Cultural elimination though real is largely a fraudulent right IMO, it is imposing 'positive' rights like the right to not have your culture eliminated. That's not how rights work, you have the right to practice your culture but not force other people to be practicing yours.
I'm generally for open or at least non-discriminatory immigration. A few sticking points
1) Discriminatory settling patterns are well established as imposed law in the US, i.e. 'hawaiian home lands', American Samoa, Saipan, etc. The first step here is to make ALL US nationals and citizens equal, before we can really even hope to start making immigrants equal. Given limited political capital this would be my #1 priority to burn that capital on.
2) Welfare is essentially incompatible with open immigration and pushes the populace heavily towards favoring middle age wealth foreigners -- that is basically europeans and white English speaking countries. We could probably make it a little less 'racist' if immigrants were forced to permanently disclaim any access to public funds.
3) Immigration is justified under human and properties rights, freedom to go wherever one is invited or has ownership, and basic human liberties. Immigration in practice in the US heavily relies on use of public facilities, which are paid for by the tax payers -- as property owners you would be violating their rights if US persons cannot control foreign access to the public properties they are forced to pay taxes for. i.e. there should be zero immigration controls whatsoever crossing from one ranch to the other on adjacent parts of the Mexican border, but when you use public resources you are now becoming a trespasser if the property owners don't consent.
> Cultural elimination though real is largely a fraudulent right
You start off by declaring it's a fraudulent right but then spend hundreds of words arguing for a framework for your own fraudulent right
> Welfare is essentially incompatible with open immigration
One might then question the rest of their ideals about their morals and what Christ has charged us to do and wonder if racial stability is the standard or helping people is the standard. But I guess you've already decided on such a thing.
> Discriminatory settling patterns are well established as imposed law in the US, i.e. 'hawaiian home lands', American Samoa, Saipan, etc.
I'd say laws in island territories have vastly different concerns than laws on the mainland especially when considering land and cultural concerns. They have vastly different pressures, don't you agree? Like what were going to argue only white Protestants can own land in Montana? Pretty different circumstances here than a tiny island with religious circumstances.
I'll address the third point since it is the only one I don't see as a fundamentally irreconcilable difference in subjective opinion that cannot be proven factually.
The ethnic discrimination laws in America Samoa, and to a lesser extent Saipan (I think for them more about control, they have no problem with Chinese running roughshod operating all kinds of shady and illegal business, it is probably the most corrupt place in the US) are aimed towards stopping cultural elimination. The case is compelling for Samoa, the others are just naked racial discrimination as the local populace seems to have settled on the fact their culture has pretty much been eliminated as anything beyond a footnote and they're going to cash grab all they can out of the remains which I guess is just the usual American dream.
(Hawaii used to go even further, and racially discriminate in voting, but racial discrimination in voting was struck circa 2000 with dissent written by the now deceased racist Ruth Ginsburg in Rice v Cayetano. Not long after that 'non-'Hawaiians also finally got the right to equally run for office).
American Samoa is particularly aggressive about it, their government and IIRC even the feds strongly imply or command you can enter for 30 days as a tourist without further authorization, despite the fact that established case law and the American Samoa Bar training to internal lawyers teach that US citizens have the right to permanently settle and work in American Samoa. I did some research and could not find any case of a US citizen being 'deported' from the territory unless they were wanted for crimes elsewhere but they do their damnedest to make it sound like you can be.
I'm sorry but pointing to some rocks in the Pacific as the overall idea of ethnic diversity measuring stick of the United States seems pretty pants on head kind of mentality. I don't understand how I could take anything else you argue for seriously. Thanks for continuing to show me who you really are, I'll be sure to take notes.
Amazing how fast you backtracked. Point to actual cases of parts of the USA going hard on racist policy preventing demographic replacement which based on your rhetoric is something you pretend to be against, and your response is more or less lol actually it doesn't matter, it's just some rocks.
No matter that previously you were pointing to places as small as Arlington Texas.
You don't actually care about eliminating these discriminatory policies. You just have your racist motives to apply it inequally.
I've been highly consistent in my statements. I'm in no position to pass judgement on whatever is happening in American Samoa or Hawaii as I'm definitely ignorant to the issues. I'm only speaking from a high level comparison of the issues, which is they're vastly more land constrained than the mainland US. So to me, an ignorant person not read into the debate, it seems we can't really make hard rules and comparisons. It's comparing to extremely different situations, easy to see even without me having a lot of deep knowledge on the topic.
