An immigrant who has followed due process is equivalent to a homeless person who has convinced the property owner to willingly let the homeless person stay in the property owner's living room. The property owner is allowed to change their mind about the arrangement at any point, unless and until the person obtains part ownership of the property (citizenship).

▲

Erem a day ago | parent | next [-]

This is a vile analogy, whose implication so twists the American tradition that I blush with shame to read it from a possible countryman.

What American tradition? I'll let Lincoln speak, since you have already given voice to his opposition.

"As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

▲

Georgelemental a day ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, all men are created equal. They have the equal right to live in their country. A Russian has just as much a right to live in Russia as an American does in America. And I have just as much a right to move to Russia as a Russian has to move to America—i.e. none at all, it's a privilege than the government of each country may or may not grant.

Btw, I am a naturalized US citizen. I'm talking about myself here. I'm very grateful for what this country has given me, because I know it had no obligation whatsoever to do so.

▲

0xDEAFBEAD a day ago | parent | prev [-]

If "all men are created equal" applies to foreign citizens, why not just go all the way and let them vote in US elections? We can elect the US president on the basis of the entire world population. Is that the American tradition?

Leftists tell me the US is an irredeemable and illegitimate settler colonial project founded on slavery, white supremacy, and genocide.

When the US has an active foreign policy, I'm told we are "destabilizing foreign nations", or engaging in "neo-imperialism".

When we have a passive foreign policy, I'm told we are "complicit", or "abandoning allies".

There's nothing the US can do, or not do, which doesn't get demonized to the Moon and back. Right here in this thread, someone is trashing us for our WW2 involvement.

HN has been basically silent on the Swiss referendum to put a hard stop to immigration to Switzerland. But all the US has to is pause immigration for a bit, and I'm told we are "vile".

And now, I'm told about an "American tradition" that we are supposedly "twisting". You sure that isn't a good thing? Look where those "American traditions" got us. Our nation is a DISASTER, right? Shouldn't we be keeping out brown people for their own safety?

▲

Erem a day ago | parent [-]

You're not arguing against leftists, you're arguing against Abraham Lincoln.

If you want to know the answers to your questions, read about Abraham Lincoln.

And no I will never agree that policies created out of racism will somehow bear sweet fruit from poisoned water.

All over this thread you have been misreading and strawmaning others in order to seem more reasonable. Even in this thread you misread me: the vile part was the homeless analogy, not the policy.

It's just time to draw the line in the sand: yours are the ideas lead to suffering and genocide and nobody whose words are worth reading wants that.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It sounds like you haven't actually thought much about these issues, and you're quoting Lincoln, and fearmongering about "suffering and genocide", as a sort of thought-terminating cliche. If you want to argue against the administration policies, I suggest you articulate a coherent and attractive philosophy of immigration instead of mudslinging. I'm not arguing with Lincoln--I'm arguing with you. "yours are the ideas lead to suffering and genocide and nobody whose words are worth reading wants that" Why aren't you saying this about the much harsher Swiss policy which was proposed? I just don't think a country closing its borders is equivalent to "suffering and genocide". It's not the policy I favor for the US. I think you and I might even agree in terms of our preferred policies! But I still find your rhetoric annoying as heck. I want people to argue about immigration on the merits, not engage in melodramatic pearl-clutching. Let me guess: You would probably claim that when white settlers first came to this continent, if they settled on Native land, and the Natives attacked them for being unwanted immigrants, that would be an act of genocide on the part of the settlers. Am I right?

▲

ImPostingOnHN a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The property owner in this case is the American people, who I'm pretty sure don't support this.

They may have hired a property manager, but if the manager goes rogue, what the owners say is more important.

▲

0xDEAFBEAD a day ago | parent [-]

OK but that's a much different argument from "the cruelty is the point".

▲

ImPostingOnHN a day ago | parent [-]

The legal perspective doesn't preclude that the cruelty is the point.

▲

0xDEAFBEAD a day ago | parent [-]

Consider the possibility that people might simply have different views from you.

▲

ImPostingOnHN a day ago | parent [-]

You're right, that is always a possibility for any random thing.

Okay, done. Now you do the same.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm looking for the view you guys have beneath all the performative outrage and I haven't been able to discover it yet. For example, this user wasn't able to explain why foreigners shouldn't vote in US elections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49465747