Hacker News Reader

Comment by fastfinner | Hacker News Reader

How is he cheating me? His family "cut the line" in building a life in the US, one of the best nations to be in, in the eyes of many on this planet. His chances of winning a Pulitzer would be severely diminished if his family had stayed in the Philippines. So he cheated me by not being subject to the same US immigration rules as I and the rest of the world. He cheated the many other aspiring college students, journalism interns, journalists by occupying a spot each time he was employed or given the opportunity to advance with fake documents.

View on HN

    *His family* (...). His chances of (...) *if his family* (...)

He didn't cheat you into one damn thing. The opportunities that were given to him would not be given to you or "the next in line" had he not been here.

Part of what makes a wealthy nation, hum... wealthy, is the fact that it has enough resources to offer opportunities and services to the whole population. The US can give opportunities for you, him or any one that shows the necessary abilities.

I guess I'm looking at this situation as if he were someone whose parents faked his admission to MIT, somehow the papers slipped to the right places and he began enrolling, midway through college he learned about the faking, and then he still kept going, graduated magna/summa cum laude ("Pulitzer" - and yes I know MIT doesn't have latin recognitions), and now the truth is out. Even though he did not began college in a criminal way, in my opinion he ended it as such and all his super achievements don't justify keeping the facade.

Of course all that fails if, like you say, there would be no "next in line" because there is no "line", but somehow I think there is. I tend to think there are a finite number of schools, colleges, internships, and jobs. But that seems to be the core of our argument and I may need to change the way I view opportunities in nations.

Your argument assumes a fixed number of available opportunities. In the work context, this is known as a 'lump of labor' fallacy.

Your 'lump of labor' logical fallacy contradicts the principle of 'the bottom line'. As a journalist, he is not creating work, but performing work assigned to him by a superior. His amount of available work to perform is limited.

Was he assigned to write this piece?

Being a journalist is much more than being a reporter.

That's not even wrong. Please decide what you want to say, and them say it, at which point I will be happy to engage with you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com