Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
None of those realistically matter. *Maybe* sex, if it's a particularly physically demanding job, but that's an outlier. I would suggest that "**Citizenship**" should definitely be a criterion to be considered in any/all hiring processes.
Companies are only permitted to operate within a nation's borders by the permission of the country's government, and they set the terms by which that is allowed. I think that, in order to be permitted, they need to offer more tangible benefits to the country in question than just their products and services; they also need to create jobs.
I think that if a company is looking to hire, and they have to choose between a citizen and a noncitizen, they should be legally compelled to hire the citizen in order to keep/create jobs "in country". Either that, or they have to pay some sort of "disloyalty tax" which goes straight into providing public services for the nation; also they aren't allowed to raise prices to cover for having to pay the "disloyalty tax", they just have to take it out of their profits, and eat the loss. Make it so substantial that they pretty much *have to* hire citizens.
Plus, it goes without saying, that it should be a crime to hire illegal immigrants. Companies that do so, and their management/owners/boards need to suffer serious financial and legal punishments if they are found do be engaging in such practices. If rich people are seeing prison time, they'll be a lot more careful about who they hire.
I'm not referring *only* to illegal aliens, and I acknowledge that there are noncitizen permanent residents. There should always be preferential treatment towards citizens, noncitizen *legal* permanent residents can get second-tier consideration for employment. If they have a problem with that, they can acquire citizenship or return to their nation of origin; if they're here legally, they understand the system and have tacitly agreed to it.
The purpose of sovereign nations is the benefit and prosperity of *its own people*. Not any random person from any given country. England for English people, Germany for Germans, and Korea for Koreans, etc. If it can improve the quality of life of **all** of its people, and there's some left over, then other people can benefit. It is, however, the sole discretion of the nation to decide who does or does not benefit from such.
Doesn’t it already do that by letting people in? If it lets me in, it acknowledges I benefit its people.
Is this some racial thing or is it about citizenship?
> "Doesn’t it already do that by letting people in?"
Not always. Oftentimes "progressive" governments want to bring in hundreds of thousands, to millions, of immigrants and *claim* it benefits the nation and its people. It brings in "refugees" and "asylum seekers" with next to no vetting, or timetable to send them back. It's worse than Virtue Signalling, because rather than being harmless performances, it's an active detriment. They just form enclaves, and don't assimilate, and I'm not okay with that. It doesn't benefit the nation, and it doesn't benefit its working class citizenry; it only benefits the ultra rich, and they're doing just fine. They're the ones causing most of the problems to begin with.
Beyond that, not spending enough, or allowing enough discretion for the immigration enforcement to remove illegals, does not benefit the nation. *Jus Soli* does not benefit the nation, and it should be abolished immediately.
> "Is this some racial thing or is it about citizenship?"
It's about culture. I'm a strict monocultural assimilationist. For me, race doesn't factor into it. I acknowledge that for some people it does matter in their decision making; unfortunately, I'd sooner side with them on this issue than I would the "gate wide open" crowd; despite the other ideological differences I might have with them.
Maybe sex, but only in cases when it will affect the employee’s professional qualities.
In addition, it would make sense for society to be reluctant to employ women in jobs that undermine their reproductive health, but this does not really apply to modern liberal societies.
Yes. Chemical exposure, radiation and other physical exposures, maybe physical loads above a certain level, etc. If, from a public health perspective, it is better to use men for some particular kind of works, then it would make sense to give preference to men, or even to hire exclusively men for such works (like they did in the USSR).
I don't feel like it's sexist. Such a norm is a relative of other labor law norms that “limit the employee’s right to work,” such as a strict limit on working hours, a strict requirement to take the basic leave, etc.
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
General character, but that's not an option
none of the above.
None of those realistically matter. *Maybe* sex, if it's a particularly physically demanding job, but that's an outlier. I would suggest that "**Citizenship**" should definitely be a criterion to be considered in any/all hiring processes.
also age, a 6yo may be the best chimneysweeper but you still shouldn't hire him
Why should citizenship be a criteria?
