6 ms·

Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible: US Legal Immigration Rules Explained

48 points by zerr 2y ago

crimsoneer 2y ago
It's interesting how Cato, that would once have been considered relatively fringe, is ending up opposing some of the more nationalist instincts of the administration.
- jerkstate 2y ago
  Not really - this is just more Koch free-trade “libertarianism” where the costs are socialized and benefits accrue to only the wealthiest capitalists. Par for the course for Cato.
  - JackFr 2y ago
    The benefits don’t accrue to the capitalists they accrue to consumers. Capitalists don’t get rich stealing from workers. The get rich improving the lives of consumers.
    - tkel 2y ago
      In a capitalist organization, by definition the capitalists take the productive output from the workers, and sell it, pocketing the difference, and deciding dictatorially how to distribute the revenue. So yes, by definition they are grifting off of the workers.
    - jmpman 2y ago
      The alternative to immigrant minimum wage strawberry pickers is native born strawberry pickers who would demand significantly higher wages. The capitalists get rich by selling more strawberries at a lower price. It can be both bad for native born strawberry pickers as well as good for consumers. But there are few native born strawberry pickers who have a political voice. Substitute strawberry pickers with software developers, and now you’re talking about the native born HN crowd.
- tombert 2y ago
  I think Cato has always held that we should loosen our restrictions on the border, so if an administration goes against that stance then they're going to oppose parts of that administration.
xiphias2 2y ago
[flagged]
- Matheus28 2y ago
  Illegal immigrants can’t vote. Permanent residents can’t vote either. You can only vote once you acquire citizenship (which means doing the whole immigration process, then waiting several more years to be able to apply for citizenship).
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    And waiting 1-3 years to actually get citizenship once you've applied. It was ~18 months for my wife. It also took nearly a year to get a visa for her to move here.
  - tombert 2y ago
    Yeah, and it's much harder to get the permanent resident and citizenship status than everyone seems to think it is. My wife was brought here when she was eight years old, and was able to apply for a quasi-legal status when Obama enacted DACA. When we got married, we were frustrated to find out that we couldn't actually apply for her green card because she was still considered "illegal". Eventually we got an attorney and she was able to find a waiver for us to apply for a green card, but that took three years of waiting. She finally is qualified to apply for citizenship now, and she has, but we're waiting (probably another five to six months) for an update on that. When we got married, everyone acted like I was some sort of idiot because "obviously" you get a green card automatically if you marry a citizen. Apparently people are getting their understanding of immigration law from sitcoms.
- tomrod 2y ago
  > because it's much easier to control the voting patterns of illegal immigrants In 2016, 19 foreign nationals were indicted for illegally voting in the US elections: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indicted-illegally-voting-2016-elections https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indic... If there were evidence of widespread voting irregularities to support the tired claim that "illegal" immigrants are voting, the logically we'd see more enforcement when the "wrong" side wins.
pton_xd 2y ago
Conclusion: "The administration should loosen all the restrictions that it has imposed above and beyond what Congress has required, and Congress should overhaul the system to open legal immigration for any person willing to work to contribute to the success of the United States." In other words, we should "promptly admit a majority of the 158 million who told Gallup that they would want to come," according to the 2018 survey cited. Left out of the article is an explanation for why the US would be better off it that were to happen.
- tombert 2y ago
  The Cato institute has actually written a lot of stuff about why they believe that admitting in more immigrants would be beneficial to the US. A quick search came up with this [1], but they've written a lot more. You don't have to agree with them, but I'm just saying that they actually have done a fair bit of work in this field and they have given some amount of justification to why they hold these views. [1] https://www.cato.org/testimony/unlocking-americas-potential-how-immigration-fuels-economic-growth-our-competitive https://www.cato.org/testimony/unlocking-americas-potential-...
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  All immigration is GDP additive and increases the market for goods and tax income for governments. It offsets low birth rates. If there is a labor shortage it will reduce inflation. Of course there many considerations but generally it's a good thing.
  - jalapenos 2y ago
    It's a good thing for those classes of people you just mentioned (governments, business owners). For everyone else it's just increased competition.
    - tombert 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure that's a pretty reductive take, and if you believe that then you should be ok with decreasing birth rates as well? Every baby born today could be competition for you or your kids in ~16-30 years.
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Do yourself a favor and just download the PDF, the page is huge with many large images. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-06/policy-analysis-950-updated.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-06/policy-ana...
blindriver 2y ago
Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. This is the underlying truth that is indisputable. This article says that it grants 1 million green cards per year to legal immigrants, which is extremely generous. To say it's "nearly impossible" is absurd. I myself, my wife, and 80% of my friends are all legal immigrants to the US.
