Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

American immigration laws are designed to have a small stream of permanent immigration, both to protect american jobs and to protect american culture from foreign influence. That’s what people voted for over decades. The New York Times did a good podcast on the issue. https://youtu.be/xgDdTV7A57w. If you want to define “xenophobic” to encompass that then that’s your choice. I don't think that's a sensible or useful definition. The concept of "xenophobia" only applies to individuals. It's wrong to assume that somebody will be a certain way because of their nationality. That obviously doesn't translate to immigration, which involves the mass movement of people who do have a distinct culture in the aggregate, and do transplant their culture into the U.S.: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran...

View on HN

I know a lot of people that support these cruel and chaotic changes to our immigration laws and they are mostly xenophobic - they don’t like people speaking languages other than English at the store, they don’t like religions different than their own, they don’t like family traditions different than their own.

Xenophobia is about assuming that people are different because of their national origin. It's not "xenophobia" if there are actual differences, especially if there are actual changes to someone's society. Treating all cultural differences as equally desirable is cultural relativism. Not everyone who rejects cultural relativism is xenophobic. You're allowed to prefer your own culture and to live in a society that reflects your culture. The countries that most immigrants come from treat that principle as axiomatic.

You’ve successfully mangled the definition of xenophobia.

“A strong aversion, antipathy, or fear of foreigners.” Simple as.

It wouldn’t be wrong if you admitted that you want some degree of xenophobia. But I suppose that sounds even less convincing than your preferred abuse of terminology.

> “A strong aversion, antipathy, or fear of foreigners.”

Yes, it's antipathy to foreigners in and of themselves. It's antipathy based on the mere fact that someone is a foreigner by stereotyping them based on nationality. Antipathy based on actual cultural differences.

I think the confusion of "no one should be persecuted for being part of group X" with "no one part of group X should be persecuted" is the root of far left ideology.

>I think the confusion of "no one should be persecuted for being part of group X" with "no one part of group X should be persecuted" is the root of far left ideology.

I think that no one should be persecuted[0]. Persecution is unfair harassment/injury/punishment. Perhaps you meant prosecuted[1] instead?

[0] from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecute

Persecute: transitive verb

1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief

2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (such as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

[1] from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute

Prosecute: transitive verb

3 : to bring legal action against for redress or punishment of a crime or violation of law b : to institute legal proceedings with reference to prosecute a claim

Denial of immigration isn't "persecution."

It is irrational however.

Are 47% of naturalized immigrants into the US themselves xenophobic according to your definition because that how many voted for Trump in 2024?

I don’t have the spare time to look into every voter’s heart, do you?

Xenos = foreigner, Phobia = fear or dread.

Treating the hard working and generally cool people that come to the US as being in the same boat as all us humans but bringing interestingly different solutions for how to conduct our affairs is not cultural relativism, it's being realistic and open to the goodness of creation, to seeing each person as bearing the image of God in my own religion's terms.

Seeing the current crop of immigrants as being lazy, criminal, disease ridden or a source of decline in the quality of life for the people in the US is xenophobia, it is irrational and not-truth based.

Prefer whatever you prefer, that's the bed rock of a free society, and welcome the people who value freedom and hard work so much they have fought to join your country. Or you condemn your country to a period of diminishment, superstition and other forms of backwardness.

> The countries that most immigrants come from treat that principle as axiomatic.

Haven't spent much time overseas? I have, and I don't find this to be the case - most (tho not all) likes their family ways more than others, and many many places have built cultures built on the idea of syncretism, of one culture out of many. In a way the very genius of India is that it's made of hundreds of cultures work together as a pleasing whole greater than any part. And of course "E pluribus Unum" has proven to be a potent idea in the history of the last few centuries.

The very stereotype of the sophisticated Muslim who quotes Maimonides and Jesus as readily as the Prophet, and is well versed in scientific arts and is great in his or her career is a stereotype based on a millenium of encouraging arts and sciences and great cities built on many cultures working together.

Denying the plain reality of immigration because of fear of some made up "cultural relativism" is irrational xenophobia, in my book. No one is trying to shut down your church dinners and NFL games.

the other guy stated "it's wrong to assume that somebody will be a certain way because of their nationality", seems this wasnt taken into account? im not sure why you'd write so much anyway, unless you just wanted to express yourself ... coz it's not like a bona fide racist would change their mind after reading some essay ...

This might seem like an academic point but the support of all xenophobic people for these changes doesn't imply that some non-xenophobes don't support these changes (or ones in the same spirit) as well. I don't know what the relative numbers are, but the support of a negative group for a cause doesn't invalidate the cause.

US immigration can be very slow and bureaucratic (even pre-Trump). I hesitate to say but generally, it's not as arbitrary as people think. If things are clearly above board, it works out.

The US still is a destination in very high-demand. There are a huge number of qualified and unqualified people, who would come here in a heartbeat (and it goes without saying, there are a huge number of people who have no interest in moving here).There are clearly agents like the H-1B body shops who have exploited the system. Similarly, masters programs were launched effectively to trade full tuition for an opportunity to enter the US labor market (e.g. all the masters in financial math programs). This doesn't mean we don't get amazing people on H-1Bs or in masters programs but these pathways have been exploited.

Many people desire a sane immigration policy and experience. One that allows promising candidates into the country. The exact definition of a "promising candidate" was outsourced to universities and companies sponsoring these visas. A lot of people have lost trust in those institutions. I don't know what a good solution is but the rise of these policies is a symptom that the current system is not working.

> This might seem like an academic point but the support of all xenophobic people for these changes doesn't imply that some non-xenophobes don't support these changes (or ones in the same spirit) as well.

Americans aren't "xenophobic." I just got back from two weeks in rural Texas and everyone was super nice to me. Nobody was "afraid" that I'm a foreigner. They just don't want me to bring my entire extended family over and in numbers that changes the culture of their home. And people in my dad's village in Bangladesh would hate if some other group did the same thing to them.

People throwing around “phobia” and “ism” is just a way to obscure what they really mean, which is cultural relativism and erasure of the distinction between citizens and foreigners.

Of course no one reasonable would paint a huge population with a brush like that. I am pushing back on the narrative in this thread because many non-immigrants in this country infer the experience of an immigrant (like you, I am an immigrant and spent an inordinately long time before eventually naturalizing) from news. Are there powerful people in the government who might have these tendencies? Of course, it's possible! But, like you, my personal experience (which probably also doesn't apply to everyone) even in rural parts has been very positive.

At the same time, it is reasonable for people to point out the unpredictability of the system. Going to get a visa renewal and getting stuck for several months is unpredictable. Having to make plans at the last-minute is stressful. One can take the stance that the America doesn't owe anything to a non-citizen and, while I lean towards a similar stance, some of the arbitrariness is unreasonable.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding to your point.

Indeed; ask them why they want to pause immigration and see how difficult it is for them to choke back the 14 words they can’t say in public.

i’m saying the current administration’s anti-immigration efforts are white nationalist and christian nationalist and I oppose it. it’s a eminently reasonable take given their backgrounds.

> protect american culture from foreign influence

what culture? what foreign influence(s)? i posit foreign influence is what makes the US better and always has.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com