3 ms·

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 tha

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.
      - programjames 2y ago
        Only ~5,000 people get E1 visas each year. That's 0.003% of the people who want to immigrate. There are surely many, many more people that are highly skilled and would be beneficial to have in America. Maybe it would be "easy" for you and your friends to get an E1 visa, but it should still be much easier to get a permanent visa for skilled work.
tomrod 2y ago
> Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. I'll bite. Why not? We let capital typically move freely. Why shouldn't people be as free to move as money?
- programjames 2y ago
  I think movement is pretty free for people that can demonstrate they would be net-positive to the country they're moving to. I don't really see why movement should be free for anyone who would be net-negative. It's true that demonstrating the ability =/= having the ability, and I think most systems could be improved to filter for that better, but I don't think that's significantly affecting America's immigration process. It isn't very hard to get an O1/E1 visa, or at least a student visa, if you're decent in your subject area.
- blindriver 2y ago
  Money doesn't consume physical resources the way people do. Uncontrolled immigration will overconsume whatever resources the country has, and infrastructure can't increase as quickly as unabated immigration. Things like rent will skyrocket and resources like water, sewage, hospitals, schools, etc. will get overconsumed without the ability to increase it quick enough. It will make the country worse very quickly.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  Let's look at it at a more local level. If somebody wants to move into your house without permission, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
  - tomrod 2y ago
    My house is not a sovereign state, and a sovereign state is not a house. I reject this argument by analogy as a logical fallacy (and more to the point, overly reductive, since my household's action space is drastically different from and mostly smaller than a sovereign state's action space). A better analogy would be city to city moves, and as far as I am aware the aggregate percent of immigration inflow falls below far below domestic inflow for areas the most growth. Texas adds about a new large city (~130k) per year with net domestic migration. So clearly there are enough regional resources to support movement of individuals. Wherein is the friction? Utilization of the social safety net? Given that undocumented immigrants are cut off from almost all social services outside very basic ones like access to public schools, for which their rent and sales tax payments are likely to cover (unless in an oddball state like Ohio or Pennsylvania). They aren't getting healthcare except by the extreme standards that we force individuals to go to the ED for basic medical care if they are indigent.
billy99k 2y ago
I agree. In my friend group, I know dozens of people that came here legally and are now citizens. It's far from 'impossible'.
jalapenos 2y ago
Absolutely, this "impossibility" is a dishonest exaggeration with propaganda intent to loosen immigration further. In the same vein as the "shortage of engineers" ("we want cheaper payroll please") articles that circulate from time to time.
- programjames 2y ago
  So, I agree that there isn't a big enough shortage of engineers to prompt a need for easier immigration there, but I also agree that Americans aren't as technically skilled as they should be compared to foreigners.
  - jalapenos 2y ago
    Those are two very big buckets to compare. Frankly when it comes to skilled immigration, it make sense to, above a certain skill threshold, have basically an open border. For instance, if you had a bona fide airtight screening test for Einstein tier people, why would you ever not let them freely walk in? Even the most hardline right wingers aren't going to complain about a few thousand geniuses a year. But where that threshold should be and what the integrity of the screening process is are other questions.
legitster 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. Why? Why is it indisputable? America existed very prosperously for over 200 years with such a system - the only thing we did was weed out smuggling and criminals.
- blindriver 2y ago
  That was then, this is now. A country is allowed to enforce its borders and protect its citizens from an uncontrolled influx of foreigners.
  - drekk 2y ago
    You didn't provide any analysis into why things are different now, and offered up a truism. A country is "allowed" to do anything it can get away with. Like declaring war on all of its neighbors. I don't feel like I need to be protected from foreigners. Why do you?
  - eesmith 2y ago
    There are alternatives. The US existed very prosperously without the current system of asylum requests, immigration judges, Green Cards or Visas, while also enforcing its borders and protecting its citizens from an uncontrolled influx of foreigners. About 2% of the millions who arrived at Ellis Island were turned back. Norway does not require a visa or residency permit for foreigners to live on Svalbard. "Regardless of citizenship, persons can live and work in Svalbard indefinitely." (Wikipedia.) That said, there are "Regulations relating to rejection and expulsion of persons from Svalbard". They are applied equally to all citizens. And yes, it is possible for a foreigner to live in Svalbard, without need for a permit, and gain Norwegian citizenship.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Svalbard’s visa free status is by treaty (mostly with Russia), it is not something that Norway came up with on its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
> 1 million green cards per year to legal immigrants, which is extremely generous That's a 0.3% rate. How is that "extremely generous"?
- blindriver 2y ago
  0.3% is extremely generous. Those are just green cards/permanent residents. That doesn't include the number of legal immigrants on various other visas. That's 3 million legal immigrants per year. The number of legal immigrants allowed to the US is higher than any other country in the world.
pyb 2y ago
It's not generous. Did you RTFA?

