As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Immigration Rights, Immigration Wrongs
Lewisham
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm a British citizen. I came to the US to study for a year five years ago and fell in love with California. I've since managed to come back to the US as a PhD graduate student. I want to be here, but the US doesn't want me. One of the stipulations of my visa, once all that money has been spent on my education (and it's not me that's paying), I have to leave the country. I was only allowed to be granted the visa on the stipulation that the US believed I was going to leave the country once I graduate.
I want to stay. But right now, I'm not allowed. Regardless of how responsible a citizen I am (of course, I want to stay so I can sponge off the US welfare state, am i rite?)
As you can probably tell, immigration issues are important to me. Today, I read on Slashdot an article that says H1-B workers are leaving the US. Usually, H1-B threads on Slashdot promote a "dey took our jerbs" mentality. This comment thread had people lambasting the system, saying it's driving well-educated workers out of America.
Of course, such thinking is not unique to the US (the UK is not exactly happy about the EU workers right now), but this was always the feeling I had: if I work hard and I am responsible, am I not educated enough to benefit the US economy, not hurt it? Why is it I can just ask for a visa for New Zealand or Canada, whereas the US is so hostile towards giving work visas, regardless of the fact I'm from a country with long standing friendly ties? H1-Bs are like golddust, and I could never have hoped to get one without a doctorate to begin with. I know the Canadian border is doing a roaring business with video game companies opening subsidiaries there so immigrants can be drawn from around the world to work.
I can see both sides of the argument and I'd love to hear what PA people think. Where do you draw the line to someone who benefits the country versus someone who hurts it? Is protectionism a valid economic idea, or is it mild xenophobia with a different name? What would someone in my position have to do to prove I should be allowed to stay?
I want to stay. But right now, I'm not allowed. Regardless of how responsible a citizen I am (of course, I want to stay so I can sponge off the US welfare state, am i rite?)
Fortunately, I'm engaged to a US citizen, so when we finally tie the knot, I'm eligible for a green card. Most are not as lucky as me.
As you can probably tell, immigration issues are important to me. Today, I read on Slashdot an article that says H1-B workers are leaving the US. Usually, H1-B threads on Slashdot promote a "dey took our jerbs" mentality. This comment thread had people lambasting the system, saying it's driving well-educated workers out of America.
Of course, such thinking is not unique to the US (the UK is not exactly happy about the EU workers right now), but this was always the feeling I had: if I work hard and I am responsible, am I not educated enough to benefit the US economy, not hurt it? Why is it I can just ask for a visa for New Zealand or Canada, whereas the US is so hostile towards giving work visas, regardless of the fact I'm from a country with long standing friendly ties? H1-Bs are like golddust, and I could never have hoped to get one without a doctorate to begin with. I know the Canadian border is doing a roaring business with video game companies opening subsidiaries there so immigrants can be drawn from around the world to work.
I can see both sides of the argument and I'd love to hear what PA people think. Where do you draw the line to someone who benefits the country versus someone who hurts it? Is protectionism a valid economic idea, or is it mild xenophobia with a different name? What would someone in my position have to do to prove I should be allowed to stay?
Lewisham on
0
Posts
And while yes your contributions would likely help the US it would also hurt those with whom you (or a non-permanent H1B visa recipient more closely) are competing for jobs. Not only is it fairly likely that such a recipient will work for less, but H1B workers have de facto far fewer rights as their employer controls their continued presence in the country (and are generally non-transferable to a new company). And after the visa has expired the additional experience and expertise goes to the originating country and no longer benefits the US.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
As you suggest, it would seen to be a bigger positive overall to grant visa extensions and whatnot to folks looking to stay and as PantsB mentions, many Americans might see that as 'dey took our jerbs'. Personally, I'm for more open immigration laws and the Melting Pot ideals. But 9/11 and the feelings and reactions it created has changed things and it's unlikely to ever really change back.
I think, however, most anti-immigration (legal or illegal) comes from 30+ years of trying to lay the blame on those who have the fewest legal protections. Most of it probably coming from republicans over the years, but they're not entirely at fault. And 'blame for what' you might ask? Does it matter? It's always been easiest to pick in the weakest.
Good luck with the green card situation. I think I remember a while ago they'd changed some of the rules for getting one by marrying a citizen. Making it a bit harder somehow to prevent quickie marriages of convenience from benefiting foreigners. Being British, I would presume you'd be white. Sadly, some instutionalised racism might be a benefit to you in that case.
Too bad you're in California now. The raisins are hitting the state pretty hard right now...
