We are going in the opposite direction. Currently the US has more lax regulations than the EU. In the EU animals have to be healthy all the way throughout their lives to be sold as food. In the US, you can keep them in miserable conditions and then pump them full of antibiotics before slaughtering.
Politicians are attempting to remove EU regulations against this under the guise of "removal of barriers to trade" with TTIP -- international trade agreements are the tool by which democracies are bypassed in such matters.
Select "Can hormones and antibiotics be used in cattle raising?".
I don't think In the US, you can keep them in miserable conditions and then pump them full of antibiotics before slaughtering. reasonably captures that.
I can only speculate. For example: how was this data obtained? Is the level of scrutiny equal for all countries or is there some self-reporting going on? All I know is about the differences that exist between regulations and incentives between the EU and the US. This was recently brought to public attention in the EU and there have been some large protests because of the TTIP attempt to "harmonize" practices.
Where's it say that antibiotics can't be used medically in livestock in the EU?
I see where it says antibiotics in animal feed – significantly restricted in the EU in 1998 and banned for non-medical use in 2006., but that points to them being allowed for medical purposes (on sick animals, rather than as feed additives).
It's not only the living conditions that is promoting the use of antibiotics in agriculture. The use of antibiotics in agriculture is so high due to the idea of "growth promoters". Animals given long term antibiotics actually grow quicker, and therefore become profitable faster than animals not given background levels of antibiotics. The problem with this activity is that low levels of antibiotics selects for resistance as we have seen.
In addition, drugs are given "label use" directions for particular species (ie. ovine, swine, equine) but only for major economical species. For example, the farmer might have a bottle of long acting penicillin that says give horse X mg/kg of body weight. However, this farmer might be giving these drugs to sheep and the maker of the antibiotic doesn't have label use instructions for sheep. This results in what's called "extra label drug use" and the farmer has to basically guess at what dose to give. Too high could be harmful to the animal (toxicity, clearance rate etc), too low and you promote resistance.
People like to blame antibiotic resistance on farms, but human populations with high rates of infection and transmission who aren't good at taking the full course of (or any) drugs are a more immediate problem. Increasing rates of drug-resistant tuberculosis and STDs aren't due to farm animals.
The best evidence today actually says that you don't need to finish your course [0]. Not that you are wrong in the human consumption aspect. but finishing courses could strengthen resistance and spread of resistant organisms by creating a selective pressure in the organism (the human) to only have bacterial colonization from those that are resistant
While that's interesting I don't think it's "best evidence".
Unfortunately our mechanisms for determining best evidence are woefully slow, complex, and expensive. Systematic reviews, for instance. Either this process needs to be improved (an excellent candidate for AI) or a nearly-as-good surrogate needs to be supported by policy makers.
The systematic review and meta-analyses processes involve reading screeds of text and data; organising it; analysing it; weighing it against measures of quality; and conducting (often counter-intuitive) statistical procedures.
This is the sort of thing that takes humans a loooooong time and is prone to error. A domain-specific AI would surely excel at tasks like this.
> Increasing rates of drug-resistant tuberculosis and STDs aren't due to farm animals.
Do you have any evidence for that or is it just how you think adaptation transmission works; and do you have evidence that - if the former holds - these examples are representative of the general case?
Amen. Animal agriculture (innocuously referred to as "agriculture" in the article) has to be the single biggest contributor to the existence of these superbugs.
Possibly. Agriculture uses about 50% of the world's supply of antibiotics. The rest goes to humans. That's a lot, but even without it, there are enough humans on antibiotics to breed resistant strains. Many people take low doses of antibiotics every day for certain conditions like acne.
I think a factor of importance is how much selective pressure there is that could lead to their creation. The sporadic and fairly arbitrary use in humans doesn't create a selective pressure strong enough to create these superbugs in meaningful amounts and have them survive.
When used en masse in large, concentrated populations, you're statistically much more likely to bring these superbugs into existence, and have them survive. After all, an infected human is fairly isolated. But Stick an infected chicken in a hen and you've got some trouble on your hands.
From what I've read the evidence isn't all that strong between use of antibiotics in livestock and resistance in humans.
Remember a lot of the antibiotics used in livestocks aren't even approved for use in humans. Or they were used in humans a long time ago, but no longer are.
