7 ms·

I never understand this argument. If someone leaves their country to migrate, aren't they looking for a better life ? Just because India requires you to live fo

I never understand this argument. If someone leaves their country to migrate, aren't they looking for a better life ? Just because India requires you to live for 12 years, Indian citizens should just shut up/put up with 18+ years of waiting because their country of origin has it worse/same ? This sounds a lot like "We gave you US citizenship. So shut up and stop criticizing the Govt because you came from a 3rd world country even though you are now a citizen of this country". So much for 1st Amendment or does it not apply to naturalized citizens ?

twofornone 4y ago
Are foreign peoples entitled to US citizenship? Where is the obligation to make the process easy and open to everyone coming from?
- codegeek 4y ago
  Not saying make it easy. Trust me, it is already extremely hard. But I am replying to GP's argument which is basically saying that you should shut up because you are coming from a country which has worse. 2 different things. And yes, there are people who make the argument that if you become a naturalized citizen, you have no right to criticize the Govt or the country since you came from a much worse place. I am tired of that BS. Google "Amy Wax India" and you will know what I am talking about.
  - rajup 4y ago
    Wow this "professor" is a fine piece of work!
- mirceal 4y ago
  you’re looking at this from the wrong angle. ask yourself: why would the US allow these people to come and work here in the first place? it’s because they NEED them. from highly skilled tech workers to “unskilled” low wage workers. Immigration and pumping human capital into our economy is the way the US stays/stayed? dominant and a superpower. Close the pipeline and in 10-20-30 years innovation is gone ,the edge we have us gone. The American dream fuels the growth. Act shitty toward the fuel, scratch your head why things fall apart.
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    We've already closed the pipeline. The talent is going elsewhere. We're in decline now.
    - mirceal 4y ago
      i would say we have strangled the pipeline. we still have some flow but not for long.
- Bhilai 4y ago
  Unless you are a native Indian I am going to assume if your grand parents immigrated to this country and become citizens here, yes?
  - Longlius 4y ago
    Not necessarily. My forebears came to this continent before there was a country, roughly 400 years ago.
    - valarauko 4y ago
      For what it's worth, 400 years is about 14 generations, and would constitute several thousand direct ancestors (~ 16K). Even accounting for pedigree collapse over the generations, for the vast majority of (non-Native Americans) Americans only a tiny sliver of those ancestors would have been on the continent at the time, if any.
    - analyst74 4y ago
      And they massacred the people who lived here before them and started a new country. You must be proud.
      - random314 4y ago
        You see, countries are formed by white people. What existed before can be safely ignored. Really shocking how an immigrant describing his decades long naturalization process has triggered so many white men!
        twofornone 4y ago
        When did overt racism become socially acceptable?
        random314 4y ago
        You should know, you practice it every day.
- chupkarkhotay 4y ago
  - twofornone 4y ago
    >Written ‘in sorrow and anger,’ this is a brilliant and urgently necessary book, eloquently making the case against bigotry and for all of us migrants If you have to hide your arguments behind accusations of bigotry, you don't have a very good argument. Border enforcement is about far more than blind xenophobia. Such accusations are reductive appeals to ethos over logos.
    - chupkarkhotay 4y ago
- random314 4y ago
  Were Europeans entitled to American land 500 years ago? What did Columbus' visa application look like?
  - twofornone 4y ago
    So because this land was colonized 500 years ago (as it was before Europeans arrived as well by the way, native Americans were not pacifists), we shouldn't enforce borders? How much time must pass after a land is conquered before nations are morally justified in enforcing sovereignty over borders? Particularly when the border belongs to a welfare state with finite resources and a host of internal issues that require fixing.
    - random314 4y ago
      We are talking about a less than 2 decade time horizon for citizenship for immigrants who are propping up your welfare state of birthright citizens with 100K$+ payments in income tax every year.
    - passivate 4y ago
      In this context of legal immigration, the point here isn't about sovereignty. It's simply documenting one persons experience - I don't see it as a call for open borders. Also, does the US recognize a country's sovereignty when it conducts its foreign affairs? It constantly meddles in the internal affairs of other countries, not to mention the countless military interventions over the years.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    So present-day immigration is a punishment for the founding sin of the USA?
    - random314 4y ago
      Immigration is what is propping this country's economy up. It is a tremendous gift, not a punishment- unless you are alluding to some wierd racial monoculture thing. The idea is to not look at a gift horse in the mouth. And stop punishing the most productive people in your economy. You don't want brexit thinking if you want to have an economy.
- guyzero 4y ago
