4 ms·

>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 an

by 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...

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> 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. That requires that you can afford to buy a plane ticket and then spend nine months not working while paying US cost of living and pregnancy-related medical expenses out of pocket, which puts it out of reach for most people in the world. An easy-to-get work visa turns the economics around. And it's not just people who come here exclusively for that reason. More people means more children. If the additional people are unskilled laborers who make low wages and pay little in taxes, someone else has to make up the difference. > 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. The article is only considering social security against itself. Someone making $20K/year is paying <$2500/year in social security tax. One child in public school is four times that in itself. > Cut federal benefits entirely for them and require the states to pay if you like. It's a tiny problem. Take away the federal money and the states won't be able to afford it. Or won't want to pay it. The problem isn't social security, it's schools and healthcare. And it's not like you can just leave children to grow up without schools or let infections go untreated. > 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. For many states (e.g. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire) a 100 mile exclusion zone would have multiple other states fully inside it.
- hwillis 10y ago
  >That requires that you can afford to buy a plane ticket and then spend nine months not working while paying US cost of living and pregnancy-related medical expenses out of pocket, which puts it out of reach for most people in the world. Uh... It requires literally none of those things. You can get into the US on a car, train, boat, bicycle or a good pair of chanclas. You certainly don't need to be here nine months to have a kid. You can certainly find work in that time, and emergency medical care is "free". And while yes, it means more people, those people are a far cry from new immigrants and their numbers can still be limited federally. And regardless, with 12 million immigrants here already, the number of births won't be changing much any time soon. I think you're rather missing the forest for the trees with the rest.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > You can get into the US on a car, train, boat, bicycle or a good pair of chanclas. What does it buy you to trade one expensive ticket for another? I don't think you're seriously suggesting that walking here from even Central America is not a large impediment, to say nothing of the unconnected continents where the large majority of people actually live. > You certainly don't need to be here nine months to have a kid. The alternative is to get a travel visa when you're already pregnant, in which case the government can observe what you're attempting to do and deny the visa. > You can certainly find work in that time Working on a travel visa is illegal, therefore harder to do and lower paying. > and emergency medical care is "free" That implies going through a pregnancy with no access to non-emergency medical care (e.g. ultrasound), risking the life of the child. > And while yes, it means more people, those people are a far cry from new immigrants and their numbers can still be limited federally. Either you're increasing the number of unskilled immigrants or you aren't.
- hwillis 10y ago
  >Take away the federal money and the states won't be able to afford it. Or won't want to pay it. The problem isn't social security, it's schools and healthcare. >And it's not like you can just leave children to grow up without schools or let infections go untreated. Having actually looked it up, federal funding is only 13% of public education ie it would be absolutely trivial to require states to fund state green card immigrants. Likewise emergency healthcare isn't federally subsidized. Plus, it's highly unlikely that allowing this program would actually even increase the number of immigrants we have, just make the illegal ones legal. Your arguments are completely strawmen.

by hwillis 10y ago

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> 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. That requires that you can afford to buy a plane ticket and then spend nine months not working while paying US cost of living and pregnancy-related medical expenses out of pocket, which puts it out of reach for most people in the world. An easy-to-get work visa turns the economics around. And it's not just people who come here exclusively for that reason. More people means more children. If the additional people are unskilled laborers who make low wages and pay little in taxes, someone else has to make up the difference. > 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. The article is only considering social security against itself. Someone making $20K/year is paying <$2500/year in social security tax. One child in public school is four times that in itself. > Cut federal benefits entirely for them and require the states to pay if you like. It's a tiny problem. Take away the federal money and the states won't be able to afford it. Or won't want to pay it. The problem isn't social security, it's schools and healthcare. And it's not like you can just leave children to grow up without schools or let infections go untreated. > 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. For many states (e.g. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire) a 100 mile exclusion zone would have multiple other states fully inside it.

hwillis 10y ago
>That requires that you can afford to buy a plane ticket and then spend nine months not working while paying US cost of living and pregnancy-related medical expenses out of pocket, which puts it out of reach for most people in the world. Uh... It requires literally none of those things. You can get into the US on a car, train, boat, bicycle or a good pair of chanclas. You certainly don't need to be here nine months to have a kid. You can certainly find work in that time, and emergency medical care is "free". And while yes, it means more people, those people are a far cry from new immigrants and their numbers can still be limited federally. And regardless, with 12 million immigrants here already, the number of births won't be changing much any time soon. I think you're rather missing the forest for the trees with the rest.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > You can get into the US on a car, train, boat, bicycle or a good pair of chanclas. What does it buy you to trade one expensive ticket for another? I don't think you're seriously suggesting that walking here from even Central America is not a large impediment, to say nothing of the unconnected continents where the large majority of people actually live. > You certainly don't need to be here nine months to have a kid. The alternative is to get a travel visa when you're already pregnant, in which case the government can observe what you're attempting to do and deny the visa. > You can certainly find work in that time Working on a travel visa is illegal, therefore harder to do and lower paying. > and emergency medical care is "free" That implies going through a pregnancy with no access to non-emergency medical care (e.g. ultrasound), risking the life of the child. > And while yes, it means more people, those people are a far cry from new immigrants and their numbers can still be limited federally. Either you're increasing the number of unskilled immigrants or you aren't.
hwillis 10y ago
>Take away the federal money and the states won't be able to afford it. Or won't want to pay it. The problem isn't social security, it's schools and healthcare. >And it's not like you can just leave children to grow up without schools or let infections go untreated. Having actually looked it up, federal funding is only 13% of public education ie it would be absolutely trivial to require states to fund state green card immigrants. Likewise emergency healthcare isn't federally subsidized. Plus, it's highly unlikely that allowing this program would actually even increase the number of immigrants we have, just make the illegal ones legal. Your arguments are completely strawmen.