Hacker News Reader

Comment by CalRobert | Hacker News Reader

"get out of you don't like it"

Nobody saying this has actually researched it. Too many people in the states are under the impression you can just up and move to a European country, no problem. One friendly-but-clueless acquaintance got flown back from Heathrow for asking the immigration officer about where to find jobs when she landed.

If you don't/can't:

* work in tech or medicine

* go to university in Europe in a high-demand field

* woo a European to marry you (a favoured option among women I knew in college, I notice - wonder why the gender disparity?)

your options are pretty limited. There's the Dutch American Friendship Treaty and digging through the family bible for the birth cert of some Irish or Italian grandparent and that's about it.

View on HN

As usual, if you're well-off you have extra options. Get $500k to buy some property (which you can then rent) in Portugal or Spain and you get residency (and later can apply for citizenship).

Then again, if you have access to $500k, the safety net is probably less interesting.

Greece has a similar program if I'm not mistaken.

$250k. But why go this way? You're limited to live in those southern european countries. You can't live e.g. in Netherlands with golden visa of Portugal or Greece.

interesting, I didn't know that

It just takes five years to get citizenship in Portugal, then you can.

Five is the minimum. Plus many strings attached. Few people want to wait 5 years to solve a residence problem.

$400k CAD to get an investor visa in Canada.

There is also an entrepreneur visa, though you have to have funding via some of the approved venture firms.

QC will add its own rules -- they have their own Immigration Dept. -- but if you have a lot of money to spend you're probably not going to Quebec anyways, since their taxes are high, even by CAN standards.

My girlfriend recently moved in with me so we've done a lot of research. It's relatively easy to move here from within Europe, as in, if you move from an EU country you have a right to work and live here, and you get the same rights and responsibilities as soon as you register yourself as living here.

If you want to move here from outside of the EU it's a whole other matter though. It boils down to two things though: Can you look after yourself (for example have a job ready; just as long as you won't come here expecting a handout from the government), and can you integrate (you have to do a language and culture certification in your country of origin).

How ironic that the “progressive” European welfare states have highly restricted immigration and America naturalizes more new citizens each year than the rest of the world combined. The US also allows illegal aliens de facto residence assuming they haven’t committed a significant crime. We even provide free education. If those illegal aliens have a child in the US, we give that child citizenship and subsequently make the child’s family eligible for welfare benefits in the interests of helping the American citizen child.

I was a legal resident of France and two of my children were born there and they didn’t get French citizenship, nor even automatic permanent residence.

It is impossible to have open borders, provide amnesty for 20+ million illegal aliens, birthright citizenship while simultaneously having European style welfare. There is a very good reason EU immigration is so hard, the system would collapse if US style immigration liberalization existed.

You can’t have nearly open borders and free everything.

As far as a previous poster said about Americans and our empathy problem —- it is interesting that Republicans give to charity at a vastly higher rates than Democrats [1] and American charitable giving is vastly higher than the rest of the world. More of the donations for the Notre Dame restoration are coming from Americans than even the French. The US funds UN humanitarian orgs at profoundly higher levels than any other country. The US funded the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe from a war we didn’t even start. Where’s the European version of the Marshall Plan for former colonies of Africa? It seems like European countries are rather selfish when it comes to helping others while American is quite generous with foreign aid. Perhaps Europeans have an empathy problem? Or maybe a fiscal one?

Suggesting that Americans don’t have empathy isn’t entirely accurate. Many of us just don’t want the government doing what private charity should do. I don’t want Congress deciding what causes are “worthy” — using human misery as a means for buying votes. I’m sorry for people who have bad luck, but where is their family? Their church? Their local community? How is someone outside of my community or family circle my problem? And, the US does have welfare programs. Medicaid exists and serves the poor. I know, I once was on Medicaid for a year. Food stamps also exist: I know, I used that program in New Jersey for about 6 months. I am not sure what else we should be providing as a government. Government isn’t a charity and nor should it be. Certainly it should provide a minimal safety net to ensure people aren’t starving in the streets, but charity is really about the local community, local organizations, and local priorities. And giving to charity should be voluntary, not compelled at the point of a gun like taxes are. I highly resent someone that has been unemployed for literally years while I took whatever shitty jobs I could find to stay off the street. I also resent people that never cared about buying health insurance (for example the young and healthy that tend to avoid buying insurance,) then they get a critical illness and go bankrupt and blame “the system” when they chose not to buy cheap disability or health insurance while they had the chance, instead buying plenty of the proverbial avocado toast or #yolo-ing through social media while the rest of us were, as they say, “adulting.”

