"Coming here illegally is a crime so everyone who does it is a criminal."
The legal moralism people apply to immigration is absurd, especially in the United States. We have purposefully made it impossible to do the right thing, so we can rejoice in punishing those who do it "wrong". It's shameful, in my opinion.
Look, the point is that democracy should mean democracy. You don't like our immigration laws. I really don't like our immigration laws. They're still our immigration laws, we should fight to change them. Nobody's human rights are being actively violated because they're not allow to immigrate here.
The entire reason the last 20 years of effective nullification (by blue states ignoring them and even subverting them) is so pernicious is because it's just plain anti-democratic. If, like marijuana, most people were effectively in favor then this wouldn't be a serious issue, but the problem is that nullification undermines rule of law. It's hard for us to argue for a reasonable immigration system when, if we don't get the system we want, we literally just say "fuck it, just ignore the rules."
There is no more blue state ignoring immigration laws than blue states ignoring crimes like federal tax evasion. It’s not the state’s responsibility to enforce immigration laws or to help the federal government enforce immigration laws.
In fact, the Supreme Court actually said states had no standing to sue the federal government to enforce the law.
From what I can see, sanctuary cities were acting within the law. Their only stance was that they wouldn’t spend precious time and resources verifying immigration status for schools, and city services. As these are paid for and voted on by city residents, that seems fair.
If states, and cities aren’t bound to help the federal government enforce every law, unless congress writes a law to say they must.
CBP and ICE always had the general authority to be more effective, but did not use it. As we can see from actions in this era, enforcing immigration law at all costs has draconian side effects on civil liberties, and general happiness and wellbeing.
While it’s true, the immigration issue has been marinating for a while, the current policy is not a good solution.
Do you think each person is responsible for enforcing federal laws? Like if you personally are not spending your own time and money to round up those in violation of federal statute then you're doing something wrong?
And if not, is it true of your neighborhood? Of your town? What level of grouping of people is big enough that they are required to help Washington with whatever thing they have asked for? Keeping in mind that our constitutional system is designed around a federal government that is supposed to be responsive to the desires of the people from the various states, not the other way around.
> Nobody's human rights are being actively violated because they're not allow to immigrate here.
US law enshrined both refugees and asylum seekers as separate categories of immigration specifically to deal with human rights issues observed in the 20th century. While that doesn’t mean any person anywhere has a right to be a citizen in the US, it is closer to true than your statement suggests.
“Sanctuary policies” are about enforcing the 10th Amendment. The Federal government alone is responsible for immigration policy. The states should not have to participate, and sanctuary policies are a public declaration that they won’t (usually because local law enforcement knows that it makes their primary job of enforcing the criminal code harder if residents won’t testify).
The reason we haven’t reformed US immigration laws is that everyone agrees it is broken, but nowhere close to a supermajority agree on _how_ it is broken or the steps needed to fix it. See “gang of 8” negotiations circa 2013. This is the inevitable outcome of the founders making Congress slow/stagnant by default. Also damn near half of the voters being propagandized with immigration ragebait for decades.
When my family came over to what is now the USA, immigration was as simple as paying for your own boat trip and passing a health inspection. It was hundreds of years of very “open borders” before Congress decided to go hyper racist and xenophobic in the 1870s.
It’s worth poiting out that Republicans have long insisted that “we can’t reform immigration laws without _first_ kicking out all illegal immigrants. It’s neither a reasonable expectation that we can do that, nor is it a reasonable precondition for reform negotiations. It’s also hilariously false that all recent immigrants vote for Democrats — that demographic is FAR more likely to be Evangelical Christian or Roman Catholic Christian, which heavily vote towards Republicans (not to mention all of the Socialism/Communism haters from Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela who think Democrats are somehow equivalent to “far left”).
Nullification doesn’t harm US law. It is the escape valve people in the US use judiciously when US law becomes unruly and malicious.
> They're still our immigration laws, we should fight to change them
It’s good advice, but a big hill to climb. The Dem politicians walk a fine line here. The influx of illegal immigrants is truly unpopular, not just with folks on the right, but also many in the moderate left and independents. They dems realize it’s a hot potato which is why you get a lot of immigration rhetoric to try and satisfy the anger, but don’t really get any effort to change any laws even when they held both branches and the presidency through 2021-2022.
Prior to 2016, both parties were pretty aligned on it, only when Trump made it a core issue did the parties start to diverge on the topic.
You can also call it undemocratic, not just because blue states are actively subverting them, but because the intent of the subversion is to create new voters and shift demographics into their favor.
Actually the United States stands out not from the moralism, that’s very common in other countries.
What amazed me is how many Americans think immigration laws are optional. That entering and working illegally is no biggie.
Every other country I’ve lived in has much more strict immigration laws. Even the 3rd world countries that can’t seem to deliver potable tap water.
