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

US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 159 posts

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#141

Post by munksbeer »

rayiner wrote: post #47
hvb2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly immigration to America isn’t hard. Judging by the numbers, it’s too easy. Just tell me, have you ever gone through it? My guess? You haven't as you would think a little different of how easy it is. And yes, I have.

I didn't have a U.S. passport until I was in high school, despite living in the U.S. since I was five. Lots of my family has gone through the process; I have a cousin going through it right now.

Are you hoping your cousin doesn't qualify because from what I can tell, you believe there are too many immigrants in the U.S. already?

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#142

Post by csmpltn »

hn_acker wrote: post #126
csmpltn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your family had to leave everything behind, risking a weeks-long journey at sea costing them everything they ever had, going into the unknown - at a time where nobody could travel. The US was not as rich, or built, or anything. People today get a 50$ plane ticket and move straight to the Bay Area. You don't see why things need to change?

> People today get a 50$ plane ticket and move straight to the Bay Area. > You don't see why things need to change? Are you asserting that the current system of legal immigration needs to change, with an unsubstantiated example of a rare $50 dollar plane ticket as if people can easily move to the US by plane? Do those people leave behind most of their belongings, or do they instead make multiple plane trips to move t…

I'm talking about maintaining an immigration system which is consistent with the realities of the time we live in.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#143

Post by rayiner »

boroboro4 wrote: post #124
xyzzyz wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the "total wealth of U.S. billionaires ". The billionaires own a tiny fraction of total US wealth. Most of the wealth is owned by people like me, who own a house, and stocks in retirement account.

My bad. However billionaires don’t own tiny part of US wealth, more like 5%-10%. And top 1% (and grandparent was talking about rich people) own 1/3 of US wealth.

The point is that billionaire wealth is not that much compared to the government’s current spending, much less what you’d need to support large numbers of immigrants on welfare (as suggested by OP above).

The top 1% have a lot more, but the cutoff for that is $11 million, and that includes home equity, family farms, etc. The bulk of those people are retired professionals and small business owners. For example, 4% of 75-79 year olds are in the top 1% of wealth. These are rich people, but not the kind of rich that AOC is talking about taxing.

I’m a huge supporter of taxing upper middle class people, but we should just tax them instead of playing games about wealth. The top 5%, that is people making above $260,000 a year, have an income of $5.6 trillion a year. They only pay $1.3 trillion in income taxes. Just double that.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#144

Post by rangestransform »

hn_acker wrote: post #129
rayiner wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of people would prefer if even family sponsorships didn't exist. Many people think of that as "gaming the system" because they allow "average" people to be immigrants. I assume Republicans want to get rid of this. I think Republicans didn’t really understand that this existed until recently. And yes, many want to get rid of it, because it’s a loophole in the skilled immigration system. We apply aggressive fil…

> And yes, many want to get rid of it, because it’s a loophole in the skilled immigration system. Why does "the skilled immigration system" represent the whole immigration system? What makes family sponsorship a "loophole" to H1Bs, when family sponsorship could instead be framed as an equivalent form of legal immigration with a different purpose? > and hundreds of thousands of low skill people come over because they’…

Why shouldn’t we try our best to make sure only net positives get in, and make sure they can’t bring net negatives with them?

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#145

Post by hn_acker »

csmpltn wrote: post #142
hn_acker wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People today get a 50$ plane ticket and move straight to the Bay Area. > You don't see why things need to change? Are you asserting that the current system of legal immigration needs to change, with an unsubstantiated example of a rare $50 dollar plane ticket as if people can easily move to the US by plane? Do those people leave behind most of their belongings, or do they instead make multiple plane trips to move t…

I'm talking about maintaining an immigration system which is consistent with the realities of the time we live in.

I took issue with the specific example you used ("get a 50$ plane ticket and move straight to the Bay Area") because it was too reductive (and unsubstantiated) to represent "the realities of" the immigration system "of the time we live in" in a way that would let me "see why things need to change". I think you should have fleshed out your example or chosen a better one.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#146

Post by hn_acker »

rangestransform wrote: post #144
hn_acker wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yes, many want to get rid of it, because it’s a loophole in the skilled immigration system. Why does "the skilled immigration system" represent the whole immigration system? What makes family sponsorship a "loophole" to H1Bs, when family sponsorship could instead be framed as an equivalent form of legal immigration with a different purpose? > and hundreds of thousands of low skill people come over because they’…

Why shouldn’t we try our best to make sure only net positives get in, and make sure they can’t bring net negatives with them?

