5 ms·

Countries in the EU (and elsewhere) have more sane immigration systems. As a Canadian having immigrated to both Germany and the US, I can say that the US system

Countries in the EU (and elsewhere) have more sane immigration systems. As a Canadian having immigrated to both Germany and the US, I can say that the US system is at least two orders of magnitude more difficult, costly, needlessly complicated, and in the end a lot of it comes down to luck (most of it bad). Germany has no lottery system, and renewal is very straightforward. I applied for my visa while in Germany as a tourist, I was issued a "temporary visa" while the final decision was made, and after I was accepted, the renewal processes every couple of years was essentially a formality. There is also a straight-forward path to permanent residency after X years working in the country. Contrast that with how things work in the US (which I don't have time to get into in an HN comment), and you'll see why it deserves to be singled out for this.

refurb 12y ago
One reason why non-American countries have "easier" immigration systems is often demand related. Your example "H1-B lottery" is precisely demand related.
- Mandatum 12y ago
  To say non-American countries have easier immigration systems on the basis that it is demand related is in my opinion, absurd. Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada and many European countries have massive demand. However you'll find most of these countries have opted to sell residency, albeit through business and job investments. Generally skilled workers have to be sought for locally before they get someone over. Using a "lottery" system just sounds crazy. It's still possible to buy citizenship, yet everyone else has to sit on the side-lines and take a number. Sounds like a weird plan created on a whim..
  - refurb 12y ago
    A recent gallup survey says 150M people would move to the US if they could, the UK was a distant second at 45M [1]. As for the lottery, how else could it be done? There is a cap on H1-B visa each year. The USCIS receives more applications than spots the first day you can apply. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-million-adults-worldwide-migrate.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-million-adults-worldwi...
    - Dewie 12y ago
      > A recent gallup survey says 150M people would move to the US if they could, the UK was a distant second at 45M Now adjust those numbers to the population of those countries... oh look, the UK all of a sudden came out ahead. All of these studies comparing numbers usually just boils down to "The US is big". It has been brought up elsewhere that Canada, for example, has more immigrants as a percentage of population. But of course when comparing absolute numbers to the US, it will look like peanuts.
      - mhurron 12y ago
        Why does a per-capita number make any sense here?
        rgbrenner 12y ago
        Because a large country is able to absorb more immigrants than a small country. 150M is 2x the population of the UK, but less than 50% of the US. So it would make sense that the US would have a higher quota than the UK.
        vidarh 12y ago
        Because it is a better proxy for how it will affect society in terms of ability to absorb more people, ranging from tax payer base to things like cost of infrastructure projects to handle the population growth.
      - refurb 12y ago
        If the reason is the US is big, why would you look at it on a per-capita basis? Maybe adjust for land size? Then the UK would really come out ahead!
        Solarsail 12y ago
        Only if immigrants are merely settling empty land. As long as they want to start out as part of society, they'll need jobs, housing and regular infrastructure. My own region is growing nearly as fast as housing can be built. More than 50% of everyone in some cities like Toronto have been in the country for less than 5 years, at any given moment. (Often starting out there, and moving to other parts of Canada later. Still limited by the population capacity of Toronto)
- disbelief 12y ago
  Trust me, EU countries have their own immigration demand problems. Especially a place like Germany which has one of the few functioning economies in the block lately. People flock there looking for work. Other countries with huge immigration demand include England and Spain. There are simply better ways of dealing with high immigration demand than "dump everyone into a pot regardless of education/experience/viability/urgency and randomly select a few".
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - mschuster91 12y ago
    > Other countries with huge immigration demand include England and Spain Spain is just wanted due to the proximity to Africa and a lot of African immigrants/refugees using this vector. > There are simply better ways of dealing with high immigration demand than "dump everyone into a pot regardless of education/experience/viability/urgency and randomly select a few". We Germans deal with asylum seekers by putting > 2.500 people in camps designed for 1.500 MAXIMUM occupants (Munich, "Bayernkaserne" camp), blocking them from work and giving them free food and 140€ per month as pocket money. Needlessly to say, that ain't fucking enough for non-food expenses in bigger cities, and what happens if the only thing they do is drink, smoke and fight (as asylum seekers you must not travel around the country, you have to stay in your processing city!) is basically a fucking violation of human dignity. Of course it also leads to vast criminality - not just the fighting between asylum seekers themselves, but also massive amounts of theft, pot dealing (hello Berlin Görlitzer Park) and other criminality. In order, Nazi-parties and other right-wing extremists gain excellent popularity with "Kick em out" messages.
    - afafsd 12y ago
      Ah, y'see that's why we, in Australia, stick our asylum seekers in camps in different countries like Nauru and Papua New Guinea, where whatever problems they cause are safely out of sight. My opinion is that the world seriously needs a new refugee convention to prevent economic migrants from abusing the refugee system. The governing idea should be that you can't use refugee status to move from a poorer country to a significantly richer one. If you're a genuine refugee then moving to a safer country with similar per-capita-GDP is something you should be happy with.
- blutoot 12y ago