- programjames 2y ago
  It really isn't very hard to get a temporary O1 Visa, which can turn into a permanent E1/E2 visa. You just have to be extra-ordinary in your field. Pretty much every country wants to import people they know will make their country a better place—even North Korea lets Americans ("the enemy") teach at their universities—and it's not hard to demonstrate this.
  - Freedom2 2y ago
    > You just have to be extra-ordinary in your field. So pretty much most HN commenters, then.
    - kykeonaut 2y ago
      Seems like implicit bias. "Many people in my circle have an H1-B visa, thus it is far from impossible to get one."
      - uberman 2y ago
        H1-b visas are non-imigrant visas...
      - programjames 2y ago
        I'm perfectly aware most people would fail this easy task, but a thousand years ago most people would fail to read. Just because it's easy, doesn't mean most people will succeed.
renewiltord 2y ago
The US can use a lot more legal immigration. There's nothing wrong with a skill-based immigration program that doesn't necessarily only select for Nobel prize winners. With another hundred million people, and improved land use, we're talking perhaps another 100 years of Pax Americana. I think American should do this for her own sake and for the sake of humanity.
- rednafi 2y ago
  Nobel Prize winners are only allowed because the country is overwhelmed with illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees who contribute little to the system. However, there is a group that benefits from undocumented workers taking underpaid, off-the-books jobs, and they hold significant influence in policymaking.
  - kykeonaut 2y ago
    Isn't "contributing little to the system" and "taking underpaid jobs" a contradiction? If you are taking a job, you are contributing to the system.
    - rednafi 2y ago
      *little The country could focus on legal immigration and increase the contribution from little to more.
jalapenos 2y ago
This historical pattern is quite usual though right? Like Singapore did a similar thing. At the outset, before the country is rich, there's not the same incentives to immigrate as later. Price of admission rising as demand increases isn't that surprising. But again like another commenter mentioned, these arguments never care to address why the people already there would, as a whole, benefit from others coming. Sure, the state benefits from increase tax receipts, and the corporations benefit from increased labor supply. But all the people as a whole get is increased competition for everything. So I assume these Cato people are in a class that stands to benefit, and couldn't care less about other classes.
fatbird 2y ago
How many immigrants are allowed in is orthogonal to whether the process is efficient and direct. The process is insanely complicated and takes years and no small amount of luck, or dodging arbitrary discretionary decisions by mid-level bureaucrats. Reforming the process entails nothing about whether that means more or fewer legal immigrants are allowed in, and removes a huge incentive to bypass the process. In a previous job I helped H-1B cardholders get green cards. I kept getting applicants approaching me saying that they could get one easier with $5,000 in Chicago than waiting all this out. It was hard to argue against that.
legitster 2y ago
Milton Friedman: > If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutually benefit. > But on the other hand, if you come under circumstances where each person is entitled to a pro-rata share of the pot, to take an extreme example, or even to a low level of the pie, than the effect of that situation is that free immigration, would mean a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level. Of course, I’m exaggerating, it wouldn’t go quite that far, but it would go in that direction. And it is that perception, that leads people to adopt what at first seems like inconsistent values. > Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal. > That’s an interesting paradox to think about. Make it legal and it’s no good. Why? Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don’t qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They’re hard workers, they’re good workers, and they are clearly better off. Why is there so little legal immigration? Because American policymakers wanted more illegal immigrants. It was a good deal for everyone. You have cheap foreign workers contributing to the economy, but not qualifying for social services or legal protections. Previous politicians didn't mind looking the other way about how the sausage got made. Of course the age where politicians would make unappetizing Faustian bargains behind the scenes for the benefit of their constituents is probably gone.
- mzmzmzm 2y ago
  Couldn't you satisfy the patterns Friedman identifies just by having perpetually renewable work visas and a path to full citizenship after an arbitrary time like 10 years?
rednafi 2y ago
I worked in the US for about a year before moving to Europe. I would love to go back. The process of migrating to a new country with nothing but an H-1B visa tied to your job is extremely stressful. Some people find it worth the effort, but I believe in going where you’re treated best. That said, I made some good friends there, and living in an English-speaking country makes many things much easier. However, legal immigration can only function without making the host country unbearable for locals if illegal immigration is completely stopped. Every Mexican person I knew had several family members living in the States illegally and not contributing to the economy in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, I know a bunch of STEM postdocs who had to leave due to visa complications. The country needs to choose whom it wants to let in. As long as illegal immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers are allowed to stay without proper scrutiny, legal immigration will push away many of the best people you’d want in your country.
