Hacker News Reader

Comment by IKantRead | Hacker News Reader

Could you articulate what that opposing view is in this case?

It's also worth pointing out that Python (and it's ecosystem) is developed by an international team of people, most of whom volunteer their time out of good will and sense of shared purpose across diverse cultures.

The "both sides" logic seems to miss the point that world without mutual aid and international, cross-cultural cooperation would be one that would not have Python and it's ecosystem. It's not political for the Python developers to support such a view, such a view is foundational for the existence of Python.

View on HN

One can be supportive of mutual aid and international, cross-cultural cooperation while also acknowledging that a nation doesn't exist without borders, sovereignty matters, and that unchecked migration is not universally good.

When you include the contemporary context of illegal US border crossings at record numbers [1], it's clearly making a political statement. Pretending the development of a programming language is inexorably linked to unchecked immigration is disingenuous.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2023/08/31/border...

Could you point out where they are supporting "unchecked migration"?

The statement there only reads to me as a call to have compassion for those caught up in what will be a perpetually escalating migration crisis (and will likely soon make migrants of those who are currently protecting their borders).

> Pretending the development of a programming language is inexorably linked to unchecked immigration is disingenuous.

Where am I (or anyone else) making that claim? I'm claiming cross-cultural/international cooperation and mutual aid are unquestionably tied to the development of not just a programming language, but all open source software. Anyone who has worked in this space at all can likely list someone they have worked with on nearly every continent.

The fact that you view calls for compassion and empathy as calls for "unchecked migration" is a bit concerning.

I'm not sure how to interpret these lines in a way that doesn't suggest support for unchecked immigration:

>Do not be so stupid to think that

>A place should only belong to those who are born there

>...

>It is not okay to say

>Build a wall to keep them out

I'm guessing you're not an American by this comment, at least from the US

>Do not be so stupid to think that >A place should only belong to those who are born there

Does not imply unchecked migration since the entire social fabric of the United States is a based upon people moving here from somewhere else. Currently around 14% of US citizens are foreign born. Claiming they don't belong here would be considered an extreme view even among fairly right-wing Americans. Implying that only people born here belong here is, in fact, a absolutely 0 immigration view, that would essentially destroy the United States since our population growth is almost entirely from immigration.

Likewise:

>It is not okay to say >Build a wall to keep them out

US immigration has not resorted to wall building as a form of immigration control for all but the most recent years. Again, nobody I know who is opposed to wall building supports "unchecked migration".

That's fair. I interpreted "no walls" as "open borders" but you're right that there are ways of enforcing limitations on immigration that aren't physical barriers at the border.

People born here do not have an automatic right to US citizenship. The 14th Amendment was intended for the descendants of slaves. It was not intended to cover the child of a diplomat born in the USA. Nor was it similarly intended for people who entered the country illegally. In time we will review cases of so-called birthright citizenship for those who are children of people who entered illegally, and correct the status. As noted, foreign diplomats children born here, do not have US citizenship for a reason.

It's against zero immigration and building walls to keep out irregular immigrants (by definition) like refugees, none of that implies unchecked immigration.

Putting aside the fairly explicit lines in the poem: it's the context. It is not the case that the western world currently has no immigration and the poem makes the case to allow at least some.

More immigrants than ever are pouring over the US / Mexico border. The mayor of NYC (a self-proclaimed "sanctuary city") is now warning of the city's destruction as a result of the overwhelming influx [1]. This mayor is politically aligned with the party of our President, who presumably has no political interest in embarrassments like this, yet it's still happening.

"Unchecked migration" is essentially what is already happening, at least in the US. A cutesy poem in the release notes of software (??) that paints the side opposing it as mouth-breathing bigots and the supportive side as empathetic truth-tellers is unnecessary at best.

[1] https://cbs4local.com/news/local/nyc-mayor-warns-of-citys-de...

> acknowledging that a nation doesn't exist without borders

At a minimum, you are confusing “nation” with “state”, as the former manifestly can exist without borders, which are a feature of the latter.

> Could you articulate what that opposing view is in this case?

They wrote about how abortion is very often immoral and unnecessary. That would get people up in arms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com