I doubt it. I recall reading an article about antibiotic resistance in Denmark. They were nearly able to wipe it out completely by changing the way antibiotics were prescribed to people.
They don't even need as much antibiotics in today's extreme farms. It's just that you earn more money if you give the animals antibiotics: You don't have to monitor them and then give them antibiotics and they will even grow faster.
Well the current problematic situation of animals is relatively well contained to the Western sphere (US, EU, maybe China).
The Chinese already recognize the effects on nature, the EU too (and iirc they're already beginning to introduce measures), the biggest problem is and always will be the US because of the huge influence of the farming lobby on US politics (and even if that was not the case, then the grid-lock between D/R where everyone boycotts bills from the other side, just because. Brain-dead US politics.)
"the biggest problem is and always will be the US"
Did you see the chart from another poster above? Many European countries like Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy have very high levels of antibiotic usage in agriculture
I live in Europe, and am well aware of the common belief among many Europeans that we have excellent and high animal welfare standards. But the reality is that animal welfare standards also vary greatly between countries.
That chart above clearly demolishes the view that overuse of antibiotics is a problem principally for non-European countries.
A number of sources I've found indicate that (see links below for sources):
1) China consumes about 50% of the total global antibiotic production (roughly half for agriculture and half for human use).
2) Per capita human consumption of antibiotics is on the order of 10 times greater in China compared to the US.
Some of these articles are several years old, and from sources I'd classify as more internal than foreign. It is likely that these figures would be conservative.
If this data is approximately correct, I think we could say that 1) China has an outsized effect on the problem of antibiotic resistance (even considering it's large population). 2) The US problem of antibiotic use is mostly an agricultural one (which deserves a lot of attention), and the Chinese overuse of antibiotics is not confined to either human or agricultural use.
I'm sure the chinese leadership is aware of the issue, and given their ability to make changes when something is very important (ie, air pollution during high profile events), the fact that little has been done is telling. It is likely that this simply isn't a high priority issue and thus we are unlikely to see any movement on it anytime soon.
When you can't breathe your concern about the environment goes up markedly. The reason you don't see as much concern in the US is we've already tackled the obvious, major problems.
At one time in the US there were rivers you could set alight, but that was a long time ago.
regulations through government. remove agricultural lobbyists from washington. raise awareness and turn it into a hot button topic that people in the US government have to address. fine the hell out of agricultural companies who have ruined our planet and stop putting the onus on individuals.
I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame the agricultural industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for deforestation or lack of fresh water every time I eat a cheesburger, nor am I going to assume blame for pollution when I drive my car. Unless billions of people change within the next few years (which is so unrealistic that I feel comfortable saying it won't happen) then my individual do-gooder actions will only bring self-satisfaction, not real change.
Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely).
I understand the hopeless feeling of "what can one person do." But the individual actions of individuals do add up.
We are seeing right now a trend towards better farming practices, with large chains like Chipotle going antibiotic-free. They are doing that, in part, because enough individuals made the choice to look for antibiotic-free food. In other words, individuals drove corporations to act.
Individual actions also add up directly, even without influencing corporations. If you eat even a little less of a harm-causing food, that's an actual impact on the market. Less of the product is being bought, and less will (eventually) be produced. It's a small effect, hard to see, but it is definitely there - it has to be.
And even if you think "oh, it rounds off", then yes, maybe they can produce 1,000 or 2,000 but not 1,001, so most likely reducing 1 won't affect production. But that just means that a single individual going from 1,001 to 1,000 will reduce 1,000, and that averages out - the probabilistic effect of an individual remains the same, and again, it has to be, assuming reasonable rational production.
Finally, there are indirect effects: If you eat less of a harmful product, your coworkers, friends, and family might notice. It might lead them to make a similar positive change. Hard to measure, but we do know this is an important factor.
I do agree we shouldn't "blame the general public" in the sense of blame/shame/etc. But at the same time, we can't give up and say we can't do anything, because our individual actions definitely do have an effect. To some extent, we can make things better.
final edit: I withdraw the comment below since the analogy is too inflammatory and I certainly don't intend to accuse the parent poster of racism. That's not cool or helpful. I'll leave it up so the replies make sense.
