4 ms·

You could make a single-state work permit without internal borders. If workers from California want to spend their vacation money in Nevada, let them. You can s

by jzwinck 10y ago

You could make a single-state work permit without internal borders. If workers from California want to spend their vacation money in Nevada, let them. You can still reject them if they apply for work in another state.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
It's not just about work. To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime?
- hwillis 10y ago
  >To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa. >The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. You are ignorant of the laws regarding legal and illegal immigration. Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. I believe you are unintentionally arguing a strawman. Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Massachusetts pays for Alabama. In fact, Massachusetts pays for immigration control that they don't want. In reality this would be a doubly more fair distribution of federal taxes. Even hypothetically it's an insignificant change. >And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime? I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa. The whole premise is that some states want to make it easier than that. What is a state green card even for if it's just redundant with an existing H1B visa and doesn't increase the total number of immigrants whatsoever? > Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. And if the number of immigrants increases, so does the cost to the school system. > Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. Welfare is redistributive. (The programs that aren't are net harmful and do nothing but sell you your own money with bureaucratic waste and corruption-induced strings attached). Its purpose is to transfer resources from those who have more to those who need more. The only way anyone should give more than they get is if they have above average earnings, which is true of current legal immigrants (because that's basically the criteria that gets them accepted), but not true of the typical unskilled workers who would be the apparent target of this program. > Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Sure they do, in the US Senate. No federal money gets spent without majority approval from both houses of Congress. To make this happen you need their approval. > I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime. And the political consequences?
    - hwillis 10y ago
      >The whole premise is that some states want to make it easier than that. What is a state green card even for if it's just redundant with an existing H1B visa and doesn't increase the total number of immigrants whatsoever? Look, here's some perspective. The US annually admits: 65,000 H1B visas 70,000 Refugee visas ~200,000 nonfamily immigration visas ~675,000 undetected illegal immigrants 675,000 immigration visas total 9-11 million nonimmigrant visas If you want to just drop a kid down so they become a citizen, it is a hundred times easier to do it on a travel visa and it always will be. Regardless of how many state green cards there are, it will always be orders of magnitude easier to get a travel visa, hop on a plane, and stay under the radar for a couple months. The H1B visa is incomparable to a state green card on numbers alone, but it also puts this decision into the hands of a small subsection of employers, which is completely divorced from the desires of the states. It's basically different in every way. When I said immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out that was was a statement of fact[1], not opinion. They pay the same taxes as us and see severely reduced benefits, even at very low incomes. Cut federal benefits entirely for them and require the states to pay if you like. It's a tiny problem. As for political unpalatability over finances and scaremongering, there are still plenty of solutions. Forcing states to pay for their green cards is constitutionally tricky, but theres no reason those people need to get federal benefits. If cross-border crime and employment is a problem it would be pretty trivial to have an exclusion zone on the border of states that don't want immigrants. Immigrants wouldn't be able to have residences in that area. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocum...

by jzwinck 10y ago

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

It's not just about work. To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime?

hwillis 10y ago
>To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa. >The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. You are ignorant of the laws regarding legal and illegal immigration. Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. I believe you are unintentionally arguing a strawman. Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Massachusetts pays for Alabama. In fact, Massachusetts pays for immigration control that they don't want. In reality this would be a doubly more fair distribution of federal taxes. Even hypothetically it's an insignificant change. >And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime? I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa. The whole premise is that some states want to make it easier than that. What is a state green card even for if it's just redundant with an existing H1B visa and doesn't increase the total number of immigrants whatsoever? > Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. And if the number of immigrants increases, so does the cost to the school system. > Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. Welfare is redistributive. (The programs that aren't are net harmful and do nothing but sell you your own money with bureaucratic waste and corruption-induced strings attached). Its purpose is to transfer resources from those who have more to those who need more. The only way anyone should give more than they get is if they have above average earnings, which is true of current legal immigrants (because that's basically the criteria that gets them accepted), but not true of the typical unskilled workers who would be the apparent target of this program. > Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Sure they do, in the US Senate. No federal money gets spent without majority approval from both houses of Congress. To make this happen you need their approval. > I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime. And the political consequences?
  - hwillis 10y ago
    >The whole premise is that some states want to make it easier than that. What is a state green card even for if it's just redundant with an existing H1B visa and doesn't increase the total number of immigrants whatsoever? Look, here's some perspective. The US annually admits: 65,000 H1B visas 70,000 Refugee visas ~200,000 nonfamily immigration visas ~675,000 undetected illegal immigrants 675,000 immigration visas total 9-11 million nonimmigrant visas If you want to just drop a kid down so they become a citizen, it is a hundred times easier to do it on a travel visa and it always will be. Regardless of how many state green cards there are, it will always be orders of magnitude easier to get a travel visa, hop on a plane, and stay under the radar for a couple months. The H1B visa is incomparable to a state green card on numbers alone, but it also puts this decision into the hands of a small subsection of employers, which is completely divorced from the desires of the states. It's basically different in every way. When I said immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out that was was a statement of fact[1], not opinion. They pay the same taxes as us and see severely reduced benefits, even at very low incomes. Cut federal benefits entirely for them and require the states to pay if you like. It's a tiny problem. As for political unpalatability over finances and scaremongering, there are still plenty of solutions. Forcing states to pay for their green cards is constitutionally tricky, but theres no reason those people need to get federal benefits. If cross-border crime and employment is a problem it would be pretty trivial to have an exclusion zone on the border of states that don't want immigrants. Immigrants wouldn't be able to have residences in that area. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocum...