Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

I have absolutely no issue with your policy priorities. Let's get more native-born citizens through school with skills appropriate for the modern workforce.

But the bit where this falls down is your use of "our own" in a context where it either has no meaning or has, let's just say "accidentally discriminatory" meaning. The idea that we should invest to "prevent" this situation is kinda distasteful.

These people are americans now. No, they aren't all citizens (though many are), but their kids are and their descendants will be. This is their home as much as it is yours or mine. This country built itself on the backs of imported talent, there's no valid reason for that to stop now.

View on HN

A nation's government absolutely should discriminate in favor of it's own people. That's who it's supposed to be representing. In the case of the U.S., there's nothing racial about that. Opportunity for Americans is more important than opportunity for non-Americans.

And once more, you're using "own" in a sense that seems really distasteful. In what sense is a south asian engineer who's been living in Emeryville for 16 years[1] not one of "our own" people?

[1] No idea if that's a median data point, but it's probably close. When people talk about STEM immigrants they mean very long term residents who will realistically be here with their families for the rest of their lives. You want to imagine a job-jacking horde of foreign-educated people who don't speak English. The truth is rather different.

Why are you trying to make this about race? Clearly someone who has been here for nearly 20 decades is someone who ought to be given citizenship. But that has nothing to do with preferring to continue to bring in foreign workers rather than invest in American citizens who are struggling.

Americans make up only 4.3% of the world's population. Thus, even if we invest much more in American citizens, which we surely should, don't you think it's inevitable that progress in tech will nevertheless be driven largely by foreigners going forward? We could choose not to let it happen on American soil, which some of the comments in this thread seem to be advocating, but I fail to see how such a policy would benefit Americans.

> Americans make up only 4.3% of the world's population. Thus, even if we invest much more in American citizens, which we surely should, don't you think it's inevitable that progress in tech will nevertheless be driven largely by foreigners going forward?

Why? It's not like Americans were a much bigger share of the world population in the past.

A large population doesn't predict success in tech because there is no reason to suppose the proceeds of tech research will be evenly distributed per capita.

There is first the network effect, uneven distribution of financial resources, uneven availability of educational resources, the high number of societies that don't value individuality nor deviation from tradition and the norm.

I agree with both of you:

(1) those who have already made it here and intend to stay, are Americans now. That's what America has always been about. Anyone who disagrees is a despicable nativist who should be deported back to Germany, England, or wherever their great grandparents came from and sign their house deed over to the descendants of whichever native americans lived there before being violently and unlawfully removed.

(2) those who have not yet made it here, we owe nothing to yet, and we certainly ought to invest in ourselves. The education system in this country is so bad it's a joke, and it's not great if we end up relying on other countries educating people and sending them here just because our own education is so awful. That is a very precarious position to be in.

(2) is a debatable position depending on one's world view. One could say that "as the leader of the free world", America should make the improvement of living standards of global citizens a priority over its own citizens who are struggling but still doing aeons better than hundreds of millions of people around the world.

It's a reasonable, defensible, globalist stance.

And it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with such a stance and make the national well-being a priority over the comparatively greater struggles and sufferings of people outside our borders. But unfortunately I think we always use smoke and mirrors and avoid facing the issue head on.

I appreciate that you have a clear and we'll articulated position for your preferences for how your tax dollars should be spent. I hope that we as a society can have open discussions and debates that welcome and encourage opposing worldviews to our own, and that we can hold a default mindset to first understand our compatriot's views, rather than first defend our own positions.

Completely agree with (1).

I'm not sure what you're advocating so I have to guess. Are you saying, "defund all education in the US and send the money to improve education somewhere else?"

If so, the below two points will cure you of this silly idea and any similar ones:

(A) if our money-making machine (our economy) is not well taken care of, such as by assuring its supply of skilled labor, it may deteriorate, leaving less money left over to donate to the worthy causes you want it donated to. If you don't take care of yourself first, you will be to weak to help others.

(B) The education system in the US is not lacking for money, it simply uses the given money poorly. It can be improved without spending more money.

Education is a capital investment, not a luxury consumable good.

I don't have a horse in this race. I think either position is defensible based on reason.

You're also being extremely confusing. I really can't tell what you are actually advocating. Are you being intentionally ambiguous and vague? If all you have to say is that one can make an argument for anything, this is not very helpful information.

The valid reason is that we are underutilizing our own underprivileged groups, be they women, first nations, blacks or rural whites.

That said, we should find a balance where we both attract highly skilled foreign talent and develop our own in-house talent.