Yeah, i can sympathise. When i was younger i always reckoned that i'd start my carrer in the UK, then when i had enough experience move to the states. Now? Fuck that noise. The number of hoops you have to jump through just isn't worth it.
Now, I fully understand that's it's americas house, americas rules so they can make things as crazy as they like, but i'm wondering how many useful people have been put off coming to the states.
All that said, maybe i'm just spoilt with the EU and the free movement of labour that it has. It's pretty sweet.
The thing I like about the UK/Australian and NZ immigration law (excl refugees) is that it is very clear about what one needs to do – points are given for a range of criteria and if you get enough points you can be reasonably sure that you will get that visa. The UK’s problem is that until now they’ve not capped this number of migrants, so they have had very high numbers of people come in under their new points based system, whereas I believe NZ at least has some sort of effective cap on numbers. Further, the UK has a very liberal policy towards EU migrants – with the exception of Bulgaria/Romania and the Baltic states any EU citizen can come and work in the UK in the same way a UK citizen can. By comparison some other EU states still require a Work Permit of some kind (I think Germany/France at least). So the UK has sucked up a huge number of EU migrants on the basis that it is the easiest big economy to work in if one is from the EU.
Since the EU angle is so hard to change without causing EU political troubles I think the UK is going to get incredibly tough on non EU migrants, as that is one area they have a lot of freedom to act. But if they do this without care then they will be accused of racism. So if they say restrict rights of Indians to migrate to the UK but keep it easy for people from NZ or Australia then that is going to hurt their image. Or if they restrict existing rights, then the latter two countries may well retaliate, which will hurt as a lot of British people migrate to Australia and to a lesser extent, NZ.
If I'm reading this correctly, those against open borders are favoring this generation's apartheid?
For society, yeah that's pretty dumb. But those visas are purely for corporate good. If an employee is here only to work you control them much more. If that employee is fired or quit they almost always must leave the country. This allows for much more "creative" requirements such as 80 hr weeks as a longer hours, lower salaries and benefits and frankly less respect. They generally don't have families with them to "distract" them, and they will generally have less of a social life since they've been removed from their native culture.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I think that is what he is saying yes. While I would not go that far I do essentially think that anyone with a clean criminal record and willingness to work should be allowed to immigrate to America and that long term that will be the best for everyone. In some ways it might hurt our standard of living here but given the fact that we currently consume way to many resources I think it'll be O.K if our standard of living goes down a bit.
the problem with this is that there is nothing special about the land we live on that makes america a better place to live. the ideals and policies are what people want. so you can either bring everyone into america or try to turn other places into americanesque countries. of course expansionism is frowned upon and we can't fit 7 billion people into a small area of north america.... even if we could, why would we?
There's a difference between exporting those ideals by example and by force... One day we might learn that.
Applying pressure on other countries in order to gradually turn them into more liberal democracies with a strong rule of law is pretty accepted throughout most of the first world nations. Bombing them into loving us, not so much.
I'm astounded that someone would use the word apartheid to delineate the separating line between closed and open borders.
Who is liable for the costs of migration? Is it the migrants or the destination, or both?
In my opinion a lot of migration controls exist to ensure that the rate of migration matches the ability of the destination to integrate the migrants. Any human migrants need access to basic infrastructure like safety/security, housing, transport and healthcare, they may also need education, childcare or welfare assistance. Uncontrolled migration could mean that the destination country or region may not be able to support the above needs.
Who pays for these needs? Perhaps if your country is set up on a purely user pay system then whoever uses them will. But what if your country doesn’t, or the migrants can’t afford to pay but are still in the new area and clearly needing some or all of the above? You either ignore them or you do something. Now I live in a country where we try to provide all of the above as part of some sort of social contract (I guess) – it would be repugnant for us to have sectors of the country who don’t get access to these benefits. Perhaps if the number of migrants is small we can subsidise their access while they integrate into the country and get jobs etc. But if the number of migrants is either rather large or extremely variable we might not be able to do so. Which could result in large communities building up who have substantially worse conditions than more longstanding residents, shanty towns being the obvious example. Or it could result in the area or country expending significant resources or taking loans to support people who have made an unsolicited decision to move to their area. In this latter case the migrants might well contribute enough to make this investment worthwhile, but it is a risk, and that government would need to justify its expenditure to its taxpayers. I do recall the State of Queensland, Australia, did at one point consider levying new internal/external migrants in order to help pay for infrastructure upgrades, I’m not sure if they ever actually did so.
Loads of large cities in big or poor countries have shanty towns or slums ringing them because they cannot cope with the level of internal or external migrants. I don’t want to live in a country like that, where there is substantial inequality of that kind, nor do I want to aggravate our own situation where we are already struggling to keep people above the poverty line.
