Why are Americans more deserving of jobs then other people?
There’s plenty of companies though that don’t do h1b. Major telcos, defense contractors (those are us citizen only), a lot of small hedge funds, etc.
Anyone who agrees to the social contract gets to benefit from the nation. That’s what a country actually is.
Who should a nation put first then?
I dont see the connection between how citizenship is acquired (AFAIK each nation is free to set the rules/laws that they think is fair) and if citizens should get special treatment or not.
If citizens can't get "special" treatment over non resident in their own country what's the point of countries?
How people become residents and what "rights" they have die to this status is part of the "social contract".
Citizenship in the US is a profoundly broken system with a horrendous and racist past, and using it to decide who deserves the benefit of the social contract and who doesn’t is actively buying into the nationalistic and false idea that Americans are superior just because they were born somewhere and foreigners weren’t.
You wouldn’t argue that black slaves weren’t worthy of US protection and services until the 14th Amendment was passed, would you? You wouldn’t pretend like the US granting and then revoking citizenship from Mexican settlers repeatedly in the 19th and 20th century was acceptable, would you? Was the Chinese Exclusion Act acceptable?
A foreign life is worth exactly the same as an American life, and the difference is completely arbitrary.
Americans are not more deserving of jobs than foreigners, Americans are not better than foreigners.
Those principles are heavily founded in “deserve”. You are watching some infinitesimally small part of that “ruling” process.
The bureaucratic concept of "citizenship" is just a way for people to construct barriers of hate around the benefits offered by a nation while still forcing people to accept the sacrifices.
Is it about land superficy or about ownership? Can we establish a clear framework here instead of constantly jumping from one wishy washy thing to the other?
You aren't the sole owner of your house either. Even without a mortgage you are not. So if someone adhere to the social contract in your house I assume you let them in to do as they please (within the limit of the contract of course.)
It’s about how to manage shared resources amongst people who all have equal claim, which is everyone who has agreed to the social contract. When you agreed is irrelevant.
Frankly, I would argue that many people born in the US do not hold up their end of the social contract, and should thus take a backseat to immigrants who would come here and care deeply for the social contact in their place.
Yes, you are done.
In practice, nations prioritize their own citizens, in the same way you will prioritize your family. Do you abandon taking care of your family because it would be "more fair," to take care of someone on the other side of the planet?
Your countrymen should have aligned values, cultures, goals, missions, etc that prioritizes them. That's the fabric of society.
Everyone who gives up freedom to the state is entering into a social contract with that state, citizenship or no. Once those people enter into that contract, they deserve all of the rights and services the contract provides.
By tying the contract to citizenship, you provide a way for racists and nationalists to steal from the people arbitrarily determined to be noncitizens, usually along racial lines.
Besides, all evidence suggests immigrants benefit a society substantially more than they harm it. In the US for example, noncitizens consume significantly fewer national resources while still paying the full amount of taxes expected of citizens.
The general rule here is that unless there's an obvious reason to deny equal people something you've given other people, you shouldn't deny it in the first place.
Of course. The problem is that your view of the economy is optimistic, perhaps dangerously so. Let's hope we never reach the limit and have a concrete problem on our hands, I guess.
12% of the US population are second generation immigrants [0]. Obviously, third generation percentage is even higher.
Good luck reconciling that with your thoughts on what a "nation" should be.
[0] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
When you willingly leave your family out in the cold, thanksgiving winter; to have space to provide random passersby into your house to eat your turkey, lets talk!
Non citizens have equal right to feed their families, and anyone who has agreed to the social contract has equal rights to the social services the government has agreed to provide, regardless of citizenship.
But my home isn’t in any way like a country, so this question isn’t meaningful.
You need a bureaucracy once you have a shared resource, and at that point no one is entitled to the resource more than anyone else.
The land your home is built on is part of a shared resource: the space available for the community.
If we apply your logic there s nothing wrong with immigrants showing up and colonizing natives - be it in America, Australia, etc - shared resource bro!