5 ms·

Unfortunately, the immigration policies of most countries in the world are one huge stupid joke. Why so much obsession about the country where people were born

Unfortunately, the immigration policies of most countries in the world are one huge stupid joke. Why so much obsession about the country where people were born into? It wasn't their choice at all. It just doesn't matter. The only questions you should be asking are "are they decent people? Are they willing to integrate? Will they contribute to our economy? Will they make us problems?" And none of these questions you can answer by reading the name of the country on their passport.

SamUK96 9y ago
This is essentially Australia's system, lauded for it's rather strict and rigorous "points"-based immigration system. If you don't meet enough "we want you as a citizen" points, you're simply denied. Contrast that to somewhere like the US where there are many very game-able methods of entry, like the utterly shambolic H1-B visa.
- Indolat 9y ago
  Their point system is set really very, very high and costs much more money than most people can ever save (try saving 5-10 thousands when your monthly salary is some 200 US$ and you have to live off it). I'm pretty sure that some 95% of Australians would never pass it if they were born in a different country. (Long live the privilege of birth!)
  - nandemo 9y ago
    The high bar is there to ensure the system satisfies the "will they contribute to our economy" criterion. Sure, that results in immigrants being more qualified and having more earning potential than the average native citizen. Nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, it means each immigrant will in average increase the country's GDP/capita. It also means the working class will be less likely to oppose immigration. Where are you from? In middle-income developing countries (Brazil, India, China, Mexico, etc), educated, middle-class people typically earn well over $1000 per month. People who earn $200 per month usually don't fulfill the other requirements in the first place.
    - Indolat 9y ago
      Not a middle-income location and not from middle-class. I still managed to leave it, but you have no single idea how much effort and pain it cost me.
      - nandemo 9y ago
        More power to you! But I hope you understand my point. The developed countries accept immigrants out of self-interest, not in order to help developing countries.
        Indolat 9y ago
        This is still not a good reason to set the bar so high that only few people from thousands can pass it.
zeusdx 9y ago
UK has Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa where you can remain and run a company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another 5 years or apply for settlement. You are judged based on your talent and not on where you were born.
- Indolat 9y ago
  "Tier 1 (General) visa 1. Overview You can no longer apply for or extend Tier 1 (General) visas." As far as I remember, this type of visa is abolished many years ago.
  - zeusdx 9y ago
    "Tier 1 (General)" was abolished. Instead, UK has introduced "Tier 1 - Entrepreneur" and "Tier 1 - Exceptional Talent" visas.
    - Indolat 9y ago
      Well, it's better than nothing. But I think that 99.99% of the current UK cirtizens would never meet these requirements.
omginternets 9y ago
>Why so much obsession about the country where people were born into? It wasn't their choice at all. It just doesn't matter. Because nationality does matter. The oft-repeated meme that we're all the same doesn't hold to even superficial scrutiny. Nationality is not arbitrary in the sense that it's a crystallization of centuries of cultural values. People's place of birth predicts their attitudes about a vast number of political and social subjects. This includes, for instance, how they feel about such subjects as: - democracy - freedom of religion - minority & women's rights - the belief (or not) that certain races are superior to others - etc... (Apologies for the multiple edits. It took me a few tries to express myself clearly.)
- calvinbhai 9y ago
  Nationality and Country of birth, are two different things. If Elon Musk was born in India or China, and when he was 1 yr old he moved back to South Africa, and rest of his life remained unchanged from what has been, then he'd not be granted a permanent residency as easily and may have just become a US Citizen in the last two years. Can you imagine what loss it would be to the US if Musk had to wait so long to become a US Citizen? Likewise, if a China-born French citizen were to apply for employment based permanent residency in the US, the green card backlogs would be too onerous for one to succeed as an entrepreneur. Also, place of birth limits currently is used purely for limiting the number of immigrants born in a country gaining Permanent Residency in the US. So, a person born in a country like India (world largest democracy, with freedom of religion, minority and women's rights and equality in races etc) has to be in a much longer queue to get Permanent Residency than a person who is born in say Sudan or Iran or Pakistan or any of the other Islamic nations where there's no legit democracy or freedom of religion or minority rights. Hope this helps in understanding the earlier comment in context.
  - omginternets 9y ago
    >Nationality and Country of birth, are two different things. For the purposes of this discussion, it's largely a distinction without a difference. I don't oppose immigration in principle, but the rather extreme view that any amount of immigration, from any place, to any place is necessarily a Good Thing is founded on some very strange assumptions.