  I'm not sure about the "demand" angle here. Demand is sorted out at the interview stage on a company-level. Once the position has been filled up, it shouldn't be counted towards demand. Hence it should not be subject to lottery. The fact that US has more job opportunities for foreigners compared to, say, Germany in high-tech only means that industry is more thriving in the former. I doubt jobs are created BECAUSE more people wanna move to the US. And by the way, the job search process itself is partly a lottery - it's never 100% about merits.
mbesto 12y ago
What's your definition of sane? None of those countries have the scale, frequency and volume of demand that resembles anything like the US.[1] > Contrast that with how things work in the US (which I don't have time to get into in an HN comment), and you'll see why it deserves to be singled out for this. I don't think anyone is questioning that other countries have much more lax policies. The question is what is your solution? As someone who is a US citizen, held visas in Germany/UK, and has a Belgian technical co-founder trying to get the US, I understand this situation very well. But I simply can't sympathize with people who simply say "Why can't they just let me! It works elsewhere!" and offer no real solution that takes into consideration anything other than a "why not me" attitude. [1] - http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/09/25/countries-with-the-most-immigrants/3/ http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/09/25/countries-wit...
- 0xab 12y ago
  In terms of immigrants as a percentage of population the US is nothing special. Canada has a lot more (closer to 19% instead of 14%). Many European countries have statistics similar to that of the US (Sweden has a bit more, the UK a bit less, etc). But I digress. The problem with the existing system is that it is insane and a waste of resources. One has to get a lawyer and wait for a long time with no certainty in the outcome while dealing with an extremely opaque bureaucracy where anything can go wrong at any time. This has nothing at all to do with volume. Indeed, a simpler more streamlined and less opaque system would help with volume. Say a system like the Canadian or the UK one. There's a point scale. You can compute the number of points you get ahead of time, now there's a simple web form actually. If you cross the threshold you will get in. There are known wait times, you can just call the embassy. There are points for things the country needs (particular jobs), for certain qualifications (degrees, etc), for language proficiency, some regional tweaks, family, and having an employment offer. And extremely importantly. You get permanent resident status (green card), not an H1B. What Americans don't realize is that you want to hand out green cards. H1B lower both your salaries and ours. The H1B restricts immigrant mobility, can't move to a better job and raise the average salary, and encourages people to go home with all of their newly gained knowledge and money. I'll give you a personal example of the difference between a sane and an insane system: As an 11 year old I filled out all of our Canadian immigration paperwork (my parents checked it but it was correct and they didn't change it). We knew we would get in based on our points. The embassy told us the timeframe in which we should expect our paperwork to go through. It went through a bit early. We moved to Canada. Now for the US. As a near-30-year old with a US PhD working at a top research institution I have to pay a specialized law firm several thousand dollars, spend weeks getting paperwork, bugging people in several countries to write absurd letters, building a case, etc. All of this to basically the same thing. And in the end, who knows what will happen because there are no standards, no appeal, no one to discuss anything with. Oh, and I have no idea what the processing time is. So no. It is not an issue of "why can't they just let me in". It's a system that hurts your salary by restricting my mobility, hurts me by making me pay lawyers needlessly, hurts the image of the US by creating disgruntled people, and hurts the economy by routing business and increasingly prestigious conferences elsewhere. It just makes no sense.
trusche 12y ago
This. For comparison, when I had to renew my H1B for another 3 years, I had to leave the country and fly to Berlin for my "visa interview". But first I had to send them my passport, which of course I needed to get into Germany first. So after a lot of expense, several days of wasted time, and anxiety if the courier would deliver my passport on time, the "interview" took all of one minute (handing me my passport back with the Visa stamp). Well, two hours, actually, with going through security and waiting in line. Kafka comes to mind.
- ulfw 12y ago
  This type of thing has been my experience dealing with many US agencies from federal/immigration related to the local/state level. Recently I went to California's DMV to renew my driver's license. I wanted to do this 8 months before it expires, because at the time it looked like I will be outside the country for a couple of months for work. To my utter surprise, I was forced to take a new written test because you can only 'renew a driver's license within 6 months of it's expiry date' without taking a new test. How this makes sense AT ALL boggles my mind. I could understand having to take a test if you lapse your expiry date and try to renew, say, two months too late. But renewing EARLY? Why? How? They also couldn't tell me what would happen to my (still valid) license, if I happen to fail the test. Thankfully I didn't.
watwut 12y ago
European countries immigration systems are not equal. Just getting a job in Switzerland if you are foreigner is considerably harder. The employer has to demonstrate that no native would be able to your job. The government will send him unemployed locals and employer has to write what exactly disqualified that local. It is considerable hustle, so most of them do not bother. Plus, as a foreigner in Switzerland, you will always be looked down upon. It is hard to get accepted as equal.
- cylinder 12y ago
  Right. But for some reason people think the US should be an open playground for all of the world, and that it should never actively defend and protect its own citizens.

refurb 12y ago

One reason why non-American countries have "easier" immigration systems is often demand related. Your example "H1-B lottery" is precisely demand related.