Deportations are standard, quick and supported by the population. Actually “supported” is wrong, it was more “yeah and…?”. No anger, self-riteousbess, just “thats how it’s supposed to work”
Most countries consider immigration enforcement is as standard as enforcing laws against bank robbery or littering. “Why wouldn’t you do it?” is the most typical take.
I don't think it's a very common opinion in the US that immigration laws should not be enforced. There is a small contingent on the left that wants that on humanitarian grounds and another small contingent on the right that wants very loose immigration laws for the business benefits of immigrant labor.
There were an enormous number of deportations under previous administrations without much pushback.
What distinguishes this situation is that the deportations are proceeding with a complete disregard for US law and human rights. People are being deported without getting a chance to fight it in court, a violation of the constitutional right to due process. People are being rounded up as suspected illegal immigrants solely based on their skin color or the language they are speaking, a violation of the constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. People are being deported while it is still being determined whether they are eligible for asylum or refugee status, a violation of US statute.
The US is supposed to be a nation of laws where everyone can be certain that their legal rights will be respected. That is being grossly violated with the current deportation push.
Until the 1920's it was not a crime to enter and work inside the US without prior authorization.
Staying and working beyond the initial authorization of a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal one in the US.
Laws are created by men with a specific intent not handed down as truth from god. In the case of the US, immigration law has largely been shaped by a racist quota system formed as a reaction of previous immigrants towards the next flight of immigrants. A "fuck you, I've got mine" mentality.
Illegal immigration is a crime. So is jay walking and software piracy and murder. There’s a lot of nuance to be had here in how big of a deal it is and how people who do the deed are treated.
It’s always felt weird though that it’s become taboo to call it a crime, but maybe that’s just me.
The issue is that it is illegal AND a nontrivial part of the electorate wants it enforced.
The “let’s all step back and consider my side’s view of this” isn’t really relevant after our side loses elections. If the will of the people is to start enforcing jay-walking, for better or worse, we’re going to see a lot of jay-walking enforcement.
The vast majority of undocumented immigrants arrived legally and are visa overstays, which is NOT a criminal violation but rather a civil violation.
For most of America's history it wasn't even illegal to enter the US without prior authorization. The law that made it a crime to enter the US without authorization (8 U.S.C. § 1325) was specifically created in the 20's to restrict immigration by race. And the violent enforcement of this law has really only ramped up in the last few decades.
It is very strange to see many people in the US (and in this thread) accept the current enforcement framework as simply a set of static rules that just happen to be here, and not a relatively recent phenomenon that was enacted and enforced for a project of racial prejudice.
I think it's more that something being a crime doesn't make it immoral, and something being a crime doesn't mean it should continue to be.
I do not think most illegal immigration should be considered a crime. That's my position. Moralizing about it by saying "well these people are CRIMINALS" because they crossed an imaginary line on a map is odious to me.
It should be telling that a great portion of these people are young men, and young men from certain regions view women, minorities, and ideas like honesty and fairness much differently. Europe is facing this right now. What are you suggesting? All of India moves to the US? Are you even aware they'd do that if they could? That is _not_ practical.
What do you mean with "telling"? That they are in tech because that's the demographic of tech folks? Or that men in most parts of the world are responsible to make enough money for the whole family?
It's more rethorical but I seriously don't know how that's telling.
> Europe is facing this right now.
What exactly? War in Syria was ten years ago.
> What are you suggesting? All of India moves to the US?
I find it clear that the suggestion is: Provide a clear and feasible path for people who wish to migrate and will benefit the society. We lack that in Europe/Germany as well and ironically are missing the laws to deal with criminal immigration effectively.
It's sad many people don't even know or think about the difference of regular migration and coming as a refugee. Migration of skilled workers must become much easier in Europe, while refugees are a very different topic.
> We have purposefully made it impossible to do the right thing
We have the most people trying to get in and let the most people in legally year after year, so not only is it no impossible, but we're the best at it.
> so we can rejoice in punishing those who do it "wrong".
Except no one is rejoicing that, but I can see how certain bubbles may have interest in spreading that misinformation.
Also a lot of people applying that legal moralism consider it not just acceptable, but laudable to try to cheat on your taxes, a pretty significant crime.
Combining qualities you oppose into theoretical groups is a common, very human fallacy, but it will poison your mind against humanity. It's the origin of tribalism.
For example, I'm a white non-religious straight liberal US man with a hippy upbringing that I value dearly, and I think the opportunity to immigrate should be as available as possible to all good people. But I also recognize that it must be responsibly controlled, and the native culture and quality of life must be prioritized (for all nations, not just the West), and one piece of that is stopping illegal immigration. And it's not unreasonable to have an opinion that we are, to some degree, failing at all the pieces.