The other problem I have is when people claim that medical bills “bankrupted” them. Do we know what that means? That means they didn’t have to pay any of that money back. The debts were discharged by bankruptcy. It doesn’t mean they go to debtors prison, nor does it mean they even lose their primary residence. It just means their credit is ruined for a few years. That just means they can’t borrow money for a few years; they aren’t thrown into some Dickens novel and forced to beg on the street for more porridge. It means all of their debts are discharged and they get to start over and rebuild. I am pretty sure that most people don’t know what bankruptcy actually means, they just throw the word around like it’s some kind of bomb, hoping that enough people are scared and horrified by it that they agree to raise taxes in such a way to prevent people from ever failing — but then also never succeeding. America is a place we’re you can start over, you can rebuild, and bankruptcy isn’t some life sentence dooming you to poverty. In fact, it’s possible to have multiple bankruptcies and still become president of the United States.

"America naturalizes more new citizens each year than the rest of the world combined."

Source?

"it is interesting that Republicans give to charity at a vastly higher rates than Democrats [1]"

Where is the [1] source?

" I’m sorry for people who have bad luck, but where is their family? Their church? Their local community? How is someone outside of my community or family circle my problem?"

Isn't this the argument here that there is an empathy problem, as your post is displaying a lack of empathy?

I don't have that guy's exact statistic, but here's a page that supports the immigration argument. The US lets a lot of people in from all over the world. Also note those numbers for Germany include people from other EU countries. https://immigrationlawyerslosangeles.com/immigration-law/imm...

Here's a source for the R versus D charity: https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/11/06/whateve...

> You can’t have nearly open borders and free everything.

The point of the article is precisely that the US _doesn't_ have free everything, much less adequate support for the poor.

> it is interesting that Republicans give to charity at a vastly higher rates than Democrats

This is because churches are are automatically considered 501c3 charities in the US. Another way to look at the issue is that Democrats generally support a systematic approach to social welfare - i.e. a sufficient government-run social safety net - rather than an uncoordinated collection of religious groups to administer benefits.

> I’m sorry for people who have bad luck, but where is their family? Their church? Their local community?

Not everyone has family. Not everyone attends church. You realize that impoverished communities are a thing, right? Have you never been to the rural South? To an inner city neighborhood?

> How is someone outside of my community or family circle my problem?

Wow. I don't think I can make an argument that will give you a basic sense of human decency. For someone who mentions churches several times, you seem to have missed one of the core lessons about caring for thy neighbor.

The point of the article is precisely that the US _doesn't_ have free everything, much less adequate support for the poor.

Huh?

The chart at the bottom says US safety net spending is higher than Australia and Canada.

And it still does not work for all the expense. The money does not reach the poor and special needs or the service prices are way too high.

Either problem is a policy problem which poor cannot solve.

> This is because churches are are automatically considered 501c3 charities in the US.

False. While donations to churches are tax deductible, they aren't automatically 501c3 orgs. Source: my church applied to be one, in the event that church donations aren't automatically tax deductible.

> For someone who mentions churches several times, you seem to have missed one of the core lessons about caring for thy neighbor.

You seem to have missed the part where he mentioned 'my community'.

> You seem to have missed the part where he mentioned 'my community'.

See the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus' own interpretation of commandment to "Love thy neighbor" is that _all_ people are one's neighbor, not just one's set of geographically near persons.

It's a lesson in empathy, which you seem to have missed as well.

"De facto residence" - hardly. Living without papers is dubious and stressful. Trying to build a life when you could be deported is not easy.

"You can’t have nearly open borders and free everything." - don't disagree, free riders are a problem. How many people show up to the US to get their free healthcare and leave, exactly?

"I was a legal resident of France and two of my children were born there and they didn’t get French citizenship, nor even automatic permanent residence."

OK. This is how it ought to be per your views, right? I sympathize for your kids.

Many people do not have family, do not live near their family, do not attend church (for damn good reasons, aside from just not feeling like it. Pretending to have faith so you can have your church friends bail you out is not sound policy).

Your approach won't help the gay former Baptist estranged from their parents.

Even if your motivations are purely selfish, it is worth noting that the US spends more per capita on health care than other countries, so maybe we could learn from them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...

However, public health care spending is ALSO quite here -

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-... (note they provide source data and references)

Ultimately, though, the big problem is that poor people are poor because the system putting them there is a fantastic way to limit freedom in all but name.