How about this quote from Ghandi instead:
“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.”
withdrawn original post:
----------
Your position transposed 50 years back in time:
"I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for racism every time I discriminate against a person for being non-white, nor am I going to assume blame when I promote a man over a better qualified woman. Unless billions of people change within the next few years (which is so unrealistic that I feel comfortable saying it won't happen) then my individual do-gooder actions will only bring self-satisfaction, not real change.
Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely)."
edit: replies below are furious that I equated racism with factory meat. This misses the point completely. They are not the same at all. The point is that industry and government follow popular sentiment and not the other way around. Corporations will sell you what you will buy. Stop buying it and they will offer you an alternative.
If you buy an disproportionately polluting product, you are polluting. You can't avoid that by saying 'everyone else is doing it, I have no choice'. When racism was institutionalized, you had a choice to go along with it or not. You had, and have, personal responsibility independent of everyone else.
I'd like to preface this response by making it clear that I personally avoid eating animals that were raised on antibiotics, however the argument that the onus must be placed on the individual is absolutely ridiculous.
Even though this is a "hot button topic", I don't think eating meat that you can afford (IE antibiotic raised meat) can possibly be compared to race or gender inequalities.
Eating a factory cheeseburger is akin to racism? Seriously? This is a logic fallacy.
Racism comes from the individual. It stems from stupidity and hatred and is directed against people who don't have the same nationality or skin color as you. Eating an antibiotic laden slab of beef due to lack of finances cannot possibly be placed on the same level as this.
I'll also point out that the only way to real change in gender and race inequalities have come about is through government or self-regulation in industries... the same thing I'm arguing for when it comes to the agricultural industry.
Go ahead and switch to all natural blah blah blah... you can now sleep at night knowing you're no longer part of the problem. But when you wake up in the morning, the problem is still there. You have accomplished nothing. But hey, when the world burns at least you can say "I told you so".
> personal responsibility is the basis of good society-wide behaviour
I actually agree with this statement, however the problem of cheap meat can't be solved with good societal behavior unless its enforced on a global scale starting with the united states and that's simply not going to happen unless it is enforced by regulations placed on the out of control agricultural industry.
shaming individuals (which is what the original parent thread was all about) isn't a good plan -- it won't work.
Please explain how a direct action (racism/sexism/discrimination) is even somewhat close to the indirection required for "eating a cheesburger => deforestation"?
As Bill Engval says: Evel Knievel couldn't have made that jump.
How about focus on your own ethics instead of SHAMING people for eating for christ's sake.
Be the change you want to see in the world. Hopefully it will catch on. Certainly I think that giving up on a cause sends a powerful message that hope is lost.
I don't mean to discount your worldview, because I think that you are correct in your basic assessment (massive change is required, not just you), but this comment reads like a giant excuse.
It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill. It's not some strange economic abstraction, but an easy-to-see, real world example.
> It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill
I'm very confused by your plan of action... shame the general public until they stop eating meat saturated by antibiotics?
In your plan, how many people will you need to deter in order to make a difference? Will the agricultural industry suddenly stop using antibiotics because a hundered thousand people stop eating at McDonnalds? Two million people?
Will your plan be able to get enough people to stop eating meat so that the agricultural industry notices and stops deforestation or other unethical practices? If they do, will it happen before global warming (caused mostly by the agricultural industry) becomes irreversible?
My comment might read like an excuse to you, but to me your comments read like someone who is very naive to the ways of the world.
Having had my son suffer from an antibiotic resistant eye infection, if its a choice between low cost meat and useful antibiotics I'll go for the latter every time.
It's not like anyone in Europe or the US is actually suffering from a lack of meat is it?
[He's fine - but we were terrified he might lose the sight in one eye for a while].
If you can't afford real meat, then you can't afford meat.
Nobody says that people who can't afford a catalytic converter deserve an exemption allowing them to spew more carbon from their cars. This is the same dynamic, but far, far worse.
I see the isomorphism between catalytic converters and animal protein, but there's a pretty big difference between requiring people to pay more for cars and telling them they can't buy chicken at Aldi anymore.
I think shaming people for buying cheap meat is a terrible strategy that will backfire.
