Reading frosty-boy's immigration thread....

[KrazyHorse]

Most (2/3) legal immigration to the US is via "family sponsored immigrants", i.e. relatives of US citizens

Canada accepts far fewer immigrants based on familial ties (as a proportion of total immigrants).

This may partially be due to simple dilution of family claims in a much larger pool of immigrants.

In other words, it's not as though we have dramatically lower numbers of family claims per capita (we have slightly lower numbers); we simply have dramatically higher numbers of skill-based claims per capita.

[KrazyHorse]

It's all academic anyway. I doubt immigration will be that high or that disruptive.

I agree. I could see 3-5% at first, tailing off slowly. And in terms of disruptions, I doubt they would be that severe. Immigrants tend to be young and healthy (perhaps not by the standards of the new country, but certainly not requiring immediate hospitalization). Most would flock to city centers (which in the US, at least, with a few exceptions have not fared very well in terms of population growth until the last decade or so). Those who are not from developed countries (whose numbers will make up a small proportion of the whole) will likely not purchase a car immediately, alleviating whatever congestion problems would be caused before road construction could catch up. Hell, everybody's complaining that housing prices have dropped and that there are vacancies everywhere...

[Arrian]

So, by the very nature of the economy, people have an advantage to steal 'as long as they don't get caught'.

The stakes are higher, and the odds of getting caught may (depending on the third world country we're talking about here - and I *am* talking 3rd world) be much lower.

...

I do think that immigration procedures should be self-funded, even under a no-quota regime. Processing immigrants costs a certain amount of money and they should bear AT LEAST this much cost. So there's no overloading. If more immigrants apply, hire more screeners. There may be some ramp-up time after a legislative change. Perhaps you'd want to phase it in to avoid a rush.

Hmm, ok that takes part of one of the two systems I had in mind (I put it poorly, my fault). The other "system" is the economy in general. Again, I'm talking about your preference, not the "pay $50k to get in" idea. The latter would obviously keep the numbers fairly small. The former, however, would dump a huge number of people into the country, pretty much immediately. Maybe I'm overestimating the impact of that? I dunno, honestly.

I see no reason why an engineer or doctor wouldn't be able to borrow fifty or a hundred thousand dollars against his future earnings.

We have a banking system for a REASON.

Would our banking system actually make such loans? Theoretically, I see what you're talking about... Does the immigrant get deported if they default on the loan?

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Maybe I'm overestimating the impact of that? I dunno, honestly.

Arrian, MONTHLY turnover of the US workforce is 3.3%

Modern market economies are VERY flexible.

Hell, it's considered a tragedy when GDP shrinks by a few percent one year.

[KrazyHorse]

Would our banking system actually make such loans? Theoretically, I see what you're talking about... Does the immigrant get deported if they default on the loan?

That's one possibility (see my post regarding allowing a secondary market and the use of visas as collateral).

They could also get some sort of pre-approved lien on earnings (don't know about the current legality, but an exception could be made for visa loans).

Honestly, the present value of lifetime earnings of the average engineer is in the millions of dollars in the first world. If the person is coming from the third world, then most of this is a net gain. Borrowing 5 or 10% of this value shouldn't be difficult at all.

[Whoha]

As to the OP it is certainly true that just about any system of immigration would be better than Ted Kennedy's. While auctioning slots off would be an interesting way to mitigate remittances I don't agree with giving foreign powers undue control over who comes here which requiring a reasonably large amount of money would do in certain circumstances.

Well, many growth communities have dealt well with large influxes (>10% per annum!) in the past

If you'd like to restrict to 10% of population net immigration per year I suppose I could live with that. It would be a 16-fold increase over the current levels in Canada and a 30-fold increase over the levels of the US, Australia and New Zealand. Much higher than that for any other country outside of some of the booming Gulf States.

Our cities could absolutely not sustain this. They are already at or past their limits on just about every issue not the least of which is water.

[KrazyHorse]

Thinking more about it, I think it would make sense to allow a secondary market. The only caveat is that the visa would only last for period of 25 (?) years. If the original owner naturalizes then his visa is voided, and he cannot transfer it to anybody else. If it expires without him naturalizing then he has to purchase a new one (unlikely to happen if we make the visa last long enough) or simply leave. If his visa is repo'd or he decides to sell it on the secondary market he loses residence privileges and is forced to return to his country of origin.

I'm looking forward to creating visa derivatives.

[KrazyHorse]

Our cities could absolutely not sustain this. They are already at or past their limits on just about every issue not the least of which is water.

What a load of nonsense. There are MANY examples of cities growing at this rate.

Firstly, the reason there are water crises in cities is that for a long time (and even currently!) water is sold at a price which is below the market-clearing level.

Secondly, there are MANY cities which are not in the middle of droughts. If water was priced at market then this would tend to slow migration to those cities where the water supply is insufficient, because it would increase the cost of living.

Cities would be able to afford paying for new infrastructure because their tax receipts would increase with immigration.

This central planning mentality is so sad among supposed fiscal conservatives.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and as previously stated, I do not believe that the US would gain 30 million people a year if at-cost fees were charged for background checks on immigrants. It would probably be more on the order of 10 million or less.

[Krill]

So...if there are shortages in certain job markets, ie teachers, nurses, as was and is the case in Britain, would that lead to a decrease in the amount the that the immigrant would be charged to work in the job? Otherwise there would be limited immigration from other first world countries.

[Whoha]

Firstly, the reason there are water crises in cities is that for a long time (and even currently!) water is sold at a price which is below the market-clearing level.

Secondly, there are MANY cities which are not in the middle of droughts. If water was priced at market then this would tend to slow migration to those cities where the water supply is insufficient, because it would increase the cost of living.

Will people need a national ID card to drink from public fountains and use public restrooms? Or will those be done away with? While I like this new reality where we are suddenly super hard ass on chain migration, water which is kinda required to live, and other issues, I very much doubt it will come to pass.

Cities would be able to afford paying for new infrastructure because their tax receipts would increase with immigration.

Why isn't this happening already?

This central planning mentality is so sad among supposed fiscal conservatives.

You have to accept the reality you have, not the reality you wish you had.

[KrazyHorse]

Krill:

Why the hell should the government start applying preferences to certain occupations? If there is a shortage then the likely cause is that these workers are being paid too little to clear the market.

The solution is to pay these people more. Whether the new supply that will arrive comes from native citizens or new immigrants shouldn't really matter to us.

[KrazyHorse]

EDIT: dp

[KrazyHorse]

Will people need a national ID card to drink from public fountains and use public restrooms? Or will those be done away with? While I like this new reality where we are suddenly super hard ass on chain migration, water which is kinda required to live, and other issues, I very much doubt it will come to pass.

How much water consumption comes from public water fountains and restrooms?



Most is domestic, industrial and agricultural.

Why isn't this happening already?

Why isn't WHAT happening?

You have to accept the reality you have, not the reality you wish you had.

What does this even mean?

[Whoha]

How much water consumption comes from public water fountains and restrooms?

A lot under your plan of charging people more for water unless you want illegal immigrants to **** in the streets. Lets create a giant health and safety hazard under the guise of saving money. Just Brilliant.

Why isn't this happening already?

Why isn't WHAT happening?

Cities would be able to afford paying for new infrastructure because their tax receipts would increase with immigration.

This.