jacknews 2y ago
Just getting a visa has suddenly become near impossible it seems. My daughter just applied as part of a small tour of models/entertainers that were going to help raise funds to build a church (in the US), and was denied, due they said, to no evidence there was anything to compel her to leave the US and return home. She is a minor, still lives with us at home, and goes to senior high school, i mean, WTF? Also, I quote, she 'wouldn't want to live in US, if they paid (her) to'. This same group have been going for several years now, but suddenly they were all denied this year. The kicker is the visa fee of around $300 is forfeit, the denial notice says you can't appeal, but you can apply again, if you pay again. Riiggght. I really feel scammed. Is it possible to sue? I know an Aussie friend who successfully sued Australian immigration in a similar case for example.
programjames 2y ago
I feel like the reason immigration is a controversial issue is because people don't feel like one's circumstance of birth is really their "fault". If you don't have a choice in the matter, can you really be blamed? And thus, there's no reason people born in America should get any special privileges compared to those born elsewhere. I agree. If we could snap our fingers, and fix everything that went wrong in someone's life due to unforutunate circumstances, there is no reason they should be blamed. However, until we can, we have to blame people, even if they are not complicit in their circumstance. For example, if someone puts a gun to your head, and tells you to shoot a random passerby, I won't blame you very much when you stand in trial without a gun to your head. However, if that gun never leaves your head, e.g. you're part of an enemy military, it seems rather justified to shoot to kill on sight. Maybe you don't want to be there, but you cannot change your circumstance and neither can I, so I have to find fault (or die). Immigration seems similar. People who want to immigrate to the US are not complicit in their circumstance. If they could have been born in America, and gotten the education, resources, and connections Americans have, they would have. We can snap our fingers, and let them change nationalities, but it will not magically give them the same education, resources, or connections Americans have. And thus, we must find fault in them unless they come in with said education, resources, and connections. This is just game theory. I consider the purpose of "fault" or "blame" to determine who gets punished so that I am better off. Thus, if I will not be better off with someone immigrating into my country, I should blame them for the circumstances of their birth. Is it fair? "Fair" is a tricky word. At the very least, it seems right. An issue I find with lots of people on the pro-immigration side is they claim immigrants (1) take jobs I wouldn't want anyway, (2) boost the economy, (3) increase birthrates, and so on, but this doesn't answer why we should allow immigration. Everyone, even the restrict-immigration crowd, is pretty pro-immigration when it comes to people that will make their lives better. But, in America at least, the pro-immigration crowd seems to want completely open movement. Why would that be better than having your cake and eating it too? I.e. let anyone who is good for the economy in, and leave everyone else out?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
southernplaces7 2y ago
And why was this currently socially relevant post that comes from an organization which despite certain biases has lots of experience examining this very issue, flagged? Who are all these intolerant idiots flagging such content, and more importantly, why does this site keep maintaining such a stupid policy of letting a few rando readers with all their personal ideological baggage flag whatever the hell they want?
daft_pink 2y ago
As someone with a foreign born spouse that would like parents to visite often, the legal immigration system is absolutely terrible. However, I think there is no real incentive for compromise between the political parties until the border is secured and laws are enforced, because the status quo actually works better for some pro-immigration forces. They should reform everything, but I do think that the border needs to be secured and enforced before that can realistically happen. They need a path for legal immigration. They need to reform H1Bs so that they prioritize US degree holders and there is no country based quota on converting to permanent residence and those foreign citizens are not paid less or require complex sponsorships that ties them to an employer. They need to increase the speed that everything is processed and adjudicated at and enforce the laws and secure the border once they reach a compromise. They need to figure out a way to allow low skilled labor into the country. They should offer long term visit visas for foreign relatives that don’t actually want to live here. It’s bizarre that my sons grandparents basically need a green card to come and go as they please. They should amend the constitution so that foreign tourists who are here for a very short period of time don’t get birth right citizenship. There is just a huge amount of common sense fixes that need to be done, but once the fixes are applied they need to be totally and completely enforced.
Ferret7446 2y ago
The implication here is that illegal immigration is somehow morally and/or legally justified if legal immigration is too hard. Or that a country is morally obliged to accept immigration of a level specified by a random person on the Web. Neither of which I find any inclination to agree with. The article states almost hilariously: "By design, it excludes the vast majority of potential immigrants." Yes. That's the point. It's by design. By design, the US does not want to accept lots of random immigrants. You don't need to explain how it's difficult by design; it was designed for that purpose.

