Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. This is the underlying truth that is indisputable.
This article says that it grants 1 million green cards per year to legal immigrants, which is extremely generous. To say it's "nearly impossible" is absurd. I myself, my wife, and 80% of my friends are all legal immigrants to the US.
You didn't provide any analysis into why things are different now, and offered up a truism. A country is "allowed" to do anything it can get away with. Like declaring war on all of its neighbors. I don't feel like I need to be protected from foreigners. Why do you?
The US existed very prosperously without the current system of asylum requests, immigration judges, Green Cards or Visas, while also enforcing its borders and protecting its citizens from an uncontrolled influx of foreigners.
About 2% of the millions who arrived at Ellis Island were turned back.
Norway does not require a visa or residency permit for foreigners to live on Svalbard. "Regardless of citizenship, persons can live and work in Svalbard indefinitely." (Wikipedia.) That said, there are "Regulations relating to rejection and expulsion of persons from Svalbard". They are applied equally to all citizens.
And yes, it is possible for a foreigner to live in Svalbard, without need for a permit, and gain Norwegian citizenship.
I don't think any one country would do this on their own, but a contested region that caused people to cooperate surely would. Like if Antarctica was turned into an international region, a bunch of countries would make it visa free as a matter of treaty.
Okay, but the thesis is: "Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. This is the underlying truth that is indisputable."
There is part of Norway where anyone is allowed to immigrate to, so long as they follow the same rules which equally apply to Norwegian citizens.
That one counter-example would seem to put the thesis into dispute.
The appeal to 'uncontrolled influx of foreigners' is just strawman xenophobia, since even in the 19-oughts when immigration was one percent of the US population every year, there were still controls, and not everyone was accepted.
> There is part of Norway where anyone is allowed to immigrate to, so long as they follow the same rules which equally apply to Norwegian citizens.
But it isn't really a part of Norway, or wouldn't be a part of Norway if Norway didn't give into Russian demands after WW2 (Russia had a claim on it as well, and it could have gone their way instead). That is a fluke, it isn't something Norway exactly wanted, but it was something they were willing to accept.
You still need a Schengen visa to get there (since you have to transit through Norway proper, Russia doesn't do flights there anymore). They will immediately kick you out if you don't have means to stay (regardless of nationality), so the whole influx of foreigners moving into Svalbard to squat w/o a job is simply not allowed (since you need money for a hotel or apartment or you'll freeze to death/get eaten by polar bears...and there are only a limited number of those available).
> The appeal to 'uncontrolled influx of foreigners' is just strawman xenophobia
While it may still be a strawman, Svalbard doesn't really provide for an effective counter-example as evidence.
If living there can give you Norwegian citizenship then yes, it's really part of Norway.
The Svalbard treaty says outright "The High Contracting Parties undertake to recognise, subject to the stipulations of the present Treaty, the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen". It's part of Norway.
You do not need a Schengen visa if you go directly there by boat or charter plane. That may be very expensive, yes, but a visa is not required.
Yes, you can be kicked out without a job or way to live there. Going back to the US in 1900, https://lost-in-history.com/an-immigrants-ellis-island-fate-... says in 1900 an immigrant to the US at Ellis Island was required to have at least $50, and of course the travel ticket was expensive.
The underlying point is that someone who wants to immigrate to Svalbard, and has enough money for the trip, can try to do so without first seeking permission from the Norwegian government, and without claiming refugee status.
Just like how the US in 1900 accepted immigrants without needing visas.
Neither the US in 1900 nor Norway now can be described as failing to 'enforce its borders and protect its citizens from an uncontrolled influx of foreigners' because in neither case is it uncontrolled, highlighting how blinddriver's answer has no logical relevance to the topic.
>America existed very prosperously for over 200 years with such a system
The difference is visible in maps of "foreign country where most non-native residents come from" across the US.
Before the 1970s, this was very diverse. People came to the US from all over. They came, learnt English, and became Americans.
In the decades since, the map has become a single colour in every state from North to South because the overwhelming majority of immigrants are illegal immigrants from a single pretty impoverished country. They move to the US, do not integrate, don't learn English, and don't become Americans.
Are you talking about Mexicans? I live in Arizona, which has been a recipient of Mexican immigration at scale for longer than most other states. The Mexican immigrants do integrate, they do learn English, and within a couple generations they’re very much Americans. Sure, first generation commonly struggle with learning the language. Second generation have gone through our school system and speak perfect English. My third generational Mexican friends/family are very much Americans.
I live in Illinois, where some towns I have lived in had a 49% Latino population.
Most people learned English. Most before they came here. People who cannot speak it are rare and are disadvantaged by that fact. But also - the US has no official language specifically because the founders did not know which language would become predominant! English, Spanish, French and German were the major candidates and we still have French, Spanish and German speaking communities of native born citizens whose families have been here hundreds of years.
I think movement is pretty free for people that can demonstrate they would be net-positive to the country they're moving to. I don't really see why movement should be free for anyone who would be net-negative. It's true that demonstrating the ability =/= having the ability, and I think most systems could be improved to filter for that better, but I don't think that's significantly affecting America's immigration process. It isn't very hard to get an O1/E1 visa, or at least a student visa, if you're decent in your subject area.
Money doesn't consume physical resources the way people do.
Uncontrolled immigration will overconsume whatever resources the country has, and infrastructure can't increase as quickly as unabated immigration. Things like rent will skyrocket and resources like water, sewage, hospitals, schools, etc. will get overconsumed without the ability to increase it quick enough. It will make the country worse very quickly.
