> Siphoning off potential and sabotaging developing countries through human resource poaching called "immigration"

You think immigration should be illegal?

> Government theft and fractional enslavement through taxation

You really had me in agreement with the first few items. You are not a serious person.

I'm going to guess that they're referring to only allowing "cream of the crop" immigration. (eg H1B or other visas often are only open to top candidates, not everyone)

The problem with the argument that this is crippling developing countries is that it's often the case that the top talent can't really shine in their country. They can't realize their potential, either due to the lack of means or corruption or envy or whatever. I am from a third world country and a large part of our scientists did great things because they immigrated, at the same time, there are many great minds here that to do anything at all have to partake in an endless uphill battle.

Like, I'd totally love to have our top engineers and scientists come from the West and do some amazing things here (they 100% can make a great change), but I feel that they actually just can't.

I get your point and have considered it myself. It is a big problem, but it is also a function of the rather rapaciousness of the US economic/immigration system and model itself. NOTHING would stop the US government to fund the opportunities in whatever country in question, but also, there is no reason why "immigration" could not be a kind of skill building/sharing and development plan where you are given the opportunity to go to the USA for a set number of years and/or cycles, and then you know you are going to transition back to your home country where you will then use those skills/knowledge to help and build your country.

It is actually extremely inefficient the way the rapacious American system in particular works (but also Canada and increasingly the overall EU). There is far more utility to be gained from making exponential strides and advances by the "human resources" as they are even referred to, by uplifting and developing their home country than to serve the US ruling class in ever more desperate search for "growth".

And then of course there is also the fact that immigration is short sighted and a pure measure of the incompetence and failure of government. If you are importing people, you have failed to adequately govern to meet your needs and it also will make you reliant on that immigration while you will ignore even building up any kind of domestic capacity.

Then there is of course the consequence of immigration dependence coupled with international development and growth too when the source of "immigrants" dries up because people will want to life in their home countries where they can be among their own and development has narrowed the difference between comfort levels in the USA. We will be seeing this effect increasingly in the near future as, e.g., Indians see no reason anymore to move to the USA because the US university is not even as good as a local university, let alone American society is crumbling and cracking at all seams. It will be compounding effect. I already see it happening.

Also it ignores, as i've observed with Filipinos in Canada, that they often send like half of their paycheck back "home" . Some of them live in developed world "squalor" (like many people to a house, or taking the bus) so their families can live like royalty in a low CoL area.

Says the person who has no idea that he is not in one bit a serious person. Immigration the way you have been trained to think of it like a mindless dog that does tricks for snacks is a con job of the ruling class to defraud its citizens to increase their profits. And that doesn't even address the fact that "immigration" that you are clearly conditioned to have a co-dependent positive response to, is utterly destructive for the origin society and economy like something out of a scifi movie where an alien ship is just stripping out all the resources from the planet; immigration sucks the life force and potential from a society and destroys the culture so that billionaires can compete to see who is the first to become a trillionaire. And they have you on the hook.

And yes, how is it not factional slavery when the freed person in the USA in 1865 kept 100% of what he earned all his life and paid no property or sales taxes when he bought something … but you pay about 60% of all your earnings over the course of your life to the government that has you enslaved to support others against your will with resources it takes from you. You are a slave to the new aristocracy that is the bureaucratic state that you must pay your serf dues to (which are higher than all serfs ever paid) so that the Lord can use your earnings to bequeath to the aristocratic class their income and assure their loyalty.

If you are not a slave, are you free to leave the USA and life somewhere else? No. Your US government owner will come after you wherever you life to make you pay taxes on your income. Are you free to just quit your job or are you shackled with the bondages of debt slavery? I think we both know the answer to that, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it.

So try to not be such a mindless herd animal and think for yourself a bit.

I’m convinced that the modern role of US political parties is to simply keep the masses squabbling. I wish we could get rid of gerrymandering and the two party dominance.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 that the courts should have no power here, so its up to state legislatures. (https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules...)

Totally agree here. It has to be intentional at this point.

Yes. Hyperpartisanship is the way to maintain minority control of an ostensibly majority-controlled system. Both parties feign gridlock over popular policy but cooperate on what their owners want. Populist support for policies doesn't matter when people are kept divided along party lines. "Radical" nonconformists who aim to do what voters want can always be defeated from within their party if not by the other side.

You’re getting into implied relative privation here. Yes, bad things exist, and yes, they aren’t controlled in a way we’d like. That doesn’t excuse Apple and isn’t that relevant to an argument about Apple’s immediate responsibility for its errors.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28640879.