What needs to change are the regulations. When antibiotics are banned from the food supply, the market will discover other ways to regain the efficiencies.
I agree! The best way to have someone stop doing something is to shame them publicly and paint them as a bad person. It really motivates the person to change and doesn't cause them to become more resistant to doing what you want.
That would reduce the profits of companies with large numbers of lobbyists.
Edit: and even if we did it in the West, China obviously doesn't care about making the inhabitants of its major cities huff heavy metals and coal dust so why would they care about this?
Amen. Similar to climate change in the sense that the world's worst offenders need to be on-board to resolve the problem and as a result, all other countries will cop out by blaming and scapegoating those countries
(see cached version for the full text, standard link has full text behind paywall)
...
China is the world's largest poultry and pig producer, and in 2014 produced 17·5 million tonnes and 56·7 million tonnes, respectively.25 Most of the production is for domestic consumption with about 10% for export.26 The global market value of veterinary drugs increased from US$8·7 billion in 1992 to $20·1 billion in 2010, and in 2018 is anticipated to reach $43 billion.27, 28, 29 China is also one of the world's highest users of colistin in agriculture.29 Driven largely by China, the global demand for colistin in agriculture is expected to reach 11 942 tonnes per annum by the end of 2015 (with associated revenues of $229·5 million), rising to 16 500 tonnes by the year 2021, at an average annual growth rate of 4·75%.29 Of the top ten largest producers of colistin for veterinary use, one is Indian, one is Danish, and eight are Chinese. Asia (including China) makes up 73·1% of colistin production with 28·7% for export including to Europe.29 In 2015, the European Union and North America imported 480 tonnes and 700 tonnes, respectively, of colistin from China.29
I'm hoping new antibiotics like Teixobactin get to market quickly.
That said multiple comments have been made here on HN on how there are no incentives for the pharmaceutical industry to bring a new antibiotic to market. It would likely be prescribed as a last effort antibiotic, with a very low volume.
Correct, antibiotic stewardship is basically holding back prescribing rights for last line drugs like linezolid, daptomycin etc, and rightfully so. If you're a drug company producing the newest drug, and you know that for anyone to use it they are going to need an pharmacy or ID consult to get it approved, you can view this as a barrier to adoption.
The problem is this is kind of a catch-22 for drug companies. If they only release a new antibiotic in IV form, meaning it will only be administered at hospitals, they don't get enough volume to make money. So why research the next one?
In general I'm a pretty free-market guy, but this is one area I'd like to see the government more involved, both in subsidizing new antibiotic development and in making sure we have a stock of antibiotics that still work.
Officials say the threat to human health is low, but is under ongoing review.
I feel better?
Is my kid going to live in a post-apocalyptic world where a new Black Plague has wiped out 2/3 of the population because it is completely antibiotic resistant? Or will new solutions (maybe ones that attack at a molecular level) be available first?
I'm not asking rhetorically, any input would be awesome.
From what I've read, the antibiotics can be phased out, and then later, phased back in.
Because the competition is so high, the bacteria can't afford the energy/resources to continue resistance to antibiotics that aren't in use--they are out-competed.
Therefore, currently ineffective antibiotics will become effective again in the future.
That said, I did not read if this is being practiced already.
The major problem here is not that there are not ways forward, but that we need to act together as a species to solve this problem. Development of drug resistance can happen anywhere that antibiotics are used and best practices are not observed everywhere.
An interesting first step might be to restrict some antibiotics to human use only. At least then we wouldn't be breeding resistance for cheaper meat.
This is being practiced, but not intentionally. Some drugs are just not used anymore because they have become somewhat ineffective against most organisms, so they are shelved due to the fact they are not economically wise to produce, not because we are saving them.
I don't think the worry is that we will suffer a Black Plague again, but more than almost every instance of surgery or anything that leaves a person immunocompromised will lead directly to infection.
A lot of modern medicine suddenly becomes useless because the health benefits that it brings are nullified by the fact that an infection is sure to follow.
Organ transplants and chemotherapy are two big ones that become near impossible if antibiotics are useless.
> Is my kid going to live in a post-apocalyptic world where a new Black Plague has wiped out 2/3 of the population because it is completely antibiotic resistant?
