Dallas Mega March draws thousands

[Ramo]

There's also a numerical limit for sponsorship of adult children and siblings by US citizens, and spouses and minor children by legal aliens. Together these add up to under 200,000 annually (less than .1% of the total population and ~1.6% of the illegal population). And obviously this pool includes people who have yet to immigrate (my mom is sponsoring one of her brothers, for instance).

http://www.immihelp.com/greencard/familybasedimmigration/categories.html

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Africa doesn't manage to get many illegals over. It's a long way to swim.

China, on the other hand, gets quite a few over, even though it's an even longer way to swim.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Absolutely. I'd love to see a bill that fast tracks illegals for citizenship once they pay a fine and meet other requirements, but that also requires them to identify all their former employers, who would then be assessed fines and back taxes.

I definately wouldn't support anything that fast tracks (Why should they get better treatment than people who obey the law?) them but a bill that provides for increased enforcement and nothing along the lines of the false promises we got 20 years ago along with a path something like would be acceptable.

[Velociryx]

I'm....just curious about something, and hoping that folks here can point me in the right direction.

I'm seeing the words "bigot" and "racist" quite a lot in topics of immigration.

Could someone tell me how, precisely, it is bigoted and/or racist to want to:

a) have some reckoning and control over who enters the country (there seem to be some good, logical reasons for preferring a controlled flow of immigration, rather than an uncontrolled flood)

b) define a specific process by which people are legally allowed to enter the country

and

c) desire that something be done about those who intentionally ignore point "b" (above).

I'm....not really all that clear on where the bigotry and racism comes in.

-=Vel=-

[mactbone]

Certain people can't discuss these issues without very large brushes that they like to paint people with. Most fights about illegal immigration have usually been about racism and bigotry - the Irish, Italians and many other groups of people can attest to that. So, maybe this time it isn't really about racism but boy, it sure seems like it. It doesn't help when some people can't understand that there are large numbers of legal residents that happen to come from the same country as the largest portion of illegals.

Someone made a comment about making sure San Fran has lots of illegals - I'm pretty sure they already do. One of the biggest ports of entry for Asian immigrants (legal or illegal) is San Fran if I'm not mistaken. So really you're saying that they need to know what those dirty mexicans are like.

[Velociryx]

Well, I can surely understand that Mac.

I guess the core question at the center of the debate is:

Are points A, B, and C, as defined above, important to us, as a country?

If not, then the whole debate seems rather pointless. Open the floodgates and let just any and everybody in, right?

But if those goals ARE important (as defined, or in some other configuration to be debated), then we'd better figure out a way to talk about them without slinging terms like "racist" and "bigot" around in every other breath, cos I don't really see that they add a lot to the debate.

-=Vel=-

[Ben Kenobi]

Sponsors also have to be immediate relatives IIRC (i.e. parents, adult children, spouses, or siblings); friends do not qualify.

Yes, and thank you for bringing up this point. I would have had to make it otherwise. Sponsors must be immediate relatives, aunts and uncles do not count, even if they have the income requirements. I've been looking into this stuff myself for the last while, and the requirements for legal immigration are quite stiff.

If you can't find, or don't have an eligible sponsor you have to go the work permit route, and that means finding a job in the US before you can come down, but I'm sure you already know that KH. You can extend your temporary visa by reapplying after the term has finished, and after several years of that you can apply for your permanent residency.

And after 5 years of being a permanent resident you can file for naturalisation to become an American citizen.

There's a reason why these folks come illegally. If it were so simple, they'd just go the legal route.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm....just curious about something, and hoping that folks here can point me in the right direction.

I'm seeing the words "bigot" and "racist" quite a lot in topics of immigration.

Could someone tell me how, precisely, it is bigoted and/or racist to want to:

a) have some reckoning and control over who enters the country (there seem to be some good, logical reasons for preferring a controlled flow of immigration, rather than an uncontrolled flood)

b) define a specific process by which people are legally allowed to enter the country

and

c) desire that something be done about those who intentionally ignore point "b" (above).

Vel:

There are several reasons why advocating immigration control is usually considered racist. First off, for the US, most proposals insist on some standard of English proficiency, and some have said that those seeking to immigrant from English-speaking countries ought to be treated differently from other countries. The logic behind that is that in the US, people ought to speak English in order to assimilate into US society.

