4 ms·

Not really on topic but I've never understood why a country like the US, with the underlying ideology being what it is, wouldn't allow anyone in the world to li

by hnarn 6y ago

Not really on topic but I've never understood why a country like the US, with the underlying ideology being what it is, wouldn't allow anyone in the world to live in the US as long as they don't use any social services. For example, if someone has enough money for one year of rent and health insurance, and is not deemed a security risk, why not instantly admit them? If they get a job and pay tax, you let them stay as long as they pay tax. If they keep this up for X amount of years, offer them a citizenship.

bdcravens 6y ago
Xenophobia and nationalism.
mariksolo 6y ago
Because they would always get social services. Undocumented children can get financial aid for college, for example, in California. While the thing you're saying sounds reasonable it just practically isn't possible to workout in US politics.
- hnarn 6y ago
  Obviously the current legislation is made with current circumstances in mind. If tourists can't get financial aid for college there's no reason these hypothetical renters must.
5560675260 6y ago
This could be an interesting experiment, but I don't think that this would be really practical for two reasons: a) you can't realistically expect this class of immigrants not to use any social service (especially emergency), there will be costs that US isn't prepared to pay b) there are bound to be negative consequences for having a explosively growing number of poorly integrated people that are treated as second class by the government
- hnarn 6y ago
  a) you could have a mandatory one time cost that reflects the average likelihood and cost of them using it (ie up front insurance) b) the US is already filled with "poorly integrated" people, the whole country was founded on immigration. The only way you'd necessarily be treated as "second class" is by not being eligible to vote, which tourists also aren't and they don't seem to mind much. The specifics of what to charge and what to demand are obviously flexible, but to me the net positive seems pretty obvious.
notriddle 6y ago
Because preventing unlicensed people from using the fire department is impossible without hurting the people who do use it.
- hnarn 6y ago
  By that logic you shouldn't allow tourists either, as far as I know they don't pay for emergency services, or most of the roads, or whatever else public costs there are. (And in addition, nothing is stopping you from charging them for the average possibility of them using it)
EricE 6y ago
>as long as they don't use any social services. And just how do you intend to enforce that? It sounds nice, but we can't deal with fraud - let alone trying to determine who should and shouldn't get something on that kind of scale. How about the rest of the world adopting more of what makes people want to come to the US? Seems to be more rational (and sustainable) than advocating that everyone should just be able to come to the US.
- hnarn 6y ago
  Then don't enforce it and charge for it. As for your second point it's just so far off topic I won't warrant it with a response. I never even insinuated that the US is a model country.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > And just how do you intend to enforce that? You'd think a country with a budget of multiple trillions of dollars a year could afford some fingerprint readers and a SQL database.

by hnarn 6y ago

bdcravens 6y ago

Xenophobia and nationalism.

mariksolo 6y ago

Because they would always get social services. Undocumented children can get financial aid for college, for example, in California. While the thing you're saying sounds reasonable it just practically isn't possible to workout in US politics.

hnarn 6y ago
Obviously the current legislation is made with current circumstances in mind. If tourists can't get financial aid for college there's no reason these hypothetical renters must.

5560675260 6y ago

This could be an interesting experiment, but I don't think that this would be really practical for two reasons: a) you can't realistically expect this class of immigrants not to use any social service (especially emergency), there will be costs that US isn't prepared to pay b) there are bound to be negative consequences for having a explosively growing number of poorly integrated people that are treated as second class by the government

hnarn 6y ago
a) you could have a mandatory one time cost that reflects the average likelihood and cost of them using it (ie up front insurance) b) the US is already filled with "poorly integrated" people, the whole country was founded on immigration. The only way you'd necessarily be treated as "second class" is by not being eligible to vote, which tourists also aren't and they don't seem to mind much. The specifics of what to charge and what to demand are obviously flexible, but to me the net positive seems pretty obvious.

notriddle 6y ago

Because preventing unlicensed people from using the fire department is impossible without hurting the people who do use it.

hnarn 6y ago
By that logic you shouldn't allow tourists either, as far as I know they don't pay for emergency services, or most of the roads, or whatever else public costs there are. (And in addition, nothing is stopping you from charging them for the average possibility of them using it)

EricE 6y ago

>as long as they don't use any social services. And just how do you intend to enforce that? It sounds nice, but we can't deal with fraud - let alone trying to determine who should and shouldn't get something on that kind of scale. How about the rest of the world adopting more of what makes people want to come to the US? Seems to be more rational (and sustainable) than advocating that everyone should just be able to come to the US.

hnarn 6y ago
Then don't enforce it and charge for it. As for your second point it's just so far off topic I won't warrant it with a response. I never even insinuated that the US is a model country.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
yellowapple 6y ago
> And just how do you intend to enforce that? You'd think a country with a budget of multiple trillions of dollars a year could afford some fingerprint readers and a SQL database.