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

61–70 of 159 posts

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#61

Post by astura »

bubblethink wrote: post #49
astura wrote: post #38

I don't understand the premise of this. The author goes on and on (and on) about how "Americans have no idea how weird and tortuous their immigration system is" but doesn't really give any evidence. I wonder if they ever have spoken to an American? They must have some extremely out of touch social circles. Here in the real world, every American I know knows that the only way for "normal" (non-rich, non-connected, non…

The author is mostly correct. A lot of discourse in America revolves around, "Why don't they get come in legally?"

>A lot of discourse in America revolves around, "Why don't get come in legally?"

Do you honestly believe that people who say "Why don't [they] come in legally?" are complaining about a lack of administrative process? Do you really, honestly believe that? Because if you do I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can give you a great deal on.

"Why don't [they] come in legally?" is just conservative doublespeak for for "they don't belong here." It's begging the question and everyone knows that, even the person saying it. They know there's no legal avenue for the vast majority of "illegal immigrants."

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#62

Post by paxys »

rayiner wrote: post #33
paxys wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigrants account for ~98% of the American population.

There is a fundamental difference between settlers, who create a society, and immigrants, who move into a society that already exists. America was established by mostly British settlers . Folks on HN of all places should be able to understand the importance of founders. It's self-evident that this difference between settlers and immigrants has a huge impact. Australia, Canada, and the United States are very similar t…

America was pretty "settled" when Italian immigrants showed up in the 1910s-20s. Or the millions of Germans in the late 1800s. Or the millions of British and Irish a generation before that. Not every white American has ancestors who stepped off the Mayflower. The majority are - by your own definition - immigrants.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#63

Post by roenxi »

jeroenhd wrote: post #59
roenxi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The growth of a welfare system seems like the major change. How does that plan interact with the welfare system? If someone is impoverished in Asia can they get a plane ticket to the US and expect to eventually be entitled to a state-sponsored minimum standard of living? Maybe healthcare if the left's plans for that get through eventually?

The welfare system requires a stable population pyramid and currently the US is under-reproducing for that to happen. Without some immigration, the existing welfare system will become impossible to maintain. The reality is that many rich industries are built on the backs of illegal workers. If countries would punish those who hire illegal workers more than they do the illegal workers themselves, the resulting collaps…

> should prove that the current systems are already being held up by people who do not participate in the welfare system.

Well, yes. If there is a pool of workers who aren't covered by the welfare system then it would work out fine to just let them migrate. Big wins for everyone. Probably works great every time it is tried. And if you're arguing that in practice there is an underclass in the US that isn't getting welfare and that works then sure, easy to see.

But, and I'm just going by vague rumours from reading US political news, there seems to be a significant number of people who would want US citizens covered by a welfare system. Phrases like "Universal" and "Basic Human Right" turn up from time to time. The people arguing against offering everyone in a country general support have lost a lot of arguments in parliaments around the world since ... around the late 1800s with Bismark as I vaguely recall. It comes off as unfair and unreasonable.

Frankly I imagine the US political process will start asking why undocumented migrants aren't getting welfare of some sort fairly soon if it isn't already resolved that they get something. That seems like it'd be in line with the general trends. If they are there to stay they're locals.

How does all this square up with easy, formal migration? In a practical sense? Rough numbers?

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#64

Post by graemep »

rayiner wrote: post #53
graemep wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% of the population of everywhere other than parts of Africa if you go back far enough.

But Japan is clearly different from India, right? So how useful is that out-of-Africa factoid for analyzing modern societies?

That is my point.

The comment saying immigrants are 98% of the population of the US is not useful because they are people whose ancestors have been their for many generations.

Defining anyone who has immigrant ancestry as an immigrant is pointless. Sometimes it is useful to talk about, say, second generation immigrants, but not endlessly.

For one thing, after a generation or two the culture of people descended from immigrants diverges from that of their ancestors, even if their ancestry is limited to just one culture.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#65

Post by mothballed »

roenxi wrote: post #60
bubblethink wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this argument going back to Milton Friedman, but the immigration discourse these days is quite detached from any economic concerns. Forget impoverished people; there is rabid opposition to pretty much all immigration including, for example, investor or employment categories. It's a lot more tribal than rational.