Second, that desire to assimilate is considered racist by those who believe that everyone ought to preserve their own culture, a fact that is a balancing act for anyone who wishing to immigrate. You are leaving your home to go elsewhere because you believe you will be better off. Yet at the same time, you want to keep some of your traditional ways of doing things from the country in which you came. For some it means keeping a special day for the Queen, but for others, quite different. I believe that anyone who desires to immigrate has the obligation to assimilate into the country that they are immigrating to because they have chosen to make a new life for themselves.

Given the overall trends, I don't see a problem with unrestricted immigration, provided that those who immigrate also be barred from receiving welfare or other social services. That's the second half of what folks forget, sure the folks who immigrated to the US in the 19th century could just come over, but they also didn't have a security net to pick them up if they fell. They had to work to make something of themselves.

[Velociryx]

There are several reasons why advocating immigration control is usually considered racist. First off, for the US, most proposals insist on some standard of English proficiency, and some have said that those seeking to immigrant from English-speaking countries ought to be treated differently from other countries. The logic behind that is that in the US, people ought to speak English in order to assimilate into US society.

This is an interesting point, and I can see where it may raise some eyebrows, given that the US has no "official" language (and IMO, we should, but that strikes me as a separate debate). Nonetheless, I cannot see that this is "racist" in the sense that there are many cultures outside our borders who make a point, and in fact have a strong tradition of speaking English. Linguistic bias....I'll buy that. Racism? That seems like a fairly thin reed upon which to base the claim, especially since no one here, in this thread where the latest claims of bigotry and racism have been made, is advocating special treatment for english speaking immigrants (at least, not that I have seen).

Second, that desire to assimilate is considered racist by those who believe that everyone ought to preserve their own culture, a fact that is a balancing act for anyone who wishing to immigrate.

And it has been commonly said that America HAS NO culture, per se. We're a melting pot...a hodge-podge of cultural ideas and ideals specifically because we don't make much in the way of an effort to suppress other cultures. We have the St. Patty's Day celebration, and a couple of fistfuls of weeks later, we have Cinco de Mayo....along with a whole host of other holidays that sit right there beside the good ol' 4th of July.

The remarkable thing about such celebrations is that they are enjoyed by people of all cultural backgrounds.....again....racism? Not in the example above.

You are leaving your home to go elsewhere because you believe you will be better off.

Good reason.

Yet at the same time, you want to keep some of your traditional ways of doing things from the country in which you came. For some it means keeping a special day for the Queen, but for others, quite different.

Sounds cool. And there are still plenty of dates open on the calendar for additional celebrations....we've adopted a ton, and we'll likely be adding more.

Racism? Haven't seen any so far.

I believe that anyone who desires to immigrate has the obligation to assimilate into the country that they are immigrating to because they have chosen to make a new life for themselves.

Me too. And sugessting this as a proper course of action isn't racism. Thankfully, this process is mostly painless in the USA.

Given the overall trends, I don't see a problem with unrestricted immigration, provided that those who immigrate also be barred from receiving welfare or other social services. That's the second half of what folks forget, sure the folks who immigrated to the US in the 19th century could just come over, but they also didn't have a security net to pick them up if they fell. They had to work to make something of themselves.

What overall trends do you refer to? Personally, I see a problem with unrestricted immigration....specifically because of what I mentioned before...there are underlying economic reasons why a controlled flow of immigration is superior to an uncontrolled flood.

We owe it to the people who are already here to make sure that the newly arriving folks arrive in an organized, structured manner, and in one that does not run the risk of overburdening any aspect or area of our infrastructure, or our economic ability to absorb the new arrivals (ie - if unrestricted immigration was truly and completely okay, then it should be perfectly acceptable to take in half a billion new people right now....this very day....except that to do so would have a dramatic (and quite negative) impact on our infrastructure's ability to handle them, would lead to vast tent cities of homeless folks, and would send unemployment spiraling up out of control indefinitely, as the economy struggled to expand to accomodate their presence. Clearly, there are better ways....)

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


China, on the other hand, gets quite a few over, even though it's an even longer way to swim.

More container ships come from that direction...

[Ben Kenobi]

Vel:

This is an interesting point, and I can see where it may raise some eyebrows, given that the US has no "official" language (and IMO, we should, but that strikes me as a separate debate). Nonetheless, I cannot see that this is "racist" in the sense that there are many cultures outside our borders who make a point, and in fact have a strong tradition of speaking English. Linguistic bias....I'll buy that. Racism? That seems like a fairly thin reed upon which to base the claim, especially since no one here, in this thread where the latest claims of bigotry and racism have been made, is advocating special treatment for english speaking immigrants (at least, not that I have seen).

It's the position I would be quite comfortable in adopting were I not a little further to the left in terms of immigration policy. I believe that unrestricted immigration serves the US best, in terms of bang for your buck, but only if coupled with the ban on welfare.

And it has been commonly said that America HAS NO culture, per se. We're a melting pot...a hodge-podge of cultural ideas and ideals specifically because we don't make much in the way of an effort to suppress other cultures. We have the St. Patty's Day celebration, and a couple of fistfuls of weeks later, we have Cinco de Mayo....along with a whole host of other holidays that sit right there beside the good ol' 4th of July.

Ok. I would disagree after travelling to the US from Canada. We have different cultures in terms of how we see the world and our expectations from society.

The very fact that you have a fourth of July celebration is a culturally American thing. I will not see a Victoria Day celebration, or a Canada day/Dominion day both days that have substantial significance to English Canada. You are celebrating your revolution, and independence from Britain.

The US has a very self-reliant streak, and a tradition of egalitarianism, in that you don't have an aristocracy, or aristocratic traditions found in Europe. Your princes are the self-made men who make it well.

The US values private property, free speech, religious liberty to a much greater degree then we see here in Canada. There are debates over the size of government.

You folks have a much larger military, and a tradition associated as such. You protect your independence through force of arms, and not diplomacy and tribute. You are proud of your men at arms even if you'd rather they were home and safe. All of these are different from Canada, a result of the decisions you made more then 200 years ago.

Sounds cool. And there are still plenty of dates open on the calendar for additional celebrations....we've adopted a ton, and we'll likely be adding more.

No need to make it official. Just a day I know I will miss and raise a cup of tea.

What overall trends do you refer to? Personally, I see a problem with unrestricted immigration....specifically because of what I mentioned before...there are underlying economic reasons why a controlled flow of immigration is superior to an uncontrolled flood.

Demographics throughout the developed and developing world. Canada will not be able to maintain the age structure of their population, even given immigration, immigration helps, but it is not a solution to our greater problems. The trouble is not that most of Europe cannot afford to cut off immigration entirely unless they wish to see their population decline. And when your state is supported through tax payments, the fewer people mean the smaller the state they can support.

If the US were to advocate unrestricted immigration, given the fact that half the developing world is approaching replacement population, this number would peak and then slowly decline over time. That is what I mean by the trend.

We owe it to the people who are already here to make sure that the newly arriving folks arrive in an organized, structured manner, and in one that does not run the risk of overburdening any aspect or area of our infrastructure, or our economic ability to absorb the new arrivals

I agree with you here. The immigrants should have specific ports of entry, face registration requirements, etc. The only change would be in the quota amounts, and that they could legally work in the US. You would not have the problem you have now with illegal immigration, you could register all of these folks, and keep track of them.

(ie - if unrestricted immigration was truly and completely okay, then it should be perfectly acceptable to take in half a billion new people right now

Immigration is usually related to population growth, areas with positive growth will immigrate elsewhere. No population growth, no immigration.

If the US were to admit every single additional person in the world, they would have a maximum of 85 million people immigrate a year. Immigration will not be higher then 85 million, unless areas of the world actually depopulate to come to the US. US natural growth is about 2 million every year, so this would be 40 times higher.

Now are all of those 85 million going to want to immigrate to the US? No. They are going to lack the funds to come over, and there are going to be closer opportunities for them then the US. Of that 85 million, 50 million come from Asia, 20 from Africa, and only about 15 million from Latin America.

Of that 85 million, you have to consider that much of the immigration is between neighbouring countries just because of factors of economics. It is more expensive for someone in Turkey to immigrate to the US then it is to immigrate to Germany. Your immigration restrictions would be ones of finances and economics, no different from now.

So assuming 1 in 10 come to the US from Latin America, you get 1.5 million a year. If 1 in a 100 from elsewhere, you get 0.5 million a year from Africa and 0.2 million a year from Asia, for a total immigration of 2.2 million a year. And this number is quickly declining; by 2050, world population is projected to stay even.

[Velociryx]

RE: the cultural argument. I see what you're saying, but your argument in no way disallows the (widespread and commonplace) acceptance of other cultural norms and holidays that are present in the "cultural makeup" of the USA. In large part, this stems directly from the fact that we're such a hodgepodge of cultural influences.

We have no real basis for cultural refutation or refusal, cos odds are, we owe at least part of our heritage to "culture X." Again, if this is the basis of the argument for racism being rampant in a discussion of immigration policy, I see it as falling well short of its initial claim.

With regards to this:

I agree with you here. The immigrants should have specific ports of entry, face registration requirements, etc. The only change would be in the quota amounts, and that they could legally work in the US. You would not have the problem you have now with illegal immigration, you could register all of these folks, and keep track of them.

Here is where I disagree with you.

Yes....we need to have specific points of entry
Yes...we need a specific registration process (a legal process of entering the country)

No....we don't need to do away with quotas. Perhaps the existing quotas are in need of review. I don't pretend to know, but....I do know that to do away with them entirely is to invite too much stress and strain on existing infrastructure.

Let's study that infrastructure and find out what it can realistically handle, instead of pulling a random number out of our collective arses. This (random number quota) is every bit as bad as a "whatever....c'mon in....however many of you there are" approach, in that one does not optimally use the existing infrastructure, and the other runs the risk of completely overwhelming it and doing a disservice to those already here. Neither extreme is appropriate, IMO.

And with regards to world population, why do you assume that there is a correlation between population growth and immigration numbers? That is to say....do you believe that a given immigrant will stop and say "no....no I can't immigrate this year, because doing so will de-populate my home country."

I think it more likely that, if the doors were simply flung open (all restrictions off), then there would be a depopulation effect. Why not? Wouldn't you walk a few miles for the prospect of a better life?

-=Vel=-

[Ben Kenobi]

And with regards to world population, why do you assume that there is a correlation between population growth and immigration numbers? That is to say....do you believe that a given immigrant will stop and say "no....no I can't immigrate this year, because doing so will de-populate my home country."

Ok, that's an excellent argument. So which countries are suffering population decline? Most of western europe. Which countries are people immigrating to? Western Europe. People from these countries are not going to pack up and move to the US en masse, even if the US opens their gates. Most of the US legal immigration is not from Europe.

Now, the exception to this is in the areas of the largest declines in population, like Russia or the Ukraine, or in Eastern Europe. Lots of young folks, if they can are escaping. You see both negative birth rates and negative migration. But how many would come to the US if there were no restrictions?

Most of the immigrants are going to be younger folks, the more older folks, the fewer immigrants. As the populations around the world age, you are going to see fewer total immigrants to the US.

I think it more likely that, if the doors were simply flung open (all restrictions off), then there would be a depopulation effect. Why not? Wouldn't you walk a few miles for the prospect of a better life?

Which applies to Mexico, and Canada. All the other countries have much more significant barriers in terms of both geography, and cost. These will deter many folks without the means to travel to the US. I agree, I would walk those few miles to a better life, but even if the US opened the floodgates to Mexico only, they are not going to see that much of an increase in terms of immigration. The numbers would spike, and then slowly decline.

No....we don't need to do away with quotas. Perhaps the existing quotas are in need of review. I don't pretend to know, but....I do know that to do away with them entirely is to invite too much stress and strain on existing infrastructure.

Alright. Sounds like something we can put a price to. If we know it costs so much to maintain something, then we can put a price on those items to compensate the cost.

Let's study that infrastructure and find out what it can realistically handle, instead of pulling a random number out of our collective arses. This (random number quota) is every bit as bad as a "whatever....c'mon in....however many of you there are" approach, in that one does not optimally use the existing infrastructure, and the other runs the risk of completely overwhelming it and doing a disservice to those already here. Neither extreme is appropriate, IMO.

Sounds like an economics problem to me. So what is the solution when you are trying to restrict supply and demand? Setting quota as to how much can be bought or sold? Or do you simply set the price to meet the demand?

You can have a quota that works, just charge a price to enter the US.

[Velociryx]

The numbers would spike, and then slowly decline.

The problem is....during this time of spiking, how much havoc will be wrought on the folks that have to deal with the strain on infrastructure and the big spike in unemployment, and is it not the case that a country should have a bigger interest in seeing to the needs of its EXISTING citizens, over and above those who wish to immigrate?

If that is true....if you acknowledge that a nation should take care of existing citizens before it considers the desires of those who aren't here yet, but who wish to come, then the most responsible approach is NOT to simply fling the doors wide.

True?

Of course, you could argue that the nation in question should put the needs and desires of those wishing to immigrate ahead of its own population, but this, I think, would be a rather strange position to adopt.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

So which countries are suffering population decline?

Yes....Europe is disappearing demographically....but I would say that it is possible, and perhaps even likely that the same would be true of Mexico if there were unfettered access to the USA. Currently, there's not, and so we cannot say with certainty WHAT the effect would be of opening the proverbial flood gates, nor would it make a good experiment, given the potential dire economic consequences.

I guess I'm just not that curious...

-=Vel=-