Hacker News Reader

Comment by crdoconnor | Hacker News Reader

>I'd describe it a bit differently.

Of course you would.

>I'm curious to see if anyone can cook up an argument why protectionism against orange, white and green is morally justified, but protectionism against black is not.

Four aspects of the debate that the, uh... 'curious' tend to misrepresent or outright ignore:

* Race-baiting doesn't change the fact that at its heart it is about wages vs. profits.

* H1Bs are not just about bringing in workers. They are also about giving employers the power to fuck those they bring over by linking their immigration status to their job. This isn't just bad for them.

* The effects of brain drain on 3rd world countries where the brightest people flee to richer countries.

* Brain drain is not just about losing the brightest people but also about losing the (often large) investment in their education paid for by the 3rd world, that the 1st world gets the whole benefit of.

View on HN

H1Bs are the only option for several potential immigrants around the world, I'm all for breaking this link but only if a better option existed.

> The effects of brain drain on 3rd world countries where the brightest people flee to richer countries.

> Brain drain is not just about losing the brightest people but also about losing the (often large) investment in their education paid for by the 3rd world, that the 1st world gets the whole benefit of.

Apart from the nationalistic idea that anyone owes the State that controls the land they're born in by default, most of these H1B immigrants in these 3rd world countries get very little government support, at least compared to what you'd see in Europe or America and you wouldn't prevent any of "their" citizens from leaving would you?

>Apart from the nationalistic idea that anyone owes the State that controls the land they're born in by default, most of these H1B immigrants in these 3rd world countries get very little government support

Many get a lot, actually. Especially in ex-soviet countries. Many have excellent free education systems.

>you wouldn't prevent any of "their" citizens from leaving would you?

Of course not. Nonetheless, the idea that freedom of immigration is an unparalleled good for the country providing the immigrants simply because individually they are better off, should die already.

>> Apart from the nationalistic idea that anyone owes the State that controls the land they're born in by default, most of these H1B immigrants in these 3rd world countries get very little government support > Many get a lot, actually. Especially in ex-soviet > countries. Many have excellent free education systems.

As the son of a poor indian who became a Fulbright scholar and came to the US for his Masters' degree & made a life here, i can say that at least in the case of India this isn't quite true. In India at least you had to fight the system tooth & nail to succeed.

I suspect that's less true nowadays though

> Many get a lot, actually. Especially in ex-soviet countries. Many have excellent free education systems.

Would you be ok with immigrants from countries where they don't? India provides very little in comparison and also has the highest percentage of H1B applicants. [1]

> Of course not. Nonetheless, the idea that freedom of immigration is an unparalleled good for the country providing the immigrants simply because individually they are better off, should die already.

Shouldn't the State make it more attractive for these citizens to stay there? Especially since they're so valuable? Why is it only the citizens who have this responsibility.

[1] http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/skilled-immigrants.

Jim Crow laws were also about wages vs profits. White people wanted to not have their wages lowered via competition with blacks. The racist components of the New Deal were almost entirely economic.

If you want to alter the H1B program, I'm all for auctioning off work permits. That's not an argument to eliminate H1B, that's merely an argument to replace it. I'm arguing against eliminating/reducing it and comparing many of those who favor it to Jim Crow types.

As for "brain drain", the same can happen with the black community. A black person may get a good job in white America and then leave his predominantly black neighborhood. He might then marry a white woman and never look back. Oh noes!

Similarly, a black person who attends Howard University and then works as a plastic surgeon for rich white women has also had his investment paid for by the black community, but the first world is getting the whole benefit. (Yeah, isn't it a bit disconcerting when I describe the black community the way you describe a nation?)

And again, like I said, these are all empirical criteria. Even if you have exact thresholds in each criteria which India currently satisfies but "Black America" does not, one could easily imagine a future where Black America does cross those thresholds. Should we bring back segregation at that time, and require black Americans to get a B1B visa to live and work in white America? If you oppose this, then your stated criteria are not your real ones.

>If you want to alter the H1B program, I'm all for auctioning off work permits.

Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market.

>Similarly, a black person who attends Howard University and then works as a plastic surgeon for rich white women has also had his investment paid for by the black community, but the first world is getting the whole benefit.

* Black Americans (whom I assume you are referring to) live in the first world, which reaps the benefit of their education it paid for.

