Please don't post like this here. Other users have been keeping the discussion above the political rant line, and we'd appreciate your help in doing so as well.

We all need to pitch in if HN is to have a chance of meeting its goal to be a home for intellectual curiosity.

No, that doesn't mean you're xenophobic. It just means you think that people from other countries are less deserving of job opportunities than people from your country. It's still not a quality I share or respect, but it's not xenophobia.

    It just means you think that people from other countries 
    are less deserving of job opportunities than people from 
    your country.

Society is a hierarchy of loyalty. Unless you're a self-absorbed, autistic, single 20 something, you have loyalty to others in various degrees. You support your family above my family. You support your company above my company. You support your neighbors above my neighbors, and yes, you should support the citizens of your country above the citizens of my country.

It's very fashionable to virtue signal that you have no loyalty to your country and that we should all live under a one world government.

I do not share that wish. I love that we do not have a mono-culture of government in the world, but have 195 different decentralized experiments happening on how to best run the world. I would hate to have a single experiment running with nowhere to look to or flee to, if it all goes awry.

But I live in one of those 195 experiments, and my fellows that share that with me, my countrymen, I support above the other 194. That's called being human.

Huh? Now it's virtue signaling to say that people from other countries deserve the same opportunities as people from my country?

Of course I don't deny personally valuing my family and friends more than strangers, but that doesn't mean I think they fundamentally are more deserving of jobs than strangers. I would personally help a friend get a job before I would help a stranger, but I still think that Americans are no more deserving of jobs than non-Americans, and I don't believe that is a contradiction.

Edit: I also don't think we should be under a one-world government, and I don't see how that follows.

The argument is that if the American government doesn't enact policies that protect and favor Americans, but rather enacts policies that equally protect and favor everyone in the world, then it is effectively acting as a world government or an international charity.

Well, we're talking specifically about the USA's own policies for immigrants entering the USA and working. I have different opinions if we're talking about military and foreign policy.

Because over the long run policies adopted by your country should be scoped to help the members of your country. If politicians/corporations can make a decision that harms our young, and then dig us out by saying there should be a fair playing ground with foreigners, then the consequences of those decisions are externalized.

> Because over the long run policies adopted by your country should be scoped to help the members of your country.

I am fairly convinced that economic protectionism is bad for economic growth, particularly in the long run. And even if I'm a direct beneficiary of a certain protectionist policy, I'd like to think I will oppose it, because it's essentially equivalent to the government taking resources from a non-protected job sector and giving them to the protected job sector.

> But I live in one of those 195 experiments, and my fellows that share that with me, my countrymen, I support above the other 194. That's called being human.

Nice try, but nationalism is not an intrinsic trait of being a human.

Even admitting biological propensity, is that really a quality to aspire to at the level of a nation-state? Is that how we should define and measure our "human-ness"?

And even if it were, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

How do you feel about loyalty based on race? Is there a difference between race-based loyalty and citizenship-based loyalty?

To discriminate against someone born across a completely imaginary and arbitrarily drawn line is being human? Huh?

Ingroup/outgroup dynamics are a pretty deeply-rooted aspect of human social behavior. Maybe it doesn't always manifest itself in the form of a Westphalian nation-state, but it does point to something deep inside us that we manifest at various levels.

This sort of tactical nihilism is honestly pretty confusing to me. Borders, whether national, ideological, social, tribal, linguistic, etc. always have some level of arbitrariness to them, and yet they still represent useful categories. The house door that you lock every evening is merely a collection of arbitrary atoms arranged to separate what you imagine to be your property from others. In the framework of nations, the idea of treating citizens differently from non-citizens as being "discrimination" is an odd one. A country belongs to its people; it doesn't belong to those across the arbitrary border. We all make (sometimes arbitrary) restrictions on access to that which we value; humans who don't do that usually end up losing them to those who do.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue for dissolving borders or having a single world government (although a few people have been arguing vehemently against it). It's perfectly reasonable to support national borders with strong checks for safety, while still supporting an extremely welcoming immigrant worker policy.

It is, but now we know better.

Is no one going to challenge your first part? You mention family, neighbors, and company and completely ignored one of these is not like the others. Someone that has loyalty to family and friends is socially competent, but someone loyal to a company these days is just a sucker.

That has always been my aversion to nationalism, because to me it occupies the second group in trying not only create loyalty, but much like the company, try to usurp natural loyalty. The power of which I've seen a family member go into nationalism's deep end and strain our relationship with them because I didn't agree.

Right? What harm has nationalism ever caused?

Folks who go through the trouble of immigrating here, many of whom are reliant on their job for renewing visas, have less bargaining power with their employers. Wages lower, standards for politics and labor rights lower, and standards of living lower. It's about the death of communities and societal trust, and and has nothing to do with people thinking who deserves what.