This is of course just one part of the immigration debate but given the severe economic climate its one I (obviously) rate rather strongly.
Disclaimer
Yup.
I am now going to not back that statement with any reasoning or evidence.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Well, you know, I'd probably reserve that label for situations a little more steeped in terror and tragedy, but fine, sure, I can get behind it.
Here is the question though: Do we want to do the greatest amount of overall good for the population of earth as a whole in the short term or should we be trying to achieve a long lasting utopia for a smaller number of people?
Restricting population movement is the latter and the current system, open boarders allowing anyone to work/live anywhere is the former.
Sure, Canada could let everyone in, but we would have to eliminate minimum wage. Overall productivity of the country might increase, but the average standard of living would go down. Of course most of the workers coming here would still be enjoying higher standards of living than they were used to. Overall this is the greater good for the greater number of people, but I do not consider life so precious that I would choose this option.
The Earth is overpopulated, Canada is one of the few countries with a reasonable population density that might allow us to be self sustaining. Our immigration policies do need reform, we should be letting more people in with less hassle, but if we just opened the boarders wide to the world it would not be good. Once every country has a stable, sustainable population living in reasonable conditions then of course every country should open its boarders.
Until then opening the boarders only encourages unsustainable development and unsustainable population growth worldwide.
Why?
Because if you want to keep an extremely large work force employed this is the only reasonable way.
Edit: you could argue we'd only need to lower minimum wage and welfare to really low levels but it amounts to the same thing.
Why?
So if people can't get a job in Canada, they go to another country, because the borders are open.
There is still plenty of room and plenty of room for increased agricultural production. Most starvation is due to incompetent government like with China decades ago or wars. Overpopulation is a red herring.
this is great for solving shortages/excess numbers of workers of specific types, but how to you intent to give 1 billion unskilled laborers jobs? And if they can't get a job in canada why would they move back to china when our welfare/unemployment will let them live like kings compared to what they would earn living somewhere that doesn't have minimum wage.
There are a good deal of second world countries. For instance, Mexico (not the best example right now because of their fucked up government, but grant me its second world status) has plenty of illegal immigrants from Honduras and Guatemala who work in Tijuana because of the higher pay.
And I like your usage of "live like kings"
That's pretty fucked up
is global warming a red herring also? Farming is sustained (at very low prices) by industrial practices that are unfriendly to the environment and rely on limited resources like oil/coal.
yes, it might be possible to feed the world at its current population if everyone eats seaweed, grains, and beans but again its quality of live vs quantity of life. It is simply not possible for 6 billion people to live like middle class canadians/americans/westerners.
Land bridge from Asia to Alaska, duh.
Why discussion of immigration spawns heavy use of hyperbole to make a point, I'll never know.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Plenty of people are very happy with a diet that doesn't include beef wellington and duck l'orange.
Perhaps 6 billion people could live like middle class if a handful of thousands didn't live like gods.
"Upon what logical grounds does it follow that when you popped out of you mom's cooch, you landed on soil that was declared homeland to some government or culture or religion or people, and not some other, and therefore are less deserving of some of the most basic fundamental rights of existence?"
And the answer: "you just don't understand the concept of sovereignty."
Which is called special pleading.
See, like this. What does welfare have to do with where you parents were born or what they did to get where they are? Is not the point of welfare a moral one? Does that morality have an eye for varying citizenships? I don't quite see how.
No shit, my wife even had to give up on any eligibility for welfare, food stamps and a whole bunch of those things just because she married me (filthy unwashed immigrant).
And op, be very careful on how you go about obtaining that residence permit through marriage. If something goes wrong during the application you are majorly screwed and it's very hard to get it done on a second try.
Eh. It's created by policymakers in wealthy countries and it keeps people in Kenya, Indonesia, Mexico, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Guatemala earning fractions of what they might earn for the same work elsewhere. It keeps the poor poor, often stuck in preindustrial economies where in many capacities they are treated like dirt.
The biggest single determinant of how well off you will be has nothing to do with the color of your eyes or skin, the language you speak, your gender, the college you go to, your religion or your work ethic, it's the country listed on your passport.
Apartheid kept people in economically barren locations and restricted their mobility and opportunities and split workers from their families, simply because of the conditions of their birth.
EDIT: Yar is correct.
EDIT2: Fuck, I'm in China. Have I told you people how fucking hard it is to get from China (as a Chinese person) to America? You have to save a fuckton of money just to be approved for the visa. The middle class here has no chance without a rich uncle, or marrying a white dude.
Yeah.