48 points by zerr 2y ago

It's interesting how Cato, that would once have been considered relatively fringe, is ending up opposing some of the more nationalist instincts of the administration.

jerkstate 2y ago
Not really - this is just more Koch free-trade “libertarianism” where the costs are socialized and benefits accrue to only the wealthiest capitalists. Par for the course for Cato.
- JackFr 2y ago
  The benefits don’t accrue to the capitalists they accrue to consumers. Capitalists don’t get rich stealing from workers. The get rich improving the lives of consumers.
  - tkel 2y ago
    In a capitalist organization, by definition the capitalists take the productive output from the workers, and sell it, pocketing the difference, and deciding dictatorially how to distribute the revenue. So yes, by definition they are grifting off of the workers.
  - jmpman 2y ago
    The alternative to immigrant minimum wage strawberry pickers is native born strawberry pickers who would demand significantly higher wages. The capitalists get rich by selling more strawberries at a lower price. It can be both bad for native born strawberry pickers as well as good for consumers. But there are few native born strawberry pickers who have a political voice. Substitute strawberry pickers with software developers, and now you’re talking about the native born HN crowd.
tombert 2y ago
I think Cato has always held that we should loosen our restrictions on the border, so if an administration goes against that stance then they're going to oppose parts of that administration.

xiphias2 2y ago

[flagged]

