491–500 of 988 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trying to make a political point at all and perhaps a controversial take. But, it’s specifically and maybe implicitly by design. Meaning they made this way precisely so you have to reapply so they can change their mind or block you out later. Nothing about getting a visa is permanent and you’re fully at risk when you move here with that type of status. If you evaluate the situation that’s always been the case.
The cruelty is the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moral issue is the same in both cases: there’s a big sign that says “temporary.” People have chosen to ignore the sign.
> The moral issue is the same in both cases: there’s a big sign that says “temporary.” People have chosen to ignore the sign. No. Your analogy works well solely for the concept of temporary authorization. If you're offering up 2h parking as proof that the moral stakes are equivalent...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not “cruelty” to have and enforce rules. The words “temporary” and “nonimmigrant” is plastered all over the laws that govern these visas. People shouldn’t have treated them as permanent immigration visas. And employers shouldn’t have mislead employees into thinking these were permanent immigration visas. It’s like saying that it’s “cruelty” to remove someone who uses a 2 hour parking spot as their permanent car…
> It’s like saying that it’s “cruelty” to remove someone who uses a 2 hour parking spot as their permanent car parking. That's a very weak analogy for the moral issue here. The consequences are radically different; losing a parking space is a minor inconvenience; losing immigration status can/does involve relocation and upends employment, family, property, and years of life planning / general stability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many, how expensive, and how much is this offset by others who come back and pay taxes? I have seen a lot of freakouts about birth tourism since the recent SCOTUS ruling and I haven’t seen anyone give even the most cursory overview of the actual scale of the supposed problem. It’s purely an emotional reaction.
Usually birth tourism is done by wealthier foreigners but that foreign wealth is not visible to the government so they end up qualifying for welfare.
Or if they do, surely there are ways wealthy "real Americans" could hide their money just as easily and defraud welfare, so this isn't really a problem specific to birth tourism.
This is a response to the supreme court ruling on birthright citizenship. They're using the levers they do have, since that was removed. Anyone who agrees with the ruling should really read justice Thomas' dissent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think many (if not most) countries in the developed world should reduce immigration, and usa in particular should abolish birthright citizenship. The first because a lower supply of labor is going to create breathing space for an entire working population who will see tremendous job upheaval due to AI automation. A lower aggregate demand on houses, services will also be welcome to take the fuel out of inflation, an…
Just how many people are being born through birth tourism and end up claiming more in welfare than they pay in taxes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People aren't simply interchangeable units of economic output, and when they live together for long periods of time they develop unique and distinct cultures that are dear to them. Letting the entirety of the world into your country without stops is cultural suicide. If you put any a value in preserving culture you will find it ethical to put some limit on immigration. Assimilation is possible but there is a limit to…
There's no real Us culture to preserve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not until all Americans who can work have jobs
Do you propose to restrict the international flow of capital too while you're at it? Until every spare US dollar is invested in the US? or you just want to restrict the market for the 99% of people whose biggest asset is their labor.