If you restrict housing near decent jobs, then most people will, BY DEFINITION, be spending an inordinate amount of money on housing, because all it takes is a few people to say "well I'll push myself and spend 70% of my takehome on rent" before everyone has to do it. This is great if you need compliant workers who fear losing their job.

If you make medical pricing opaque and inconsistent (charging individuals differently from insurance companies) you're telling someone "well you can die or you can just pay whatever we feel like charging you". This is great if you need compliant workers who fear losing their job (and you're willing to offer health insurance). It works even for better-paid jobs too!

Lasik and dentists have price competition, and are pretty affordable, but not critical for life. Hell, even ambulances are losing out to Uber/Lyft (thankfully).

If you make going to college a prerequisite for most decent jobs (18 years of "if you don't go to college you'll be flipping burgers!" in popular media will do that), make it scarce by underfunding it, then offer people draconian loans that can't be repaid by a decent chunk of them, it will be extremely expensive. In fact, the more loans you make available, the more expensive it becomes as people chase it (same goes for mortgages for that matter - increasing funds without increasing supply just raises prices). This is great if you need compliant workers who fear losing their job.

There's a path out of this, even in the US - fortunately folks like Mr. Money Moustache have gained traction as people call bull on the whole system. It involves telling your metaphorical parents their advice is outdated bullshit, among other things, and avoiding the ponzi schemes of housing and student debt.

But don't get sick.

I come at this from a slightly different angle. I’m not a socialist, I’m a true believing dyed in the will capitalist, but still believe a robust social safety net including single payer health care is essential infrastructure for a healthy nation.

I cane to this fur the same reasons many other conservatives like me did in the UK in the inter-war years. To have a prosperous society we need to be able to defend ourselves effectively, and have a healthy educated work force that is fit for purpose. The fact is, centrally administered health care through national insurance, state education and a professional military are three essential pillars of a stable, safe and prosperous nation.

The US gets by simply by being huge and wealthy. Britain hasn’t got those advantages so we can’t scrape by as a society with cobbled together patch provision for these essentials. The world wars weeny a distant foreign adventure, they were existential crises that brought us to the brink. The same applies to the rest of Europe.

I hope the US can learn that lesson without going through such a dire experience.

Why are you so hostile to someone suffering and who has lost their life? I will address some of your points:

>Government isn’t a charity and nor should it be. >Certainly it should provide a minimal safety net to >ensure people aren’t starving in the streets, but >charity is really about the local community, local >organizations, and local priorities. And giving to >charity should be voluntary, not compelled at the >point of a gun like taxes are.

For all the stats Americans like to show about high rates of giving...little of it makes it to those in need. Governemnt running essential programs is so ALL have access. Not just those a charity CHOOSES as worthy. America proves the "charity covers this" BS doesn't work. taxes are needed because people with your mindset wont do their part vountarily and pick and choose who "deserves". Maybe if people who decry such systems were more kind and helpful we wouldn't need taxes. If charity was sufficient we wouldnt be discussing this. it really boils down to people with your mindset saying "Nobody can tell me what to do".

> I highly resent someone that has been unemployed for >literally years while I took whatever shitty jobs I >could find to stay off the street. I also resent >people that never cared about buying health insurance >(for example the young and healthy that tend to avoid >buying insurance,) then they get a critical illness >and go bankrupt and blame “the system”

I worked multiple, service to society jobs. I HAD insurance which I lost with them. I did as much as I could after being disabled but things just get worse. I resent YOU framing of this as you have. It's cruel and unempathetic proving my point. Feel fortunate you were able to make it instead of punching down.

>The other problem I have is when people claim that >medical bills “bankrupted” them. Do we know what that >means? That means they didn’t have to pay any of that >money back. The debts were discharged by bankruptcy.

I didn't say I filed bankruptcy. I said I was bankrupted by medical costs. I spent most of my fairly significant life savings, earned through hard work and a frugal nature, paying for the medical effects of the surgery and surviving this long. Nothing was discharged and you are simply wrong.

>America is a place we’re you can start over, you can >rebuild, and bankruptcy isn’t some life sentence >dooming you to poverty.

If your only issue is a financial disaster its POSSIBLE to rebuild some sort of life through effort if things work out. My issues are more than financial and I can't just dig in and create as I could when I was young and healthy. You are strongly victim blaming and you don't seem to care at all how harmful your position is to suffering people. It sure harmed me. I hope whatever you are dealing with that makes you so resentful of victims gets better and that is genuine, not passive aggression. Everyone deserves peace, even those I disagree with fundamentally. Empathy is required for a society. It's not an excuse or "liberal propaganda".

