> "Muslim immigrants as a group consume more in societal resources than they contribute in taxes or skilled labor."
There are several issues with this type of justification.
1) We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources.
2) We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources. (This point is rather important, I wanted you to read it so I included it twice).
3) Babies and elderly are a drain so why not give them the same treatment? If your answer is "because babies will eventually become contributors and elderly once were" then consider the following:
4) Many of these refugees are from war-torn countries, they have few resources of their own and perhaps little education. It might take a generation or two before they fully come into their own and contribute to society in the same way that many other immigrant groups have in the past. Give it time, and they too will contribute.
>We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources.
Of course we do. This is the stated, principle reason for immigration in almost all countries that allow it.
The Scandinavian countries have found this not to be the case- statistically the successive generations are actually less prone to educational attainment and more prone to radicalization than their parents.
In my personal experiences, the first generation immigrants are thrilled to be here, while their children lack the same sense of gratitude and tend to resent growing up around white people.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
I think these words contradict your assertion and are more representative of the American approach to immigration.
But, to your point, it is an empirical question. We could actually explore this with Census data, using income as a proxy for societal contribution and controlling for year of immigration, religion, country of origin, and other demographic variables. My question for you is if the data turn out to be counter to your personal experience, and that Muslim immigrants do end up as net positive social contributors in subsequent generations, would it change your position on the recent Executive Order? If not then there must be some other explanation for your support of it.
As for me, if it weren't obvious from the two quotes above, my opposition to the EO is philosophical rather than economic. And even if the data show that immigrants are a net economic drain on society, I would still continue to welcome them with open arms. That's what I learned America is all about.
While most of the Muslims I've met have been perfectly nice folks, I don't consider my personal experiences with individuals to be the best way to evaluate groups.
In other words, the individuals I met are human beings, but in large numbers they are merely a statistic, and I'm OK with Muslims dying because my (questionable) economic analysis says they are a net negative for the bottom line of the United States.
I am curious what your ethnicity is. At what point did you ancestors arrive in the United States, or are you perhaps an immigrant yourself?
Did any of your ancestors, at any point, belong to a group of immigrants that was considered by a portion of the US populace as "undesirable", but were let in nonetheless?
Would you consider your own presence in the United States as a benefit of such immigration which took place a while back?
I'm ethnically European, so my ancestors shared the same race and values as the demography of the United States at the time. More so, the country at that time did not strive to provide government funded food, shelter, or healthcare, so no financial burden was required to support them.
I don't think it would have benefited, say, Israel or Japan to have extended my ancestors citizenship.
Uhhhh, bad things happen to people who publicly support trump in liberal bastions. A throwaway account is perfectly reasonable.
I cannot count the number of times I hear supposedly tolerant people yell "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences." Where the consequences is usually violence. But thats OK, because it is not the government doing the violence.
Being coy about being a Trump supporter is a necessary precaution.
That's because they are tolerant towards personal choices, not political ones. There's a big difference, and sticking them in the same bucket so you can shout 'hypocrisy' doesn't constitute a useful analysis.
There are plenty of voices of all different political persuasions here on HN (and some in each group feels they're in the persecuted minority). I don't think your parent is suggesting that they need to connect their HN account with their true identity. It is useful, however, to maintain a relatively consistent, if pseudonymous, account as that benefits the HN community as a whole.
Unlinking nicks from your real identity is fine, but for example the user I'm using is fairly verifiable not to be a government account. There's way too much effort and original content in my account. Or if I'm a government bot (it's still possible), I'm a very expensive one that wouldn't scale because of all the on-topic original content that's required.
As for harassment: no, that was never my intention.