Mandatum 12y ago
To say non-American countries have easier immigration systems on the basis that it is demand related is in my opinion, absurd. Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada and many European countries have massive demand. However you'll find most of these countries have opted to sell residency, albeit through business and job investments. Generally skilled workers have to be sought for locally before they get someone over. Using a "lottery" system just sounds crazy. It's still possible to buy citizenship, yet everyone else has to sit on the side-lines and take a number. Sounds like a weird plan created on a whim..
- refurb 12y ago
  A recent gallup survey says 150M people would move to the US if they could, the UK was a distant second at 45M [1]. As for the lottery, how else could it be done? There is a cap on H1-B visa each year. The USCIS receives more applications than spots the first day you can apply. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-million-adults-worldwide-migrate.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-million-adults-worldwi...
  - Dewie 12y ago
    > A recent gallup survey says 150M people would move to the US if they could, the UK was a distant second at 45M Now adjust those numbers to the population of those countries... oh look, the UK all of a sudden came out ahead. All of these studies comparing numbers usually just boils down to "The US is big". It has been brought up elsewhere that Canada, for example, has more immigrants as a percentage of population. But of course when comparing absolute numbers to the US, it will look like peanuts.
    - mhurron 12y ago
      Why does a per-capita number make any sense here?
      - rgbrenner 12y ago
        Because a large country is able to absorb more immigrants than a small country. 150M is 2x the population of the UK, but less than 50% of the US. So it would make sense that the US would have a higher quota than the UK.
      - vidarh 12y ago
        Because it is a better proxy for how it will affect society in terms of ability to absorb more people, ranging from tax payer base to things like cost of infrastructure projects to handle the population growth.
    - refurb 12y ago
      If the reason is the US is big, why would you look at it on a per-capita basis? Maybe adjust for land size? Then the UK would really come out ahead!
      - Solarsail 12y ago
        Only if immigrants are merely settling empty land. As long as they want to start out as part of society, they'll need jobs, housing and regular infrastructure. My own region is growing nearly as fast as housing can be built. More than 50% of everyone in some cities like Toronto have been in the country for less than 5 years, at any given moment. (Often starting out there, and moving to other parts of Canada later. Still limited by the population capacity of Toronto)
disbelief 12y ago
Trust me, EU countries have their own immigration demand problems. Especially a place like Germany which has one of the few functioning economies in the block lately. People flock there looking for work. Other countries with huge immigration demand include England and Spain. There are simply better ways of dealing with high immigration demand than "dump everyone into a pot regardless of education/experience/viability/urgency and randomly select a few".
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- mschuster91 12y ago
  > Other countries with huge immigration demand include England and Spain Spain is just wanted due to the proximity to Africa and a lot of African immigrants/refugees using this vector. > There are simply better ways of dealing with high immigration demand than "dump everyone into a pot regardless of education/experience/viability/urgency and randomly select a few". We Germans deal with asylum seekers by putting > 2.500 people in camps designed for 1.500 MAXIMUM occupants (Munich, "Bayernkaserne" camp), blocking them from work and giving them free food and 140€ per month as pocket money. Needlessly to say, that ain't fucking enough for non-food expenses in bigger cities, and what happens if the only thing they do is drink, smoke and fight (as asylum seekers you must not travel around the country, you have to stay in your processing city!) is basically a fucking violation of human dignity. Of course it also leads to vast criminality - not just the fighting between asylum seekers themselves, but also massive amounts of theft, pot dealing (hello Berlin Görlitzer Park) and other criminality. In order, Nazi-parties and other right-wing extremists gain excellent popularity with "Kick em out" messages.
  - afafsd 12y ago
    Ah, y'see that's why we, in Australia, stick our asylum seekers in camps in different countries like Nauru and Papua New Guinea, where whatever problems they cause are safely out of sight. My opinion is that the world seriously needs a new refugee convention to prevent economic migrants from abusing the refugee system. The governing idea should be that you can't use refugee status to move from a poorer country to a significantly richer one. If you're a genuine refugee then moving to a safer country with similar per-capita-GDP is something you should be happy with.
blutoot 12y ago
I'm not sure about the "demand" angle here. Demand is sorted out at the interview stage on a company-level. Once the position has been filled up, it shouldn't be counted towards demand. Hence it should not be subject to lottery. The fact that US has more job opportunities for foreigners compared to, say, Germany in high-tech only means that industry is more thriving in the former. I doubt jobs are created BECAUSE more people wanna move to the US. And by the way, the job search process itself is partly a lottery - it's never 100% about merits.