Reverse the order of the crimes in that sentence and you can find that opinion in droves on HN any day of the week.
What we really ought to be ridiculing if not punishing and marginalizing is inconsistency and cognitive dissonance.
There are so many issues possible in a nation of 300+mil that we cannot form opinions on policy based on vibes and emotions, we must have principals and let them inform our opinions.
Illegal immigration isn’t bad because people didn’t do their paperwork. It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many. So “making it easier to immigrate legally” misses the point completely.
And this concern about “who and how many” is well founded. Alexander Hamilton himself noted the dangers of cultural division from immigration. https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie.... He wrote: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”
Silicon Valley understands that culture drives outcomes when it comes to companies and startups, but have a huge blind spot about culture when it comes to countries. But culture matters just as much for countries as companies. Immigrants bring their cultures with them—typically from places less successful than the U.S.—and that culture persists for generations: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... That has serious consequences for society. You can easily look at Minnesota versus New Jersey and see that immigration patterns have left an imprint on culture centuries later. And it’s equally clear that certain parts of the country are culturally better than other parts of the country. America would be much more orderly and well governed if more of it was like Minnesota and Utah and less like West Virginia or New Jersey.
> It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many. So “making it easier to immigrate legally” misses the point completely.
No it doesn't. What if I want more foreigners? What if I want people to come here? Somehow, these arguments only ever seem to rachet in favor of people who want less immigration, not more.
I'd say the federal government of the United States is currently overriding my preferences about who to allow into the country and how many, actually, by aggressively enforcing immigration laws in ways they likely were not intended to be enforced, and in ways which are repeatedly being found to be illegal, actually.
> And it’s equally clear that certain parts of the country are culturally better than other parts of the country. America would be much more orderly and well governed if more of it was like Minnesota and Utah and less like West Virginia or New Jersey.
You need to add a "to my preference" here when you talk about which parts of the country are "culturally better" than others. You clearly have strong ideas about what you'd like US culture to be, many of which I suspect I deeply disagree with.
Is your argument that West Virginia is "disorderly" or "culturally inferior" because of immigrants? Which groups, and from when?
But society's determination is that a certain quantity of illegal immigrants should enter every year because they have less rights and can be better exploited by businesses. Being deliberately blind to this reality is also living in a fantasy land.
China has 1.4 million immigrants, and 12000 foreigners with permanent residency. Not per year, but total, cumulative [1]. Despite having 4x the population of the USA.
Meanwhile the USA has gone from 83% White in 1970 [2], to White children being a minority [3] in less than 50 years. And most of that change was due to legal immigration (that they were promised wouldn't change anything [4]) Yet still they're called out for not erasing their own identity even faster.
So do you just not believe in the national right to self-determination, to decide who may live among them? Do you also not believe in this right for Kashmir [5,6] or Palestine?
[6] Human rights activists said that the moves to change Kashmir’s status were only the first steps in a broader plan to erode Kashmir’s core rights and seed the area with non-Kashmiris, altering the demographics and eventually destroying its character. Previous laws barred outsiders from owning property. - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/asia/india-pakistan...
How long did it take America to go from 0% white to almost complete native erasure?
If we’re gonna apply your definitionally racist argument then whites (ie Europeans) (or Asians or Africans) shouldn’t be in the country.
Also, apparently you’re ok with America’s population doubling with immigration as long as those immigrants are white Europeans?
The share of immigrants as a percentage of population is about where it was between the mid 1800s and early 1900s, but you’re fine with that because it was primarily Europeans? (Although, ironically, a lot of those Europeans were also not considered white contemporaneously and it’s only now that their descendants consider themselves white and rail about all the non white immigeants).
> So do you just not believe in the national right to self-determination, to decide who may live among them? Do you also not believe in this right for Kashmir [5,6] or Palestine?
On a personal moral/philosophical level, I think lines on a map which we call "nations" are a foolish way to decide who is allowed to go where and do what.
So from first principles, I don't accept the framing. I don't think "national" right to self-determination is a meaningful or valid term. It exists in practice but it is not valuable except in terms of pragmatism/realpolitik.
Therefore, I advocate for immigration policies which are much more focused on helping people and bettering society around me than on any nation-based concept of identity. That doesn't mean I want to bring more people who would hurt others into my society. But it does mean I don't care about whether the people who come in are "like me" in some meaningful way.
(That doesn't mean I don't act like nations exist or agree that they do, just that my ideal world probably would not include them in that way. Nor does it mean I don't think national lines ever echo the lines of societies or that I'm an anarchist who doesn't believe in governments. I just don't accept the idea that "this person lives on this side of the border" is a meaningful way to decide if they get to live in a place or not.)
Also, it sounds like what you consider "national" framing is actually racial framing. Given that you spend a lot of time talking about white people in a nation that has never been just white people, is that not correct?