* Education for black Americans is largely paid for by the state and indirectly paid for and supported by citizens of the United States.

I think regarding racism you should probably be a bit more introspective.

Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not.

Let me again point out - you've brought up a bunch of empirical criteria. Suppose the situation changes and black Americans suddenly satisfy those empirical criteria. Do you favor imposing the same restrictions on them that we impose on Indians? For example, if the educational funding situation changes, and most black people are educated via black people-funded community organizations, would requiring visas before we allow them to work be acceptable?

If not, why is it acceptable to do this to Indians and Haitians?

Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle?

I think regarding racism you should probably be a bit more introspective.

Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist.

I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so?

>Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not.

Government. A nation is served by an institution that delivers (more or less) consistent policy that can be shaped to benefit (or harm) those under it.

It makes sense to have opinions about how institutions should operate. It does not make sense to have opinions about how the government of the non-existent nation of American white (or black) people should operate because it does not exist.

>Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle?

I'm not trying to wish it away like you are. Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens.

>Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist.

...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion.

>I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so?

Amusing :)

Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens.

We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America.

...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion.

I did nothing of the sort. I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. I didn't say it was racism.

I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question of whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance.

>We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America.

Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian.

>I did nothing of the sort.

Bringing race into a discussion where it was clearly not warranted and using it to imply racism is something of the sort, actually.

>I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism.

And I said that I am not nationalistic. I'm not even American. Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all.

>I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question

I haven't ducked any questions at all.

>whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance.

I'm happy to answer but your question lacks precision. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we'?

Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian.

How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck?

Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all.

Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't. I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases, so the dichotomy is unjustified.

In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we'

I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).

>How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck?

Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans.

I'm sure black Americans would feel somewhat relieved that they were not forced to compete with Nigerians.

>Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't.

I fail to see why this horrifies you so much. White skin didn't pay for my education. The nation I was born and grew up in did.

It's no use pretending that employers are pro-immigration thanks to their worldliness and desire to help non-Americans, either. Nigel Farage in the UK represents the epitome of national bias yet guess what he did when he wanted to hire somebody for cheap? Yup, that's right. Immigrants.

>I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases

Failing I would say.

>I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).

Ok, so I agreed - no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation, that's all (it's happened to me before due to a visa mixup and it didn't leave any bruises).

Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans.

As I expected - another smug non-sequitur and ducking the core question. Have fun.

I'm just going to assume that you are incapable of asking a direct question since I still don't see what you're getting at.

I understand his question.

The question is: Why is it acceptable for a group of people defined by "nationality" to form a collective (government) that creates and enforces economic protection for itself against non-members, but not acceptable for a group defined by "race" to do the same?

The closest you came to answering this was when you wrote "Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8886112) which to me reads as "it is acceptable because that's the way it is today" or possibly "it is not acceptable but that's just the way it is".

    mild deportation

All laws/regulations (even the good ones) are ultimately enforced by the implicit threat of violence. You only get a "mild deportation" if you cooperate in the process.

That is the nature of laws and regulations.

If you would prefer instead to live under the explicit and constant threat of violence there are societies on this planet without laws and regulations.

You are not disputing anything I wrote. You seem to be replying as if I were arguing against this, when I was actually pointing out a fact that you failed to acknowledge when you wrote "no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation".

Note that while you wrote "no violence towards Nigerians", in the post you replied to yummyfajitas wrote ""threaten with violence" which is not quite the same.

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

-- Anatole France

Of course you would.

Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market.

I don't understand your condescending attitude or why it's preferred by voters over a regular argument.

Especially when you believe that the issue is the cost of education. Auctioning off work permits would allow the country receiving immigrants to pay off the government which paid for their education.

You talk about social issues and then pick the one easiest to address with a market solution. This is the least problem here.

>I don't understand your condescending attitude

yummyfajitas' neoliberal market-first, capital-first views are fairly predictable. The idea that markets will always solve social issues better than any other means is such a deeply held, religious belief that he doesn't even think to try and justify his opinion. He feels that merely voicing it is sufficient to convince.

So I tease him about it.

>Especially when you believe that the issue is the cost of education. Auctioning off work permits would allow the country receiving immigrants to pay off the government which paid for their education.

I don't see that happening, ever. Auctions, sure. America giving India enough money to cover the education of the citizens who emigrate to the US? Not a chance.

