5 ms·

The US has an even dumber version: 5) Nepotism. If you are related to or sleeping with a citizen, you have a very good chance at getting in.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kleer001 11y ago
Almost every country has that. What, do you want to split up families and loved ones?
- Terr_ 11y ago
  Plus, the US actually does something less-dumb, and expands citizenship to people born in the country, regardless of their parents' status or race. ("Jus soli")
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Why is promoting birth tourism/anchor babies less dumb? I.e., what makes the child of a wealthy chinese woman who visits CA to give birth more deserving of citizenship than peasant who worked very hard to attend college and jump through our citizenship hoops? The original motivation for this rule was to prevent disenfranchisement of former slaves. That goal was achieved, and is no longer relevant since all former slaves are dead.
    - rchaud 11y ago
      Pregnant women are screened out during the visa interview process to prevent this from occurring. It's not perfect, in the case of individuals receiving multi-year visas, but those are only provided to individuals who have spent significant time in the US, or have family members who are citizens. Also, a baby born in the US to a non-US citizen parent does not automatically confer the parent with citizenship or permanent residency rights. In the case of "anchor babies", the child usually will not have the right to sponsor his parents for residency until they are 18.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        What makes the parents of an anchor baby more deserving of citizenship than a person who worked hard, went to school and developed skills useful to the US? Why do we consider this more beneficial to the US than instead importing the highly skilled person who goes through the system rather than subverting it? (Again, working within the normative framework suggesting immigration should be restricted, which is not my view.)
        foldr 11y ago
        It's not really about the parent so much as the child. The child deserves to have parents that are present in its life.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        The parents can raise the child in their home country if that's an important concern. As far as I know, no country will deprive a child of citizenship simply because he was born while the parents were on vacation.
        foldr 11y ago
        Right, there's no chance of that being impractical or harmful to the child.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Of course it's harmful to the child. But there are millions of children born in various parts of the world who would suffer the same harms. Why should we protect a Mexican child who's parents crept across the border to give birth, but not an Indian child who's parents applied for immigration but were rejected? I feel like you are implicitly appealing to a very extreme version of the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics: http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  No, I favor open borders. But if we are going to have limited immigration, we should do it on the basis of choosing the most valuable immigrants. At the moment, fully 74% of immigration [1] to the US is based solely on nepotism. Also, it's silly to suggest that I favor splitting up families - I oppose preventing immigrants from going back home to be with their family. We aren't a slave state. (For much the same reason I oppose our various penalties for Americans renouncing their citizenship.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification#Family_reunification_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification#Family_re...
  - foldr 11y ago
    >I oppose preventing immigrants from going back home to be with their familU. You're not making any sense. I'm British and met my husband when working in Canada. One of us has to immigrate somewhere in order for us to be together.
    - DrScump 11y ago
      I think he's saying that someone here illegally should be able to return to country of origin and then re-enter illegally at will, protected from repatriation. This puts a premium on entering the country by whatever means and at whatever risk.
      - foldr 11y ago
        He was saying that being married to a US citizen should not enable a person to enter the US legally. (He said "sleeping with", but in fact the US does not generally grant dependant visas to unmarried partners.)
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Not quite, I'm saying that from a utilitarian perspective, importing wives for US citizens is not better for the country than importing high skilled workers. I'm also saying that from a justice perspective, banging an American and getting him pony up for marriage doesn't make a person intrinsically more deserving of citizenship than working hard and creating (potential) value for the US. Again - I'm generally an open borders proponent. What I say we should do is stop using violence to prevent peaceful people from entering the US and engaging in trade here. (And we should make whatever economic adjustments are necessary to prevent an increase in state-induced violence/threats of violence, e.g. eliminate the welfare state.) But if I accept the logic behind restricted borders (e.g. "we can't handle too many more" and "immigration should benefit natives"), that logic doesn't really support nepotism based immigration.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kleer001 11y ago

Almost every country has that. What, do you want to split up families and loved ones?

Terr_ 11y ago
Plus, the US actually does something less-dumb, and expands citizenship to people born in the country, regardless of their parents' status or race. ("Jus soli")
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Why is promoting birth tourism/anchor babies less dumb? I.e., what makes the child of a wealthy chinese woman who visits CA to give birth more deserving of citizenship than peasant who worked very hard to attend college and jump through our citizenship hoops? The original motivation for this rule was to prevent disenfranchisement of former slaves. That goal was achieved, and is no longer relevant since all former slaves are dead.
  - rchaud 11y ago
    Pregnant women are screened out during the visa interview process to prevent this from occurring. It's not perfect, in the case of individuals receiving multi-year visas, but those are only provided to individuals who have spent significant time in the US, or have family members who are citizens. Also, a baby born in the US to a non-US citizen parent does not automatically confer the parent with citizenship or permanent residency rights. In the case of "anchor babies", the child usually will not have the right to sponsor his parents for residency until they are 18.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      What makes the parents of an anchor baby more deserving of citizenship than a person who worked hard, went to school and developed skills useful to the US? Why do we consider this more beneficial to the US than instead importing the highly skilled person who goes through the system rather than subverting it? (Again, working within the normative framework suggesting immigration should be restricted, which is not my view.)
      - foldr 11y ago
        It's not really about the parent so much as the child. The child deserves to have parents that are present in its life.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        The parents can raise the child in their home country if that's an important concern. As far as I know, no country will deprive a child of citizenship simply because he was born while the parents were on vacation.
        foldr 11y ago
        Right, there's no chance of that being impractical or harmful to the child.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Of course it's harmful to the child. But there are millions of children born in various parts of the world who would suffer the same harms. Why should we protect a Mexican child who's parents crept across the border to give birth, but not an Indian child who's parents applied for immigration but were rejected? I feel like you are implicitly appealing to a very extreme version of the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics: http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...
yummyfajitas 11y ago
No, I favor open borders. But if we are going to have limited immigration, we should do it on the basis of choosing the most valuable immigrants. At the moment, fully 74% of immigration [1] to the US is based solely on nepotism. Also, it's silly to suggest that I favor splitting up families - I oppose preventing immigrants from going back home to be with their family. We aren't a slave state. (For much the same reason I oppose our various penalties for Americans renouncing their citizenship.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification#Family_reunification_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification#Family_re...
- foldr 11y ago
  >I oppose preventing immigrants from going back home to be with their familU. You're not making any sense. I'm British and met my husband when working in Canada. One of us has to immigrate somewhere in order for us to be together.
  - DrScump 11y ago
    I think he's saying that someone here illegally should be able to return to country of origin and then re-enter illegally at will, protected from repatriation. This puts a premium on entering the country by whatever means and at whatever risk.
    - foldr 11y ago
      He was saying that being married to a US citizen should not enable a person to enter the US legally. (He said "sleeping with", but in fact the US does not generally grant dependant visas to unmarried partners.)
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Not quite, I'm saying that from a utilitarian perspective, importing wives for US citizens is not better for the country than importing high skilled workers. I'm also saying that from a justice perspective, banging an American and getting him pony up for marriage doesn't make a person intrinsically more deserving of citizenship than working hard and creating (potential) value for the US. Again - I'm generally an open borders proponent. What I say we should do is stop using violence to prevent peaceful people from entering the US and engaging in trade here. (And we should make whatever economic adjustments are necessary to prevent an increase in state-induced violence/threats of violence, e.g. eliminate the welfare state.) But if I accept the logic behind restricted borders (e.g. "we can't handle too many more" and "immigration should benefit natives"), that logic doesn't really support nepotism based immigration.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]