Matheus28 2y ago
Illegal immigrants can’t vote. Permanent residents can’t vote either. You can only vote once you acquire citizenship (which means doing the whole immigration process, then waiting several more years to be able to apply for citizenship).
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  And waiting 1-3 years to actually get citizenship once you've applied. It was ~18 months for my wife. It also took nearly a year to get a visa for her to move here.
- tombert 2y ago
  Yeah, and it's much harder to get the permanent resident and citizenship status than everyone seems to think it is. My wife was brought here when she was eight years old, and was able to apply for a quasi-legal status when Obama enacted DACA. When we got married, we were frustrated to find out that we couldn't actually apply for her green card because she was still considered "illegal". Eventually we got an attorney and she was able to find a waiver for us to apply for a green card, but that took three years of waiting. She finally is qualified to apply for citizenship now, and she has, but we're waiting (probably another five to six months) for an update on that. When we got married, everyone acted like I was some sort of idiot because "obviously" you get a green card automatically if you marry a citizen. Apparently people are getting their understanding of immigration law from sitcoms.
tomrod 2y ago
> because it's much easier to control the voting patterns of illegal immigrants In 2016, 19 foreign nationals were indicted for illegally voting in the US elections: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indicted-illegally-voting-2016-elections https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indic... If there were evidence of widespread voting irregularities to support the tired claim that "illegal" immigrants are voting, the logically we'd see more enforcement when the "wrong" side wins.

pton_xd 2y ago

Conclusion: "The administration should loosen all the restrictions that it has imposed above and beyond what Congress has required, and Congress should overhaul the system to open legal immigration for any person willing to work to contribute to the success of the United States." In other words, we should "promptly admit a majority of the 158 million who told Gallup that they would want to come," according to the 2018 survey cited. Left out of the article is an explanation for why the US would be better off it that were to happen.

tombert 2y ago
The Cato institute has actually written a lot of stuff about why they believe that admitting in more immigrants would be beneficial to the US. A quick search came up with this [1], but they've written a lot more. You don't have to agree with them, but I'm just saying that they actually have done a fair bit of work in this field and they have given some amount of justification to why they hold these views. [1] https://www.cato.org/testimony/unlocking-americas-potential-how-immigration-fuels-economic-growth-our-competitive https://www.cato.org/testimony/unlocking-americas-potential-...
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
All immigration is GDP additive and increases the market for goods and tax income for governments. It offsets low birth rates. If there is a labor shortage it will reduce inflation. Of course there many considerations but generally it's a good thing.
- jalapenos 2y ago
  It's a good thing for those classes of people you just mentioned (governments, business owners). For everyone else it's just increased competition.
  - tombert 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's a pretty reductive take, and if you believe that then you should be ok with decreasing birth rates as well? Every baby born today could be competition for you or your kids in ~16-30 years.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

Do yourself a favor and just download the PDF, the page is huge with many large images. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-06/policy-analysis-950-updated.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-06/policy-ana...

blindriver 2y ago

Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. This is the underlying truth that is indisputable. This article says that it grants 1 million green cards per year to legal immigrants, which is extremely generous. To say it's "nearly impossible" is absurd. I myself, my wife, and 80% of my friends are all legal immigrants to the US.

programjames 2y ago
It really isn't very hard to get a temporary O1 Visa, which can turn into a permanent E1/E2 visa. You just have to be extra-ordinary in your field. Pretty much every country wants to import people they know will make their country a better place—even North Korea lets Americans ("the enemy") teach at their universities—and it's not hard to demonstrate this.
- Freedom2 2y ago
  > You just have to be extra-ordinary in your field. So pretty much most HN commenters, then.
  - kykeonaut 2y ago
    Seems like implicit bias. "Many people in my circle have an H1-B visa, thus it is far from impossible to get one."
    - uberman 2y ago
      H1-b visas are non-imigrant visas...
    - programjames 2y ago
      I'm perfectly aware most people would fail this easy task, but a thousand years ago most people would fail to read. Just because it's easy, doesn't mean most people will succeed.

renewiltord 2y ago

The US can use a lot more legal immigration. There's nothing wrong with a skill-based immigration program that doesn't necessarily only select for Nobel prize winners. With another hundred million people, and improved land use, we're talking perhaps another 100 years of Pax Americana. I think American should do this for her own sake and for the sake of humanity.