> These people are americans now.

Wouldn't "our own" as used earlier also include "these people"?

I think you are injecting context which was never there in the first place.

Imo the distinction between equalizing the opportunity and education gap on a national level versus a global level is a topic that is rarely properly debated. Each of us (or groups of us) have our closely held dogmas based on our personal experiences (or lack thereof) and don't really engage in understanding the opposite camp's narrative or logic.

IMO either position is perfectly defensible. Helping those who are "your neighbors" (those who are more proximal to you) first is defensible, and so is helping those around the world catch up to the living standards of the developed West.

What is not good is that we continue to mask pragmatic or moral decision making with irrational, illogical, emotionally charged positions, on both the left and the right. That, I wish would change.

Maybe from a humanitarian position, but the U.S. government shouldn't be a global humanitarian project. If we are, we are pretty terrible at it. The U.S. government ought to be dedicated to benefiting U.S. citizens first and foremost. I don't think those who are opposed to this are genuinely opposed to it on humanitarian grounds either. They want to paint anyone who disagrees with them as racist or inhuamane while working on the behalf of corporations seeking cheap labor.

> This country built itself on the backs of imported talent

No we didn't. We built our country on the exploitation of poor european factory workers, chinese "slave" labor and african slaves.

This country wasn't built on "talent". It was built on exploitation of CHEAP or free labor.

> there's no valid reason for that to stop now.

We stopped it many times in history to protect AMERICANS. Go read about immigration history rather than propaganda we are forcefed. European immigration was stalled to protect american labor. Chinese immigration was stopped to protect american labor. And if you think about it, even american slavery was stopped to protect american labor.

Immigration wasn't all great. Throughout US history, it led to lots of turmoil, displacement and heartache.

Nothing is all great or all evil like people with agenda like to believe. There are pros and cons to everything. The skewed "pro-immigration" policy the past 50 years has gutted american labor and american society. We need a more rational policy.

And the fact that america/american government shouldn't favor AMERICANS over immigrants is pure rubbish. It's neoliberal fantasy. As a nation we have gone too "left". We need to correct our trajectory lest america fall off the tracks entirely.

"Immigration wasn't all great. Throughout US history, it led to lots of turmoil, displacement and heartache." Get a grip on your self. It was never good for the natives amricans. Anyway, the current issues of the country are not immigrant made. That's a fantasy fox world view.

>These people are americans now. No, they aren't all citizens... ...This is their home as much as it is yours or mine.

I don't...look. All I want to say is: I hope you're aware that you're making enemies with statements like this.

You too.

Luckily most people are able to read a comment from a random person on the Internet, classify it as a different opinion from theirs and go on with their lives.

I'm aware, and it makes me sad. But I think I understand why---that is, I am some form of selfish racist, ignorant and bigoted, liable to give moral cover to a return to Emmett Till-style lynchings, hiring discrimination, or perhaps unsafe working environments. I should cast aside my fear and prejudice, realize that all humans deserve dignity, and take an Econ 101 class.

In other words, I think I can understand the views I'm criticizing.

I do not get the sense that the same is true of the comment to which I replied. It seems to carry a level of tone-deafness that would be mystified by any pushback.

>In other words, I think I can understand the views I'm criticizing.

No, you've missed the very simplest critique of the US immigration system: that it takes years to decades of effort and incredible, Kafkaesque arbitrary hoop-jumping to get an actual Green Card, let alone an American citizenship. The system is legible neither to its owners (Congress) nor to its users (immigrants and visitors).

We can talk about sending "temporary" immigrants home when we've stopped making "permanent" immigrants (those on immigrant-track visas) go through hell just to turn their visa into citizenship. Let's naturalize the people we already have living and working in the country, and then talk about reforming our system for granting further visas into a nice sensible points system.

If these people all had the same rights and privileges as citizens they would simply be a valuable addition to our workforce. They for example would have no reason to accept substandard wages. If we place them in positions where they are indebted to their employer and can't change jobs they serve to depress wages.

In order of preference I would see them treated equally and made citizens, kept out of the labor pool, or left as they are.

As a citizen the current situation seems be the least preferable option and I see no reason things ought to stay as they are.

In fact basically destroying the H1B system as it stands is probably the best first step. The bigots that make up 40% of America would probably support it and our idiot in chief would probably sign it.

Then we could replace it with a system whereby these valuable people have a sane opportunity to come here permanently and compete on even footing with natives when the wind changes with at least lukewarm support from the business community eager for more employees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com