Hacker News Reader

Comment by civilian | Hacker News Reader

Take that, xenophobes!

Many Americans take the stance that "I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-illegal-immigration." Nevertheless, the US has very restrictive citizenship & green card programs, and the quotas are a fraction of the demand for them. If we were pro-immigration, we would increase these quotes.

As a globalist: the people living south of our border are just as deserving of a livelihood as we are. This is also the reason that I don't go out of my way to buy local food-- the Chileans need it more than my fellow American farmers. (The American-born farmers had all the opportunities in the world to learn other skills, but they did not excel in high school and have consistently been using protectionism and the "buy local" meme to boost their business.)

View on HN

I think you've correctly identified what Americans mean when they say "I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-illegal-immigration." After all, if they were just against illegal immigration, all they'd need to do is make it legal. What they're really opposed to is unlimited immigration.

The part where I disagree with you is the notion that there's something xenophopic about feeling that current levels (depending on where you get your estimates, this ranges from about 1 to 1.8 million per year) are a reasonable limit. I do find it surprising that a nation that admits well over a million immigrants a year is so frequently accused of "anti-immigrant" policies because the annual cap isn't even higher.

You say you'd increase the quota, but you didn't mention if you'd eliminate it altogether. Suppose you felt that immigration levels should be double what they are now, say about 2.5 million a year. Does that mean someone who would make it 5 million a year can call you anti-immigrant?

I'm a Canadian currently living in the USA, so maybe I'm biased, but I would personally remove a number-based quota.

I would, however, put in a quota based on the amount of education, capital, and whatever else would provide an estimate of the benefit that this immigrant would provide to the country, penalized by the difficulty that the person would have in integrating and establishing himself.

So, for example, someone with a doctorate, a job offer from an employer, significant capital, and fluency in the language should NEVER have an issue getting into the country.

I agree with you, this change would be very beneficial to the US. I've always felt a points-based system (like Canada or Australia) would make more sense. Nobody is happy with the current system - seriously, not a single person thinks the current US immigration system makes sense. The problem is there are so many competing visions for how it should be that reform is nearly impossible.

Keep in mind, if I wrote a post arguing for a cap of 1.2 million a year, some people would upmod me because it's high, others would downmod be because it's too low, others would down mod me because it's too high, others would upmod me because it sets a firm limit. The number of strong opinions on this topic is bewildering (but not at all surprising).

This. I have a Master's from a top U.S. University. Both of my sisters live in the US. I have personal resources well above the average American. But, under the current law this is not enough to move to be close to my sisters. In a point based system, I will get points in several categories.

Same here, still years away from getting residency.

Basically, everybody who we can reasonably expect to pay more in taxes than they get handed out by the government, should be allowed in.

You can achieve this insanely easily, too. Just register every immigrant that comes across and give them a temporary 2 year visa (conditional on the normal things like criminal record, documented connections to terrorist groups, war criminal status, and so forth). Over those two years, compare their tax returns to their use of services. After 2 years, either grant a permanent visa or let their visa expire and deport them. If they're either using services or paying taxes we'll have a way to find them, and if they're not doing either, they're obviously not causing any obvious problems.

Once you've made it past the immigration counter enforcement is virtually impossible. Most cities and counties don't want to be involved in immigration enforcement because its disruptive to the community. And it's left to the visa holder to go willingly. A big problem is people arrive on tourist visas and don't leave by the appointed date. ICE can't really do anything about it unless you try to leave through a border checkpoint. This causes an incentive to stay rather than leave.

Maybe without all the absurd, overcomplicated immigration laws to enforce, ICE will have the resources to implement the followup checks and send local agents to apprehend and deport people.

Seems like you're giving access to the people that need it the least. Seems like you're simply shifting the self-interested (I don't mean this in a derogative sense) motivation of making this country better by not allowing 'job-stealing' immigrants to the equally self-interested one of making this country better by only allowing those who will improve it.

I'm not completely sure how I feel about the issue, to be honest, but I'm an immigrant (my parents brought me when I was an infant), and I probably wouldn't have made it here under either the criteria that exist now nor the ones you are promoting.

What I know is that the dream of immigration to the US is about having a better life for you and your children. Don't the poor and uneducated deserve that dream just as much as anyone else?

"Don't the poor and uneducated deserve that dream just as much as anyone else?"

Of course! The question is, how many poor and uneducated immigrants would you advocate naturalizing every year in the United States? 100K? 500k? 1.2 Mil? 4 mil? No limit? I feel that until people answer that question (and it will vary from person to person), there's no way to have a meaningful conversation about illegal immigration, which is about setting and enforcing limits.

I think quotas are the wrong way to frame the question, at least until we start running out of land. I'd be glad to let 100 million Einsteins and Teslas immigrate if they were available.

How about two separate systems. A quota-system and a points-system. You don't fall into the quota-system if you score high enough in the points-system.

Part of the problem is that it can be difficult to identify the Einsteins early enough to give them the visa when it would still matter. However, I don't think it would be difficult for an established scientist to gain US residency even under the current miserable system. Top athletes, entertainers, business people, scientists, and so forth inhabit a completely different universe.

