7 ms·

This article is very light on actual stats and heavy on random opinion. The writer resorts to laundering her opinion via the other people's quotes instead of ha

by bruceb 4y ago

This article is very light on actual stats and heavy on random opinion. The writer resorts to laundering her opinion via the other people's quotes instead of hard facts The forms for marriage and fiance visas for the US are readily available for anyone to check: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/family-immigration/immigrant-visa-for-a-spouse-or-fiance-of-a-us-citizen.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat... https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/family-immigration/nonimmigrant-visa-for-a-fiance-k-1.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat... "Throughout the process, the couples — and the noncitizens in particular — have little to no expectation of privacy. The noncitizens submit bank statements, detailed medical records (including regarding their sexual and mental health), criminal history, and biometric information." Yes unsurprisingly a country wants to do basic background checks on people it is making permanent residents and then citizens.

steele 4y ago
"Give me your tired, your poor, your bank statements, your sexual proclivities, your vial of saliva, perhaps a pantone swatch best describing your hue in the winter."
- bruceb 4y ago
  No where is sexual proclivities asked for. Ellis island immigration also rejected people on medical ground.
  - steele 4y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20210122120744/https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sexually-inappropriate-behavior-runs-rife-in-15889003.php https://web.archive.org/web/20210122120744/https://www.sfchr...
    - bruceb 4y ago
      Whole long article in which no where were perspective immigrants asked about their sexual behavior.
      - steele 4y ago
        I can't aid your comprehension. Good luck navigating life, top G.
        bruceb 4y ago
        You seem not to be able to supply any content from the article you posted that directly supports your claim.
makeitdouble 4y ago
Medical record is out of question in most countries. The UK one for instance: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1115156/Guide_AN_Naturalisation_Booklet_The_Requirements_and_The_Process.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- jimbob45 4y ago
  Okay, but America accepts more immigrants than any other country by orders of magnitude. That’s always forgotten whenever this discussion is brought up.
  - gumby 4y ago
    Why do people repeat this canard? I saw it on HN yesterday. Meanwhile, after ignoring very small countries, countries like Australia and Switzerland have twice the percentage (about 30%) of immigrant residents than the USA, (about 15% — even Germany has more). The US is a large country so the absolute number is higher than, say, Switzerland, but not by orders of magnitude.
  - mhandley 4y ago
    Yes, but by immigrants as a fraction of population, the US doesn't score especially high. Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Israel, Canada, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Belgium and Norway all have a higher fraction of the population being immigrants, amongst many more. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigrati...
    - jimbob45 4y ago
      I'm not really interested in total number of immigrants currently in place, rather, the immigration by year (particularly the current year). Examining that required that we analyze the choices of past administrations and pore through historical events that may have affected immigration. It's much more useful, in my opinion, to look at how the choices governments are making today are affecting their immigration numbers today. You're not wrong that the numbers on immigration percentages are a bit skewed but that's not a debate that I find worthwhile.
csomar 4y ago
> Yes unsurprisingly a country wants to do basic background checks on people it is making permanent residents and then citizens. This will not stop the worst from coming, at best; but might discourage the best from doing it. It’s stupid and inhuman.
- bruceb 4y ago
  It clearly doesn't. What specifically in the background check requirements is inhuman?
  - monksy 4y ago
    Detailed financial records and the sex+mental health history detail.
    - bruceb 4y ago
      Here are the docs required: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/step-5-collect-financial-evidence-and-other-supporting-documents/step-7-collect-civil-documents.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat... Nowhere are questions about the couple's sex life asked about. The only question is if the person has been a sex worker (which is good to know to see if the person is being sex trafficked). They are asked about criminal record, sold drugs, or been a terrorist. Yes the person does a medical exam. The person does list their assets and work history. America is actually pretty lax when it comes to financial support. The person petitioning for their spouse or would be spouse only has to earn 125% of the fed poverty line, that is less than $25k a year or about $12 an hour. Nothing is inhuman in the questions asked and hardly different than what most other countries ask for. But this doesn't make for a good click-bait story, so some 'journalists' need to make vague insinuations to the contrary. The system can be improved for sure but so much of what is alluded to just isn't accurate.
      - colmmacc 4y ago
        I had lived in the US for 7 years on visas before I could apply for a green card. It was only that point that the system asked for a medical to get inoculated and check if I had any communicable diseases like HIV or TB. That definitely seemed inhuman. My own doctor couldn't do it, and previous medicals didn't count. I'd already had 7 years to transmit those diseases; a test prior to moving to the US would have made more sense. And with all of that, testing positive wouldn't even disqualify me, I'd just have to get treatment ... it just seems so laughably idiotic. Putting people through a Kafka-esque routine because immigration politics have been dysfunctional for half a century.
cbsmith 4y ago
I don't see how the forms for visas contradict anything in the story. It's not about what the minimum requirement is to apply. > Yes unsurprisingly a country wants to do basic background checks on people it is making permanent residents and then citizens. I would point out that if you're native born, the government generally considers this stuff private and makes an effort to protect it (one exception: biometric information is collected from some government employees).

