Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cato.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

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

#101

Post by anonygler »

tomrod wrote: post #16
blindriver wrote: post #6

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.

> 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?

We have plenty of controls on money movements. Immigrants who are financially self-sufficient can come here to visit quite easily and freely. They just can't take up jobs. We even let them buy up land, which many countries disallow.

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

#102

Post by seanmcdirmid »

eesmith wrote: post #77
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And your point is ... what? That it's not possible for the US to come up with something like that on its own?

I don't think any one country would do this on their own, but a contested region that caused people to cooperate surely would. Like if Antarctica was turned into an international region, a bunch of countries would make it visa free as a matter of treaty.

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

#103

Post by RajT88 »

jmpman wrote: post #90
milesrout wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>America existed very prosperously for over 200 years with such a system The difference is visible in maps of "foreign country where most non-native residents come from" across the US. Before the 1970s, this was very diverse. People came to the US from all over. They came, learnt English, and became Americans. In the decades since, the map has become a single colour in every state from North to South because the over…

Are you talking about Mexicans? I live in Arizona, which has been a recipient of Mexican immigration at scale for longer than most other states. The Mexican immigrants do integrate, they do learn English, and within a couple generations they’re very much Americans. Sure, first generation commonly struggle with learning the language. Second generation have gone through our school system and speak perfect English. My t…

I live in Illinois, where some towns I have lived in had a 49% Latino population.

Most people learned English. Most before they came here. People who cannot speak it are rare and are disadvantaged by that fact. But also - the US has no official language specifically because the founders did not know which language would become predominant! English, Spanish, French and German were the major candidates and we still have French, Spanish and German speaking communities of native born citizens whose families have been here hundreds of years.

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

#104

Post by eesmith »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #102
eesmith wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your point is ... what? That it's not possible for the US to come up with something like that on its own?

I don't think any one country would do this on their own, but a contested region that caused people to cooperate surely would. Like if Antarctica was turned into an international region, a bunch of countries would make it visa free as a matter of treaty.

Okay, but the thesis is: "Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. This is the underlying truth that is indisputable."

There is part of Norway where anyone is allowed to immigrate to, so long as they follow the same rules which equally apply to Norwegian citizens.

That one counter-example would seem to put the thesis into dispute.

The appeal to 'uncontrolled influx of foreigners' is just strawman xenophobia, since even in the 19-oughts when immigration was one percent of the US population every year, there were still controls, and not everyone was accepted.

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

#105

Post by tomrod »

ImJamal wrote: post #71
tomrod wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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?

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.

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

#106

Post by pyb »

blindriver wrote: post #6

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.

It's not generous. Did you RTFA?

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

#107

Post by ImJamal »

tomrod wrote: post #105
ImJamal wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

Obviously there are differences, but it is still a fine analogy.

If I own property I can determine who can use it. I live in a democracy so I own my country as well. It is shared with others, but a house could also have split ownership. If you have split ownership on a house you have to come to an agreement on who can come into the house. Why is a country any different?

It is not just about using resources. If somebody broke into my house and just lived there, but didn't use any food or bandaids I would not be thrilled with it. While it is better than if they used my resources I don't want somebody I don't know in my house.

I have the exact same standard with my country. I don't want anybody who hasn't been documented in the country. If you are born here you get a birth certificate and you haven't committed any crimes. If you come here, I want to have some level of knowledge, like if you are a criminal or are carrying the plague.

Your analogy to a city doesn't apply because a city doesn't have sovereignty. It cannot stop people from coming into it like you can with a country or house. If you think it acceptable to break down the sovereignty of a country, then there is no reason why I can't do the same to houses.

We have a globally accepted idea on this, so the burden is on you why we need to destroy it.

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

#108

Post by blindriver »

tomrod wrote: post #105
ImJamal wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

> 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.

This is patently false, and goes to show you don't understand the issue at all. They have tremendous benefits. In New York State, they constitutionally are required to give housing and support, which is why you hear of stories of illegal aliens getting hotel rooms, gift cards, and cell phones.

Undocumented immigrants in California can apply for health plans through Covered California and may be eligible for certain public benefits. However, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for certain federally funded programs.

Health coverage Covered California: Individuals can apply through Covered California to see if they are eligible for a health plan.

Public benefits CalFresh: Food assistance

CalWORKs: Cash assistance for people with children

County Adult Assistance Programs (CAAP): Cash assistance for individuals without dependents

Medi-Cal: Health insurance

Legal resources Bay Area Legal Aid Free Advice Hotline: (800) 551-5554 National Immigration Legal Services Directory: A resource for immigration legal assistance

Know your rights

California law prohibits law enforcement from asking about a person's immigration status for immigration enforcement purposes.

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

#109

Post by seanmcdirmid »

eesmith wrote: post #104
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any one country would do this on their own, but a contested region that caused people to cooperate surely would. Like if Antarctica was turned into an international region, a bunch of countries would make it visa free as a matter of treaty.

Okay, but the thesis is: "Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. This is the underlying truth that is indisputable." There is part of Norway where anyone is allowed to immigrate to, so long as they follow the same rules which equally apply to Norwegian citizens. That one counter-example would seem to put the thesis into dispute. The appeal to 'uncontrolled influx of for…

> There is part of Norway where anyone is allowed to immigrate to, so long as they follow the same rules which equally apply to Norwegian citizens.

But it isn't really a part of Norway, or wouldn't be a part of Norway if Norway didn't give into Russian demands after WW2 (Russia had a claim on it as well, and it could have gone their way instead). That is a fluke, it isn't something Norway exactly wanted, but it was something they were willing to accept.

You still need a Schengen visa to get there (since you have to transit through Norway proper, Russia doesn't do flights there anymore). They will immediately kick you out if you don't have means to stay (regardless of nationality), so the whole influx of foreigners moving into Svalbard to squat w/o a job is simply not allowed (since you need money for a hotel or apartment or you'll freeze to death/get eaten by polar bears...and there are only a limited number of those available).

> The appeal to 'uncontrolled influx of foreigners' is just strawman xenophobia

While it may still be a strawman, Svalbard doesn't really provide for an effective counter-example as evidence.

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

#110

Post by tomrod »

blindriver wrote: post #108
tomrod wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This is patent…

> This is patently false, and goes to show you don't understand the issue at all. They have tremendous benefits. In New York State, they constitutionally are required to give housing and support, which is why you hear of stories of illegal aliens getting hotel rooms, gift cards, and cell phones.

The solutions being pushed are federal. Federal is intended to guard border, but it sounds like some states are fine with providing benefits. So is the friction with states exercising their rights to provide services to people in their borders, or with the provision of federal benefits?

Maybe I've lost the bead here, does the current administration support more or less federalism?

Post reply on HN