Why are you so concerned with White people being the minority? Does the US somehow have a history of not treading minorities equally or something that I’m not aware of?
The US is doing something right if so many people are ready to wait in limbo for decades of the one life they get on this planet.
For people on employment visas - they are one economic downturn away from everything being undone. They ll get 60/90 days to leave the life and relationships they have spent years building.
But they aren’t going to those other developed countries, they are coming to the US. Even overseas immigrants are flying into neighboring countries and then crossing over.
As someone who was in this limbo and eventually became a citizen... It's better than the other options. In particular, I could take my dollar savings back to my home country and I'd still be much ahead of my friends who never tried to come to the US.
All true but isn't our quality of life built on mines in Africa (car batteries and phone batteries) and sweatshops in China and co (much of our clothes)? To what degree does that reinforce that other countries have lower quality of life? Then again, this isn't specific to just the US.
There is no doubt that the country caps and quotas for immigrants from countries with large populations like India, Mexico, Philippenes and China are a huge problem.
I’m not sure that anyone can really agree on a solution, but there should be some stop loss where these things can’t be delayed beyond a certain fixed length of time and/or they shouldn’t issue the initial visas if the backlog to adjust is so long.
The reason that this and most immigration law hasn’t been fixed is that while most people agree that this is a problem, there is not really a compromise solution that everyone can really agree on.
> I’m not sure that anyone can really agree on a solution, but there should be some stop loss where these things can’t be delayed beyond a certain fixed length of time and/or they shouldn’t issue the initial visas if the backlog to adjust is so long.
What initial visas? If you are talking about selectively denying non-immigrant dual-intent H-1B visas to people from countries with long timelines in some or all immigrant visa categories (not that getting an H-1B doesn't imply intent to seek to immigrate, and doesn't require qualification in an immigrant visa category), that's...well, even as someone who thinks the H-1B is a bad idea ab initio, a remarkably non-helpful policy to layer on top.
> The reason that this and most immigration law hasn’t been fixed is that while most people agree that this is a problem, there is not really a compromise solution that everyone can really agree on.
It's not just that people agree it is a problem and don't agree on a solution, people don't even agree on what the problem is though they might agree that, e.g., the long waitlists from certain countries are symptoms of some problem.
Like, when some people favor eliminating all immigration from certain countries, and other people favor eliminating per country caps, that isn't a different solution to the same problem, its a fundamental difference in what is perceived as the problem.
It is not a right, for sure. However, there are historical reasons why they are county wide quotas. Before the 1965 INA (Hart-Celler Act, which JFK wanted), they had a national-origins quota system: each country's quota was based on the existing immigrant population of that national origin already in the United States, using data from the 1890 census. Because the U.S. population in 1890 was overwhelmingly from Northern and Western Europe (especially Protestants), this formula strongly favored those groups. Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe was heavily restricted because most of them are Catholics. Once Catholics got political power, thanks to JFK, this is reformed in favor of what we see country based caps.
The national-origins formula was explicitly designed to maintain the existing ethnic composition of the U.S.--in other words, preserve what policymakers at the time considered the “traditional” American demographic makeup.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Idk about US, but in Europe we are in dire need of migration. The shortage in for example health care is acute and alarming, at least in Germany.
Our cleaning women is just about to finish her three year training program. However she failed the final exam because of the complicated wording of the test. Her German is good enough but formal German is a different beast. She is allowed to redo the test a single time next week.
If she passes, she will have an official German degree but has to leave the country because her visa is based on the training program. She then has to reapply for another visa to be allowed to reenter Germany.
Completely dysfunctional in my opinion. The system should bring people in that will be a net positive for the country while filtering out criminals.
Pragmatically: if you want to enforce the legality of a state-affirmed migration path, it has to be viable. Without a militarized border (which is impractical based on nation size and undesirable for fiscal and moral reasons) and a militarized interior (do you _like_ what ICE is becoming?), the best mitigation for illegal immigration is viable legal immigration.
Fiscally: immigrants have above-average entrepreneurial tendencies. It doesn't take a lot of enterprise creations and resulting tax payment and job creation to offset a _lot_ of social service consumption. Inbound migration also is what keeps the US from having a net-shrinking population, which until we can get away from late-stage capitalism is a death knell for the economy.
Morally and ethically: this is a nation of immigrants. If you claim to be a native, do you speak Navajo? Ute?
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
The American people have spoken time and again that we want these caps. That we want opportunity spread to more countries than just the most populace. That immigration policy should support diversity over other considerations.
The reason this hasn't been fixed is because most American's support current policy along with promoting family unification and other decisions that are based on our moral positions. America has set a pretty generous amount of immigration slots, and it's not broken that we chose to fill them in a diverse way.
