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

51–60 of 115 posts

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

#51

Post by tkel »

JackFr wrote: post #33
jerkstate wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really - this is just more Koch free-trade “libertarianism” where the costs are socialized and benefits accrue to only the wealthiest capitalists. Par for the course for Cato.

The benefits don’t accrue to the capitalists they accrue to consumers. Capitalists don’t get rich stealing from workers. The get rich improving the lives of consumers.

In a capitalist organization, by definition the capitalists take the productive output from the workers, and sell it, pocketing the difference, and deciding dictatorially how to distribute the revenue. So yes, by definition they are grifting off of the workers.

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

#52

Post by programjames »

legitster wrote: post #27
pton_xd wrote: post #4

Conclusion: "The administration should loosen all the restrictions that it has imposed above and beyond what Congress has required, and Congress should overhaul the system to open legal immigration for any person willing to work to contribute to the success of the United States." In other words, we should "promptly admit a majority of the 158 million who told Gallup that they would want to come," according to the 201…

We don't ask of every baby that is being born in the US how they will make the country better. But if given the option to bring in a fully grown adult, who already saves us the cost of an education, is of prime working age, and wants to be in this country, we suddenly care?

In the early 1900s, the government implemented eugenics for this reason. Nowadays, people feel the country is better off just letting people plan their own pregnancies, which is a looser form of this. The difference between restricted immigration and open immigration would be akin to having a baby when you want to have a baby, versus being assigned random kids to foster.

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

#53

Post by programjames »

legitster wrote: post #47
toomuchtodo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When every US citizen who wants a job in the US has one, one they can live off of with a living wage, sure, it’s up for a conversation (when legitimate labor shortages exist vs faux shortages leveraged as labor cost controls). Why am I going to support immigration that drives down wages for capital returns? Because it makes “the country” more wealthy by making a select few wealthier? Ineffective policy imho. I am nev…

By that logic we should restrict the number of children being born. But the growth of our country from a population of 50 million to 300 million did not result in a job loss of 250 million jobs. If anything, immigrants create many more jobs than they take. The deadweight to an economy is it's non-working population (retirees, children) so an influx of young, working families increases wages overall for natives.

I mean, you've just invented eugenics. Restrict the number of children being born that would not help the economy out. The government did do this once upon a time, but there are tradeoffs like riots you have to take into account. The difference between immigrants and babies is the immigrants can't riot within the US, so the US has no need to cater to their desires. However, immigrants that create more jobs than they take, or raise wages and innovation do have a pretty easy time immigrating to the US (e.g. investor and o1/e1 visas).

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

#54

Post by programjames »

tombert wrote: post #29
jalapenos wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good thing for those classes of people you just mentioned (governments, business owners). For everyone else it's just increased competition.

I'm pretty sure that's a pretty reductive take, and if you believe that then you should be ok with decreasing birth rates as well? Every baby born today could be competition for you or your kids in ~16-30 years.

Trying to limit birth rates is a tragedy of the commons (no individual in your community is incentivized to limit themselves), while trying to limit immigration is a competition between two commons (and thus cooperative within your community).

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

#55

Post by paleotrope »

legitster wrote: post #23

Milton Friedman: > If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutua…

"Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket."

This stopped being accurate about a decade or two ago.

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

#56

Post by programjames »

I feel like the reason immigration is a controversial issue is because people don't feel like one's circumstance of birth is really their "fault". If you don't have a choice in the matter, can you really be blamed? And thus, there's no reason people born in America should get any special privileges compared to those born elsewhere.

I agree. If we could snap our fingers, and fix everything that went wrong in someone's life due to unforutunate circumstances, there is no reason they should be blamed. However, until we can, we have to blame people, even if they are not complicit in their circumstance.

For example, if someone puts a gun to your head, and tells you to shoot a random passerby, I won't blame you very much when you stand in trial without a gun to your head. However, if that gun never leaves your head, e.g. you're part of an enemy military, it seems rather justified to shoot to kill on sight. Maybe you don't want to be there, but you cannot change your circumstance and neither can I, so I have to find fault (or die).

Immigration seems similar. People who want to immigrate to the US are not complicit in their circumstance. If they could have been born in America, and gotten the education, resources, and connections Americans have, they would have. We can snap our fingers, and let them change nationalities, but it will not magically give them the same education, resources, or connections Americans have. And thus, we must find fault in them unless they come in with said education, resources, and connections.

This is just game theory. I consider the purpose of "fault" or "blame" to determine who gets punished so that I am better off. Thus, if I will not be better off with someone immigrating into my country, I should blame them for the circumstances of their birth. Is it fair? "Fair" is a tricky word. At the very least, it seems right.

An issue I find with lots of people on the pro-immigration side is they claim immigrants (1) take jobs I wouldn't want anyway, (2) boost the economy, (3) increase birthrates, and so on, but this doesn't answer why we should allow immigration. Everyone, even the restrict-immigration crowd, is pretty pro-immigration when it comes to people that will make their lives better. But, in America at least, the pro-immigration crowd seems to want completely open movement. Why would that be better than having your cake and eating it too? I.e. let anyone who is good for the economy in, and leave everyone else out?

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

#57

Post by programjames »

programjames wrote: post #49
kykeonaut wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like implicit bias. "Many people in my circle have an H1-B visa, thus it is far from impossible to get one."

I'm perfectly aware most people would fail this easy task, but a thousand years ago most people would fail to read. Just because it's easy, doesn't mean most people will succeed.

Only ~5,000 people get E1 visas each year. That's 0.003% of the people who want to immigrate. There are surely many, many more people that are highly skilled and would be beneficial to have in America. Maybe it would be "easy" for you and your friends to get an E1 visa, but it should still be much easier to get a permanent visa for skilled work.

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

#58

Post by legitster »

paleotrope wrote: post #55
legitster wrote: post #23

Milton Friedman: > If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutua…

"Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket." This stopped being accurate about a decade or two ago.

The amount of welfare going to illegal immigrants is criminally overstated. For the most expensive entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, immigrants contribute vast amounts without drawing anything.

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

#59

Post by relaxing »

mzmzmzm wrote: post #45
legitster wrote: post #23

Milton Friedman: > If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutua…

Couldn't you satisfy the patterns Friedman identifies just by having perpetually renewable work visas and a path to full citizenship after an arbitrary time like 10 years?

Why should we set our slaves free after 10 years, when we can work them until they collapse in the fields and die there?

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

#60

Post by basementcat »

legitster wrote: post #23

Milton Friedman: > If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutua…

> Milton Friedman:

> > If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited.

The USA didn’t have free immigration before 1914. The Chinese Exclusion Act was signed in 1882 and renewed in 1892 and 1902. Immigration from China continued to be banned until the Magnuson act of 1943 and Chinese-Americans were not permitted to own property in all jurisdictions until the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1965.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson_Act

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_...

Post reply on HN