I am a real person. A human being. I am not a political argument or keeping YOU down. I lost my life due to this system. I was refused help due to this system. I will most likely end things because there is no way out. How dare you twist every aspect of that essential experience into some debate to reinforce your selfish position. This is exactly WHY I have no hope. If people spent as much time HELPING in this world as they do arguing why they shouldn't help then it would be a wonderful place. It's not YOUR life that was stolen and is ending. I cannot imagine ever treating someone that way.

I don't think you'll find that progressive people outside of the US advocate open borders. Having a points based system which actually means you bring in people who'll have a job waiting for them is better for everyone involved. You also have humanitarian based immigration as well of course. The US is big enough that it can absorb people from all industries and backgrounds, but in smaller countries that's not the case. And it's wrong to bring in people if they end up being Uber drivers because there's not the jobs available for them and their expertise.

You also can't rely on charity and the community. Just look at people who crowd fund for operations, etc. that biases to people who are attractive, young, outgoing, etc. I don't want anything to do with a church based charity personally and I'd feel embarrassed begging for money, I would not want to rely on such a corrupt institution with their ulterior motives. It's much more practical to centralise the costs of looking after the poor, if you look at the US they pay more per person than pretty much any country on healthcare yet it's ineffective and expensive because of everyone clipping the ticket.

People also don't use misery to buy votes. Here in NZ even the most right wing party wouldn't dream of going to private healthcare. Different parties do have different priorities and because it's a proportionate system with multiple parties in government it's a better reflection on the will of the people. I think one of the biggest problems that you have is that you've got a pretty broken democracy where the majority don't get a say and even if they did you're restricted to two parties and their policies, there's no compromise or grey area it's an all or nothing approach.

Dunno about UK. Settling in Poland is not that hard, although no piece of cake either.

I believe you can get a job with the associated temporary residence permit, extend this as many times as necessary to meet the uninterrupted legal stay requirements, then apply for the permanent residence.

Getting citizenship is probably a bit harder but not impossible - about a thousand people get it in Poland each year by the decision of the president.

"Get a job with the associated temporary residence permit"

I'm not familiar with Poland specifically but this is generally the insurmountable barrier for most folks. Remember not everyone is a dev! "Sick person who works at Best Buy and drives for Lyft on the side" is going to have a really hard time with that step.

Generally speaking, employers need to make a reasonable enough case that they couldn't get an EU person to do the job, and there are often income minimums, specified in-need fields, etc. .

So it's definitely not impossible (I did it), but for the sort of person getting told "if you don't like it you can 'git out" it's an issue.

There are other arguments, such as if you have a family in Europe (even semi-distant) getting residency in that country is much easier, even if the job you have landed is possible to do by a citizen. They presume you want to return permanently.

But if you have nobody around here... Well...

Cześć...Warsaw is where I spent the majority of my time living abroad. I love the city, people, my closest relationships are there along with the best doctors I ever had, and I'd love to return but since my health is so frustrating I was never able to have stability in work or life long enough to legitimize. The years spent trying were always derailed by something outside of my control. I was unable to renew my Karta Pobytu the final time and had to return here. Even knowing the cons there, as Poland is certainly not as robust in the social arena as the West, and the populism is sadly growing like in the USA, I still long to return. Even if I only had access to the private system my care in it was always superb and affordable.

Had I been healthy or had some consistent support I'd have long since legitimized and possibly had citizenship if it were granted. But I'd have settled for permanent residency. Not really going to change anything to mention all of this, and things are far worse for me now all around than even then so it's possibly wishful thinking to imagine I could even have THAT life again, but it was just relevant to your comment.

Also, if you have long term medical problems which are going to burden the tax payer they're not going to let you in.

Very true. I have to hold private medical insurance as part of my permission to be here (and to get here in the first place).

> Nobody saying this has actually researched it

Acknowledging this would be acknowledging how attractive alternatives are in comparison.

I have heard it is pretty easy to become an Israeli citizen if you are jewish. They have socialized healthcare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

> The law since 1970 applies to the following groups:

> Those born Jews according to the orthodox interpretation; having a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother.

> Those with Jewish ancestry - having a Jewish father or grandfather.

> Converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).

> But Jews who have converted to another religion are not eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return, even though are still Jews according to halakha.