> That we want opportunity spread to more countries than just the most populace. That immigration policy should support diversity over other considerations.
There's an unspoken assumption there that India and China are monocultures, containing no diversity within themselves. Or that diversity is neatly defined by a border on a map.
Those four countries have very different quota problems though: folks from Mexico and Philippines face a long wait in family immigration, mostly to bring their kids & siblings to the US ( https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/v... ), whereas Indian nationals also face long waits for employment based green-cards.
Noting that you can always use your country of birth or your spouse's country of birth (cross-chargeability) for an employment-based green-card, my understanding has always been that Indians have large preference (or face large pressure) to marry other highly-educated folks that they often meet in the US but are also born in India that other immigrants just don't face as much.
> Those four countries have very different quota problems though: folks from Mexico and Philippines face a long wait in family immigration, mostly to bring their kids & siblings to the US
Mexico faces long wait times in all of the quota-limited family-based immigrant visa categories.
The Phillipines faces a few months longer wait time in one severelly globally backlogged family based category (F4; where there is a 17 year backlog for most countries and its 3 months longer for the Phillipines), but not otherwise.
India and China have long backlogs in most employment-based immigrant visa categories (but generally much less than Mexico has in family-based categories), India also has an longer-than-usual backlog (more than Phillipines, less than Mexico) in the F4 family based category.
I think they could at least offer some sort of reprieve for people waiting in line. Their status is tied to employer whims. If someone has lived in the country for 5 years and in line for citizenship perhaps give them some protection in case their employment gets taken away. Some grace period, perhaps access to healthcare.
I suspect that the amount of background legwork for each application is fairly limited. It should be possible to triage the vast majority of applications in a matter of days at most, at least the denials. It's wild that it takes years to do this.
There was bipartisan immigration legislation working its way through Congress, until the president killed it because it went against his "immigration bad" narrative.
Anecdotally as someone in a large tech company, fairly common and much easier to get than a lot of visa classes. But then, you have to be Canadian or Mexican (and the Canadian one is generally easier).
Also keep in mind that it's a non-immigrant, non-dual intent visa, so if you end up wanting to stay, you'll need to adjust to another class at some point.
Factual inaccuracy in TFA: visa backlog depends on the country of birth, not country of citizenship. If you're born in China, you will always be in the "China" queue even if you're a citizen of some other country.
But if you welcome immigrants so as not to run out of labor or stagnate culturally, rather than simply dislike immigrants, you'd want to improve the bureaucracy.
I swear, it needs to amended so that natural born citizens should also have to pass citizenship questions like immigrants to retain their citizenship. How can you not know this? Have you never read or heard a recital of the bill of rights?
And yet we still have the most people trying to get in, and we also let the most people in annually, so we must be doing something better than everyone else. Of course, everything can always be improved.
The odds of a change in the constitution are pretty low. Whereas our economic need for immigrants is consistently high... So most of this is just very cruel theatre. Employers fill out an I9 for every hire. Illegal immigration could be ended in a week at the employer level through purely administrative enforement. Instead we have what we have; which means the cruenty theatre is the purpose. Why would that be?
Readit News
"Coming here illegally is a crime so everyone who does it is a criminal."
The legal moralism people apply to immigration is absurd, especially in the United States. We have purposefully made it impossible to do the right thing, so we can rejoice in punishing those who do it "wrong". It's shameful, in my opinion.
The entire reason the last 20 years of effective nullification (by blue states ignoring them and even subverting them) is so pernicious is because it's just plain anti-democratic. If, like marijuana, most people were effectively in favor then this wouldn't be a serious issue, but the problem is that nullification undermines rule of law. It's hard for us to argue for a reasonable immigration system when, if we don't get the system we want, we literally just say "fuck it, just ignore the rules."
In fact, the Supreme Court actually said states had no standing to sue the federal government to enforce the law.
If states, and cities aren’t bound to help the federal government enforce every law, unless congress writes a law to say they must.
CBP and ICE always had the general authority to be more effective, but did not use it. As we can see from actions in this era, enforcing immigration law at all costs has draconian side effects on civil liberties, and general happiness and wellbeing.
While it’s true, the immigration issue has been marinating for a while, the current policy is not a good solution.
And if not, is it true of your neighborhood? Of your town? What level of grouping of people is big enough that they are required to help Washington with whatever thing they have asked for? Keeping in mind that our constitutional system is designed around a federal government that is supposed to be responsive to the desires of the people from the various states, not the other way around.
Many people’s rights are being violated recently while enforcing immigration law
US law enshrined both refugees and asylum seekers as separate categories of immigration specifically to deal with human rights issues observed in the 20th century. While that doesn’t mean any person anywhere has a right to be a citizen in the US, it is closer to true than your statement suggests.