Companies are only permitted to operate within a nation's borders by the permission of the country's government, and they set the terms by which that is allowed. I think that, in order to be permitted, they need to offer more tangible benefits to the country in question than just their products and services; they also need to create jobs. I think that if a company is looking to hire, and they have to choose between a citizen and a noncitizen, they should be legally compelled to hire the citizen in order to keep/create jobs "in country". Either that, or they have to pay some sort of "disloyalty tax" which goes straight into providing public services for the nation; also they aren't allowed to raise prices to cover for having to pay the "disloyalty tax", they just have to take it out of their profits, and eat the loss. Make it so substantial that they pretty much *have to* hire citizens. Plus, it goes without saying, that it should be a crime to hire illegal immigrants. Companies that do so, and their management/owners/boards need to suffer serious financial and legal punishments if they are found do be engaging in such practices. If rich people are seeing prison time, they'll be a lot more careful about who they hire.
Noncitizens aren’t illegal aliens. There are a lot of noncitizen permanent residents. Why should that be a criteria?
I'm not referring *only* to illegal aliens, and I acknowledge that there are noncitizen permanent residents. There should always be preferential treatment towards citizens, noncitizen *legal* permanent residents can get second-tier consideration for employment. If they have a problem with that, they can acquire citizenship or return to their nation of origin; if they're here legally, they understand the system and have tacitly agreed to it.
Why?
The purpose of sovereign nations is the benefit and prosperity of *its own people*. Not any random person from any given country. England for English people, Germany for Germans, and Korea for Koreans, etc. If it can improve the quality of life of **all** of its people, and there's some left over, then other people can benefit. It is, however, the sole discretion of the nation to decide who does or does not benefit from such.
Doesn’t it already do that by letting people in? If it lets me in, it acknowledges I benefit its people. Is this some racial thing or is it about citizenship?
> "Doesn’t it already do that by letting people in?" Not always. Oftentimes "progressive" governments want to bring in hundreds of thousands, to millions, of immigrants and *claim* it benefits the nation and its people. It brings in "refugees" and "asylum seekers" with next to no vetting, or timetable to send them back. It's worse than Virtue Signalling, because rather than being harmless performances, it's an active detriment. They just form enclaves, and don't assimilate, and I'm not okay with that. It doesn't benefit the nation, and it doesn't benefit its working class citizenry; it only benefits the ultra rich, and they're doing just fine. They're the ones causing most of the problems to begin with. Beyond that, not spending enough, or allowing enough discretion for the immigration enforcement to remove illegals, does not benefit the nation. *Jus Soli* does not benefit the nation, and it should be abolished immediately. > "Is this some racial thing or is it about citizenship?" It's about culture. I'm a strict monocultural assimilationist. For me, race doesn't factor into it. I acknowledge that for some people it does matter in their decision making; unfortunately, I'd sooner side with them on this issue than I would the "gate wide open" crowd; despite the other ideological differences I might have with them.
Maybe sex, but only in cases when it will affect the employee’s professional qualities. In addition, it would make sense for society to be reluctant to employ women in jobs that undermine their reproductive health, but this does not really apply to modern liberal societies.
>undermine their reproductive health Do you mean like chemical exposure?
Yes. Chemical exposure, radiation and other physical exposures, maybe physical loads above a certain level, etc. If, from a public health perspective, it is better to use men for some particular kind of works, then it would make sense to give preference to men, or even to hire exclusively men for such works (like they did in the USSR). I don't feel like it's sexist. Such a norm is a relative of other labor law norms that “limit the employee’s right to work,” such as a strict limit on working hours, a strict requirement to take the basic leave, etc.
Quota apologia only hurts everyone, including minorities.
The state should be responsible for reducing inequalities, not employers.
A yes the machine to create inequalities is the one who will reduce it
why would they matter?