B caps 2) Once they are here they "don't do anything" to help them get permanent residency

I think you are conflating two very different things: Valley companies were very vocal about refugees not being allowed into the country, which has little (arguably nothing) to do with H1B immigration. Most people coming on H1Bs aren't fleeing a war zone or at risk of death.

While waiting times for extremely populous countries (i.e. China and India) can be very long, that's because of the way immigration quotas for citizenship/permanent residency are setup, and has nothing to do with the employer/employee relationship that is in the company's interest.

What, exactly, do you expect companies to do besides providing a job? What would be your proposal?

What, exactly, do you expect companies to do besides providing a job? What would be your proposal?

My proposal would be for companies to use their lobbying muscle to try pass legislation that would put a stop to the systemic racial discrimination embodied in the current legal immigration laws. It is no longer called "XYZ Exclusion Act of NNN" but that is what it boils down to, in practice. See Microsoft's stance I linked to in the comment you replied to originally. More of the same is what I expect from Valley companies who benefit immensely from the labor of immigrants.

Instead these companies choose to use their influence to speak for allowing more refugees into the country, protecting illegal immigrants etc. This comes out as hollow to me. If these companies really cared for immigration issues, there are issues much closer to home.

It needn't be this or that. But, the fact that organizations like FWD.us etc are completely silent about legal immigration issues makes one wonder about their true intentions.

When President Trump issued an Executive Order banning immigrants from seven countries

That's not what the executive order did.

That's not what the executive order did.

From [1]:

    Executive Order 13769 lowered the number of refugees to be admitted 
    into the United States in 2017 to 50,000, suspended the U.S. Refugee 
    Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, suspended the entry of Syrian
    refugees indefinitely, directed some cabinet secretaries to suspend entry
    of those whose countries do not meet adjudication standards under U.S. 
    immigration law for 90 days, and included exceptions on a case-by-case
    basis. Homeland Security lists these countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, 
    Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

What did I miss?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769

You are confusing refugees, immigrants and the people affected by the EO. None of these are the same thing.

I recall people with valid green cards having issues getting back into the country under the original EO. Even people with (e.g.) Canadian citizenship that were born in said countries were having issues... or people born in Canada whose parents were originally from those countries.

I don't think that the distinction is as narrow as you think that it is.

That's... kind of my point so I'm not sure what narrow distinction you think I have in mind.

I misread your post then. For some reason, I thought that you were arguing that only refugees were affected by the EO.

The impression i get is that soldiers (along with firemen and police, dunno so much about EMS) gets praise because they willingly put themselves in harms way.

At the other end, border patrol is seen as an extension of the surveillance state.

I have a lot of sympathy for both current and former members of the US armed forces.

Current members, because I grew up in a part of the country ideal for military recruiting: poor overall education, weak economy, and for many people enlisting is the only way they can see to escape from it. It's not direct conscription, but in terms of the genuine choices available it's often pretty close. And for "choices" that are partly or heavily coerced I'm much less judgmental.

Former members, because many of them signed up for the reasons outlined above, and now are treated horribly.

1. is beating away refugees and innocent people looking for a life

2) is fighting brutal dictators

However there are times when:

1. is good

2. is evil (about half the time in the US case)

Is there anyone seriously so idiotic as to take the first position? May be I don't follow US politics that much, but I always thought that this position is either a strawman or sarcasm.

In my experience, people who argue for position 1 have never actually lived in a poor country.

Idealistic, maybe, but not idiotic. I think reasons for thinking that "working on border security is bad" include:

1) The desire for a "free and open" world, especially without much first-hand experience of the immediate downsides of that.

2) That technologies in this space also directly enable police-state situations, and there are reasons to believe that this is a risk in the future.

3) A privacy-driven dislike for surveillance -- sure, you know who I am when I go through passport control, but I don't want to be tracked in more detail than that.

4) Our existing border security is reasonably functional, and there are better ways to spend the time & money. (Especially as pertains the arguably excessive "border wall".)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com