“Sanctuary policies” are about enforcing the 10th Amendment. The Federal government alone is responsible for immigration policy. The states should not have to participate, and sanctuary policies are a public declaration that they won’t (usually because local law enforcement knows that it makes their primary job of enforcing the criminal code harder if residents won’t testify).
The reason we haven’t reformed US immigration laws is that everyone agrees it is broken, but nowhere close to a supermajority agree on _how_ it is broken or the steps needed to fix it. See “gang of 8” negotiations circa 2013. This is the inevitable outcome of the founders making Congress slow/stagnant by default. Also damn near half of the voters being propagandized with immigration ragebait for decades.
When my family came over to what is now the USA, immigration was as simple as paying for your own boat trip and passing a health inspection. It was hundreds of years of very “open borders” before Congress decided to go hyper racist and xenophobic in the 1870s.
It’s worth poiting out that Republicans have long insisted that “we can’t reform immigration laws without _first_ kicking out all illegal immigrants. It’s neither a reasonable expectation that we can do that, nor is it a reasonable precondition for reform negotiations. It’s also hilariously false that all recent immigrants vote for Democrats — that demographic is FAR more likely to be Evangelical Christian or Roman Catholic Christian, which heavily vote towards Republicans (not to mention all of the Socialism/Communism haters from Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela who think Democrats are somehow equivalent to “far left”).
Nullification doesn’t harm US law. It is the escape valve people in the US use judiciously when US law becomes unruly and malicious.
It’s good advice, but a big hill to climb. The Dem politicians walk a fine line here. The influx of illegal immigrants is truly unpopular, not just with folks on the right, but also many in the moderate left and independents. They dems realize it’s a hot potato which is why you get a lot of immigration rhetoric to try and satisfy the anger, but don’t really get any effort to change any laws even when they held both branches and the presidency through 2021-2022.
Prior to 2016, both parties were pretty aligned on it, only when Trump made it a core issue did the parties start to diverge on the topic.
What amazed me is how many Americans think immigration laws are optional. That entering and working illegally is no biggie.
Every other country I’ve lived in has much more strict immigration laws. Even the 3rd world countries that can’t seem to deliver potable tap water.
Deportations are standard, quick and supported by the population. Actually “supported” is wrong, it was more “yeah and…?”. No anger, self-riteousbess, just “thats how it’s supposed to work”
Most countries consider immigration enforcement is as standard as enforcing laws against bank robbery or littering. “Why wouldn’t you do it?” is the most typical take.
There were an enormous number of deportations under previous administrations without much pushback.
What distinguishes this situation is that the deportations are proceeding with a complete disregard for US law and human rights. People are being deported without getting a chance to fight it in court, a violation of the constitutional right to due process. People are being rounded up as suspected illegal immigrants solely based on their skin color or the language they are speaking, a violation of the constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. People are being deported while it is still being determined whether they are eligible for asylum or refugee status, a violation of US statute.
The US is supposed to be a nation of laws where everyone can be certain that their legal rights will be respected. That is being grossly violated with the current deportation push.
Staying and working beyond the initial authorization of a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal one in the US.
Laws are created by men with a specific intent not handed down as truth from god. In the case of the US, immigration law has largely been shaped by a racist quota system formed as a reaction of previous immigrants towards the next flight of immigrants. A "fuck you, I've got mine" mentality.
That is how successful the Overton windows has been shifted same in europe.
It’s always felt weird though that it’s become taboo to call it a crime, but maybe that’s just me.
The “let’s all step back and consider my side’s view of this” isn’t really relevant after our side loses elections. If the will of the people is to start enforcing jay-walking, for better or worse, we’re going to see a lot of jay-walking enforcement.
For most of America's history it wasn't even illegal to enter the US without prior authorization. The law that made it a crime to enter the US without authorization (8 U.S.C. § 1325) was specifically created in the 20's to restrict immigration by race. And the violent enforcement of this law has really only ramped up in the last few decades.
It is very strange to see many people in the US (and in this thread) accept the current enforcement framework as simply a set of static rules that just happen to be here, and not a relatively recent phenomenon that was enacted and enforced for a project of racial prejudice.
I do not think most illegal immigration should be considered a crime. That's my position. Moralizing about it by saying "well these people are CRIMINALS" because they crossed an imaginary line on a map is odious to me.
It's more rethorical but I seriously don't know how that's telling.
> Europe is facing this right now.
What exactly? War in Syria was ten years ago.
> What are you suggesting? All of India moves to the US?
I find it clear that the suggestion is: Provide a clear and feasible path for people who wish to migrate and will benefit the society. We lack that in Europe/Germany as well and ironically are missing the laws to deal with criminal immigration effectively.