rednafi 2y ago
Nobel Prize winners are only allowed because the country is overwhelmed with illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees who contribute little to the system. However, there is a group that benefits from undocumented workers taking underpaid, off-the-books jobs, and they hold significant influence in policymaking.
- kykeonaut 2y ago
  Isn't "contributing little to the system" and "taking underpaid jobs" a contradiction? If you are taking a job, you are contributing to the system.
  - rednafi 2y ago
    *little The country could focus on legal immigration and increase the contribution from little to more.

jalapenos 2y ago

This historical pattern is quite usual though right? Like Singapore did a similar thing. At the outset, before the country is rich, there's not the same incentives to immigrate as later. Price of admission rising as demand increases isn't that surprising. But again like another commenter mentioned, these arguments never care to address why the people already there would, as a whole, benefit from others coming. Sure, the state benefits from increase tax receipts, and the corporations benefit from increased labor supply. But all the people as a whole get is increased competition for everything. So I assume these Cato people are in a class that stands to benefit, and couldn't care less about other classes.

fatbird 2y ago

How many immigrants are allowed in is orthogonal to whether the process is efficient and direct. The process is insanely complicated and takes years and no small amount of luck, or dodging arbitrary discretionary decisions by mid-level bureaucrats. Reforming the process entails nothing about whether that means more or fewer legal immigrants are allowed in, and removes a huge incentive to bypass the process. In a previous job I helped H-1B cardholders get green cards. I kept getting applicants approaching me saying that they could get one easier with $5,000 in Chicago than waiting all this out. It was hard to argue against that.

legitster 2y ago

Milton Friedman: > If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutually benefit. > But on the other hand, if you come under circumstances where each person is entitled to a pro-rata share of the pot, to take an extreme example, or even to a low level of the pie, than the effect of that situation is that free immigration, would mean a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level. Of course, I’m exaggerating, it wouldn’t go quite that far, but it would go in that direction. And it is that perception, that leads people to adopt what at first seems like inconsistent values. > Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal. > That’s an interesting paradox to think about. Make it legal and it’s no good. Why? Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don’t qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They’re hard workers, they’re good workers, and they are clearly better off. Why is there so little legal immigration? Because American policymakers wanted more illegal immigrants. It was a good deal for everyone. You have cheap foreign workers contributing to the economy, but not qualifying for social services or legal protections. Previous politicians didn't mind looking the other way about how the sausage got made. Of course the age where politicians would make unappetizing Faustian bargains behind the scenes for the benefit of their constituents is probably gone.

mzmzmzm 2y ago
Couldn't you satisfy the patterns Friedman identifies just by having perpetually renewable work visas and a path to full citizenship after an arbitrary time like 10 years?

rednafi 2y ago

I worked in the US for about a year before moving to Europe. I would love to go back. The process of migrating to a new country with nothing but an H-1B visa tied to your job is extremely stressful. Some people find it worth the effort, but I believe in going where you’re treated best. That said, I made some good friends there, and living in an English-speaking country makes many things much easier. However, legal immigration can only function without making the host country unbearable for locals if illegal immigration is completely stopped. Every Mexican person I knew had several family members living in the States illegally and not contributing to the economy in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, I know a bunch of STEM postdocs who had to leave due to visa complications. The country needs to choose whom it wants to let in. As long as illegal immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers are allowed to stay without proper scrutiny, legal immigration will push away many of the best people you’d want in your country.

jacknews 2y ago

Just getting a visa has suddenly become near impossible it seems. My daughter just applied as part of a small tour of models/entertainers that were going to help raise funds to build a church (in the US), and was denied, due they said, to no evidence there was anything to compel her to leave the US and return home. She is a minor, still lives with us at home, and goes to senior high school, i mean, WTF? Also, I quote, she 'wouldn't want to live in US, if they paid (her) to'. This same group have been going for several years now, but suddenly they were all denied this year. The kicker is the visa fee of around $300 is forfeit, the denial notice says you can't appeal, but you can apply again, if you pay again. Riiggght. I really feel scammed. Is it possible to sue? I know an Aussie friend who successfully sued Australian immigration in a similar case for example.