To avoid losing the context of my previous comment in this chain, here is the relevant excerpt:

> I don't think it makes sense to have an immigration system based solely on "high skill", because not every member of a family should have to be "high skill" for the entire family to move to the US.

Now moving on to what you said:

> Why shouldn't we try our best to make sure only net positives get in, and make sure they can't bring net negatives with them?

Making prospective will-work-as-a-condition-of-immigration human beings who provide for their families choose between

(1) staying outside of the US,

(2) sending their families better income from the US only to eventually leave the US and return to worse job opportunities, or

(3) sending their families better income from the US while resigned to live permanently separately from their families (semantics note: vacationing to visit one's family on the rare occasions when one can afford to do so does not count as "living temporarily with your family")

is inhumane: a nation should not permanently hold continued legal immigration status hostage to require will-work-as-a-condition-of-immigration human beings to undergo the potential mental, emotional, and social suffering of being physically apart from their families. There should be at least one additional option:

(4) having to work for a capped, meaningfully finite duration of time before one's family members can immigrate without being forced to take the will-work-as-a-condition-of-immigration pathway.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#147

Post by gcanyon »

bubblethink wrote: post #57
gcanyon wrote: post #55

Strong opinion loosely held, but the U.S. immigration (not refugee) policy should be: 1. You are going to school? Great! Go to the DMV with reasonable documentation (student ID and registration paperwork?) and you get a year-long visa. Renew each year, welcome to America! 2. You have a job? Great! Go to the DMV with reasonable documentation (a couple pay stubs?) and you get a year-long visa. Renew each year, welcome…

Generally a sensible list, except I'm sure you have seen how the national list of "Certified Bad People" is used these days. A majority of people that ICE rounds up have no convictions or traffic type issues ( https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convi... ).

Yeah, I'd at least put the bad people list in some way under the control of the judiciary, but in the end you pretty much have to assume good faith when designing any system of supreme control.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#148

Post by rayiner »

hn_acker wrote: post #129
rayiner wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of people would prefer if even family sponsorships didn't exist. Many people think of that as "gaming the system" because they allow "average" people to be immigrants. I assume Republicans want to get rid of this. I think Republicans didn’t really understand that this existed until recently. And yes, many want to get rid of it, because it’s a loophole in the skilled immigration system. We apply aggressive fil…

> And yes, many want to get rid of it, because it’s a loophole in the skilled immigration system. Why does "the skilled immigration system" represent the whole immigration system? What makes family sponsorship a "loophole" to H1Bs, when family sponsorship could instead be framed as an equivalent form of legal immigration with a different purpose? > and hundreds of thousands of low skill people come over because they’…

> when family sponsorship could instead be framed as an equivalent form of legal immigration with a different purpose?

What would be that purpose?

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#149

Post by rayiner »

hn_acker wrote: post #146
rangestransform wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn’t we try our best to make sure only net positives get in, and make sure they can’t bring net negatives with them?

To avoid losing the context of my previous comment in this chain, here is the relevant excerpt: > I don't think it makes sense to have an immigration system based solely on "high skill", because not every member of a family should have to be "high skill" for the entire family to move to the US. Now moving on to what you said: > Why shouldn't we try our best to make sure only net positives get in, and make sure they c…

How is it “inhumane?” People who don’t want to leave their families behind, especially extended families, can simply choose not to immigrate. It’s not “inhumane” to make people stay in their own countries.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#150

Post by rangestransform »

hn_acker wrote: post #146
rangestransform wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn’t we try our best to make sure only net positives get in, and make sure they can’t bring net negatives with them?

To avoid losing the context of my previous comment in this chain, here is the relevant excerpt: > I don't think it makes sense to have an immigration system based solely on "high skill", because not every member of a family should have to be "high skill" for the entire family to move to the US. Now moving on to what you said: > Why shouldn't we try our best to make sure only net positives get in, and make sure they c…

We could have a long term dependent visa that permanently renders them ineligible for government assistance
Post reply on HN