It's sad many people don't even know or think about the difference of regular migration and coming as a refugee. Migration of skilled workers must become much easier in Europe, while refugees are a very different topic.
We have the most people trying to get in and let the most people in legally year after year, so not only is it no impossible, but we're the best at it.
> so we can rejoice in punishing those who do it "wrong".
Except no one is rejoicing that, but I can see how certain bubbles may have interest in spreading that misinformation.
For example, I'm a white non-religious straight liberal US man with a hippy upbringing that I value dearly, and I think the opportunity to immigrate should be as available as possible to all good people. But I also recognize that it must be responsibly controlled, and the native culture and quality of life must be prioritized (for all nations, not just the West), and one piece of that is stopping illegal immigration. And it's not unreasonable to have an opinion that we are, to some degree, failing at all the pieces.
What we really ought to be ridiculing if not punishing and marginalizing is inconsistency and cognitive dissonance.
There are so many issues possible in a nation of 300+mil that we cannot form opinions on policy based on vibes and emotions, we must have principals and let them inform our opinions.
And this concern about “who and how many” is well founded. Alexander Hamilton himself noted the dangers of cultural division from immigration. https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2016/12/21/hamiltons-actual-vie.... He wrote: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”
Silicon Valley understands that culture drives outcomes when it comes to companies and startups, but have a huge blind spot about culture when it comes to countries. But culture matters just as much for countries as companies. Immigrants bring their cultures with them—typically from places less successful than the U.S.—and that culture persists for generations: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... That has serious consequences for society. You can easily look at Minnesota versus New Jersey and see that immigration patterns have left an imprint on culture centuries later. And it’s equally clear that certain parts of the country are culturally better than other parts of the country. America would be much more orderly and well governed if more of it was like Minnesota and Utah and less like West Virginia or New Jersey.
No it doesn't. What if I want more foreigners? What if I want people to come here? Somehow, these arguments only ever seem to rachet in favor of people who want less immigration, not more.
I'd say the federal government of the United States is currently overriding my preferences about who to allow into the country and how many, actually, by aggressively enforcing immigration laws in ways they likely were not intended to be enforced, and in ways which are repeatedly being found to be illegal, actually.
> And it’s equally clear that certain parts of the country are culturally better than other parts of the country. America would be much more orderly and well governed if more of it was like Minnesota and Utah and less like West Virginia or New Jersey.
You need to add a "to my preference" here when you talk about which parts of the country are "culturally better" than others. You clearly have strong ideas about what you'd like US culture to be, many of which I suspect I deeply disagree with.
Is your argument that West Virginia is "disorderly" or "culturally inferior" because of immigrants? Which groups, and from when?
Dead Comment
China has 1.4 million immigrants, and 12000 foreigners with permanent residency. Not per year, but total, cumulative [1]. Despite having 4x the population of the USA.
Meanwhile the USA has gone from 83% White in 1970 [2], to White children being a minority [3] in less than 50 years. And most of that change was due to legal immigration (that they were promised wouldn't change anything [4]) Yet still they're called out for not erasing their own identity even faster.
So do you just not believe in the national right to self-determination, to decide who may live among them? Do you also not believe in this right for Kashmir [5,6] or Palestine?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...
[3] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/less-than-half-of-us-chil...
[4] Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), asserted that the bill would not affect the U.S. demographic mix - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
[5] Kashmir’s new status could bring demographic change, drawing comparisons to the West Bank - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new...
[6] Human rights activists said that the moves to change Kashmir’s status were only the first steps in a broader plan to erode Kashmir’s core rights and seed the area with non-Kashmiris, altering the demographics and eventually destroying its character. Previous laws barred outsiders from owning property. - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/asia/india-pakistan...
If we’re gonna apply your definitionally racist argument then whites (ie Europeans) (or Asians or Africans) shouldn’t be in the country.
Also, apparently you’re ok with America’s population doubling with immigration as long as those immigrants are white Europeans?
The share of immigrants as a percentage of population is about where it was between the mid 1800s and early 1900s, but you’re fine with that because it was primarily Europeans? (Although, ironically, a lot of those Europeans were also not considered white contemporaneously and it’s only now that their descendants consider themselves white and rail about all the non white immigeants).
On a personal moral/philosophical level, I think lines on a map which we call "nations" are a foolish way to decide who is allowed to go where and do what.
So from first principles, I don't accept the framing. I don't think "national" right to self-determination is a meaningful or valid term. It exists in practice but it is not valuable except in terms of pragmatism/realpolitik.
Therefore, I advocate for immigration policies which are much more focused on helping people and bettering society around me than on any nation-based concept of identity. That doesn't mean I want to bring more people who would hurt others into my society. But it does mean I don't care about whether the people who come in are "like me" in some meaningful way.