mbesto 12y ago

What's your definition of sane? None of those countries have the scale, frequency and volume of demand that resembles anything like the US.[1] > Contrast that with how things work in the US (which I don't have time to get into in an HN comment), and you'll see why it deserves to be singled out for this. I don't think anyone is questioning that other countries have much more lax policies. The question is what is your solution? As someone who is a US citizen, held visas in Germany/UK, and has a Belgian technical co-founder trying to get the US, I understand this situation very well. But I simply can't sympathize with people who simply say "Why can't they just let me! It works elsewhere!" and offer no real solution that takes into consideration anything other than a "why not me" attitude. [1] - http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/09/25/countries-with-the-most-immigrants/3/ http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/09/25/countries-wit...

0xab 12y ago
In terms of immigrants as a percentage of population the US is nothing special. Canada has a lot more (closer to 19% instead of 14%). Many European countries have statistics similar to that of the US (Sweden has a bit more, the UK a bit less, etc). But I digress. The problem with the existing system is that it is insane and a waste of resources. One has to get a lawyer and wait for a long time with no certainty in the outcome while dealing with an extremely opaque bureaucracy where anything can go wrong at any time. This has nothing at all to do with volume. Indeed, a simpler more streamlined and less opaque system would help with volume. Say a system like the Canadian or the UK one. There's a point scale. You can compute the number of points you get ahead of time, now there's a simple web form actually. If you cross the threshold you will get in. There are known wait times, you can just call the embassy. There are points for things the country needs (particular jobs), for certain qualifications (degrees, etc), for language proficiency, some regional tweaks, family, and having an employment offer. And extremely importantly. You get permanent resident status (green card), not an H1B. What Americans don't realize is that you want to hand out green cards. H1B lower both your salaries and ours. The H1B restricts immigrant mobility, can't move to a better job and raise the average salary, and encourages people to go home with all of their newly gained knowledge and money. I'll give you a personal example of the difference between a sane and an insane system: As an 11 year old I filled out all of our Canadian immigration paperwork (my parents checked it but it was correct and they didn't change it). We knew we would get in based on our points. The embassy told us the timeframe in which we should expect our paperwork to go through. It went through a bit early. We moved to Canada. Now for the US. As a near-30-year old with a US PhD working at a top research institution I have to pay a specialized law firm several thousand dollars, spend weeks getting paperwork, bugging people in several countries to write absurd letters, building a case, etc. All of this to basically the same thing. And in the end, who knows what will happen because there are no standards, no appeal, no one to discuss anything with. Oh, and I have no idea what the processing time is. So no. It is not an issue of "why can't they just let me in". It's a system that hurts your salary by restricting my mobility, hurts me by making me pay lawyers needlessly, hurts the image of the US by creating disgruntled people, and hurts the economy by routing business and increasingly prestigious conferences elsewhere. It just makes no sense.

trusche 12y ago

This. For comparison, when I had to renew my H1B for another 3 years, I had to leave the country and fly to Berlin for my "visa interview". But first I had to send them my passport, which of course I needed to get into Germany first. So after a lot of expense, several days of wasted time, and anxiety if the courier would deliver my passport on time, the "interview" took all of one minute (handing me my passport back with the Visa stamp). Well, two hours, actually, with going through security and waiting in line. Kafka comes to mind.

ulfw 12y ago
This type of thing has been my experience dealing with many US agencies from federal/immigration related to the local/state level. Recently I went to California's DMV to renew my driver's license. I wanted to do this 8 months before it expires, because at the time it looked like I will be outside the country for a couple of months for work. To my utter surprise, I was forced to take a new written test because you can only 'renew a driver's license within 6 months of it's expiry date' without taking a new test. How this makes sense AT ALL boggles my mind. I could understand having to take a test if you lapse your expiry date and try to renew, say, two months too late. But renewing EARLY? Why? How? They also couldn't tell me what would happen to my (still valid) license, if I happen to fail the test. Thankfully I didn't.

watwut 12y ago

European countries immigration systems are not equal. Just getting a job in Switzerland if you are foreigner is considerably harder. The employer has to demonstrate that no native would be able to your job. The government will send him unemployed locals and employer has to write what exactly disqualified that local. It is considerable hustle, so most of them do not bother. Plus, as a foreigner in Switzerland, you will always be looked down upon. It is hard to get accepted as equal.

cylinder 12y ago
Right. But for some reason people think the US should be an open playground for all of the world, and that it should never actively defend and protect its own citizens.