As for "running out of land"... that's actually a little ambiguous. California could probably triple in population, and we'd still have some rural-ish areas in the extreme north. Japan, because of the density of its cities, actually preserved its rural character in some areas, and this is a country with a population density of 337.1/km2! In other ways, California has already "run out" of land. Ever drive from Orange county down to Tijuana? With the exception of a military base, it's basically sprawl all the way down. I suppose we could increase the coastal population by building high density housing on the coast...

> Don't the poor and uneducated deserve that dream just as much as anyone else?

Yes, but how do you prioritize? How do you control the drag on the social support systems of the country? How do you handle the gargantuan task of integrating these people into society?

There is a separate permanent resident application category with no quota for those individuals. For doctorate holders, it is the EB1-EA. If you have significant capital and invest in the US, you can apply via the EB-5 category.

EB* takes several years to be processed, even EB1-EA. Employers will not wait several years while you twiddle around outside of the country, so how almost everyone does it is to get an H1-B and apply for the EB* soon after while on the H1-B. Or they use it as leverage to get more work out of the immigrant. There is no H1-B speed EB visa and thats what needs changing. And you can only have an H1-B visa once, you can't renew for new ones indefinitely.

For example australia has employer sponsored permanent immigrant work visas that are processed fairly quickly.

The US has plenty of rich, educated people. What we need (according to current illegal immigration activity) are less educated lower wage hourly workers.

I don't see a lot of Canadian PhDs smuggling themselves in to the US, compared to Mexican laborers. Because there isn't demand to support the risk. The US seems far more willing to pay for laborers than PhDs.

It's a lot easier to stay 'under the radar' in an hourly job (i.e. cash) than it is to do so as a knowledge worker making a large salary.

Actually, you don't see any sort of skilled Canadian smuggling themselves in at all because it's ridiculously easy to get into the USA if you're from Canada. You walk up to the border, say "I have someone who wants to employ me in the USA, and I have a degree. Give me a TN visa." One hour later, your visa application is processed, and you continue across the border to start your new job.

However, even if that wasn't the case, You wouldn't see Canadian PhDs smuggling themselves in because they can get perfectly good jobs outside of the country. They don't need to go anywhere illegally, because they have plenty of options to go elsewhere. If it wasn't for the TN visa, I would be working in Europe, Asia, Canada, or nearly anywhere else, because someone from there would be trying to attract me.

It's not that there's no demand to support the risk. There's plenty of demand. There's also enough demand elsewhere -- if I had trouble getting into the states, some other company would have me, and I would be contributing to the economy there.

It was the refuse of Europe that made this continent what it is not the elites. We would be selecting for qualities that have an unknown relationship to our past results (and perhaps values).

Personally I think that idea is anti-American. The very premise of America as an immigrant society is that we don't judge your worth, we let you prove it. It's so important we even put it on the statue of liberty, it doesn't say "give me your wealthy, your well educated, your industrial tycoons".

And honestly I think that is one of America's greatest advantages. Reliance on credentialism ends up too often being just another class-based divide rather than meritocratic in any sense. Look at Andrew Carnegie, as an immigrant he had little to set him apart, but eventually he became one of the wealthiest men in the world. There are many, many more examples just like his. And yet so often we continue to say "yes, but, let's ignore that and pretend that we can filter people by merit". I don't agree that we can filter people by merit.

The fact of the matter is, there is a greater demand for US citizenship than "supply" (amounts to political will, really).

It makes sense to prioritize for the most productive/least diseased/least criminal/etc when possible to discriminate with reasonable certainty. Of course, this is not to imply that immigrants are neither unproductive, nor unhealthy, nor unlawful.

While rags-to-riches stories are great, riches-to-riches probably has a better expected outcome.

I agree. But I would also add political asylum and similar human rights considerations (they do exist, but need to be broader, imho). Perhaps this aspect is less relevant to HN, however it is relevant to the immigration issue.

I agree. I generally don't consider those as part of the normal immigration process -- a side channel into the country, if you will.

The rate is not that good of a guide, because the US (as it is now) was so sparsely occupied to begin with. In terms of population density, the US is ranked #180 in the world with 32 people/km2 vs. the world (land) average of 51/km2.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the rate "is not that good of a guide." Do you mean that you feel the rate of 1.2-1.8 million a year isn't as high as it sounds because the population density of the US is still relatively low?

Keep in mind, Australia also has a very low population density, but you'd have trouble populating the interior.

New Zealand has a very low population density, and is essentially a large national park. Certainly they could up that population density of 16.4/km^2. Should New Zealand aim to increase its population five to ten fold over the next 50 years to catch up? Is New Zealand an "anti-immigrant" country for not allowing this kind of growth through immigration?

You can say "yes", but then you'd have a tough time identifying a country that isn't "anti-immigrant", and I think the US would come off as one of the more immigrant-friendly nations out there. Not the most so, but pretty high up on the list.

Yes. I do think the US is one of the more immigrant-friendly nations, but the numbers admitted can't be divorced from their context.

