391–400 of 701 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No one is trying to stop legal immigration. You know, except for all of the legal visas and green cards for Iranian citizens and citizens of the other 5/6 countries.
I think you are confusing immigration with entering a foreign country.
Whenever I see "Immigration" in the title, i think anti-Trump and get sad. No one is trying to stop legal immigration. Tech companies are mad because they are cracking down on H1-B Visa abuse. This is not a bad thing.
"No one is trying to stop legal immigration." You are misinformed: "GOP Senators Move to Limit Legal Immigration A pair of Republican senators are teaming up with the White House to introduce legislation to restrict legal immigration by slashing the number of visas and green cards available each year." https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-07/sen...
How does it make sense to let people in who will not work or fulfil a need? How is this sustainable?
From http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14773298/mer...:
"Reforming the immigration system to be more “merit-based” is predicated on the idea that some of these slots are going to the wrong immigrants — immigrants who don’t have as much to give the US as the US has to give them. Proponents point to Australia and Canada — places that don’t have the American tradition of family-based migration, and that deliberately select for immigrants who are likely to contribute economically and assimilate culturally from the moment they arrive. In these countries, having a family member who’s already a citizen doesn’t guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself — having an advanced degree, being fluent in the language, and being able to support yourself (or have a job waiting for you when you arrive) matter as much or more."
Family-based migration doesn't exist in other countries, and doesn't make sense.
There is a debate to be had here, but instead everyone is reading fake news headlines and confirming their biases.
Sigh.
One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. It looks like every kind of screening of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones, as far as that determination is possible on their arrival at all.
It wouldn't be hard to have an immigration system which is biased toward useful vs. not useful. The question is: where do you want to have the cutoff? I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), combined with a transparent and straightforward points-based system for mainly immigrant visas. I'd eliminate the inherent racism in the current system (penalizing India and China vs. Equatorial Gui…
Australia was a penal colony ... yet they seem to be doing fine for themselves now. My point is ... why change the rules of immigration from what existed in 1800s or early 1900s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell that to the emergency care centers that aren't allowed to turn away anyone or else they will not receive medicare reimbursements.
That is literally the least we can do. Or would you rather we deny emergency medical treatment and let people just die? They do pay sales taxes, rent payments (they have to live somewhere) that go towards property taxes and the majority also pay into social security which they will never qualify for. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrant... And by the way, many have kids that are Americans by b…
You implied that illegal immigrants consume no government resources / cannot be a utilitarian concern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't be hard to have an immigration system which is biased toward useful vs. not useful. The question is: where do you want to have the cutoff? I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), combined with a transparent and straightforward points-based system for mainly immigrant visas. I'd eliminate the inherent racism in the current system (penalizing India and China vs. Equatorial Gui…
> I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), Having lived on the east side of Berlin (post Wall!) I cannot forget that that wall was supposedly built to keep people out but of course it kept people in . I am Australian, and I have to admit the points based system does work there...but. I have lived longest in the USA where the chaos has been beneficial for the country, and thus for me. Aus…
Does the ability for people to historically (and to some extent, currently) illegally cross the southern border benefit your business? Does people overstaying visa waiver or other visas help? It would seem to me that being able to easily hire and have a simple, deterministic, and painless process would be a net win.
I didn't think the Berlin part of the wall was ever claimed to be for security; the other inner German border was. I didn't look this up recently so mah be wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In my opinion, even if it may harm some natives, due to the poverty alleviating effects of immigration, we should open immigration to anyone who doesn't have a criminal record. What is the point of government if not to act in the best interests of its citizens? Why are our governments now apparently obligated to act in the best interests of foreign nationals? This has nothing to do with alleviating poverty or humani…
> What is the point of government if not to act in the best interests of its citizens? Why are our governments now apparently obligated to act in the best interests of foreign nationals? This has nothing to do with alleviating poverty or humanitarian ideals. It's blatantly obvious that this advocacy for open borders is part of a power grab by the left to ensure that they stay in power for decades to come, at the expe…
There's also a group of well-meaning people who see the plight of good people who just want to make a living and therefore are for open borders. The first group takes advantage of the second group and there's no way of disentangling them.
There is a very real criticism, however, that something like open borders could destroy the productive society people are fleeing to especially if that immigration is against rule of law or eventual assimilation.
As the descendants of immigrants who are now Americans, a lot of people are opposed to haphazard immigration without assimilation. American society is so great because people of various cultures come together and make it something new. It appears (to me) that some people don't care about what is sustainable and would rather win for the sake of politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Immigration Program X that already exists allows 100k with qualities Y. Immigration Program A that already exists allows 200k with qualities B. This is the state of the current world. We have an existing bureaucracy that dictates who is allowed to immigrate, and when. Make change C so that Program X allows 250k, and Program A only allows 50k. Change C is not changing the amount of government bureaucracy. We already h…
Ok. So wouldn't it be better then to simply put a cap on the number of immigrants per month and not screen them for characteristics beyond criminality? We could cut bureaucracy and improve economic efficiency at the same time! I'm a small-government guy.
How do you choose which ones?
If you put on any cap, you are picking and choosing.
Personally, I'd sort by salary/expected taxes.