4 ms·

Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible

21 points by hammock 3y ago

piloto_ciego 3y ago
Borders are a curse on our world…
- rexpop 3y ago
  > The border is not just a wall. It’s not just a line on a map. It’s not any particular physical location. It’s a power structure, a system of control. The border is everywhere that people live in fear of deportation, everywhere migrants are denied the rights accorded citizens, everywhere human beings are segregated into included and excluded. — CrimethInc, No Wall They Can Build[0] 0. https://crimethinc.com/books/no-wall-they-can-build https://crimethinc.com/books/no-wall-they-can-build
  - pc86 3y ago
    What rights are legal migrants denied that are accorded to citizens?
    - robotresearcher 3y ago
      Voting. Unconditional residence. Green card holders have to spend most of their time in the US or lose their permanent resident status. No time out. Green cards have to be renewed.
      - pc86 3y ago
        Good luck convincing anyone outside of the fringe that non-citizens should have voting rights. I agree with you on the other two, though I certainly see a legitimate purpose in green cards having a renewal process. But you can get a re-entry permit and be outside of the US for up to 2 years and retain your green card status, it doesn't seem particularly onerous.
        robotresearcher 3y ago
        I wasn't arguing that non-citizens should have these rights, just stating some of the rights that they (we, in my case) don't have.
  - genman 3y ago
    While there is certain truth in it, I believe that a man needs certain belonging, certain responsibility. I have witnessed a (state wide) culture without it, it resulted in careless exploitation of natural resources and wide scale pollution and contamination of nature.
    - rexpop 3y ago
      I appreciate your remark. Perhaps you agree that part of what's missing from the worst of immigration (including settler colonialism) is humility and reverence for the land?
      - genman 3y ago
        Yes, for sure. * as a side note: I disagree with some false propaganda that tries to portrait Jewish people in Israel as settler colonists - you can't be a colonist on your own land - that would be absurd.
    - piloto_ciego 3y ago
      I belong to the earth, my family and my community… I don’t need an imaginary line to tell me where I belong.
      - genman 3y ago
        And yet you are incredibly naive to not understand the possibility that this "your community" can be easily overtaken and destroyed in the borderless world.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Are you also opposed to multi celled organisms? Basically the same concept at a different layer of abstraction.
  - episteme 3y ago
    This is a false analogy. Should states have borders like countries? Cities? Towns? Individuals streets? Reducing the argument down to 'we have to split the world into cells somehow' doesn't really progress the discussion of whether immigrants should have any less rights than natives.
- genman 3y ago
  Yes, of course, I completely agree and I plan to come to live in your home with you. I'll bring all my relatives also with me, so please plan your expenses accordingly.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Borders and personal property aren't the same and you know that. It would be "I'm buying land in your neighborhood, building a house, and bringing all my relatives." We have open borders between 50 different countries and people seem to like it.
    - genman 3y ago
      So you propose that if a new natural resource is discovered in one place then everybody should flock to that place and exploit it until it is exhausted and then move to another place? While I am supportive toward freedom of movement, I also believe that there should be certain control to limit over exploitation. The example with the home was perfectly fine to illustrate that there are always limits as the resources are not unbounded.
  - rafaelero 3y ago
    I think he meant countries borders, which should probably be the conclusion you would have reached if you weren't being so obtuse.
    - genman 3y ago
      The example was consciously made like this to illustrate clear limits of resources. While I support freedom of movement in general, it for sure creates numerous problems that have been on multiple occasions also discussed here as it can happen also within a single country when single place will attract too many people in too short time span. It is a common demand here by fresh immigrants of SF to the people who have lived there for generations to make room for them, destroy their homes as they want to move in instead. I think it very closely correlates with my example, to be honest.
pthiel 3y ago
it's not a bug it's a feature the current system works pretty well. the us doesn't deport most illegals. their children will all be citizens, allowing for a de facto backdoor immigration system (if you're never deported, it doesn't matter as much you don't have citizenship) borders are important so cities aren't completely overrun with immigrants - like texas has been dealing with for years, and just now the libs are starting to realize doesn't work in cities like NY and Chicago (wrt budgeted services, housing etc, spare me the nyc was built by immigrants spiel)
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  > it's a feature It seems awfully dysfunctional for a country which would like to portray itself as subject to the rule of law (although dysfunction may count as a feature, depending upon one's politics?). Luckily, legal emigration is still possible (or at least was, back when I did). > "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" — EL
  - emmet 3y ago
    The country is the poster child for pulling the ladder up after yourself.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > Luckily, legal emigration is still possible You can legally leave the US, but only with the permission of the US government. They can deny you a passport, or revoke the one you have, for any reason and at that point you are not allowed to leave. It's kind of weird to think about how we didn't ask to be born here, but we're expected to follow the laws and if we don't like it we can't even leave and go where the rules are more favorable to us without permission from the government we're born under. I'll always poke fun at the crazy sovereign citizen crowd, but on a certain level I can sympathize with the feeling that there's a certain type of injustice being born under the rule of someone else.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > the current system works pretty well. the us doesn't deport most illegals. their children will all be citizens, allowing for a de facto backdoor immigration system (if you're never deported, it doesn't matter as much you don't have citizenship) I strongly disagree. I think it's disgusting that the US encourages and even prefers to have a massive underclass of easily and very often exploited people without the rights and protections everyone else has. The current system enables human rights abuses so that businesses can have the next best thing to slaves. It would be a massive improvement if we actually regulated immigration properly, enforced the laws, and made sure that workers in America were typically Americans who earned a decent wage and had equal rights under the law.
tomohelix 3y ago
Why would this be flagged? They made a pretty good case. I personally know someone who has been in the US for more than 10 years, highly educated (with a PhD in engineering), employed in healthcare research, pay more taxes than most American, never break a law, etc. Basically the ideal citizen. Except he isn't a US citizen and according to him, unless he marry a citizen, it isn't likely for him to be one anytime soon.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  What kind of visa is he on that allows him to work in the USA for more than 10 years without getting a green card (which directly leads to citizenship)? Definitely not an H1B, unless he is eligible for a green card but from India, or maybe china, and is waiting for quota? The USA doesn’t r have many ways to let people stay that long legally without getting a green card. Which, but the way, if you mary a us citizen, that’s also all you can get (citizenship comes later after holding a green card for N years, where I think N is 3?).
  - trimistermota 3y ago
    H1b has country specific caps. So Indians for example cannot get Green cards for 30 years something.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      The usa is weird in that most working visas terminate in permanent residency, with only the quota system in place affecting India, Mexico, maybe China and the Philippines. But, in some countries like China, your hope of getting permanent residency is slim, no matter how many times you renew your Z visa, and even marriage doesn’t do much.