There's always phage therapy. It's harder to get FDA approval though. Every application is uniquely modified to target a specific bacteria. This means each treatment would need its own approval under the current rules.
(Take this as coming from someone who pays attention for some time, but is not really knowledgeable about medicine.) People are today a lot healthier than they were 50 years ago. This alone helps a lot. Additionally we have better disinfectants and better procedures and better non antibiotic drugs. So the other parts of our defense in depth are largely intact.
Additionally I read some time ago that the problem is not the difficulty of developing new antibiotics, but the collapse of antibiotics research in the 80ies. So once the field is back up, there should be new antibiotics.
So as far as I understand it, the lack of antibiotics is a big problem, but a big problem on the scale of thousands are gonna die, not millions are gonna die.
Modern sanitation helps a lot more than antibiotics. We don't throw our shit in the streets, we don't spend time around animals, people wash their hands and take showers, and we understand that sick people are contagious and can avoid them. The black plague spread through fleas on rats.
What is not mentioned in the article is that the bacteria in question is treatable with a range of other antibiotics aside from Colistin ... make of that what you will.
Is there reason to think that bacteria with every gene for antibiotic resistance would be at all viable? It seems likely that these genes have other negative effects on fitness that make them unlikely to spread significantly in the absence of the antibiotic.
The tendency, under selective pressures, is for organisms to become more fit over time. By applying constant antibiotic-induced generalised selective pressure, you're greatly increasing those odds
"More fit" only makes sense with regards to the pressure. I.e. the bacteria may survive antibiotics, but that may come at the expense of general pathogenicity.
The fact that the gene is not already widespread suggests that in the absence of the selective pressure of the antibiotic it has other effects that decrease fitness in a typical environment.
I agree with your statement if it was a single (or a limited number of) species of antibiotic resistance bacteria.
But, the problem seems to be that they'll be acting more like a gang (where each gang member is a species of bacteria) by multiplying and transferring their weapons (in this case, antibiotic resistant MCR-1 gene) among different bacteria species by means of horizontal gene transfer[1].
Here, horizontal gene transfer means bacteria don't need to carry the "general pathogenicity" as parts of its genome and transfer to future generations (by sexual/asexual re-production)[2]. They only have to be good (and will be damn good by MCR-1 gene) at whatever pathogen they carry. "Horizontal gene transfer" will take care of the rest.
I think we'll get a better idea of the problem I'm trying to explain if we look at it from "Unix philosophy" perspective which "favors composability as opposed to monolithic design"[3]. I hope that I'm decidedly proven wrong in this regard. But, it's just a hope.
Note:
I don't have any formal education/background in medical sciences.
The organisms identified can be killed by cooking your food properly and all the bacteria we identified with this gene were responsive to other antibiotics, called carbapenems
Immigrant hotspots in London now have tuberculosis rates higher than Iraq and Rwanda. 80% of cases are people born abroad, and some are antibiotic-resistant. This is a disease we thought we'd erradicated:
The U.K. has seen unprecedented inflows in the last year (640K immigrants), and since then the rate has risen further - to the point where the government has refused to publish official immigration figures because it would be "unhelpful" to our negotiation with the EU, and upcoming referendum on EU membership
I know how alarmist this comment sounds, and I fully expect it to be downvoted because it contradicts the politically-correct utopian vision of immigration that we're all expected to hold.
But I hope lefties realise that it's their suppression of debate that frustrates people and leads them supporting reactionary leaders like Trump.
We need to start discussing immigration without the stifling constraints of political correctness.
Your comment sounds alarmist because it is narrow minded, as it implies that the solution is to stop immigration instead of fighting antibiotic-resistant diseases. If we just stop immigration, we are just delaying the arrival of the problem to our first-world countries (and that supposing we could stop illegal immigration, which is far from trivial). In the meanwhile, anti-immigration policies could mean that sick people don't get a treatment and thus diseases such as tuberculosis are left untreated and spread further.
Immigration cannot be stopped, and that supposing that stopping it is desirable (by the way, as a complete lockdown is probably crazy, which kind of immigration do we restrict? Only from the poor, letting other people from rich countries in? Or should we screen and only let in healthy people?). Any measure taken to "stop" immigration will lead to people being out of the system and thus not able to receive necessary health care and education that could stop infections.