programjames 2y ago

I feel like the reason immigration is a controversial issue is because people don't feel like one's circumstance of birth is really their "fault". If you don't have a choice in the matter, can you really be blamed? And thus, there's no reason people born in America should get any special privileges compared to those born elsewhere. I agree. If we could snap our fingers, and fix everything that went wrong in someone's life due to unforutunate circumstances, there is no reason they should be blamed. However, until we can, we have to blame people, even if they are not complicit in their circumstance. For example, if someone puts a gun to your head, and tells you to shoot a random passerby, I won't blame you very much when you stand in trial without a gun to your head. However, if that gun never leaves your head, e.g. you're part of an enemy military, it seems rather justified to shoot to kill on sight. Maybe you don't want to be there, but you cannot change your circumstance and neither can I, so I have to find fault (or die). Immigration seems similar. People who want to immigrate to the US are not complicit in their circumstance. If they could have been born in America, and gotten the education, resources, and connections Americans have, they would have. We can snap our fingers, and let them change nationalities, but it will not magically give them the same education, resources, or connections Americans have. And thus, we must find fault in them unless they come in with said education, resources, and connections. This is just game theory. I consider the purpose of "fault" or "blame" to determine who gets punished so that I am better off. Thus, if I will not be better off with someone immigrating into my country, I should blame them for the circumstances of their birth. Is it fair? "Fair" is a tricky word. At the very least, it seems right. An issue I find with lots of people on the pro-immigration side is they claim immigrants (1) take jobs I wouldn't want anyway, (2) boost the economy, (3) increase birthrates, and so on, but this doesn't answer why we should allow immigration. Everyone, even the restrict-immigration crowd, is pretty pro-immigration when it comes to people that will make their lives better. But, in America at least, the pro-immigration crowd seems to want completely open movement. Why would that be better than having your cake and eating it too? I.e. let anyone who is good for the economy in, and leave everyone else out?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

southernplaces7 2y ago

And why was this currently socially relevant post that comes from an organization which despite certain biases has lots of experience examining this very issue, flagged? Who are all these intolerant idiots flagging such content, and more importantly, why does this site keep maintaining such a stupid policy of letting a few rando readers with all their personal ideological baggage flag whatever the hell they want?

daft_pink 2y ago

As someone with a foreign born spouse that would like parents to visite often, the legal immigration system is absolutely terrible. However, I think there is no real incentive for compromise between the political parties until the border is secured and laws are enforced, because the status quo actually works better for some pro-immigration forces. They should reform everything, but I do think that the border needs to be secured and enforced before that can realistically happen. They need a path for legal immigration. They need to reform H1Bs so that they prioritize US degree holders and there is no country based quota on converting to permanent residence and those foreign citizens are not paid less or require complex sponsorships that ties them to an employer. They need to increase the speed that everything is processed and adjudicated at and enforce the laws and secure the border once they reach a compromise. They need to figure out a way to allow low skilled labor into the country. They should offer long term visit visas for foreign relatives that don’t actually want to live here. It’s bizarre that my sons grandparents basically need a green card to come and go as they please. They should amend the constitution so that foreign tourists who are here for a very short period of time don’t get birth right citizenship. There is just a huge amount of common sense fixes that need to be done, but once the fixes are applied they need to be totally and completely enforced.

Ferret7446 2y ago

The implication here is that illegal immigration is somehow morally and/or legally justified if legal immigration is too hard. Or that a country is morally obliged to accept immigration of a level specified by a random person on the Web. Neither of which I find any inclination to agree with. The article states almost hilariously: "By design, it excludes the vast majority of potential immigrants." Yes. That's the point. It's by design. By design, the US does not want to accept lots of random immigrants. You don't need to explain how it's difficult by design; it was designed for that purpose.