21 points by hammock 3y ago

piloto_ciego 3y ago

Borders are a curse on our world…

rexpop 3y ago
> The border is not just a wall. It’s not just a line on a map. It’s not any particular physical location. It’s a power structure, a system of control. The border is everywhere that people live in fear of deportation, everywhere migrants are denied the rights accorded citizens, everywhere human beings are segregated into included and excluded. — CrimethInc, No Wall They Can Build[0] 0. https://crimethinc.com/books/no-wall-they-can-build https://crimethinc.com/books/no-wall-they-can-build
- pc86 3y ago
  What rights are legal migrants denied that are accorded to citizens?
  - robotresearcher 3y ago
    Voting. Unconditional residence. Green card holders have to spend most of their time in the US or lose their permanent resident status. No time out. Green cards have to be renewed.
    - pc86 3y ago
      Good luck convincing anyone outside of the fringe that non-citizens should have voting rights. I agree with you on the other two, though I certainly see a legitimate purpose in green cards having a renewal process. But you can get a re-entry permit and be outside of the US for up to 2 years and retain your green card status, it doesn't seem particularly onerous.
      - robotresearcher 3y ago
        I wasn't arguing that non-citizens should have these rights, just stating some of the rights that they (we, in my case) don't have.
- genman 3y ago
  While there is certain truth in it, I believe that a man needs certain belonging, certain responsibility. I have witnessed a (state wide) culture without it, it resulted in careless exploitation of natural resources and wide scale pollution and contamination of nature.
  - rexpop 3y ago
    I appreciate your remark. Perhaps you agree that part of what's missing from the worst of immigration (including settler colonialism) is humility and reverence for the land?
    - genman 3y ago
      Yes, for sure. * as a side note: I disagree with some false propaganda that tries to portrait Jewish people in Israel as settler colonists - you can't be a colonist on your own land - that would be absurd.
  - piloto_ciego 3y ago
    I belong to the earth, my family and my community… I don’t need an imaginary line to tell me where I belong.
    - genman 3y ago
      And yet you are incredibly naive to not understand the possibility that this "your community" can be easily overtaken and destroyed in the borderless world.
pfannkuchen 3y ago
Are you also opposed to multi celled organisms? Basically the same concept at a different layer of abstraction.
- episteme 3y ago
  This is a false analogy. Should states have borders like countries? Cities? Towns? Individuals streets? Reducing the argument down to 'we have to split the world into cells somehow' doesn't really progress the discussion of whether immigrants should have any less rights than natives.
genman 3y ago
Yes, of course, I completely agree and I plan to come to live in your home with you. I'll bring all my relatives also with me, so please plan your expenses accordingly.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Borders and personal property aren't the same and you know that. It would be "I'm buying land in your neighborhood, building a house, and bringing all my relatives." We have open borders between 50 different countries and people seem to like it.
  - genman 3y ago
    So you propose that if a new natural resource is discovered in one place then everybody should flock to that place and exploit it until it is exhausted and then move to another place? While I am supportive toward freedom of movement, I also believe that there should be certain control to limit over exploitation. The example with the home was perfectly fine to illustrate that there are always limits as the resources are not unbounded.
- rafaelero 3y ago
  I think he meant countries borders, which should probably be the conclusion you would have reached if you weren't being so obtuse.
  - genman 3y ago
    The example was consciously made like this to illustrate clear limits of resources. While I support freedom of movement in general, it for sure creates numerous problems that have been on multiple occasions also discussed here as it can happen also within a single country when single place will attract too many people in too short time span. It is a common demand here by fresh immigrants of SF to the people who have lived there for generations to make room for them, destroy their homes as they want to move in instead. I think it very closely correlates with my example, to be honest.

