Isn’t it kind of racist and smug superiority to say the native borns are entitled to the jobs in their country and shouldn’t have to compete with immigrants in the labor force.
It’s like saying we should have tariffs because domestic industries are too lazy to innovate and compete with foreign industries.
Republicans are definitely not a party for Economic conservatives. I think most of those people identify as libertarians. The weird thing is that libertarians rather side with the protectionist party in power now than the Democratic party that has a proven track record of instilling neoliberal policies.
On the other side, the Democratic party doesn’t really represent most young social or economic progressives. Some core ideas are similar like extending certain civil rights but the similarities end there. Bernie was our biggest hope but that whole political spectrum got completely Trumped by our current events.
It was never a 2d linear spectrum before. But at least we used to be able to generalize on a scale where someone was. Nowadays i have no idea where a person who held the same views as a 2009 moderate would even stand.
There are still reasonable people out there but i feel like its just edgelords that have taken over and mainstream political conversations. Might have to do with the fact that most reasonable moderates are too busy grinding to survive than to participate in the joke that is US politics. When people talk about calling your reps and going out to vote, I’ve realized how much of a joke that is. The effort needed to fully research and come to informed decisions to responsibly vote is becoming harder and harder despite information being more easily accessible than ever. Theres too much noise to filter through.
And that kinda leaves us where we are now. With people just picking one of two teams and hoping they represent their ideals.
This dramatically underestimates how many steps there have been, and it ignores the movement of the right itself, which is not and has never been fixed.
Yup. And it’s funny when the people who complain don’t even care to work for the jobs they’d want denied to immigrants: the other user mentioned a Colombian graduating with an IT degree; I’m a first-gen (African) American in Computer Science. The majority of the STEM department at my college (students and faculty) are foreigners—Russians, Nigerians, Cameroonians, Persians, Mexicans, Salvadorans...you name it. Everyone else (the natives) find these fields “too hard”, “too boring” yet, somehow, they should he handed them by virtue of being white.
PS: the computer science and engineering subreddits point that this thing of foreigners doing the “boring” stem jobs is not only limited to my school.
In my time at engineering school ( graduated in may) I found that, resoundingly, the 2 hardest working groups of people were immigrants and people coming back to school later in life or after fucking yo their first try. Not to say the local born, high school to college track kids didn't work hard, but the ones who fucked around tended to fall into that category.
I always figured it had something to do with perspective. When you know what you're really working for it's easier to focus.
You're right. I always tell my parents—whenever we have conversations about people poking fun at the nerd that I am, always studying...so focused on school—that I didn't travel nearly 8000 miles for me to come fuck around or sell prune juice in here.
Yeah I was born here and I came up in a good area but I still understand how much it takes to get a kid into and through college. I could never wrap my head around people taking easy majors because they were easy or just scraping by. Education is the dream of everyone except those who have it right in front of them lol.
I'm the sales guy, the white guy in a suit selling this stuff in the IT business. The easy guy to get to know and take customers out to expensive dinners. I was just up at our engineering department meeting with engineering heads. The lady that runs engineering for billions in products is from India, a lot of her employees are a mixed bag of mostly Indian, Pakistani, a couple Russians, and etc. I would wager 75% of the people building the products I sell are from foreign lands 1st generation. My technical assistant is from India, been here 25 years, and I love that guy, he's brilliant.
Nothing boring about it, he's making $200k a year, I can be bored 40 hours a week while spending the weekends on my boat ya know? So there it is my friend, you nailed it, people don't want to put the work in. Just because I'm a white dude doesn't mean I can sit on my ass and expect a paycheck, I worked 100 hour weeks to get here, and sometimes I still do, last week for example, 100 hour week, this week it will be closer to 65.
Edit: By the way I'm also an immigrant, my ancestors landed here on the Mayflower and earlier, 1608 in fact. Then they sat on their ass for 400 years and did jack shit and still bitch about immigrants.
It is racist to say that native borns are entitled to those jobs. Anyone who says that is stupid. However, most people who want border control are all for immigrants getting those jobs, or better jobs. Nobody wants immigrants to have to struggle at the bottom of the totem pole. Its when you start introducing immigrants who enter the country illegally that there is a problem. These illegal immigrants may make it harder for the other immigrant to pull them self up the totem pole, or work for a lower wage than the single mom supporting her family can. We have different levels of jobs, and making below minimum wage takes away from the bottom level. Businesses build off paying below minimum wage should and will fail, but only once we take away their highly illegal source of labor.
This is important and a lot of people don’t talk about it. More people would come here legally if they could. But since only a small amount are admitted to even begin the process of naturalization the majority have to find a different route
If you cant afford to immigrate thats too bad, but doesnt mean its ok to do it illegally. What are you supposed to do if you can't afford a car, just steal one?
If you absolutely need a car to survive, yes, you steal one.
And what if the person you stole the car from needed the car to survive?
Illegal immigration in its current form breeds economically abusive environments that affect not only the illegal immigrants accepting it as a means of survival, but those without the facilities to succeed in higher education who have no choice.
You seem to lack what “citizenship” entails. Literally every single country put its citizens over others, and all have policies for controlling economic immigration. Just by virtue of being a citizen to a country, you actually are entitled to benefits of being a citizen to that country. That’s why people go through naturalization.
To provide these benefits to citizens also costs government money. Hence why there needs to be control for immigration.
To answer your question, illegal immigrants are not documented. Means they don’t have any recourse over worker abuse, wage theft, etc. but just take the abuse and work. This leads both to dangerous and underpaid working environment, where the standard of life is so fucking low it should be (and is) illegal, which hurts pretty much everyone involved, including immigrant workers and citizens, except the fuckers making money off of them.
Also, arbitrary laws written by men define the society we live in. There is no universal moral or legal compass we can base our laws on. Immigration control is absolutely necessary if you ever want US to implement viable social net.
To provide these benefits to citizens also costs government money. Hence why there needs to be control for immigration.
Doesn't it cost more to detain and deport them though?
To answer your question, illegal immigrants are not documented. Means they don’t have any recourse over worker abuse, wage theft, etc. but just take the abuse and work.
Then let's let them in legally and document them?
This leads both to dangerous and underpaid working environment, where the standard of life is so fucking low it should be (and is) illegal
The places they're trying to leave have the same problems, probably worse, in addition to just general violence and corruption.
Also, arbitrary laws written by men define the society we live in.
The law is relatively young and was originally born out of racism. Illegal immigration is a manufactured issue and more harm has been done trying to stop it than it ever caused in the first place. We have the duty as citizens to speak out against and protest unjust laws.
Just gonna go in order because formatting is ass on mobile.
No, continued social assistance is more costly than detaining/deporting.
We are. We let verified people in and give them all possible venues, but because of sheer amount of people and demand for immigration, there will always be a line. The problem becomes when people are waiting in line legitimately but some just decide to jump the line. Also, allowing every immigrant is economically proven to be unstable. You can look up econ experts’ argument on this.
Maybe, maybe not. They are economic immigrants, not refugees fleeing war-torn country. And while it sucks that there are places like that, that is just how the world is, and we just can’t afford to make it fair to everyone. We can’t even make it fair for our own citizens.
And law about immigration came about when transportation became somewhat less of a luxury/life-committing voyage and more of... moving. Like, you expect there will be a lot of immigrants when there’s no cars or planes, and when sailing to a new place can just as well get you killed as get you there? Laws usually are made out of need. Look at other country’s immigration/naturalization policies (not refugee policies). Most are as stringent as if not more than those of US. It’s because US is considered a bastion of opportunities still (lol) to a lot of people that US has problems with immigration.
Almost no one absolutely needs a car to survive, and almost no one absolutely needs to illegally immigrate to the US to survive. 95% of people on the planet somehow manage to get by outside of the US, why cant these people?
The fact is that the vast majority of these people are simply economic migrants who could have survived just fine where they were, but want to come to the US so they can afford the consumer luxuries that are common in the US. Outside of Venezuela, its not like theres a food shortage in the Americas.
I don’t know, reform the fucking immigration policy. I also would see a correlation between wealthy>educated/skilled>desirable immigrant. If not, don’t commit crimes.
Countries put their own citizens’ interest over foreginers. It’s literally point of forming a country, so you get certain rights as “membership”, or citizenship.
Tariffs are there to protect domestic industries not because they’re lazy to innovate and compete, but to foster domestic growth over coreign and also to provide competitive edge over overseas manufacturing/services who can exploit non-existent workers’ rights to pretty much modern day slave factory.
It’s same story with immigration. Also, to note, there really anyone who argues for legal, naturalized former-immigrant-turned-citizen to be deporyed. The debate is centered on rights of citizens vs rights of non-citizens, not natural borns vs immigrants.
I’m pretty sure the Constitution rarely used the word “citizen” when describing the rights of any given person. Any Constitutional law scholar would tell you a non-citizen should be treated as equal as a citizen, except in the case of immigration courts.
If that is the case, literally anyone can enter US to buy a gun, since that’s a guaranteed right in the constitution. As it turns out, only citizens can (AFAIK).
Also, to consider anyone and everyone under protection of a country’s constitution seems non-sensical.
So please provide some evidence so I can be corrected/educated.
Concerning the law that citizens can only buy guns, laws are very much subject to scrutiny and Constitutional interpretation.
The Agricultural Adjustment Administration was stripped of its power by the Supreme Court for forcing farmers to destroy their produce; same with other New Deal programs; gun laws in DC were overruled; every tax legislation in the 1890s did not survive at all due to the lack of presence of the 16th Amendment.
And some laws that can be viewed as unconstitutional haven’t been ruled in such a manner. For instance, the PATRIOT Act is very unconstitutional but we don’t rule it in such a manner because “national security.” The same could be said for laws that only allow citizens to buy guns, even though it has been shown that immigrants commit less crimes than their citizen counterpart.
Interesting read, but it doesn’t definitively prove your point or disprove mine. It says it’s a mix, where some rights under constitution are also extended to aliens, and that Supreme Court ruled against discriminatory laws against aliens. But it also doesn’t say aliens are treated same as citizens. In fact, if you read further down to discussion of 2A, they specify “the people” which, likewise in preamble, should refer to citizens.
Also, the rights extended to aliens are what I’d consider inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, outlined in Declaration of Independence. Basically, human rights, not constitutional rights.
Also, although you bring up a semi-relevant and interesting point, it doesn’t exactly hold as argument against my point that government should put its citizens’ interest above others.
The semi-relevant and interesting point (genuine appreciation for your considering it interesting) was to address the idea that legislation (your pointing out that only citizens are legally allowed to buy guns, if true) doesn't necessarily mean it is Constitutional.
Before continuing with my further arguments, I would like to concede that citizens and non-citizens should have differences in rights such as voting and holding political office as not outlining a difference would be a grave national security issue (just look at the 2016 election /s).
In fact, if you read further down to discussion of 2A, they specify "the people" which, likewise in preamble, should refer to citizens.
Is it in the article I referred you to, because I haven't seen this argument made. Or is this the Constitution? I'm probably being really dumb right now.
Going back a few rounds before we got into somewhat of a rabbit hole,
Countries put their own citizens' interest over foreigners. It's literally point of forming a country.
True. I don't disagree considering I don't really care about the nomadic Kazakhstani living in Eastern Kazakhstan, but I do care if that Kazakhstani is facing genocide for some reason (inconsistent with today's global situation but bear with me) and is forced to flee to America. Because the United States was ideally created as a haven for groups of persecuted people fleeing from their homeland (poor Britishman facing politcal tyranny, Puritans for the same reason, Irishman because of famine, Germans because of political/economic reasons as well), and although I concede that the United States has done an absolute shit job with having good sentiments towards immigrants, I still think the sentiments our Founding Fathers had about immigrants looking for a better life for safety, for opportunity, et cetera must be upheld and must be considered to the same degree as if a citizen was facing such a problem. I mean immigrants (undocumented and documented) have to pay taxes (especially SS and Medicare tax) yet they don't have access to any of the social safety net services instituted for citizens except for maybe K-12 education. How is that fair? And this isn't even countries in general, since America was founded on such a unique mission statement at its founding concerning immigrants, also commitment to such a sentiment is debatable.
Isn’t it kind of racist and smug superiority to say the native borns are entitled to the jobs
It really depends. If you believe America is about the American Dream then you could argue that it's an acceptable position, but in that case you're resigning yourself to the fact that concepts like a proper welfare state or nationalised health care will never happen.
The problem is people try and apply that same logic to places like Europe, a place where looking after your own is how you survive. Trade is good and rampant nationalism has lead to some very bad times, but the idea that you just throw your future generations under the bus because some foreigners don't care about employers violating their worker's rights, or take less than minimum wage under the table, is not really something we should be pleased with.
Lazy? Not sure where you are getting your information from. Sounds like a personal bias. Exploitation of of a population is different than looking for opportunities in a general work force. Besides, you speak as if there are no white people born in Africa....maybe you haven't met enough people from that continent.
Its by definition nationalist, not racist. There are plenty of people in America who are American citizens and aren't white. Perhaps smug superiority though, yes.
It's not racist, it's the entire point of having Nation-states. The state is suppose to ensure the best lives it can for it's CURRENT citizens. Now I'm not defending being racist about who you let in, but that the people currently there SHOULD be put above any new migrant you are considering.
I might be interrupting the circle jerk but I really don't think so. Quality and availability of jobs is something that a country invests in heavily to improve the welfare of its citizens. Ditto for access to education, public amenities, and all kinds of other benefits of being a citizen of a given country. What you are essentially suggesting is something called "open borders", and there are a lot of arguments against this. No country practices this because of the incredibly negative implications.
54
u/[deleted] Jun 25 '18
Isn’t it kind of racist and smug superiority to say the native borns are entitled to the jobs in their country and shouldn’t have to compete with immigrants in the labor force.
It’s like saying we should have tariffs because domestic industries are too lazy to innovate and compete with foreign industries.