>How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck?
Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans.
I'm sure black Americans would feel somewhat relieved that they were not forced to compete with Nigerians.
>Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't.
I fail to see why this horrifies you so much. White skin didn't pay for my education. The nation I was born and grew up in did.
It's no use pretending that employers are pro-immigration thanks to their worldliness and desire to help non-Americans, either. Nigel Farage in the UK represents the epitome of national bias yet guess what he did when he wanted to hire somebody for cheap? Yup, that's right. Immigrants.
>I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases
Failing I would say.
>I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).
Ok, so I agreed - no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation, that's all (it's happened to me before due to a visa mixup and it didn't leave any bruises).
All laws/regulations (even the good ones) are ultimately enforced by the implicit threat of violence. You only get a "mild deportation" if you cooperate in the process.
If you would prefer instead to live under the explicit and constant threat of violence there are societies on this planet without laws and regulations.
You are not disputing anything I wrote. You seem to be replying as if I were arguing against this, when I was actually pointing out a fact that you failed to acknowledge when you wrote "no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation".
Note that while you wrote "no violence towards Nigerians", in the post you replied to yummyfajitas wrote ""threaten with violence" which is not quite the same.
The question is: Why is it acceptable for a group of people defined by "nationality" to form a collective (government) that creates and enforces economic protection for itself against non-members, but not acceptable for a group defined by "race" to do the same?
The closest you came to answering this was when you wrote "Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8886112) which to me reads as "it is acceptable because that's the way it is today" or possibly "it is not acceptable but that's just the way it is".
Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans.
I'm sure black Americans would feel somewhat relieved that they were not forced to compete with Nigerians.
>Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't.
I fail to see why this horrifies you so much. White skin didn't pay for my education. The nation I was born and grew up in did.
It's no use pretending that employers are pro-immigration thanks to their worldliness and desire to help non-Americans, either. Nigel Farage in the UK represents the epitome of national bias yet guess what he did when he wanted to hire somebody for cheap? Yup, that's right. Immigrants.
>I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases
Failing I would say.
>I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).
Ok, so I agreed - no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation, that's all (it's happened to me before due to a visa mixup and it didn't leave any bruises).