by bruceb 4y ago

steele 4y ago

"Give me your tired, your poor, your bank statements, your sexual proclivities, your vial of saliva, perhaps a pantone swatch best describing your hue in the winter."

bruceb 4y ago
No where is sexual proclivities asked for. Ellis island immigration also rejected people on medical ground.
- steele 4y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20210122120744/https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sexually-inappropriate-behavior-runs-rife-in-15889003.php https://web.archive.org/web/20210122120744/https://www.sfchr...
  - bruceb 4y ago
    Whole long article in which no where were perspective immigrants asked about their sexual behavior.
    - steele 4y ago
      I can't aid your comprehension. Good luck navigating life, top G.
      - bruceb 4y ago
        You seem not to be able to supply any content from the article you posted that directly supports your claim.

makeitdouble 4y ago

Medical record is out of question in most countries. The UK one for instance: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1115156/Guide_AN_Naturalisation_Booklet_The_Requirements_and_The_Process.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

jimbob45 4y ago
Okay, but America accepts more immigrants than any other country by orders of magnitude. That’s always forgotten whenever this discussion is brought up.
- gumby 4y ago
  Why do people repeat this canard? I saw it on HN yesterday. Meanwhile, after ignoring very small countries, countries like Australia and Switzerland have twice the percentage (about 30%) of immigrant residents than the USA, (about 15% — even Germany has more). The US is a large country so the absolute number is higher than, say, Switzerland, but not by orders of magnitude.
- mhandley 4y ago
  Yes, but by immigrants as a fraction of population, the US doesn't score especially high. Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Israel, Canada, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Belgium and Norway all have a higher fraction of the population being immigrants, amongst many more. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigrati...
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    I'm not really interested in total number of immigrants currently in place, rather, the immigration by year (particularly the current year). Examining that required that we analyze the choices of past administrations and pore through historical events that may have affected immigration. It's much more useful, in my opinion, to look at how the choices governments are making today are affecting their immigration numbers today. You're not wrong that the numbers on immigration percentages are a bit skewed but that's not a debate that I find worthwhile.

csomar 4y ago

> Yes unsurprisingly a country wants to do basic background checks on people it is making permanent residents and then citizens. This will not stop the worst from coming, at best; but might discourage the best from doing it. It’s stupid and inhuman.

bruceb 4y ago
It clearly doesn't. What specifically in the background check requirements is inhuman?
- monksy 4y ago
  Detailed financial records and the sex+mental health history detail.
  - bruceb 4y ago
    Here are the docs required: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/step-5-collect-financial-evidence-and-other-supporting-documents/step-7-collect-civil-documents.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat... Nowhere are questions about the couple's sex life asked about. The only question is if the person has been a sex worker (which is good to know to see if the person is being sex trafficked). They are asked about criminal record, sold drugs, or been a terrorist. Yes the person does a medical exam. The person does list their assets and work history. America is actually pretty lax when it comes to financial support. The person petitioning for their spouse or would be spouse only has to earn 125% of the fed poverty line, that is less than $25k a year or about $12 an hour. Nothing is inhuman in the questions asked and hardly different than what most other countries ask for. But this doesn't make for a good click-bait story, so some 'journalists' need to make vague insinuations to the contrary. The system can be improved for sure but so much of what is alluded to just isn't accurate.
    - colmmacc 4y ago
      I had lived in the US for 7 years on visas before I could apply for a green card. It was only that point that the system asked for a medical to get inoculated and check if I had any communicable diseases like HIV or TB. That definitely seemed inhuman. My own doctor couldn't do it, and previous medicals didn't count. I'd already had 7 years to transmit those diseases; a test prior to moving to the US would have made more sense. And with all of that, testing positive wouldn't even disqualify me, I'd just have to get treatment ... it just seems so laughably idiotic. Putting people through a Kafka-esque routine because immigration politics have been dysfunctional for half a century.

cbsmith 4y ago

I don't see how the forms for visas contradict anything in the story. It's not about what the minimum requirement is to apply. > Yes unsurprisingly a country wants to do basic background checks on people it is making permanent residents and then citizens. I would point out that if you're native born, the government generally considers this stuff private and makes an effort to protect it (one exception: biometric information is collected from some government employees).