> Section 2(b) of the Law of Return empowers the Minister of Interior to deny Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return on a number of grounds. For example, an applicant may be denied citizenship if he or she is considered a threat to the security of the State of Israel (e.g. treason against the Jewish State), or who has a past criminal record involving a serious crime, such as murder, and poses a danger to the well-being of the State of Israel; or, for example, may be a fugitive in another country for any felony (unless they are persecution victims); or such persons who, by virtue of their illness, may pose a serious public health risk to the people of Israel; as also any person who may be actively engaged in any campaign that vociferously speaks out against the Jewish people and undermines their cause (such as demagoguery).

> In 2014, Interior Minister Gidon Sa'ar officially decided that, according to the Law of Return, Jews in same-sex relationships married abroad wishing to immigrate to Israel can do so - even if their partners are not Jewish - and both they and their partners will receive Israeli citizenship.

Here's how it looks from the inside: https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/israels-universal-healthc...

Israel has good public healthcare, but it has been severely under-funded for years.

In many ex-Eastern block countries (for example in Lithuania) there are repatriation laws that allows you to get back citizenship if you or your (grand)parents that had citizenship before 1940 ran away from country during or after WW2. Of course this needs to have papers that would prove that.

I've found most things people say to defend/ignore/deny this issue and their views on it to be entirely unbased in factual knowledge. As you said it's hard to immigrate when healthy and having good options. Once you are down its harder and more costly to do everything, and it doesn't stop getting worse. I was half immigrated to another country when the path was derailed by coming up against these things. I have no claims to citizenship based on family or any other option either, or I'd have been gone decades ago. Once you fall from grace in the USA you are stuck. Can't afford to be poor and broken here.

But that's not an EU-only thing. In essence, immigration process boils down to this question:

- can you support yourself (i.e. have job contract or enough savings)?

Prove that you can and the rest is somewhat easy, providing you follow procedures, official documentation requirements, etc.

It's still by no means an easy task. Moving to another country is hard, one of the hardest things a person can do in their life.

What makes you think someone who can "work in tech or medicine" is somehow EU immigration eligible?

>What makes you think someone who can "work in tech or medicine" is somehow EU immigration eligible?

Most of the more restrictive EU countries (e.g.: UK, Ireland, etc.) have barriers to getting immigration stamps, which the most oft way of immigration is through employment and the most labour available to foreigners is either tech or medicine.

For example, in Sweden, a position must be listed as a highly qualified skill, the role must be listed for 20 days (I think it is) - so that EU citizens can be afforded an opportunity before the role is given to an immigrant, and then the employment contract must be agreed upon by the labour union before it can be approved.

You're not getting an employment contract, for example, to work in Burger King in Stockholm because it wouldn't pass the labour market needs test.

So, this is presumably why the OC thinks that medicine and tech make you immigration eligible.

Worthy of note is that tech or medicine are the best ways to get the EU Blue card (the equivalent of the US Greencard); so, the assumption isn't without its merits.

> You're not getting an employment contract, for example, to work in Burger King in Stockholm because it wouldn't pass the labour market needs test.

As far as I know there isn't any labour market test in Sweden anymore. The unions only gets to comment on whether the contract is similar to that of the collective agreement for the sector.

http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/i-fokus/in-focus-2013/soc...

Are you saying a poor American can go work at Burger King in Sweden? That's revelatory.

Yes, you can get a work permit as for example a dishwasher at a restaurant (In theory at Burger King, but maybe they wouldn't hire unqualified migrants for image reasons). You can also bring your family and kids. I think you don't have the right to some things for the first year though. But as long as you are paid the normal wage and benefits you can get permanent residency after four years, and citizenship after another five.

This is the best document I could find: https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/files/40268826/Labor_Mi...

This entirely depends on if the employer is willing to initiate the application for the permit for you to fulfil the role. See the authority on this here (in English for obvious reasons)[0].

Edit: "Authority on this" as in Migrationsverket is the entity that receives the application and ultimately decides to grant/deny it.

[0] - https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/...

Come over here, please. :)

Because those industries are most in need of workers at the moment. And because those are the sorts of people I've known who succeeded (anecdata, of course).

But I am biased by my own experience of being unable to find a way to move until I skilled up in development. "Idealistic physics grad with a spotty academic record who wants to help the Earth" didn't cut it.

Also, they tend to pay reasonably well (though nurses are scandalously underpaid in too many places, which is shocking).

In many cases, there's a "if you can make more than X you can get in" provision too, generally with some fairly high threshold. Last I checked it was around 154,000 GBP in the UK for instance (remember that dev salaries in the UK and most of the EU, for that matter, are incredibly low compared to the US).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com