Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible: US Legal Immigration Rules Explained • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by tomrod » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 4:22 AM UTC

ImJamal wrote: post #107

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…

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 somebo…

> 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.

Per sister comment to yours, we don't have a "globally accepted idea" as states (which do have sovereignty, unlike both homes and most cities) offer benefits to undocumented immigrants, suggesting that by way of policy they are okay with different standards of immigration. If two people arguing for the same policy disagree completely on the internal consistency in supporting their argument, this suggests that the argument lacks coherence.

I continue to reject that the analogy of a home has useful equivalence to a sovereign state regarding immigration on grounds that it is a logical fallacy.

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

#112

Post by blindriver » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 4:52 AM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #110

blindriver wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

You said that illegal immigrants weren't getting any services and weren't getting health services. Do you admit that you were wrong?

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

#113

Post by ImJamal » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 4:57 AM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #111

ImJamal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 somebo…

> 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. Per sister comment to yours, we don…

Almost everybody agrees that a state can determine who can enter and how long they can be there. Homes are similar because almost everybody agrees that the owner can determine the same thing.

When 99.99% of people agree on the similarity of two different things then the burden is on the 0.01% to prove the alternative.

If you refuse to make a coherent argument other than they are not identical then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

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

#114

Post by Ferret7446 » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 5:10 AM UTC

The implication here is that illegal immigration is somehow morally and/or legally justified if legal immigration is too hard. Or that a country is morally obliged to accept immigration of a level specified by a random person on the Web. Neither of which I find any inclination to agree with.

The article states almost hilariously: "By design, it excludes the vast majority of potential immigrants."

Yes. That's the point. It's by design. By design, the US does not want to accept lots of random immigrants. You don't need to explain how it's difficult by design; it was designed for that purpose.

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

#115

Post by eesmith » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 5:36 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #109

eesmith wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

If living there can give you Norwegian citizenship then yes, it's really part of Norway.

The Svalbard treaty says outright "The High Contracting Parties undertake to recognise, subject to the stipulations of the present Treaty, the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen". It's part of Norway.

You do not need a Schengen visa if you go directly there by boat or charter plane. That may be very expensive, yes, but a visa is not required.

Yes, you can be kicked out without a job or way to live there. Going back to the US in 1900, https://lost-in-history.com/an-immigrants-ellis-island-fate-... says in 1900 an immigrant to the US at Ellis Island was required to have at least $50, and of course the travel ticket was expensive.

The underlying point is that someone who wants to immigrate to Svalbard, and has enough money for the trip, can try to do so without first seeking permission from the Norwegian government, and without claiming refugee status.

Just like how the US in 1900 accepted immigrants without needing visas.

Neither the US in 1900 nor Norway now can be described as failing to 'enforce its borders and protect its citizens from an uncontrolled influx of foreigners' because in neither case is it uncontrolled, highlighting how blinddriver's answer has no logical relevance to the topic.