My house is not a sovereign state, and a sovereign state is not a house. I reject this argument by analogy as a logical fallacy (and more to the point, overly reductive, since my household's action space is drastically different from and mostly smaller than a sovereign state's action space).
A better analogy would be city to city moves, and as far as I am aware the aggregate percent of immigration inflow falls below far below domestic inflow for areas the most growth. Texas adds about a new large city (~130k) per year with net domestic migration. So clearly there are enough regional resources to support movement of individuals.
Wherein is the friction? Utilization of the social safety net? Given that undocumented immigrants are cut off from almost all social services outside very basic ones like access to public schools, for which their rent and sales tax payments are likely to cover (unless in an oddball state like Ohio or Pennsylvania). They aren't getting healthcare except by the extreme standards that we force individuals to go to the ED for basic medical care if they are indigent.
Obviously there are differences, but it is still a fine analogy.
If I own property I can determine who can use it. I live in a democracy so I own my country as well. It is shared with others, but a house could also have split ownership. If you have split ownership on a house you have to come to an agreement on who can come into the house. Why is a country any different?
It is not just about using resources. If somebody broke into my house and just lived there, but didn't use any food or bandaids I would not be thrilled with it. While it is better than if they used my resources I don't want somebody I don't know in my house.
I have the exact same standard with my country. I don't want anybody who hasn't been documented in the country. If you are born here you get a birth certificate and you haven't committed any crimes. If you come here, I want to have some level of knowledge, like if you are a criminal or are carrying the plague.
Your analogy to a city doesn't apply because a city doesn't have sovereignty. It cannot stop people from coming into it like you can with a country or house. If you think it acceptable to break down the sovereignty of a country, then there is no reason why I can't do the same to houses.
We have a globally accepted idea on this, so the burden is on you why we need to destroy it.
> Your analogy to a city doesn't apply because a city doesn't have sovereignty. It cannot stop people from coming into it like you can with a country or house. If you think it acceptable to break down the sovereignty of a country, then there is no reason why I can't do the same to houses.
> We have a globally accepted idea on this, so the burden is on you why we need to destroy it.
Per sister comment to yours, we don't have a "globally accepted idea" as states (which do have sovereignty, unlike both homes and most cities) offer benefits to undocumented immigrants, suggesting that by way of policy they are okay with different standards of immigration. If two people arguing for the same policy disagree completely on the internal consistency in supporting their argument, this suggests that the argument lacks coherence.
I continue to reject that the analogy of a home has useful equivalence to a sovereign state regarding immigration on grounds that it is a logical fallacy.
Almost everybody agrees that a state can determine who can enter and how long they can be there. Homes are similar because almost everybody agrees that the owner can determine the same thing.
When 99.99% of people agree on the similarity of two different things then the burden is on the 0.01% to prove the alternative.
If you refuse to make a coherent argument other than they are not identical then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
> Given that undocumented immigrants are cut off from almost all social services outside very basic ones like access to public schools, for which their rent and sales tax payments are likely to cover (unless in an oddball state like Ohio or Pennsylvania). They aren't getting healthcare except by the extreme standards that we force individuals to go to the ED for basic medical care if they are indigent.
This is patently false, and goes to show you don't understand the issue at all. They have tremendous benefits. In New York State, they constitutionally are required to give housing and support, which is why you hear of stories of illegal aliens getting hotel rooms, gift cards, and cell phones.
Undocumented immigrants in California can apply for health plans through Covered California and may be eligible for certain public benefits. However, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for certain federally funded programs.
Health coverage
Covered California: Individuals can apply through Covered California to see if they are eligible for a health plan.
Public benefits
CalFresh: Food assistance
CalWORKs: Cash assistance for people with children
County Adult Assistance Programs (CAAP): Cash assistance for individuals without dependents
Medi-Cal: Health insurance
Legal resources
Bay Area Legal Aid Free Advice Hotline: (800) 551-5554
National Immigration Legal Services Directory: A resource for immigration legal assistance
Know your rights
California law prohibits law enforcement from asking about a person's immigration status for immigration enforcement purposes.
> This is patently false, and goes to show you don't understand the issue at all. They have tremendous benefits. In New York State, they constitutionally are required to give housing and support, which is why you hear of stories of illegal aliens getting hotel rooms, gift cards, and cell phones.
The solutions being pushed are federal. Federal is intended to guard border, but it sounds like some states are fine with providing benefits. So is the friction with states exercising their rights to provide services to people in their borders, or with the provision of federal benefits?
Maybe I've lost the bead here, does the current administration support more or less federalism?
We have plenty of controls on money movements. Immigrants who are financially self-sufficient can come here to visit quite easily and freely. They just can't take up jobs. We even let them buy up land, which many countries disallow.
0.3% is extremely generous. Those are just green cards/permanent residents. That doesn't include the number of legal immigrants on various other visas. That's 3 million legal immigrants per year. The number of legal immigrants allowed to the US is higher than any other country in the world.
It really isn't very hard to get a temporary O1 Visa, which can turn into a permanent E1/E2 visa. You just have to be extra-ordinary in your field. Pretty much every country wants to import people they know will make their country a better place—even North Korea lets Americans ("the enemy") teach at their universities—and it's not hard to demonstrate this.
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.
So, I agree that there isn't a big enough shortage of engineers to prompt a need for easier immigration there, but I also agree that Americans aren't as technically skilled as they should be compared to foreigners.
This article says that it grants 1 million green cards per year to legal immigrants, which is extremely generous. To say it's "nearly impossible" is absurd. I myself, my wife, and 80% of my friends are all legal immigrants to the US.