Submitted by Shreddersaurusrex t3_10lh10h in nyc
PhillyFreezer_ t1_j5z10fl wrote
Reply to comment by CarlCarbonite in Adams: 'Right-to-shelter' law doesn't extend to migrants by Shreddersaurusrex
If you have seen, first hand, how messed up and twisted our legal immigration system is, why would you push others into the same cycle? 20k per person is ridiculous, what if I can’t afford that? Just work until I can? It takes years to go through this process and frankly I have no idea how you’d be supportive of a system you clearly see flaws in.
Illegal immigrants do not come here take opportunities away from you. They don’t take jobs away from Americans. They come and provide a NECESSARY resource to keep this city functioning. That is more than enough reason for me, to support them in any way possible.
You are reaching the top, and then pulling the ladder up on those who can’t afford to wait years and spend 20k per person. Their actions do not invalidate your struggle. I am also a child of an immigrant to the US, and see no reason to use this barbaric and arbitrary system as some sort of bar for who should and shouldn’t be allowed to stay
Sergster1 t1_j5z2ij4 wrote
> If you have seen, first hand, how messed up and twisted our legal immigration system is, why would you push others into the same cycle?
Please look at other nations' legal immigration systems before you scorn ours. By comparison, America has one of the best. The reason it fails is due to the sheer volume of people we let in.
PhillyFreezer_ t1_j5zbx4c wrote
Ok I looked it up. Am I now allowed to scorn the “pau to play” system we have in the US? Being relatively better than others doesn’t change anything if you were still asking people to spend a decade and thousands of dollars before being allowed to come to the US
Sergster1 t1_j5zcaxo wrote
America lets in the MOST immigrants out of any other nation in the world additionally we dont automatically bar people from immigrating due to not having higher education.
Also the US is not any less pay-to-play than any other foreign nation. Legal immigration is fucking expensive wherever you go. The difference is we dont require that people be skilled migrants.
PhillyFreezer_ t1_j5zdlzg wrote
> Being relatively better than others doesn’t change anything if you were still asking people to spend a decade and thousands of dollars before being allowed to come to the US
Did you skip over this part lol? Better or worse than others doesn’t matter if the bar is still too high. Personally I don’t think it’s right that to come to the US you have to spend that much money.
Idk what else to say. Telling me to just be happy with it cuz others places are worse doesn’t change my view in the slightest
Sergster1 t1_j5zed2g wrote
Being asked to spend a decade to immigrate is infinitely better than just being outright barred because your socioeconomic situation in your home country bans you from even applying. Remember higher education, which is the bar for most other 1st world nations' immigration policy, is a product of your personal wealth and social factors.
PhillyFreezer_ t1_j5zfxeq wrote
Lol maybe dream bigger? You seem perfectly content with our system now just because other places are worse. You make no arguments about the validity of our immigration practices, you just compare them to other countries to make it seem like we’re doing a great job.
Use your immigration a little to think of how it could ALL be better. Cheers lol
Sergster1 t1_j5zgg0c wrote
Of course we could do better however I'm not very keen at bashing our immigration policies while turning a blind eye to other nations.
Additionally, I do not believe it is America's directive to pull up other nations members via immigration. Not only does it contribute to the brain drain of foreign nations but it also strains the situation here at home for low-skilled labor.
bushwickauslaender t1_j61u0fq wrote
>America lets in the MOST immigrants out of any other nation in the world
This hasn't been true for a while. Last year, for instance, the US received slightly over a million immigrants (1.01M) while Germany received 1.2M.
You may argue that Germany had the Russian Invasion of Ukraine as a big catalyst, but I counter that Germany is a quarter of the size of the US so in theory should be receiving a quarter of the number of immigrants as the US, not more.
Germany is also a country where you can easily turn a work visa into permanent residence, and can eventually become a citizen. Most foreigners working in the US cannot do that.
Myself included, as much as I'd like to have the peace of mind of a Green Card rather than depend on my employer being kind enough to keep me employed so I can keep my visa.
Sergster1 t1_j631ioz wrote
Immigration policy's main goal is to stave off issues from your nation having a declining birthrate, therefore, straining the economy due to the shrinking of its working-age population and increasing of the tax burden of the remaining working-age population to pay for the social services of those outside of it.
Size of a nation has very little to do with why a country allows for more immigration, and this chart explains very well why Germany has chosen to change their policy. .
Immigration is not done as a courtesy to those in need that is what asylum is for. Immigration serves exclusively to prop up the nation receiving immigrants. Theres no such thing as
> the US so in theory should be receiving a quarter of the number of immigrants as the US, not more.
The main metric for if a country should be receiving more immigrants or not is can the current population sustain the economy once people age out.
bushwickauslaender t1_j61s7ln wrote
>Please look at other nations' legal immigration systems before you scorn ours
Having lived in 6 different countries and dealt with the legal immigration systems to work in 5 of them, I can confidently say that the US is absolutely dog shit at handling immigration. Sure it's probably better than, like, Venezuela, but most OECD countries are lightyears ahead of them.
Sergster1 t1_j6328zd wrote
Immigration Services and Work Authorization services are mutually exclusive.
bushwickauslaender t1_j63og1k wrote
I became a citizen in one of them, a permanent resident in another, and had the option of applying for permanent residence if I so desired in two others, meanwhile if I so much as suggest a desire to become a permanent resident of the US I jeopardize my work visa. But sure, go off.
Sergster1 t1_j642gin wrote
I don’t know dude. I think you’re probably the worst person to be advocating for immigration reform considering you’re a habitual migrant based on what you said.
Im actually completely okay in your case if applying for permanent residency in the US jeopardizes your work visa since you are likely to be relatively well off to go through the process multiple times.
Grass8989 t1_j5z4044 wrote
Most other countries require proof of income and a job so they know you won’t become a burden on their social services. We do not.
Silvery_Silence t1_j5zl9s8 wrote
I love all the immigration experts on this thread that have no idea Wtf they are talking about lol.
Silvery_Silence t1_j5zl79d wrote
It depends on what visa type you are talking about. This is a blanket statement that is absolutely not always accurate. To qualify for a marriage based green card for instance there are income requirements (ie you need an eligible “sponsor.”). Pretty sure the same is true for student visas.
PhillyFreezer_ t1_j5zc4za wrote
Great. How does that change a single thing I said? We still require years of dedication and thousands of dollars to legally immigrate to the US
Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j5za1m9 wrote
they said the 20k was over the course of 20 years, so it's not like they're demanding it all at once. this is also not the cost of immigrating but the cost of getting citizenship which are not at all the same.
PhillyFreezer_ t1_j5zccoa wrote
The cost is still ridiculously high for most people, not sure why it makes a difference. There’s tons of research out there about how much it costs the average person in application fees, time, effort, and postage
Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j5zgv0u wrote
I just don't think "what if I don't have 20k" makes a lot of sense as a question if the 20k is over 20 years, especially given that as an immigrant someones financial situation would likely be changing dramatically as they progress along the path from arriving to citizenship. that person also does agree with you that it should be cheaper so it's a little odd that you're stuck on it so much. what you guys actually disagree on is whether it's ethical to break the rules if you think the cost is too high
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments