9 ms·

"We're not anti-immigration, we're only anti-illegal immigration!" * indefinitely pauses legal immigration *

by jjk166 21d ago

darknavi 21d ago
Slanted take here, but this is exactly what they are doing with the federal government. They like to complain that "big government inefficient and bad" while actively making it inefficient and bad. They are fulfilling their own prophecies. Similar to immigration I'm sure. If all immigration is illegal then it's all bad!
- jachee 21d ago
  The right wing doesn’t want to run the government, they want to occupy it so it doesn’t run except to enrich themselves.
- stouset 21d ago
  It’s not slanted, it’s accurate.
GetThemOut 21d ago
[flagged]
- diego_moita 21d ago
  The irony: many native Americans believe that all of your own immigrant ancestors should never be allowed to enter the US. If you really believe what you wrote then I'd suggest to "GetThemOut*" your own immigrant heritage out of the country. * as your trolling username says
  - xdennis 21d ago
    > The irony: many native Americans believe that all of your own immigrant ancestors should never be allowed to enter the US. And your lesson from this is that Native Americans should continue to be ignored and more immigrants let in? If you care about Native Americans (and don't just use them as a rhetorical device to argue with people on the internet) then surely, you'd support a reduction in immigration, right?
    - diego_moita 21d ago
      > And your lesson from this is that Native Americans should continue to be ignored and more immigrants let in? No, that is just the conclusion you want to make. Stop putting in my mouth the words I didn't say.
    - threecheese 21d ago
      “If you care about Native Americans, *and agree with the assertion I presented as fact that they/we are being ignored and that’s purely the fault of new immigrants, and agree with the implication I made that immigration has no value*, then surely …”. Surely.
  - pfannkuchen 21d ago
    There is no contradiction here. Different groups have different interests. The natives rightly attempted to fight off the Europeans. They lost. It does not follow that the Europeans here now should just let in whoever wants to come in, to the point that the Europeans themselves are outnumbered. If the Europeans fight and the newcomers win, so be it. But why should the Europeans lay down and let it happen? Especially when they trivially have the ability to stop it, unlike the natives. For now, anyway…
    - hardbass 17d ago
      People peacefully moving in and settling in a country is GENOCIDAL INVASION HOLY SHIT!!!
      - pfannkuchen 10d ago
        I wonder if you are capable of thinking into the future? Have you looked at the projected future demographics in America if the current trends continue? What does it matter if it's peaceful in the moment or not if the end result is the same? If you are forcibly invaded and become 10% of the population, vs if you let it happen, what is the difference? The only difference I can see is that if you are letting it happen, you can be convinced to not let it happen and then act accordingly. Whereas if you aren't letting it happen and it's still happening you may just not be able to stop it. So the current situation is really odd. Also, if you numerically lose control of a territory, you do open yourself up to actual genocide in the future. Can you not imagine a scenario where the other groups gang up on Europeans if the Europeans no longer have the power to stop it? And again, if that somehow happens naturally in the far future I'm not going to lose sleep over it. But if Europeans are convinced that this is a fair and even good thing and shouldn't be resisted, well there is clearly something wrong with them mentally.
        hardbass 7d ago
        Tell me who killed who again. Otherwise stop using the word genocide. You'd be calling it genocide when you stubbed your toe on the bed next. Why should the demographics matter as long as the people follow some form of liberal capitalist democratic ideals? I find it hilarious you think the first thing a peaceful group of immigrants will do if they outnumber you is launch a genocide against you. I mean this both ways, I am equally ambivalent about eg Indonesia or whatever becoming 70% white in future. I don't care who the race is, I can happily live in any democratic liberal capitalist society. If the society isn't roughly in that ballpark, then the "race" comprising it has failed and there is no point to it anyway.
xdennis 21d ago
If you're saying that's hypocritical, it's not. Being anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration doesn't mean you want to flood the country with legal immigrants. That's the case in the UK, by the way, where the vast majority of immigrants are legal and it's the reason for the growing anti-immigrant attitude of the natives. People who are anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration also have requirements like: - there should be a fixed number of legal immigrants - they should be well vetted (this may be lacking in the US and UK) - legal immigration should be points based - quotas for legal immigrants should be increased contingent on the number of illegal immigrants which are expelled - there should be checks to verify that visas are not abused (the way H1Bs are abused in the US with under qualified immigrants) - asylum should be abolished because it's abused. It can be replaced by paying poorer countries to permanently host asylees.
- jjk166 21d ago
  It most certainly is hypocritical. You can not be simultaneously pro-legal immigration and support banning legal immigration. If you support banning legal immigration, you are by definition anti-legal immigration. > Being anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration doesn't mean you want to flood the country with legal immigrants. If only there were something between 0 and unrestricted immigration, some sort of program where people apply for permission and the government issues approvals for individuals to enter its borders after meeting legal criteria.
  - xdennis 21d ago
    > You can not be simultaneously pro-legal immigration and support banning legal immigration. Nobody is banning legal immigration. It's being restricted. The headline itself says "pauses". Do you think no legal immigrant will be let into the US until 2028? > some sort of program where people apply for permission Yes, and if that program is being abused (just ask people here on HN about H1Bs to see how they feel), then you pause it until you figure out how to solve it.
    - unethical_ban 21d ago
HumblyTossed 21d ago
Everything they say is a lie.
- rvz 21d ago
  By "they" it is that every single politician lies. So of course that is the tiniest small print of every promise any politician makes, such that once it is a promise broken it is someone else's fault and not theirs. Therefore their entire job is to lie.
  - sagarm 21d ago
    This is a lazy take. It doesn't absolve you of being a poorly informed citizen.
    - rvz 20d ago
      My point is to expect politicians to always lie. As soon as they break their promise they usually blame someone or something else. You as a citizen have a choice to tolerate that or leave the country.
      - paulryanrogers 20d ago
        Or vote for other people and change the incentives that lead to broken/failed promises?

"We're not anti-immigration, we're only anti-illegal immigration!" * indefinitely pauses legal immigration *

by jjk166 21d ago

"We're not anti-immigration, we're only anti-illegal immigration!" * indefinitely pauses legal immigration *

Slanted take here, but this is exactly what they are doing with the federal government. They like to complain that "big government inefficient and bad" while actively making it inefficient and bad. They are fulfilling their own prophecies. Similar to immigration I'm sure. If all immigration is illegal then it's all bad!

jachee 21d ago
The right wing doesn’t want to run the government, they want to occupy it so it doesn’t run except to enrich themselves.
stouset 21d ago
It’s not slanted, it’s accurate.

GetThemOut 21d ago

[flagged]

diego_moita 21d ago
The irony: many native Americans believe that all of your own immigrant ancestors should never be allowed to enter the US. If you really believe what you wrote then I'd suggest to "GetThemOut*" your own immigrant heritage out of the country. * as your trolling username says
- xdennis 21d ago
  > The irony: many native Americans believe that all of your own immigrant ancestors should never be allowed to enter the US. And your lesson from this is that Native Americans should continue to be ignored and more immigrants let in? If you care about Native Americans (and don't just use them as a rhetorical device to argue with people on the internet) then surely, you'd support a reduction in immigration, right?
  - diego_moita 21d ago
    > And your lesson from this is that Native Americans should continue to be ignored and more immigrants let in? No, that is just the conclusion you want to make. Stop putting in my mouth the words I didn't say.
  - threecheese 21d ago
    “If you care about Native Americans, *and agree with the assertion I presented as fact that they/we are being ignored and that’s purely the fault of new immigrants, and agree with the implication I made that immigration has no value*, then surely …”. Surely.
- pfannkuchen 21d ago
  There is no contradiction here. Different groups have different interests. The natives rightly attempted to fight off the Europeans. They lost. It does not follow that the Europeans here now should just let in whoever wants to come in, to the point that the Europeans themselves are outnumbered. If the Europeans fight and the newcomers win, so be it. But why should the Europeans lay down and let it happen? Especially when they trivially have the ability to stop it, unlike the natives. For now, anyway…
  - hardbass 17d ago
    People peacefully moving in and settling in a country is GENOCIDAL INVASION HOLY SHIT!!!
    - pfannkuchen 10d ago
      I wonder if you are capable of thinking into the future? Have you looked at the projected future demographics in America if the current trends continue? What does it matter if it's peaceful in the moment or not if the end result is the same? If you are forcibly invaded and become 10% of the population, vs if you let it happen, what is the difference? The only difference I can see is that if you are letting it happen, you can be convinced to not let it happen and then act accordingly. Whereas if you aren't letting it happen and it's still happening you may just not be able to stop it. So the current situation is really odd. Also, if you numerically lose control of a territory, you do open yourself up to actual genocide in the future. Can you not imagine a scenario where the other groups gang up on Europeans if the Europeans no longer have the power to stop it? And again, if that somehow happens naturally in the far future I'm not going to lose sleep over it. But if Europeans are convinced that this is a fair and even good thing and shouldn't be resisted, well there is clearly something wrong with them mentally.
      - hardbass 7d ago
        Tell me who killed who again. Otherwise stop using the word genocide. You'd be calling it genocide when you stubbed your toe on the bed next. Why should the demographics matter as long as the people follow some form of liberal capitalist democratic ideals? I find it hilarious you think the first thing a peaceful group of immigrants will do if they outnumber you is launch a genocide against you. I mean this both ways, I am equally ambivalent about eg Indonesia or whatever becoming 70% white in future. I don't care who the race is, I can happily live in any democratic liberal capitalist society. If the society isn't roughly in that ballpark, then the "race" comprising it has failed and there is no point to it anyway.

xdennis 21d ago

If you're saying that's hypocritical, it's not. Being anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration doesn't mean you want to flood the country with legal immigrants. That's the case in the UK, by the way, where the vast majority of immigrants are legal and it's the reason for the growing anti-immigrant attitude of the natives. People who are anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration also have requirements like: - there should be a fixed number of legal immigrants - they should be well vetted (this may be lacking in the US and UK) - legal immigration should be points based - quotas for legal immigrants should be increased contingent on the number of illegal immigrants which are expelled - there should be checks to verify that visas are not abused (the way H1Bs are abused in the US with under qualified immigrants) - asylum should be abolished because it's abused. It can be replaced by paying poorer countries to permanently host asylees.

jjk166 21d ago
It most certainly is hypocritical. You can not be simultaneously pro-legal immigration and support banning legal immigration. If you support banning legal immigration, you are by definition anti-legal immigration. > Being anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration doesn't mean you want to flood the country with legal immigrants. If only there were something between 0 and unrestricted immigration, some sort of program where people apply for permission and the government issues approvals for individuals to enter its borders after meeting legal criteria.
- xdennis 21d ago
  > You can not be simultaneously pro-legal immigration and support banning legal immigration. Nobody is banning legal immigration. It's being restricted. The headline itself says "pauses". Do you think no legal immigrant will be let into the US until 2028? > some sort of program where people apply for permission Yes, and if that program is being abused (just ask people here on HN about H1Bs to see how they feel), then you pause it until you figure out how to solve it.
  - unethical_ban 21d ago

HumblyTossed 21d ago

Everything they say is a lie.

rvz 21d ago
By "they" it is that every single politician lies. So of course that is the tiniest small print of every promise any politician makes, such that once it is a promise broken it is someone else's fault and not theirs. Therefore their entire job is to lie.
- sagarm 21d ago
  This is a lazy take. It doesn't absolve you of being a poorly informed citizen.
  - rvz 20d ago
    My point is to expect politicians to always lie. As soon as they break their promise they usually blame someone or something else. You as a citizen have a choice to tolerate that or leave the country.
    - paulryanrogers 20d ago
      Or vote for other people and change the incentives that lead to broken/failed promises?