  the standard response here is to ask which native american tribe you're a member of.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    The standard counter to that is "come and invade".
    - random314 4y ago
      The immigrants are here in the millions already. Look around you - unless you are in some bumfuck county with no economy.
- pgcj_poster 4y ago
  Legally, the US doesn't have an obligation to to do anything other than comply with the treaties it signs. It would be within its rights as a sovereign nation to require that everyone within its borders wear a rainbow wig and hop around on one leg. However, that would be a stupid policy that would make people's lives harder for no reason.
BeetleB 4y ago
I think it's simply fair to provide context and compare with other countries. While the US immigration process sucks compared to many countries, it very likely is in the top half of the world - most countries are simply worse. I've lived in places where you have a zero chance of getting permanent residency, let alone citizenship. Even if you marry a citizen. A friend of mine lives in a similar country. On paper there is a route to permanent residency, but no one gets it unless they're well connected to a senior government official. Lots of people living there for 30+ years who have to renew their status every few years. In parts of Switzerland, your neighbors will vote on whether to grant you citizenship. Of course - it is fair to criticize the US immigration process - particularly in regards to Chinese and Indians. It's also perfectly fair to be grateful that their is a path.
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  I've lived in places where you have a zero chance of getting permanent residency, let alone citizenship. Even if you marry a citizen. Could your share the places?
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    I tend not to share personal history, so I'll randomly pick one: > Another country that is very difficult to receive citizenship is Qatar. There are lengthy continuous residence requirements and not all children or spouses receive citizenship automatically. > Children born in Qatar to Qatari parents are automatically entitled to citizenship. Any person born with a Qatari father may apply to be a citizen, if they meet eligibility criteria. However, the same is not true for individuals with a Qatari mother. > People who qualify for permanent residence through naturalisation are those who have lived in Qatar for at least 20 years consecutively (if born outside Qatar) or ten years (if born there). > Applicants must be fluent in Arabic, hold good character, and be able to support themselves financially during their stay. > Although there are very generous government benefits available for citizens, the government only grants a maximum of 100 permanent residencies per year. So if you're male, marry a Qatari woman, your kids won't even be citizens. While there technically is a process to get permanent residency, you can see how limited it is - a max of 100 per year, and I bet the majority of those have government connections. Similar story with nearby countries.
rayiner 4y ago
It’s the lack of perspective that annoys me. It’s because America is so accommodating of immigrants compared to the rest of the world that you can talk like your ancestors built the country the minute you take the citizenship oath.
- random314 4y ago
  It should be made clear to the new citizens that some citizens are more equal than the others. /s
  - rayiner 4y ago
    My wife’s family fought in the American Revolution. Mine came here when Seinfeld had just come on the air. I think that makes a difference—the analogous facts would certainly matter in most other places in the world.
    - random314 4y ago
      Glad too see that you are in agreement with George Orwell. Some citizens indeed are more equal than the others! Also, you are talking about your wife's family?!!! You mean her great great grandparents or even earlier ancestors? I am very intrigued by this inheritance based credit system that you are proposing that goes beyond wealth inheritance? Do you still get points if your ancestors participated in the revolt but were highly incompetent? How many points do you lose if some of the ancestors fought on the British side? Do you gain or lose points for capturing native American territory and massacring them? Do you also get to keep the points earned by the slaves the ancestors owned or do they go to the descendants of the slaves? Do you gain/lose points for dropping napalm in Vietnam or searching for WMDs in Iraq? I find this line of argument intriguing. I have soooooo many questions!
      - rayiner 4y ago
        > inheritance based credit system It's not about "assigning points" but rather distinguishing "of a place" from "foreign to a place." I think I win on points--my family was wealthy landowners in Bangladesh, and her's settled the west coast of the US. My family had indoor plumbing way earlier than her's did. But that doesn't mean I'm "of the U.S." just because I'm a citizen in the same way she is "of the U.S." The U.S. as it exists today reflects the culture that her ancestors handed down to her much more than it reflects the one mine handed down to me. > I find this line of argument intriguing. I have soooooo many questions! I have come to the conclusion that most Americans don't understand that culture exists in the same way most can't tell the difference between the national deficit and the national debt. They know the words, but don't actually grasp the concept.
lbrito 4y ago
Its called Reciprocity and its a pretty well-established concept in diplomacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(international_rel...
newsclues 4y ago
Maybe immigration should not be frictionless?

