4 ms·

In the US right now visiting, am Canadian. Was a pain, was held up over an hour at the border (via land). Apparently they don't believe there's any reason for

by Mikeb85 10y ago

In the US right now visiting, am Canadian. Was a pain, was held up over an hour at the border (via land). Apparently they don't believe there's any reason for a Canadian to visit the US as a tourist, we only want to work illegally (they're partially right, only came to visit family, our national parks are nicer). Also, based on my family members' experiences of working in the US, it's easier to work illegally than to immigrate legally. And hard to be a tourist apparently. You guys have your priorities all backwards - should be easy to visit, hard to work illegally, and somewhere in the middle to immigrate legally.

tn13 10y ago
US has denied my 70 year old parents visa to visit me because they think they intend to work or stay in USA when my own visa expires in few months!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mc32 10y ago
That's how most countries are. For the most part the US is the exception for industrialized countries in that it's easy to work illegally because the gov does not enforce verification very hard and does not penalize employers often. I know countries I've been to, even if you could avoid interacting with authorities, there's no way to get other gov services while not having proper visas --ie, education, housing assistance, etc.
- smsm42 10y ago
  US has very strong political opposition to denying services to illegal immigrants in many states. Given how many there are, in is understandable - if you have 10 million population, you can not just deny them all healthcare or access to housing. That'd create tons of problems. It could be done if tightening the rules is combined with finding solution for having so many illegal immigrants, one way or another (in various combinations). But political stances in US are such that making comprehensive solution is very hard, the trust between parties almost nonexistent, the desire to cooperate is very low, and the entrenched positions are incompatible and only cover part of the possible solution, which can not work without other parts.
  - Tenhundfeld 10y ago
    I think you and parent are talking about separate things. They say, "housing assistance," and you say, "access to housing." Housing assistance is a government service. Access to housing would mean controlling the private housing market, I guess. Those are very different ideas in terms of feasibility, morality, economics, etc.
    - coldpie 10y ago
      Housing assistance often is, in these economic classes, synonymous with access to the housing market. You can't suddenly have a few million more homeless people because they didn't wait in the proper lines and fill out the proper paperwork when they crossed the border.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      Well, yes and no. There are several factors. First of all, government can both help (by providing money/actual housing) and impede (e.g. by requiring ID checks when renting out). Help may include giving money (or pseudo-money, such as vouchers) to participate in the private market. Second, many illegal immigrant are poor, or comparatively poor (e.g. housing in SF Bay Area is crazily expensive as you know, but in other parts of California is not super-cheap either usually) - and thus the government has a choice - either provide at least some assistance, or deal with tons of homeless people and all the problems that arise from that. California has pretty mild climate, which can be good because people won't freeze to death, etc. in most places most of the time, but that also means they can actually live on the street in most places most of the time, and the rest of the population usually gets uncomfortable when this happens. So they ask the government to solve this somehow.
      - Tenhundfeld 10y ago
        Do you have stats showing a correlation between homelessness and illegal immigrant status? In my experience, illegal immigrants were frightened of encounters with police/authorities and were much less likely to be homeless or live in government-subsidized housing than others of a similar stratum. That said, my experience is mostly with migrant workers (agricultural and service industry); so these were people with jobs, albeit low-paying jobs. Those who couldn't work would live with their traveling companions until they moved to next location or eventually return home if they weren't making money. I'm not arguing there's no correlation. It just feels like a stretch to imply the government is providing low-income housing so the streets aren't flooded with homeless illegal immigrants. But maybe that's true in CA; I really don't know. My experience and knowledge is all rooted in the southeast (AL, MS, VA).
smsm42 10y ago
The problem is it's very easy to make entering the country hard for legal immigrants and tourists - you just make tons of strict rules, tell border control to enforce them vigorously and voila! But it's much harder to crack down on illegal immigration, since by definition they won't follow laws and rules. You'll need to spend a lot of money and effort on finding them and getting them out, on enforcing eligibility checks at workplaces, etc. And face very strong political opposition - since it's one thing just not to let the person in and very different thing to uproot a person who already has been in for a while, got some local contacts, established themselves, etc. Now add people that oppose virtually any immigration enforcement for political reasons, and you've got the situation US is now in - there are about 10M illegal immigrants, about 1M have final deportation orders (which mean the state ordered them to leave now, all process, appeals, etc. have been exhausted) and ICE has in custody about 12K (yes, 12K out of 1M), where are the rest - nobody knows and nobody will know.
- al2o3cr 10y ago
  You seem to have conveniently forgotten that there are two sides to undocumented employment and left the employer totally unmentioned. If we were serious about "solving the problem", it would be easy: the next time we bust somebody running a place with $2/hr undocumented workers we PUT HIM THE FUCK IN JAIL and seize the business as proceeds from illegal acts. Instead, we hand out puny fines and play along with "sure, I was paying them $2/hr but I had no idea about their status!" game while employers can use the threat of calling ICE to keep workers silent.
- bb611 10y ago
  Yes, there's strong political opposition to immigration enforcement, but there's also strong opposition to illegal work enforcement. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-bac... If anyone were serious about this problem, E-verify would be in force everywhere and the working population that supports 12M undocumented immigrants would be out of work tomorrow, and out of the country the next day.
  - 10y ago

by Mikeb85 10y ago

tn13 10y ago

US has denied my 70 year old parents visa to visit me because they think they intend to work or stay in USA when my own visa expires in few months!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mc32 10y ago