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.
    - programjames 2y ago
      Only ~5,000 people get E1 visas each year. That's 0.003% of the people who want to immigrate. There are surely many, many more people that are highly skilled and would be beneficial to have in America. Maybe it would be "easy" for you and your friends to get an E1 visa, but it should still be much easier to get a permanent visa for skilled work.

tomrod 2y ago

> Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. I'll bite. Why not? We let capital typically move freely. Why shouldn't people be as free to move as money?

programjames 2y ago
I think movement is pretty free for people that can demonstrate they would be net-positive to the country they're moving to. I don't really see why movement should be free for anyone who would be net-negative. It's true that demonstrating the ability =/= having the ability, and I think most systems could be improved to filter for that better, but I don't think that's significantly affecting America's immigration process. It isn't very hard to get an O1/E1 visa, or at least a student visa, if you're decent in your subject area.
blindriver 2y ago
Money doesn't consume physical resources the way people do. Uncontrolled immigration will overconsume whatever resources the country has, and infrastructure can't increase as quickly as unabated immigration. Things like rent will skyrocket and resources like water, sewage, hospitals, schools, etc. will get overconsumed without the ability to increase it quick enough. It will make the country worse very quickly.
ImJamal 2y ago
Let's look at it at a more local level. If somebody wants to move into your house without permission, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
- tomrod 2y ago
  My house is not a sovereign state, and a sovereign state is not a house. I reject this argument by analogy as a logical fallacy (and more to the point, overly reductive, since my household's action space is drastically different from and mostly smaller than a sovereign state's action space). A better analogy would be city to city moves, and as far as I am aware the aggregate percent of immigration inflow falls below far below domestic inflow for areas the most growth. Texas adds about a new large city (~130k) per year with net domestic migration. So clearly there are enough regional resources to support movement of individuals. Wherein is the friction? Utilization of the social safety net? Given that undocumented immigrants are cut off from almost all social services outside very basic ones like access to public schools, for which their rent and sales tax payments are likely to cover (unless in an oddball state like Ohio or Pennsylvania). They aren't getting healthcare except by the extreme standards that we force individuals to go to the ED for basic medical care if they are indigent.

billy99k 2y ago

I agree. In my friend group, I know dozens of people that came here legally and are now citizens. It's far from 'impossible'.

jalapenos 2y ago

Absolutely, this "impossibility" is a dishonest exaggeration with propaganda intent to loosen immigration further. In the same vein as the "shortage of engineers" ("we want cheaper payroll please") articles that circulate from time to time.

programjames 2y ago
So, I agree that there isn't a big enough shortage of engineers to prompt a need for easier immigration there, but I also agree that Americans aren't as technically skilled as they should be compared to foreigners.
- jalapenos 2y ago
  Those are two very big buckets to compare. Frankly when it comes to skilled immigration, it make sense to, above a certain skill threshold, have basically an open border. For instance, if you had a bona fide airtight screening test for Einstein tier people, why would you ever not let them freely walk in? Even the most hardline right wingers aren't going to complain about a few thousand geniuses a year. But where that threshold should be and what the integrity of the screening process is are other questions.

legitster 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. Why? Why is it indisputable? America existed very prosperously for over 200 years with such a system - the only thing we did was weed out smuggling and criminals.

blindriver 2y ago
That was then, this is now. A country is allowed to enforce its borders and protect its citizens from an uncontrolled influx of foreigners.
- drekk 2y ago
  You didn't provide any analysis into why things are different now, and offered up a truism. A country is "allowed" to do anything it can get away with. Like declaring war on all of its neighbors. I don't feel like I need to be protected from foreigners. Why do you?
- eesmith 2y ago
  There are alternatives. The US existed very prosperously without the current system of asylum requests, immigration judges, Green Cards or Visas, while also enforcing its borders and protecting its citizens from an uncontrolled influx of foreigners. About 2% of the millions who arrived at Ellis Island were turned back. Norway does not require a visa or residency permit for foreigners to live on Svalbard. "Regardless of citizenship, persons can live and work in Svalbard indefinitely." (Wikipedia.) That said, there are "Regulations relating to rejection and expulsion of persons from Svalbard". They are applied equally to all citizens. And yes, it is possible for a foreigner to live in Svalbard, without need for a permit, and gain Norwegian citizenship.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Svalbard’s visa free status is by treaty (mostly with Russia), it is not something that Norway came up with on its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

> 1 million green cards per year to legal immigrants, which is extremely generous That's a 0.3% rate. How is that "extremely generous"?

blindriver 2y ago
0.3% is extremely generous. Those are just green cards/permanent residents. That doesn't include the number of legal immigrants on various other visas. That's 3 million legal immigrants per year. The number of legal immigrants allowed to the US is higher than any other country in the world.

pyb 2y ago

It's not generous. Did you RTFA?