Sure. But hypothetically, if we pretend people are rational for a few minutes here, how does the Ellis Island idea interact with a functional welfare system?

Friedman's argument was more so to just keep them as illegals but not deport them. That way they can support the welfare system but not use it. Friedman didn't want to make them legal until the welfare system has been crushed.

Of course that might require some changes to make it actually true illegals don't use state benefits. You need to cut off WIC for illegals, public schooling for illegals for instance before they will actually not be using public benefit. Also their children become legal via jus soli.

The obvious down-side is that those citizens / legal residents who have the skill level of illegal immigrants (sad, but commonly true) will see their real wages depressed and more competition for the job.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#66

Post by graemep »

sillyfluke wrote: post #37
graemep wrote: post #24

He is a US citizen? Three nationalities? His reasons for leaving the UK make interesting reading in current circumstances: > The USA is putting curbs on surveillance, expanding its national healthcare, and there are mass parental boycotts of standardised testing in its public schools. The UK just elected a Tory majority government that's going to continue to slash and burn the welfare state, attack schools, health, l…

>Its all very London specific. Your comment is a bit confusing. Did you mean everything except the part you quoted only applies to London? The part you quoted is about the UK not London and seems to contain all that is necessary for someone to understand why a person like Doctorow would have considered leaving at that point in time.

Good point. I have edited my comment to replace the "all".

You are right, its pretty much everything except what I quoted.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#67

Post by bubblethink »

astura wrote: post #61
bubblethink wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is mostly correct. A lot of discourse in America revolves around, "Why don't they get come in legally?"

>A lot of discourse in America revolves around, "Why don't get come in legally?" Do you honestly believe that people who say "Why don't [they] come in legally?" are complaining about a lack of administrative process? Do you really, honestly believe that? Because if you do I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can give you a great deal on. "Why don't [they] come in legally?" is just conservative doublespeak for for "they don'…

It's a bit of both. I would wager that most Americans believe that there are reasonable pathways, either through education, work, family ties, or even asylum, to "legally" immigrate to the US. They have never dealt with the Kafkaesque nightmare that is USCIS or the State Dept.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#68

Post by Havoc »

Literally just walked out of a language test for UK path on this.

Even though they can technically use your uni degree as proof of English speaking ability that process seems designed to be unworkable. So off we go to do a grade 5 language test…

And yeah also need years of travel history which is a pain in Europe where a cross border weekend getaway is a thing. Or worse via bus and ship. I don’t fuckin know what bus I was on years ago

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#69

Post by rayiner »

paxys wrote: post #62
rayiner wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a fundamental difference between settlers, who create a society, and immigrants, who move into a society that already exists. America was established by mostly British settlers . Folks on HN of all places should be able to understand the importance of founders. It's self-evident that this difference between settlers and immigrants has a huge impact. Australia, Canada, and the United States are very similar t…

America was pretty "settled" when Italian immigrants showed up in the 1910s-20s. Or the millions of Germans in the late 1800s. Or the millions of British and Irish a generation before that. Not every white American has ancestors who stepped off the Mayflower. The majority are - by your own definition - immigrants.

I agree that the majority of Americans are immigrants. But you said 98% above. Probably 40% of American are descended from settlers or African slaves, the people who constitute the founding population.

19th century Germans and Scandinavians are difficult to categorize. On one hand, the nation was well established by the time they came. On the other hand, they were the original settlers, creating greenfield cities, in large swaths of the country. Depending on how you count them, a majority of Americans may not have immigrant ancestry. But it’s surely a very large fraction.

Re: US Immigration on the Easiest Setting

#70

Post by hagbard_c »

astura wrote: post #54
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?

Where can I buy a international plane ticket for $50 ?

With Ryanair, Easyjet and other similar carriers. Not to the Bay area though, at least not yet.
Post reply on HN