pthiel 3y ago

it's not a bug it's a feature the current system works pretty well. the us doesn't deport most illegals. their children will all be citizens, allowing for a de facto backdoor immigration system (if you're never deported, it doesn't matter as much you don't have citizenship) borders are important so cities aren't completely overrun with immigrants - like texas has been dealing with for years, and just now the libs are starting to realize doesn't work in cities like NY and Chicago (wrt budgeted services, housing etc, spare me the nyc was built by immigrants spiel)

082349872349872 3y ago
> it's a feature It seems awfully dysfunctional for a country which would like to portray itself as subject to the rule of law (although dysfunction may count as a feature, depending upon one's politics?). Luckily, legal emigration is still possible (or at least was, back when I did). > "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" — EL
- emmet 3y ago
  The country is the poster child for pulling the ladder up after yourself.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Luckily, legal emigration is still possible You can legally leave the US, but only with the permission of the US government. They can deny you a passport, or revoke the one you have, for any reason and at that point you are not allowed to leave. It's kind of weird to think about how we didn't ask to be born here, but we're expected to follow the laws and if we don't like it we can't even leave and go where the rules are more favorable to us without permission from the government we're born under. I'll always poke fun at the crazy sovereign citizen crowd, but on a certain level I can sympathize with the feeling that there's a certain type of injustice being born under the rule of someone else.
autoexec 3y ago
> the current system works pretty well. the us doesn't deport most illegals. their children will all be citizens, allowing for a de facto backdoor immigration system (if you're never deported, it doesn't matter as much you don't have citizenship) I strongly disagree. I think it's disgusting that the US encourages and even prefers to have a massive underclass of easily and very often exploited people without the rights and protections everyone else has. The current system enables human rights abuses so that businesses can have the next best thing to slaves. It would be a massive improvement if we actually regulated immigration properly, enforced the laws, and made sure that workers in America were typically Americans who earned a decent wage and had equal rights under the law.

tomohelix 3y ago

Why would this be flagged? They made a pretty good case. I personally know someone who has been in the US for more than 10 years, highly educated (with a PhD in engineering), employed in healthcare research, pay more taxes than most American, never break a law, etc. Basically the ideal citizen. Except he isn't a US citizen and according to him, unless he marry a citizen, it isn't likely for him to be one anytime soon.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
What kind of visa is he on that allows him to work in the USA for more than 10 years without getting a green card (which directly leads to citizenship)? Definitely not an H1B, unless he is eligible for a green card but from India, or maybe china, and is waiting for quota? The USA doesn’t r have many ways to let people stay that long legally without getting a green card. Which, but the way, if you mary a us citizen, that’s also all you can get (citizenship comes later after holding a green card for N years, where I think N is 3?).
- trimistermota 3y ago
  H1b has country specific caps. So Indians for example cannot get Green cards for 30 years something.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    The usa is weird in that most working visas terminate in permanent residency, with only the quota system in place affecting India, Mexico, maybe China and the Philippines. But, in some countries like China, your hope of getting permanent residency is slim, no matter how many times you renew your Z visa, and even marriage doesn’t do much.