SamUK96 9y ago

This is essentially Australia's system, lauded for it's rather strict and rigorous "points"-based immigration system. If you don't meet enough "we want you as a citizen" points, you're simply denied. Contrast that to somewhere like the US where there are many very game-able methods of entry, like the utterly shambolic H1-B visa.

Indolat 9y ago
Their point system is set really very, very high and costs much more money than most people can ever save (try saving 5-10 thousands when your monthly salary is some 200 US$ and you have to live off it). I'm pretty sure that some 95% of Australians would never pass it if they were born in a different country. (Long live the privilege of birth!)
- nandemo 9y ago
  The high bar is there to ensure the system satisfies the "will they contribute to our economy" criterion. Sure, that results in immigrants being more qualified and having more earning potential than the average native citizen. Nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, it means each immigrant will in average increase the country's GDP/capita. It also means the working class will be less likely to oppose immigration. Where are you from? In middle-income developing countries (Brazil, India, China, Mexico, etc), educated, middle-class people typically earn well over $1000 per month. People who earn $200 per month usually don't fulfill the other requirements in the first place.
  - Indolat 9y ago
    Not a middle-income location and not from middle-class. I still managed to leave it, but you have no single idea how much effort and pain it cost me.
    - nandemo 9y ago
      More power to you! But I hope you understand my point. The developed countries accept immigrants out of self-interest, not in order to help developing countries.
      - Indolat 9y ago
        This is still not a good reason to set the bar so high that only few people from thousands can pass it.

zeusdx 9y ago

UK has Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa where you can remain and run a company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another 5 years or apply for settlement. You are judged based on your talent and not on where you were born.

Indolat 9y ago
"Tier 1 (General) visa 1. Overview You can no longer apply for or extend Tier 1 (General) visas." As far as I remember, this type of visa is abolished many years ago.
- zeusdx 9y ago
  "Tier 1 (General)" was abolished. Instead, UK has introduced "Tier 1 - Entrepreneur" and "Tier 1 - Exceptional Talent" visas.
  - Indolat 9y ago
    Well, it's better than nothing. But I think that 99.99% of the current UK cirtizens would never meet these requirements.

omginternets 9y ago

>Why so much obsession about the country where people were born into? It wasn't their choice at all. It just doesn't matter. Because nationality does matter. The oft-repeated meme that we're all the same doesn't hold to even superficial scrutiny. Nationality is not arbitrary in the sense that it's a crystallization of centuries of cultural values. People's place of birth predicts their attitudes about a vast number of political and social subjects. This includes, for instance, how they feel about such subjects as: - democracy - freedom of religion - minority & women's rights - the belief (or not) that certain races are superior to others - etc... (Apologies for the multiple edits. It took me a few tries to express myself clearly.)

calvinbhai 9y ago
Nationality and Country of birth, are two different things. If Elon Musk was born in India or China, and when he was 1 yr old he moved back to South Africa, and rest of his life remained unchanged from what has been, then he'd not be granted a permanent residency as easily and may have just become a US Citizen in the last two years. Can you imagine what loss it would be to the US if Musk had to wait so long to become a US Citizen? Likewise, if a China-born French citizen were to apply for employment based permanent residency in the US, the green card backlogs would be too onerous for one to succeed as an entrepreneur. Also, place of birth limits currently is used purely for limiting the number of immigrants born in a country gaining Permanent Residency in the US. So, a person born in a country like India (world largest democracy, with freedom of religion, minority and women's rights and equality in races etc) has to be in a much longer queue to get Permanent Residency than a person who is born in say Sudan or Iran or Pakistan or any of the other Islamic nations where there's no legit democracy or freedom of religion or minority rights. Hope this helps in understanding the earlier comment in context.
- omginternets 9y ago
  >Nationality and Country of birth, are two different things. For the purposes of this discussion, it's largely a distinction without a difference. I don't oppose immigration in principle, but the rather extreme view that any amount of immigration, from any place, to any place is necessarily a Good Thing is founded on some very strange assumptions.