PS: Your last three phrases are what you are getting downvoted for: you take for granted that not being anti-immigration is an hipocrisy, or that it just comes from political-correctness and is not a valid idea-theory-whatever.
> But I hope lefties realise that it's their suppression of debate that frustrates people and leads them supporting reactionary leaders like Trump.
This has to be the biggest pile of horseshit I've read on HN recently. It's cool if you're not a left-winger yourself, but don't make shit up and then subsequently complain that people aren't treating you fairly because you provide a link elsewhere in your comment and are therefore 'sourced'.
Similarly, the "this is going to be downvoted" is a very adolescent way of debating. If you're upvoted, you 'win', because you scored well, and if you're downvoted, you 'win', because 'I called it; you're all a bunch of reactionaries'.
If you actually want a proper discussion, don't pre-shame your opponents.
I think his argument was that poorly supervised mass migration, specifically from places with poor healthcare and agriculture practices spreads readily available drug-resistant bacteria to places where otherwise there'd be none or little of them.
And that is a fair point, imo.
We enforce strict border control to protect ourselves from Ebola, SARS and other infectious diseases we can't treat.
I would assume poster expects to see that actions to help refugees and other less lucky people of the world are thoroughly weighed against health risks. Again, fair point, even if the poster is a Trump supporter.
See, you managed to put the same point in a reasonable way without raving about political correctness, liberals/lefties and invoking Trump. Which is the kind of comment I expect from HN... :-)
That study -- which is merely a meta-study of 26 selected other studies -- just summarizes the incidence rates of resistant strains in migrant populations vs. local populations. It seems unsurprising to me that immigrants from countries with poor public health systems tend to be sicker than we are and we should probably intensify our efforts to aid them in that regard.
It makes no claim with respects to how relevant any of this is with respect to the overall increase in the occurrence of resistant strains. I'm not a doctor, I don't know how relevant this is, if at all. Clearly, being able to claim that immigrants spread disease fits a certain political agenda.
The U.K. has seen unprecedented inflows in the last year (640K immigrants)
With approximately 310k leaving, in other words, net migration is 330k[0]. But it sure is fun to quote the higher number! Of the ~640k, ~300k are coming to work (2/3 of them with a job offer), and 180k are coming to study. Since EU citizens are free to move around, unsurprisingly most of the immigrants (and, I presume, the emigrants) are from other EU countries.
On the other hand, the UK is doing comparatively little in terms of letting asylum seekers enter the country, despite being one of the richest countries on the planet in the middle of one of a humanitarian crisis: With almost a million people having crossed the Mediterranean as refugees and migrants so far this year, and conflicts in Syria and elsewhere continuing to generate staggering levels of human suffering, 2015 is likely to exceed all previous records for global forced displacement, the UN Refugee Agency warned in a new report today.[1]
The BBC article you linked contradicts your argument:
The rate of infection among UK-born Londoners has risen, while among the non-UK-born it has fallen - and the report said it would be wrong to assume TB was a disease of migrants.
The abstract of paper you shared was interesting, but the reason you are being down voted is probably because of the tabloid level of political spin you have forced on it, and the crank-like way that you have tried to make yourself out as a victim because of intolerance for the "controversial" synthesis you have presented.
Migration in the context of epidemiology has nothing to do with your political status in that country, and has everything to do with your physical presence, and contact with other people in that location.
Sure, shut the UK's boarders to all international travel. Perhaps you'll manage to stop sex tourists from bringing back super-gonorrhoea from the third world.
> About one-third of the world's population has latent TB, which means people have been infected by TB bacteria but are not (yet) ill with the disease and cannot transmit the disease.
The post went from 1, 2, then 3 votes, down to 1, zero and then -1. Interesting.
I thought Hacker News might be the kind of forum where an argument backed with facts and sources (including peer reviewed papers) might be enough to break through tribal leftwing suppression of politically incorrect opinions. Evidently not.
A lot of readers reflexively downvote comments that have lines such as:
> I know how alarmist this comment sounds, and I fully expect it to be downvoted because it contradicts the politically-correct utopian vision of immigration that we're all expected to hold.
(Emphasis mine)
From the HN Guidelines[1]:
> Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or declare that you'll probably get downvoted.