That's how most countries are. For the most part the US is the exception for industrialized countries in that it's easy to work illegally because the gov does not enforce verification very hard and does not penalize employers often. I know countries I've been to, even if you could avoid interacting with authorities, there's no way to get other gov services while not having proper visas --ie, education, housing assistance, etc.

smsm42 10y ago
US has very strong political opposition to denying services to illegal immigrants in many states. Given how many there are, in is understandable - if you have 10 million population, you can not just deny them all healthcare or access to housing. That'd create tons of problems. It could be done if tightening the rules is combined with finding solution for having so many illegal immigrants, one way or another (in various combinations). But political stances in US are such that making comprehensive solution is very hard, the trust between parties almost nonexistent, the desire to cooperate is very low, and the entrenched positions are incompatible and only cover part of the possible solution, which can not work without other parts.
- Tenhundfeld 10y ago
  I think you and parent are talking about separate things. They say, "housing assistance," and you say, "access to housing." Housing assistance is a government service. Access to housing would mean controlling the private housing market, I guess. Those are very different ideas in terms of feasibility, morality, economics, etc.
  - coldpie 10y ago
    Housing assistance often is, in these economic classes, synonymous with access to the housing market. You can't suddenly have a few million more homeless people because they didn't wait in the proper lines and fill out the proper paperwork when they crossed the border.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    Well, yes and no. There are several factors. First of all, government can both help (by providing money/actual housing) and impede (e.g. by requiring ID checks when renting out). Help may include giving money (or pseudo-money, such as vouchers) to participate in the private market. Second, many illegal immigrant are poor, or comparatively poor (e.g. housing in SF Bay Area is crazily expensive as you know, but in other parts of California is not super-cheap either usually) - and thus the government has a choice - either provide at least some assistance, or deal with tons of homeless people and all the problems that arise from that. California has pretty mild climate, which can be good because people won't freeze to death, etc. in most places most of the time, but that also means they can actually live on the street in most places most of the time, and the rest of the population usually gets uncomfortable when this happens. So they ask the government to solve this somehow.
    - Tenhundfeld 10y ago
      Do you have stats showing a correlation between homelessness and illegal immigrant status? In my experience, illegal immigrants were frightened of encounters with police/authorities and were much less likely to be homeless or live in government-subsidized housing than others of a similar stratum. That said, my experience is mostly with migrant workers (agricultural and service industry); so these were people with jobs, albeit low-paying jobs. Those who couldn't work would live with their traveling companions until they moved to next location or eventually return home if they weren't making money. I'm not arguing there's no correlation. It just feels like a stretch to imply the government is providing low-income housing so the streets aren't flooded with homeless illegal immigrants. But maybe that's true in CA; I really don't know. My experience and knowledge is all rooted in the southeast (AL, MS, VA).

smsm42 10y ago

The problem is it's very easy to make entering the country hard for legal immigrants and tourists - you just make tons of strict rules, tell border control to enforce them vigorously and voila! But it's much harder to crack down on illegal immigration, since by definition they won't follow laws and rules. You'll need to spend a lot of money and effort on finding them and getting them out, on enforcing eligibility checks at workplaces, etc. And face very strong political opposition - since it's one thing just not to let the person in and very different thing to uproot a person who already has been in for a while, got some local contacts, established themselves, etc. Now add people that oppose virtually any immigration enforcement for political reasons, and you've got the situation US is now in - there are about 10M illegal immigrants, about 1M have final deportation orders (which mean the state ordered them to leave now, all process, appeals, etc. have been exhausted) and ICE has in custody about 12K (yes, 12K out of 1M), where are the rest - nobody knows and nobody will know.

al2o3cr 10y ago
You seem to have conveniently forgotten that there are two sides to undocumented employment and left the employer totally unmentioned. If we were serious about "solving the problem", it would be easy: the next time we bust somebody running a place with $2/hr undocumented workers we PUT HIM THE FUCK IN JAIL and seize the business as proceeds from illegal acts. Instead, we hand out puny fines and play along with "sure, I was paying them $2/hr but I had no idea about their status!" game while employers can use the threat of calling ICE to keep workers silent.
bb611 10y ago
Yes, there's strong political opposition to immigration enforcement, but there's also strong opposition to illegal work enforcement. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-bac... If anyone were serious about this problem, E-verify would be in force everywhere and the working population that supports 12M undocumented immigrants would be out of work tomorrow, and out of the country the next day.
- 10y ago