And it really shows your ignorance too, acting like Arlington is some small place. There's tons of land around here in North Texas, ample for whoever to make a new story and new life. The people making up most of the population have only been here for like a hundred years, tops. Any kind of long historic claim to the land outside of Native American populations are a farce. This isn't true for small islands in the Pacific which probably have a vastly more complicated history.
But it sure shows your character that you bother to deeply look up such a legal basis for racist ideology. Good work broadcasting your hard work.
And yeah, I'm the racist for arguing anyone should have the ability to partake in American prosperity. Meanwhile you're the non-racist advocating for enforcing racial land rights across all the US. Got it.
When I want to take part in the prosperity of American Samoa, you just don't have all the facts and hey it's just a "rock." When an American Samoan wants to come to Arlington, which is far more land constrained in population density, then suddenly you lose your decision paralysis. It's exceedingly and crystal clear your ulterior motives. This is just naked racism.
I posted this comment [1] in reply to the other participant in this subthread but it applies equally to you. Please make an effort to observe the guidelines when participating on HN.
True or not you had to wade through at least two flagged comments to get to mine. You really have yourself to blame if you didn't want to continue reading. You were warned twice but sought this, you wanted it.
So how about this: go fuck yourself, and your nauseating appeal to your ivory tower techie faux-academic attempt at guidelines. Nothing about me is 'equal' to this self righteous racist piece of human garbage, although I admit his behavior is the very best argument as to why his culture should rapidly be overshadowed in Texas.
The guidelines apply to everyone equally. We don't care what topic you're arguing about or what side you're supporting, but still we get accused of being biased in favour of something or another every day.
This is only a place where people want to come to discuss things because we and others put effort into keeping it that way. If you're going to participate here, and if you're going to expect others to be held to a high standard, we need you to hold yourself to a high standard too.
Acting like Texas is space constrained as much or more than American Samoa just really shows how much you've twisted reality to try and match your racist ideas. Texas is many things, it is not space constrained.
Once again, I don't really know what's happening there. This is all conjecture based on what's obvious for comparing an island nation to a giant and mostly uninhabited Continental plain. If there's more people in North Texas, we just build more homes. We just drag the highway out a bit more. We just rezone to allow a bit more density. There is plenty of land here that's entirely empty and devoid of development. An island nation doesn't have that. If they get pushed out of what's there, where do they go? The bottom of the ocean? Seriously, think for two seconds if your racist brain will allow it. And I acknowledge, I don't know the policies, I don't know what's really happening there. But I can at least acknowledge the societal pressures going on are massively different.
> This is just naked racism.
I agree, your points are naked racism. Looking for some legal reason to put race restrictions on land generally across the entire United States is absolutely a racist position to take which seems to be the main position you're arguing for. Whether or not the policies on American Samoa are racist (they might be, I've agreed I'm ignorant to them!) isn't a valid reason for bringing such racist policies to the mainland US.
Both commenters have broken the guidelines in this flamey back-and-forth, which is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to avoid on HN. In particular you've both made swipes at each other, and engaged in ideological battle. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.
I'm generally for open or at least non-discriminatory immigration. A few sticking points
1) Discriminatory settling patterns are well established as imposed law in the US, i.e. 'hawaiian home lands', American Samoa, Saipan, etc. The first step here is to make ALL US nationals and citizens equal, before we can really even hope to start making immigrants equal. Given limited political capital this would be my #1 priority to burn that capital on.
2) Welfare is essentially incompatible with open immigration and pushes the populace heavily towards favoring middle age wealth foreigners -- that is basically europeans and white English speaking countries. We could probably make it a little less 'racist' if immigrants were forced to permanently disclaim any access to public funds.
3) Immigration is justified under human and properties rights, freedom to go wherever one is invited or has ownership, and basic human liberties. Immigration in practice in the US heavily relies on use of public facilities, which are paid for by the tax payers -- as property owners you would be violating their rights if US persons cannot control foreign access to the public properties they are forced to pay taxes for. i.e. there should be zero immigration controls whatsoever crossing from one ranch to the other on adjacent parts of the Mexican border, but when you use public resources you are now becoming a trespasser if the property owners don't consent.