FWIW, I read the parent comment as sarcasm, not a serious proposal of xenophobia.

I think the parent comment was saying that being against those policies will get you branded as a xenophobe. The tone was meant to elicit sympathy.

My interpretation was that the parent commenter is against some aspect of immigration employment policy, but does not think that constitutes xenophobia.

At the same time, my countrymen, my neighbors, being gainfully employed has far more benefit to me directly than people on the other side being gainfully employed. And while I'd like everyone, everywhere to be prosperous and happy, the people who live around me being prosperous and happy has more of a direct effect. For one, if the people in my neighborhood are employed and decently off, that means they're less likely to riot or steal my stuff.

>It just means you think that people from other countries are less deserving of job opportunities than people from your country.

What's the point of even having a country if citizens aren't prioritized over non-citizens? What's the point of banding together as a nation if you don't engage in policy that helps one another? I don't feel just as entitled to a job in Japan as a Japanese citizen. Do you advocate for one world government or something?

> What's the point of even having a country if citizens aren't prioritized over non-citizens?

For jobs? We're talking about welcoming immigrants into the country to work. My opinion doesn't extend to every possible way that a nation can prioritize its own citizens. If, for instance, there's an American citizen involved in some incident in another country (plane crash, terrorist attack, unjust arrest, etc.), of course I expect the USA to prioritize that. I also expect the USA to prioritize its own economy, infrastructure, education, etc. (although I think that is for the benefit of all legal residents, not just "citizens").

>We're talking about welcoming immigrants into the country to work.

Are you aware that there are negatives to this, or just that they're not important to you?

This seems like a fairly unproductive way to make your point, because I can only guess what you mean.

What I think you mean is that you can be against increased margins for corporations, and that's the reason that you're against immigration.

It's a strange strange thing to be against increased margins for corporations, without any other explanation, so I can see why many people would be confused, if that's what you're trying to say.

You're focusing on the wrong part. Increased margins for corporations at the cost of engineer pay. Companies don't need their margins nearly as much as individuals need a higher salary.

If that's true then his comment was even less productive than I thought. The commenter didn't even mention the "part" you think I should focus on.

That's what I was implying. Corporations can exploit a social issue to drive down labor costs.

Still, I find it odd to argue that engineer pay is among the top priorities of a well-functioning economy. I'm an engineer, and all else being equal I'll take more money (it has its uses), but I certainly couldn't say with a straight face that my country's immigration policy should be based significantly on its effect on my salary.

Why not? Wage competition is a legitimate byproduct of increased immigration

Why shouldn't a nation protect its citizens' wages?

Because it's bad for consumers, innovation, and the overall economy.

"The overall economy" isn't as important as wages and purchasing power for individuals.

Immigration can lead to less competition and therefore innovation. Instead of people from other countries creating services that compete, they get absorbed by multinationals.

I don't see how higher wages for engineers will lead to more innovation. Can you explain that?

> It's a strange strange thing to be against increased margins for corporations

Is it? I know a lot of leftists who consider corporate profit margins something to intrinsically oppose. I mean, they're concerned about the consequences of those margins, but they do think the consequences are inescapable - they think rising corporate margins inherently make the world a worse place.

And yeah, that's historically driven an anti-immigration streak among labor movements, made stronger when it's not about new citizens but people operating under alternate labor laws. The deBoer type leftists of today don't carry that xenophobia, but some of them definitely still complain about H1B as a corporate subsidy.

It's not a position I endorse (if anything, I'd argue for "strengthen the bargaining position of H1B workers"), but I don't think it's terribly uncommon. I agree that the comment framing is inflammatory and unnecessary, but I wasn't surprised by the part about margins.

Why would guest worker policies increase margins? Software is pretty much the easiest type of work to offshore, and if the businesses do that they don't have to pay wages sufficient to live in San Francisco.

damn straight. all of those jobs filled by highly educated immigrants could have been filled by retrained high school dropout coal miners - take that globalism!

I'm not sure this comment appeals to anyone. The idea that day to day programming jobs are some sort of high end intellectual challenge is a myth. I think a coal miner could do what I've been doing since sixth grade just fine.

See: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/95-engineers-i...

Yes, this is an important point that many deny! A lot of lower paying technical work requires just as much skill. But it's about supply and demand.

The faux intellectual vibe in programming is purely cultural due to class associations. If welders and prgorammers traded places in terms of class associations (ie, if welders earn what programmers earn and vice versa AND if welding was something you do in an office and programming was something you do in the field or workshop), well guess what? Welding would have an academic intellectual culture, and programming would have more of a blue collar culture. You'd hear complaints about welding interviews requiring memorization of chemical reaction formulas instead of practical skills. Programmers would probably long ago been unionized. Etc.

