Hacker News Reader

Comment by EnPissant | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

In this case the people brought up in the United States are sacrificing the well fare of their own children to preserve their own fears. I think that is wrong.

I want to keep the US a destination for hard work and smarts and striking out on your own. Don’t shelter your lazy kid, show them the beauty of complexity and mastery. Have them master some difficult skills, whether that’s a second language or botany or math or public speaking or building things. We are all responsible to each other for excellence. Respond to the opportunities for excellence, of what we can build together, dont’t yield to sloth and resentment being satisfied with turning your back on your own potential. The future is awesome and we welcome all who want to contribute! We welcome competition - better to be second best to the best than turning your back and cutting yourself off from the course of history.

Lots of things are wrong with giving people the power to make choices that affect the whole world, while excluding others who are equally or more affected, based on where they happened to be born.

If the logic is that people who are born somewhere else shouldn't have any agency over immigration laws, well, why does someone who lives in some town in my country with a negligible immigrant population get a say in who I and my colleagues can invite to work with us, and who I and my neighbors can invite to live with us?

If someone says they're not anti immigrant and then turns around to say immigration should be more difficult, there's an obvious logical disconnect in their worldview. It doesn't matter about illegal vs. legal: they want to make immigration more difficult, after claiming they are not against immigration. The comment does not claim there's anything wrong with the policy choice, just that the following policy preference betrays the initial statement as false.

It doesn’t seem inherently contradictory for someone to think “I’m not anti-immigrant” and “my ideal target for legal immigration is at 80% of its current rate”.

I think I see where you're coming from. To use an example, Switzerland has tight immigration controls due to the policies which grant citizens and permanent residents certain welfare benefits, since they don't want those to be leeched by people who do not contribute as much back. That is against immigration while not being anti-immigrant; the point is that the immigration itself does not motivate the policy which limits immigration, instead being motivated by the existence and meaning of other policies (a kind of protectionism).

Tying this back to OP's comment, it's hard to see these policy changes as any sort of legitimate protectionism and it's just as hard to divorce them from the justifications given by people who start with "I'm not anti-immigrant".

Um. Yes. Those are obviously contradictory.

How so?

If legal immigration was at 40% of its current level and I wanted legal immigration to double from there, would that still be anti-immigrant?

Or does having any limit whatsoever mean that you're opposed to a thing?

I'm totally for it! I just wish there was less of it.

I don't know how else to read that.

I love ice cream. If I was eating a quart/liter of it every day, I could think I should cut back but still not be anti-ice cream.

I enjoy salt/spices; there’s still an optimal amount of spices to add to a dish and wanting to hit that optimal mix doesn’t make me anti-spice.

We've chosen to stop after having two children. Doesn't make me anti-child or anti-family.

We've chosen to have only one pet dog at a time. Doesn't make me anti-dog.

The following things are not in contradiction:

1) Someone can be against illegal immigration and for legal immigration.

2) That same person's idea about who should immigrate to the country may exclude most or all of the people who are currently immigrating illegally.

It's not like you can only be against illegal immigration because they forgot to fill out some form. Legal immigration has a component of deciding who gets in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com