twofornone 4y ago

Are foreign peoples entitled to US citizenship? Where is the obligation to make the process easy and open to everyone coming from?

codegeek 4y ago
Not saying make it easy. Trust me, it is already extremely hard. But I am replying to GP's argument which is basically saying that you should shut up because you are coming from a country which has worse. 2 different things. And yes, there are people who make the argument that if you become a naturalized citizen, you have no right to criticize the Govt or the country since you came from a much worse place. I am tired of that BS. Google "Amy Wax India" and you will know what I am talking about.
- rajup 4y ago
  Wow this "professor" is a fine piece of work!
mirceal 4y ago
you’re looking at this from the wrong angle. ask yourself: why would the US allow these people to come and work here in the first place? it’s because they NEED them. from highly skilled tech workers to “unskilled” low wage workers. Immigration and pumping human capital into our economy is the way the US stays/stayed? dominant and a superpower. Close the pipeline and in 10-20-30 years innovation is gone ,the edge we have us gone. The American dream fuels the growth. Act shitty toward the fuel, scratch your head why things fall apart.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  We've already closed the pipeline. The talent is going elsewhere. We're in decline now.
  - mirceal 4y ago
    i would say we have strangled the pipeline. we still have some flow but not for long.
Bhilai 4y ago
Unless you are a native Indian I am going to assume if your grand parents immigrated to this country and become citizens here, yes?
- Longlius 4y ago
  Not necessarily. My forebears came to this continent before there was a country, roughly 400 years ago.
  - valarauko 4y ago
    For what it's worth, 400 years is about 14 generations, and would constitute several thousand direct ancestors (~ 16K). Even accounting for pedigree collapse over the generations, for the vast majority of (non-Native Americans) Americans only a tiny sliver of those ancestors would have been on the continent at the time, if any.
  - analyst74 4y ago
    And they massacred the people who lived here before them and started a new country. You must be proud.
    - random314 4y ago
      You see, countries are formed by white people. What existed before can be safely ignored. Really shocking how an immigrant describing his decades long naturalization process has triggered so many white men!
      - twofornone 4y ago
        When did overt racism become socially acceptable?
        random314 4y ago
        You should know, you practice it every day.
chupkarkhotay 4y ago
- twofornone 4y ago
  >Written ‘in sorrow and anger,’ this is a brilliant and urgently necessary book, eloquently making the case against bigotry and for all of us migrants If you have to hide your arguments behind accusations of bigotry, you don't have a very good argument. Border enforcement is about far more than blind xenophobia. Such accusations are reductive appeals to ethos over logos.
  - chupkarkhotay 4y ago
random314 4y ago
Were Europeans entitled to American land 500 years ago? What did Columbus' visa application look like?
- twofornone 4y ago
  So because this land was colonized 500 years ago (as it was before Europeans arrived as well by the way, native Americans were not pacifists), we shouldn't enforce borders? How much time must pass after a land is conquered before nations are morally justified in enforcing sovereignty over borders? Particularly when the border belongs to a welfare state with finite resources and a host of internal issues that require fixing.
  - random314 4y ago
    We are talking about a less than 2 decade time horizon for citizenship for immigrants who are propping up your welfare state of birthright citizens with 100K$+ payments in income tax every year.
  - passivate 4y ago
    In this context of legal immigration, the point here isn't about sovereignty. It's simply documenting one persons experience - I don't see it as a call for open borders. Also, does the US recognize a country's sovereignty when it conducts its foreign affairs? It constantly meddles in the internal affairs of other countries, not to mention the countless military interventions over the years.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  So present-day immigration is a punishment for the founding sin of the USA?
  - random314 4y ago
    Immigration is what is propping this country's economy up. It is a tremendous gift, not a punishment- unless you are alluding to some wierd racial monoculture thing. The idea is to not look at a gift horse in the mouth. And stop punishing the most productive people in your economy. You don't want brexit thinking if you want to have an economy.
guyzero 4y ago
the standard response here is to ask which native american tribe you're a member of.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  The standard counter to that is "come and invade".
  - random314 4y ago
    The immigrants are here in the millions already. Look around you - unless you are in some bumfuck county with no economy.
pgcj_poster 4y ago
Legally, the US doesn't have an obligation to to do anything other than comply with the treaties it signs. It would be within its rights as a sovereign nation to require that everyone within its borders wear a rainbow wig and hop around on one leg. However, that would be a stupid policy that would make people's lives harder for no reason.