>You talk about social issues and then pick the one easiest to address with a market solution.

I don't see how auctioning off work permits solves any social issues.

Frankly it sounds eerily similar to Dubai/Qatar-style indentured servitude where the construction workers take out loans to get a job paying a few dollars a day and have to work for months effectively for free to pay back that debt.

Well, I guess if the social issue was "we want more dubai style indentured servitude"...

Auctioning off work visas is pretty easy. The worker applies for a visa to the US government, which accepts a $30k bid. The worker shifts to the US and works for anyone they like. The US Govt takes $10k extra from their paycheck in taxes every year for 3 years. Solving your Dubai problems is pretty easy.

If India is really worried about people leaving after getting educated, they can restrict emigration like the GDR, Soviet Union and North Korea.

Of course, there are bigger problems we should worry about. I was educated in NJ but then immigrated to NY. Maybe NY also needs to restrict immigration from the B&T crowd, solely for the benefit of NJ, of course?

>Auctioning off work visas is pretty easy.

It certainly is. That's not the point.

>The US Govt takes $10k extra from their paycheck in taxes every year for 3 years. Solving your Dubai problems is pretty easy.

The Dubai problem is that the workers are forced to take a loan in order to work. Your idea does not solve it, it creates it.

>If India is really worried about people leaving after getting educated, they can restrict emigration like the GDR, Soviet Union and North Korea.

That worked out wonderfully for those countries, didn't it?

>Of course, there are bigger problems we should worry about. I was educated in NJ but then immigrated to NY. Maybe NY also needs to restrict immigration from the B&T crowd, solely for the benefit of NJ, of course?

Depends if NY decides to secede from the union. Do you think that's likely? Or do you think that citizens of both states will continue to pay taxes to the same IRS and be governed by the same federal legislature?

Hey, maybe the US should merge and become an Indian state to allow for unbridled immigration. How would you feel about following their laws and paying taxes to Delhi?

Govt could have companies bid salary offers on H1-Bs. There's a concept of prevailing wage currently - use it as a base, have companies raise it, until they either pay something close to real market, or are not getting the worker. Thoughts?

>Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market.

I find libertarians obnoxious too, but he's actually parroting our meme on this one. "Auctioning" work visas is usually taken to mean auctioning them by salary, turning the visa-application process into a competition to push up wages.

"* H1Bs are not just about bringing in workers. They are also about giving employers the power to fuck those they bring over by linking their immigration status to their job. This isn't just bad for them."

Just call a spade a spade. Management likes H1B because they can and do treat them like slaves, like owned property of the corporation, less than human. Nobody wants to compete with or become slaves, and its morally and ethically disgusting to support or encourage a system of slavery.

Like most, I like immigrants and individual H1B holders, its the destructive system of slavery that's horrific. Simply getting rid of the whole H1B system and transferring that quota over to the "skilled trades" real-immigration quota would be a fine idea. Heck, double the number while they're at it or even remove the limit.

The civil war ended in the 1860s. Its the 2010s. Isn't it time to remove slavery from the system? Must we wait longer while our brothers sit in chains?

Also, immigration and free trade are different things. You can be anti-H1B but still favor free trade, allowing those H1B'ers to sell their software in direct competition with US firms online if they so wish.

They are two sides of the same coin. Free trade allows companies to find places where labour is cheapest and free immigration allows workers to find places where salaries are highest. IMHO, it's a bit hypocritical or at least naive to have contrasting opinions of them.

The world does not end at trade. There's a huge difference between a company from my country setting up a division somewhere else and people from another country moving into my neighbourhood.

You may be fine with either one, both, neither, and even some combination depending on the particular good or person. Conflating them is disingenuous.

Both of those things actually have very serious consequences, but in case of a company setting up a division somewhere else, you're not the one being directly affected.

I didn't mean to say these are simple issues, I meant to say it's hypocritical to support one and not support another, ideologically speaking.

Socially they are different, but labor has an equal claim to "free trade" as capital for economic reasons. If you grant it only capital, labor can rightly feel screwed over.

Imagine the EU, but without free movement of labor. So Western companies come into the East, buy up anything worth buying (including farmland and mineral rights) and out compete anything that's not (putting people out of work), but then a citizen in the East who wants to get a good job in the West and will do it for less than a Westerner is told to GTFO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com