Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcg1 | Hacker News Reader

Incorrect. He wants to end the H1B visa program (despite the fact that he uses for seasonal work at his club in Florida) and he does not want to accept political refugees attempting to come to the US legally.

View on HN

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I may well be, but I'm under the impression that a significant number of posters on HN have problems with the H1B visa program. I'm not particularly knowledgable on the subject but from the comments I've read most of the concern centers around driving down wages, and thus costs for employers, and shackling H1B visa holders to specific jobs.

Is this an incorrect reading of the sentiment here? And more importantly, should I assume that anyone against the H1B program feels so because of racial animus?

I should have been more clear when I referenced H1B. My personal opinion about the program is that it is deeply flawed, mostly because it is a sort of legalized indentured servitude.

I doubt Trump has those same feelings however, as he hires H1B works at his own club in Palm Beach instead of Americans. If he was morally opposed to the program, I doubt he would do that.

I brought it up because he talks about it in a way to scapegoat foreigners, appealing to the darker angels of people who have racist tendencies and are looking for someone to blame. I find such a tactic reprehensible, and I personally do not draw a distinction between someone who acts on racist feelings and someone who makes racist appeals to those who act on racist feelings.

Thanks for the response. I agree with you that at best Trump seems hypocritical to denounce the H1B visa program after having employed those holding H1B visas, and at worst much more nefarious for using those immigrants as scapegoats. At the same time, my main concern with your original comment was that you used his stance on the H1B program as an example of his racism. Now, in Trump's case that very well may be true, but by using his stand against H1B's as your reasoning you basically imply that anyone against the H1B program is also racist. I understand that wasn't what you meant to imply but it highlights to me one of the dangers of the current political climate. Namely, a person might have a specific stance on an issue based on very legitimate reasoning, in this case the H1B program being indentured servitude, and if someone else comes along who happens to hold those same views for perhaps less legitimate reasons, lets say racism, we tend to automatically discount the stance as being racist or otherwise illegitimate.

Being labelled a racist is a pretty serious charge for most people who don't have wealth or power and actually have to live and work with a diverse group of people. I would hate to be called a racist due to being against the current way the H1B program is administered just because Trump is against it as well.

Again, I'm sure that's not actually what you meant, but it points to the importance of using very clear language when leveling these kind of accusations.

There's a difference between immigration law and immigrants. Your comment doesn't address what the parent commentor said.

Fixing a broken, oft-abused system is contemptible now?

I think the H1B program is terribly flawed and certainly abused. But Trump is not talking about reforming it, he only talks about in the context of "foreigners stealing our jobs" (paraphrase), which I find quite contemptible. And without a meaningful plan to replace it would close an avenue for people to legally immigrate to the US, which makes it seem like he might have a problem with legal immigrants.

Why is "foreigners stealing our jobs" contemptible? Assuming H1B is abused (I understand this can be in dispute), why should a candidate for a country not want to help its own citizens?

I think this is a big part of why the SV powerhouses are mobilizing against Trump. They rally the troops with hyperbole and accusations of racism and sexism, but in private they're afraid of losing their H1B wage slaves and tax havens.

Some of that I suppose. But also, he's an evil man. Doesn't take a conspiracy theory to want to see him defeated.

Hillary is far, far more deserving of that label than Trump. To campaign and donate millions of dollars on her behalf requires ignorance, a seriously twisted moral compass, or some financial and political incentives that you don't want to talk about.

She's spent her life struggling to help children and single parents. Donations fund her charity that has helped millions worldwide. To twist that into something bad is just more of the political smokescreen that plagues any woman in public office.

You're saying this is a sexist thing?

She was linked to Whitewater, was that because she was a woman?

She constantly defended Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton....

She moved to New York just so she could run for senator.

She and Bill also spent 3 million dollars on her daughter's wedding. Where did she come up with that money, considering that a President's salary is in the mid six figures?

Oh that's right, she (and Bill) get quarter million dollar speaking fees at Goldman Sachs.

What part of all that would not be reprehensible if she were a man, and if she were a man, wouldn't this all be dug up and thrown into his/her face if you were running for president?

How is pointing out moral turpitude a "political smokescreen that plagues every woman in public office"?

Great list: Like any number of men get away with and no comment. None of that is reprehensible; that is all business as usual. A good fraction of our Senators are 'carpet baggers', not been brought up before. Loyalty to a spouse is lauded if its a man being loyal. #2 speaking fees is George Bush but nobody brought him up. And 'linked to' is another smokescreen catchphrase, slings mud without having to show any real problem.

Yes, and none of those men are currently running for president.

If a man did all these things, and were running for POTUS, they'd get raked over the coals, just like Clinton is. What's your point?

Also, Clinton has made it a point to argue for "the right to be believed" for sexual assault victims. And she went to bat for her husband before that statement to cast doubt on his accusers? http://nypost.com/2016/08/15/hillarys-site-edits-sexual-assa...

What a two-faced person who should not be president.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com