A couple generations from now, basic programming skill will no longer be so scarce that even an idiot who manages to pick some up is highly valuable. The reason programming ability is scarce is not because it's much harder, but simply historical/cultural.

ggp here. it was really meant to be a dig against levels of american investment in education and worker competitiveness.

the only reason i'm posting is that i finally completed the transition from programmer to welder and i find my new peers generally smarter and harder working. fwiw

Doesn't surprise me in the least. Of the coal miners and programmers I know -- only one set enjoys a subset of people who've built and wired their own homes with little formal education and even less complaint.

Whoa, I would love to hear more. I'm a dissatisfied software engineer and have often thought about trying to move into a technical hands on field like welding, electrician, auto mechanic, etc, in the hopes it'd be more satisfying, or at least less boring.

(I agree american investment in education is abyssmal, and I bet gp might agree too, but mistook your comment's meaning)

i think 'smarter' was probably not the best use of words. equally smart and much more creative about getting the job done. original comment was too snarky as well, didn't really mean to hate on coal miners. it really is a false equivalence though.

starting from nothing it took about 6 months practice and general skill building to where i could work on projects and not screw them up for everyone. one nice thing about this world is that if you aren't so good, you can still pull in minimum wage if you work hard. once you get the hang of things you can build up a client base and start charging more. and if you have any kind of flair for design you can start selling bespoke pieces instead of just being a pair of hands.

after about $60/hr it gets a lot tougher. you don't really qualify for the really high-end work (i.e stainless pharmaceutical). and no insurance.

I went back to tech for .. 4 years because of the pay difference and because of insurance for me and my wife, but I'm back in the shop now because..i think my software mindset is pretty radically different than the way things are done now.

trade work is a constant challenge, and you can see your skills grow over time. faster, cleaner, more reliable, more clever. if you have a little* financial flexility and love hard work, i strongly recommend it as a second career. if i'm lucky in a software shop i get to solve a problem a day, in the metal shop i solve tens or hundreds.

[oh, sorry, should make this clear - if you start in welding/machining you can certainly make quite a decent living, have benfits, etc - i'm just talking about coming in later in life being self taught and trying to carve out a little work here and there]

Why not? Some people are actually seriously trying it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2017/01/30/turning-co...

Wouldn't you rather have these highly educated immigrants help develop the countries they flee instead of contributing to lower domestic wages and greater world wealth stratification?

No that means you're blowing things out of proportion. Immigration and guest worker policies do more than just increase margins for corporations.

Indeed they also help keep wages and demand of American workers down.

I do not believe that American workers deserve better job opportunities than non-American workers.

Well when you put it that way, of course. But it's not that simple.

I don't think I'm using any manipulative phrasing. What do you think I am oversimplifying?

I don't think you're being manipulative, but you are certainly oversimplifying the issue here. Of course everybody deserves a good job or good opportunities. But, just as such, everybody deserves happiness or kittens, or a good education. We strive for those things, generally, but we don't always hit the mark. When you make a statement like that, you completely ignore all of the other factors that matter. Ok, so somebody in India deserves a good tech job, does the American then move to India and take their place? Do they just lose their job and screw them? Do they get lucky and find another job? What if they loved that job? What if I want to move to Switzerland, do I deserve a good job there? What if they won't let me in? Do the have the right to do that? If they do, then aren't the Swiss preventing other people from these deserved jobs?

It's naive. Good intentions, but naive.

Jobs can't be "taken" they have to be "given".

Indeed wages for STEM related work is better than the average JOB.

but is this true? as a SysAdmin (a job often done by people like me, with no education at all) I make rather more than anyone I know working as a chemist, physicist, or mathematician, at least until they got tired of the low pay and became software engineers... but in my limited experience, I could say the same about people who studied poetry, philosophy or literature.

There's a lot of talk about STEM, when as far as I can tell, the money is all in computers; the others might get you slightly above median salaries, but if they are above median, it's not by much.

I was comparing against farm workers, coal workers, auto workers, restaurant workers, care givers etc. STEM by far will provide better wages. Although the education system is not built for this (hence migrants). Politicians also would like to keep people in the above jobs because the owners pay theiere bills.

so you are saying that a STEM degree gets jobs that pay better than most jobs that don't require a degree at all?

If you compare your average non-computer industry STEM job to something in Medicine, law or business... I think that STEM, outside of the computer industry, just doesn't pay that well, and it's kind of disingenuous to advertise it as a path to financial well being to young people who are so poor that they have to look at education as a monetary investment.

So what? All I hear is 'they could be EVEN better'. Unlike the comments below I have no issues proclaiming I'd rather the jobs go to Americans.