[biocomputation]

<< That's the whole point. Unless you are a direct descendant of native Americans, you too are a guest of theirs, regardless of whether you are a first generation immigrant, or the grandchild of one. But strangely, nobody is in much of a hurry to ask for native opinions on immigration policy.

That's an utterly fallacious argument and you know it. We're talking about current US immigration policy, not the history of the US, which no one is in a position to change. Your attempt to reframe this debate by painting all US citizens who are not the descendants of indigenous peoples as 'guests' only weakens your arguments because it is crystal clear that you're using US history as a straw man. Whether you like it or not, US citizens cannot be guests in the US, not legally nor otherwise.

Furthermore, this discussion isn't even framed around 'native' vs 'descended from people from elsewhere'. This discussion is about US citizens (people with US passports who can vote in US elections) and foreign nationals here in the US as guest workers. Start a different discussion if you want to debate the history of immigration to the US.

<< I am here under the same set of rules as any native born settler - which accurately describes most Americans - is. Maybe even more legally, given that immigration control is historically, a relatively recent phenomena. (At least, with respect to 'white' people. Let's not talk about the incredibly racist history of that institution.)

Your attempt to shift the discussion to various aspects of US history shows that you're apparently not willing to debate H1-B on its merits. As noted above, we define US citizens as people who hold US passports and who can vote in US elections. Immigration control is also not a recent phenomenon. People have been engaging in various forms of immigration control for thousands and thousands of years.

<< There's a certain oddity to having a country founded on immigration, without the consent of the native inhabitants, setting up rules for who can immigrate to it (which many Americans' ancestors would probably not have been able to meet), and then pooh-poohing someone who has met said rules for legally being here. It's a tad hypocritical.

This is talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you really believe the US was founded without the consent of the natives, then why are you here participating in a system that you describe as racist with its origins in colonization?

You either truly believe these things about the US and participate anyway (thereby nominating yourself for the hypocrisy prize) or you don't believe it, which means you're presenting baseless arguments that you don't believe.

You can't have it both ways.

[dang]

Your recent comments have been abusing HN by crossing into incivility and doing political flamewar. We ban accounts that do these things, and have had to ask you not to do them in the past. Please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this.

[vkou]

It would be hypocrisy if after taking advantage of the system, I sought to change it, and lock other people out. Just because you live somewhere does not mean you are in 100% moral agreement with how every aspect of that place is ran.

I think you're missing the lede. To summarize:

1. Most Americans are settlers. They, or their ancestors, were immigrants.

2. Most of them, or their ancestors, immigrated when the rules for doing so were far more lax.

3. Some of them now seek to change the rules.

There's an argument that can be made that wage suppression is bad. Great. When I provide examples when wage suppression isn't happening, I'm told that's not the problem - apparently immigration in itself is bad (Because more people living here will suppress wages). See - points 1 and 2.

"You being here ruins it for everyone else, context be damned" is not quite discussing H1B on its merits - especially when that's an argument made by a fellow settler.