(That doesn't mean I don't act like nations exist or agree that they do, just that my ideal world probably would not include them in that way. Nor does it mean I don't think national lines ever echo the lines of societies or that I'm an anarchist who doesn't believe in governments. I just don't accept the idea that "this person lives on this side of the border" is a meaningful way to decide if they get to live in a place or not.)
Also, it sounds like what you consider "national" framing is actually racial framing. Given that you spend a lot of time talking about white people in a nation that has never been just white people, is that not correct?
For people on employment visas - they are one economic downturn away from everything being undone. They ll get 60/90 days to leave the life and relationships they have spent years building.
Saying the US is doing something right because people want to immigrate there is setting the bar very low.
Those billions would happily go to any Developed country, and per capita, the US doesn’t have particularly high immigration (Australia is the highest)
You'll find it's a lot more difficult to immigrate to those other developed countries
That tells you something.
I too believe that contrails are mind control.
I’m not sure that anyone can really agree on a solution, but there should be some stop loss where these things can’t be delayed beyond a certain fixed length of time and/or they shouldn’t issue the initial visas if the backlog to adjust is so long.
The reason that this and most immigration law hasn’t been fixed is that while most people agree that this is a problem, there is not really a compromise solution that everyone can really agree on.
What initial visas? If you are talking about selectively denying non-immigrant dual-intent H-1B visas to people from countries with long timelines in some or all immigrant visa categories (not that getting an H-1B doesn't imply intent to seek to immigrate, and doesn't require qualification in an immigrant visa category), that's...well, even as someone who thinks the H-1B is a bad idea ab initio, a remarkably non-helpful policy to layer on top.
> The reason that this and most immigration law hasn’t been fixed is that while most people agree that this is a problem, there is not really a compromise solution that everyone can really agree on.
It's not just that people agree it is a problem and don't agree on a solution, people don't even agree on what the problem is though they might agree that, e.g., the long waitlists from certain countries are symptoms of some problem.
Like, when some people favor eliminating all immigration from certain countries, and other people favor eliminating per country caps, that isn't a different solution to the same problem, its a fundamental difference in what is perceived as the problem.
The national-origins formula was explicitly designed to maintain the existing ethnic composition of the U.S.--in other words, preserve what policymakers at the time considered the “traditional” American demographic makeup.
Our cleaning women is just about to finish her three year training program. However she failed the final exam because of the complicated wording of the test. Her German is good enough but formal German is a different beast. She is allowed to redo the test a single time next week. If she passes, she will have an official German degree but has to leave the country because her visa is based on the training program. She then has to reapply for another visa to be allowed to reenter Germany.
Completely dysfunctional in my opinion. The system should bring people in that will be a net positive for the country while filtering out criminals.
Like the real long run, try to use your imagination.
Deleted Comment
Fiscally: immigrants have above-average entrepreneurial tendencies. It doesn't take a lot of enterprise creations and resulting tax payment and job creation to offset a _lot_ of social service consumption. Inbound migration also is what keeps the US from having a net-shrinking population, which until we can get away from late-stage capitalism is a death knell for the economy.
Morally and ethically: this is a nation of immigrants. If you claim to be a native, do you speak Navajo? Ute?
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
The reason this hasn't been fixed is because most American's support current policy along with promoting family unification and other decisions that are based on our moral positions. America has set a pretty generous amount of immigration slots, and it's not broken that we chose to fill them in a diverse way.
Evidence for this, or even that the majority of the American people understand the system of caps, whether or not they support it?
> That immigration policy should support diversity over other considerations.
The people most supportive of the caps are the people most openly hostile to the concept of diversity having value, generally.
There's an unspoken assumption there that India and China are monocultures, containing no diversity within themselves. Or that diversity is neatly defined by a border on a map.
Noting that you can always use your country of birth or your spouse's country of birth (cross-chargeability) for an employment-based green-card, my understanding has always been that Indians have large preference (or face large pressure) to marry other highly-educated folks that they often meet in the US but are also born in India that other immigrants just don't face as much.
Mexico faces long wait times in all of the quota-limited family-based immigrant visa categories.
The Phillipines faces a few months longer wait time in one severelly globally backlogged family based category (F4; where there is a 17 year backlog for most countries and its 3 months longer for the Phillipines), but not otherwise.
India and China have long backlogs in most employment-based immigrant visa categories (but generally much less than Mexico has in family-based categories), India also has an longer-than-usual backlog (more than Phillipines, less than Mexico) in the F4 family based category.
I assume it's intentional. And/or profitable.
Also keep in mind that it's a non-immigrant, non-dual intent visa, so if you end up wanting to stay, you'll need to adjust to another class at some point.
I swear, it needs to amended so that natural born citizens should also have to pass citizenship questions like immigrants to retain their citizenship. How can you not know this? Have you never read or heard a recital of the bill of rights?