BeetleB 4y ago

I think it's simply fair to provide context and compare with other countries. While the US immigration process sucks compared to many countries, it very likely is in the top half of the world - most countries are simply worse. I've lived in places where you have a zero chance of getting permanent residency, let alone citizenship. Even if you marry a citizen. A friend of mine lives in a similar country. On paper there is a route to permanent residency, but no one gets it unless they're well connected to a senior government official. Lots of people living there for 30+ years who have to renew their status every few years. In parts of Switzerland, your neighbors will vote on whether to grant you citizenship. Of course - it is fair to criticize the US immigration process - particularly in regards to Chinese and Indians. It's also perfectly fair to be grateful that their is a path.

throwaway2037 4y ago
I've lived in places where you have a zero chance of getting permanent residency, let alone citizenship. Even if you marry a citizen. Could your share the places?
- BeetleB 4y ago
  I tend not to share personal history, so I'll randomly pick one: > Another country that is very difficult to receive citizenship is Qatar. There are lengthy continuous residence requirements and not all children or spouses receive citizenship automatically. > Children born in Qatar to Qatari parents are automatically entitled to citizenship. Any person born with a Qatari father may apply to be a citizen, if they meet eligibility criteria. However, the same is not true for individuals with a Qatari mother. > People who qualify for permanent residence through naturalisation are those who have lived in Qatar for at least 20 years consecutively (if born outside Qatar) or ten years (if born there). > Applicants must be fluent in Arabic, hold good character, and be able to support themselves financially during their stay. > Although there are very generous government benefits available for citizens, the government only grants a maximum of 100 permanent residencies per year. So if you're male, marry a Qatari woman, your kids won't even be citizens. While there technically is a process to get permanent residency, you can see how limited it is - a max of 100 per year, and I bet the majority of those have government connections. Similar story with nearby countries.

rayiner 4y ago

It’s the lack of perspective that annoys me. It’s because America is so accommodating of immigrants compared to the rest of the world that you can talk like your ancestors built the country the minute you take the citizenship oath.

random314 4y ago
It should be made clear to the new citizens that some citizens are more equal than the others. /s
- rayiner 4y ago
  My wife’s family fought in the American Revolution. Mine came here when Seinfeld had just come on the air. I think that makes a difference—the analogous facts would certainly matter in most other places in the world.
  - random314 4y ago
    Glad too see that you are in agreement with George Orwell. Some citizens indeed are more equal than the others! Also, you are talking about your wife's family?!!! You mean her great great grandparents or even earlier ancestors? I am very intrigued by this inheritance based credit system that you are proposing that goes beyond wealth inheritance? Do you still get points if your ancestors participated in the revolt but were highly incompetent? How many points do you lose if some of the ancestors fought on the British side? Do you gain or lose points for capturing native American territory and massacring them? Do you also get to keep the points earned by the slaves the ancestors owned or do they go to the descendants of the slaves? Do you gain/lose points for dropping napalm in Vietnam or searching for WMDs in Iraq? I find this line of argument intriguing. I have soooooo many questions!
    - rayiner 4y ago
      > inheritance based credit system It's not about "assigning points" but rather distinguishing "of a place" from "foreign to a place." I think I win on points--my family was wealthy landowners in Bangladesh, and her's settled the west coast of the US. My family had indoor plumbing way earlier than her's did. But that doesn't mean I'm "of the U.S." just because I'm a citizen in the same way she is "of the U.S." The U.S. as it exists today reflects the culture that her ancestors handed down to her much more than it reflects the one mine handed down to me. > I find this line of argument intriguing. I have soooooo many questions! I have come to the conclusion that most Americans don't understand that culture exists in the same way most can't tell the difference between the national deficit and the national debt. They know the words, but don't actually grasp the concept.

lbrito 4y ago

Its called Reciprocity and its a pretty well-established concept in diplomacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(international_rel...

newsclues 4y ago

Maybe immigration should not be frictionless?