4 ms·

One can oppose the existence of something on the basis of its location while not being opposed to its existence generally. See: NIMBYs.

by adamjb 6y ago

lliamander 6y ago
The mainstream "anti-immigration" position is about curtailing future immigration, rather than removing current immigrants. The objection isn't to the presence of the immigrants per se, but rather the consequences of continuing the flow of people on the labor market and on cultural cohesion.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Sure, and as a brown guy in Canada he's fine. But if he were in the US and it were all about "curtailing future immigration" you could easily turn off green cards and deport a quarter million Indians who have lived in America for ten years on temporary visas. Yeah, it's all about the future thing there. Give me a break.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    Sounds to me like the "temporary" visa system has been greatly abused by employers looking for cheap labor and needs to be fixed so that people who wish to make life in the U.S. aren't left in limbo for so long.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Sure, that's your stance and I won't attempt to change your mind. I just needed to clarify that you are requesting taking actions that will result in the deportation of a large number of immigrants currently residing in the US. It was important to me that that caveat was applied to > The mainstream "anti-immigration" position is about curtailing future immigration, rather than removing current immigrants. So that it is clear that removing current immigrants resident in the US under dual-intent visas is part of the mainstream position.
      - lliamander 6y ago
        > I just needed to clarify that you are requesting taking actions that will result in the deportation of a large number of immigrants currently residing in the US. Please do not mind read. You are not very good at it. Temporary work visas exist to help cover shortages of labor in a host country, which will naturally vary over time. If someone is in the US on a temporary visa, then that implies that they should only be in the US on that visa for a relatively short time, and that at the end of that time they should either be granted a more permanent status or they should return home. To continue to extend such visas indefinitely, such that visa holder builds a life in the US, all the while still legally in the position that they could be forced to return at any time is cruel and unjust. If that is happening to a large (or small) number of Indians presently in the US, I think it would be entirely reasonable to grant special consideration for them - as part of an overall immigration reform that would avoid situations in the future.
        renewiltord2 6y ago
        Apologies for having to respond from here. I am currently rate limited. Made the new account so I could apologize for guessing at motivations. I believe mainstream immigration restrictions actually do not share your view on dual intent visas. Not many people support the position you have on Indian/Chinese who are present in America for a long time on their dual-intent visas. Consider my comments as being edited to not reference you but reference mainstream anti-immigration positions - none of which currently state any GC reforms that permit existing Indian/Chinese backlogs to be grandfathered in.
        lliamander 6y ago
        That you made this effort to apologize is quite commendable, thank you. And I may be mistaken on where the mainstream anti-immigration position is, though I do think that many/most people who are in favor of reducing immigration would also be amenable to some sort of a deal if it were on the table.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > you could easily turn off green cards and deport a quarter million Indians who have lived in America for ten years on temporary visas. That's not future immigration, that's past immigration fraudulently misrepresented as future immigration on paper.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Hey, sorry, I unfortunately cannot delete the comment so just responding to acknowledge. The 'temporary visas' are dual-intent so they are intended to be for immigration as well. There is no fraudulence there. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss this further.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        > There is no fraudulence there. Sorry, I was insufficiently explicit. "Indians who have lived in America for ten years" are past immigrants. They have already immigrated. A effort to "curtail[] future immigration" that allows deporting them to be part of it is fraudulently misrepresenting that past immigration as part of the "future immigration" which it purports to curtail. The issuance of genuinely new visas (ie to people who have not yet immigrated) is a separate issue from renewing visas of people who have already immigrated, regardless of whether those are, on paper, both lumped into the single catagory of "[']temporary['] visas". > Unfortunately, I cannot discuss this further. Fair enough; good luck on whatever came up.

One can oppose the existence of something on the basis of its location while not being opposed to its existence generally. See: NIMBYs.

by adamjb 6y ago

One can oppose the existence of something on the basis of its location while not being opposed to its existence generally. See: NIMBYs.

lliamander 6y ago

The mainstream "anti-immigration" position is about curtailing future immigration, rather than removing current immigrants. The objection isn't to the presence of the immigrants per se, but rather the consequences of continuing the flow of people on the labor market and on cultural cohesion.

renewiltord 6y ago
Sure, and as a brown guy in Canada he's fine. But if he were in the US and it were all about "curtailing future immigration" you could easily turn off green cards and deport a quarter million Indians who have lived in America for ten years on temporary visas. Yeah, it's all about the future thing there. Give me a break.
- lliamander 6y ago
  Sounds to me like the "temporary" visa system has been greatly abused by employers looking for cheap labor and needs to be fixed so that people who wish to make life in the U.S. aren't left in limbo for so long.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Sure, that's your stance and I won't attempt to change your mind. I just needed to clarify that you are requesting taking actions that will result in the deportation of a large number of immigrants currently residing in the US. It was important to me that that caveat was applied to > The mainstream "anti-immigration" position is about curtailing future immigration, rather than removing current immigrants. So that it is clear that removing current immigrants resident in the US under dual-intent visas is part of the mainstream position.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      > I just needed to clarify that you are requesting taking actions that will result in the deportation of a large number of immigrants currently residing in the US. Please do not mind read. You are not very good at it. Temporary work visas exist to help cover shortages of labor in a host country, which will naturally vary over time. If someone is in the US on a temporary visa, then that implies that they should only be in the US on that visa for a relatively short time, and that at the end of that time they should either be granted a more permanent status or they should return home. To continue to extend such visas indefinitely, such that visa holder builds a life in the US, all the while still legally in the position that they could be forced to return at any time is cruel and unjust. If that is happening to a large (or small) number of Indians presently in the US, I think it would be entirely reasonable to grant special consideration for them - as part of an overall immigration reform that would avoid situations in the future.
      - renewiltord2 6y ago
        Apologies for having to respond from here. I am currently rate limited. Made the new account so I could apologize for guessing at motivations. I believe mainstream immigration restrictions actually do not share your view on dual intent visas. Not many people support the position you have on Indian/Chinese who are present in America for a long time on their dual-intent visas. Consider my comments as being edited to not reference you but reference mainstream anti-immigration positions - none of which currently state any GC reforms that permit existing Indian/Chinese backlogs to be grandfathered in.
        lliamander 6y ago
        That you made this effort to apologize is quite commendable, thank you. And I may be mistaken on where the mainstream anti-immigration position is, though I do think that many/most people who are in favor of reducing immigration would also be amenable to some sort of a deal if it were on the table.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > you could easily turn off green cards and deport a quarter million Indians who have lived in America for ten years on temporary visas. That's not future immigration, that's past immigration fraudulently misrepresented as future immigration on paper.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Hey, sorry, I unfortunately cannot delete the comment so just responding to acknowledge. The 'temporary visas' are dual-intent so they are intended to be for immigration as well. There is no fraudulence there. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss this further.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > There is no fraudulence there. Sorry, I was insufficiently explicit. "Indians who have lived in America for ten years" are past immigrants. They have already immigrated. A effort to "curtail[] future immigration" that allows deporting them to be part of it is fraudulently misrepresenting that past immigration as part of the "future immigration" which it purports to curtail. The issuance of genuinely new visas (ie to people who have not yet immigrated) is a separate issue from renewing visas of people who have already immigrated, regardless of whether those are, on paper, both lumped into the single catagory of "[']temporary['] visas". > Unfortunately, I cannot discuss this further. Fair enough; good luck on whatever came up.