I don't see why I should give up my hard won comfort -- won collectively by my ancestors, neighbors, compatriots, myself -- to strangers. It's natural to accord special status to yourself, then to some close kin, ..., then to fellow citizens, then to the rest of humanity.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a colleague once. Basically he was making the argument that people work hard to pass on something to their kids, and we shouldn't discourage that. Also that generations of people were working for their own nearest, why should that be wrecked in favour of a new regime?
There probably is something natural about helping your closest first. But nature is not in itself a reason for thinking something is right.
The problem for me is we are talking about excluding people from voluntary agreements. If some guy from a foreign country comes to my country and manages to agree a deal with some employer, why on earth do I have any right to stop that?
Any consequences of that agreement on my wellbeing are indirect. The arguments always go via the market, speaking to the effect of changing supply and demand. It's like when the "wrong kind of people" move into a neighbourhood, lowering house prices. What reasonable complaint does one have, other than if those people in themselves do something unreasonable like littering?
There's lots of things people can do voluntarily that might hurt me indirectly. Suppose everyone decided to speak Esperanto instead of the local language. Do I have a right to stop them? No. Would it have an enormous cost to me? Yes. Would it be convenient for me to use the law to force them? Sure.
So while I can understand that people are worried about immigration, I've yet to hear a reasonable argument to restrict it.
A DDOS made of finance obsessed Man-children and brogrammers
https://www.jwz.org/blog/2017/02/an-annotated-digest-of-the-...
I try to keep to technical issues, but some of the things I read are just not acceptable.
We all have different opinion, and I respect that, but when some people think they deserve some special privileges, I disagree.
Only raw performance should matter, because anything else is discriminatory.
However, I dispute that premise. You are jumping to conclusions. The "disabled and English learners" I have met offer tremendous value, in different axes.
Someone who is blind is used to processing audio at several time the speed a non blind person can. So if I need someone to summarize and extra data from audio, I want someone who's blind. Because they will be more efficient than you or I.
I don't know about you, but I assume you are not blind. If you want to sell me your services, I'll pay you a fraction of what I'll pay a blind contractor because they will be more efficient than you.
Someone for which English is not their first language often uses a lower number of words, and makes simpler sentences. This is a godsent for technical documentation.
I fear you inner bias make you consider that as "intial disadvantage". It is extremely short sighted.
Feel free to call me prejudiced when I prefer blind and ESL hires.
> If someone else can do the job better than you or me, they should be hired...
You're ignoring the fact that this is more about cheap labor than about some unreachable meritocratic ideal of finding "the best person" for the job.
The end game of this will be that these "high-skill" jobs will go the way of manufacturing, and eventually the USA will end up with huge swathes of the population unable to compete in the global economy, poorer, less educated and with a diminishing social safety net.
Um, in some continues it is. But then I have to ask why have countries at all if being born in a country gains you nothing?
While I see your point I can't help to have a hard time with it. Mostly because you fail to see how detrimental to the country it is when its citizens can't get jobs because they are competing with the res of the world, who don't follow the same rules.
We have countries for a reason. And if the vast majority of people in a country feel they should not have to compete on a world platform for a local job then that seems fair to me.
Lets also talk about numbers. Given there is ~400 million in the US, And ~7 billion people in the rest of the world. It is almost statistically given that we could replace every American citizen worker with a better skilled worker with a non-citizen worker. So I ask again, is that what we want to do? What will that mean for the notion of the US as a country? Why have a country at all?
Why have a country at all? Well right now because other countries will continue to be countries and want to be countries, and they don't all play by the same rules. It might be different if we all played by the same rules but right now it seems like the US is being gamed by everybody else.
But anyways, it matters what country you are born in, and that does grant you some rights that others in other countries were born in don't have. Otherwise we would not even be having this discussion.
However, I do not like the concept of imaginal lines drawn on a map to give advantage to some people who had a lucky birth.
It is no better than a caste system or nobility in Europe.
> Otherwise we would not even be having this discussion.
I'm sad we have this discussion.
So you're in favor of removing the diversity visa lottery then?
Secondly, all people are equal before the law, which is an invention of the U.S. constitution. All people are certainly not equal. This is codified in religion in various forms ("As you did unto the least of these, you did unto me," karma/samsara, kafir, etc.). It is self-evident that equality is not reflected in wealth, social standing, influence, and power. It is also patently obvious that biology presents impediments to equality. You should not confuse a U.S. legal construct of equality with a generalization of equality.
It's not about signaling or positive sentiments. All human beings are equal. Being born in one place doesn't make you special or entitles you to a job.
US citizen or whatever-country citizen, all that matters is what you can do. Meritocracy, you know.
If someone else can do the job better than you or me, they should be hired. Being born in the US or gender or anything else you can think about shouldn't play a role. Only raw performance should matter, because anything else is discriminatory.
Just saying, because that's how I see the world, and I hope more people will keep seeing the world that way instead of thinking they're special and worth some unique privilege because of circumstance of their birth.