I think what you are replying to was attempting to address the fact that America has a lot of land that is either parks (Yosemite), uninhabitable (Death Valley, Great Plains) or simply unestablished.

No immigrant is going to move into the middle of nowhere; they are going to move to cities or towns. People vs. total area is a misleading number.

So? It's not like we are never going to build any more cities or that none of the existing towns are going to grow into cities in the future. Nor am I claiming that this is the only statistic that matters.

In any case, this is a curious objection to raise in a thread about a story documenting the inability of rural farmers to hire a productive labor force following a change in the law. Quite a lot of immigrants work in the agricultural sector and live a good way away from major cities.

I'm not saying I'm afraid cities will overflow; I'm just attempting to further expand on the point that the people/land ratio is not as transparent and directly comparable between countries as it is sometimes assumed to be.

> I think you've correctly identified what Americans mean when they say "I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-illegal-immigration."

I know a lot of Americans who say exactly that, and none of them mean what you (or the parent poster) claim they mean. On the contrary, one of the most common statements I hear from them is "make it easier for people to immigrate legally".

Good question! Yes, I would remove the quotas. Borders only seek to separate people. The US is a decent country, better than many others as far as stability goes, and I think a lot of people could make a better life here. It would definitely be a burden on our government, but it's worth it.

The US population is around 312 million people. 1-2 million people a year 1/3 to 2/3 of 1% annual population growth through immigration.

In contrast, in 1907, the US population was around 87 million and there were about 1.3 million registered immigrants for about 1.4% growth through immigration--anywhere from two to four times the level today.

That is a pretty hasty generalization about American farmers. I have a friend who is a farmer in upstate New York. He has a master's degree, but chooses to run a small farm because his passion is being close to the land.

Yeah I wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic when he said that.

> If we were pro-immigration, we would increase these quotes.

The Democrats have a standing policy of increasing the merit-based immigration. However, Republicans have always insisted that the illegal immigration be addressed as well in any such legislation...

gwern, the reality is actually reverse. Obama/democrats wants a comprehensive immigration reform that includes dealing with the existing illegal immigrants in US. He dont want to deal legal immigration and illegal immigration separately. Thats the reason the recent startup visa was dead on arrival.

There is a wide gap between what republicans say to us and what they put on ballot. So far they have not been interested in immigration reform or immigration enforcement. Illegal immigration would drop overnight if they enforced real laws against the companies that hire illegal immigrants. But they focus on the, easily replaceable, migrant workers.

An example, the state of Georgia wrote their own law on legal hires. Now, they are having difficulties retaining fruit pickers for the summer harvest.

Unfortunately most Americans don't realize these quotas exist (or how they impact from different countries differently), and assume that all illegal immigrants simply refused to abide by America's laws. I would bet that illegal immigrants here for legal jobs would gladly follow a legal process if there was one.

Your logic fails when taken to the extreme. Child labor is used to manufacture clothes in some depoliticized districts around the world. Should we sit back and say, "Hey those guys need money and should be able to get a job and work for it just like us!" Or should we change our manufacturing/distribution methods to encourage more american produced goods?

yes? http://nominetwork.org/

There is a large spectrum of scaryness out there. child labor making bags is better than ... the alternative.

I'm confused.. the alternative to child labor is human trafficking?

you've got it the other way around.

Sometimes, child labor is the alternative to human trafficking.

That's like praising child porn because the alternative is sometimes raping children.

See how our emotions get in the way when parsing the above?

That's one of the fundamental issues with the entire topic - emotions ranked are above evidence based policy.

Strangely enough poor uneducated immigrants are easily net positive for society, and so are educated ones.

I recommend reading "The Economic Consequences of Immigration" for a good picture of the benefits and costs.

Two things. First, I think both of your options are horrible, and specifically selected to be offensive. I'm not aware of any aid organization that makes kids do porn instead of be raped. You can keep that link to yourself.

Second, a kid having to work in a factory is way way better than having to be a slave. Keep in mind, these kids would be working back on the farm with their family, but their family can't afford to feed them, so they send them off. Their families are usually lied to about what their kids are going to do. My western sensibilities find this awful.

So i'm a bit curious at this point. It seems you're advocating, since the kids can't have a perfect life, they might as well be raped?

I think both of your options are horrible,

I can say much the same about your options. Granted, child slavery is worse than child labor. However child labor is still not acceptable. And if a company like, say, Nike was to use that as an excuse for having their shoes made by child labor, I'd find that unacceptable.

...and specifically selected to be offensive.

Of course. That was the point. Your argument is of the form, "We should accept A because if we don't then some people will suffer B, which is much worse." I just substituted a different pair of A and B with a relationship that is just as clear as the relationship between the things that you were describing.

The logical form of the argument is unchanged. Yet your immediate response is that both are unacceptable.

I think child labor is better than the family starving.

For a lot of human history, we've had kids doing work. It's not great, and parents usually agree! One of the first things that families do, when they escape poverty, is to pull their kids out of jobs and put them in schools. And the money that the child earned can help a family feed themselves and be raised out of poverty. It's a negative feedback loop.

Give your taste buds a break. You would rather buy fruit shipped halfway across the world (i.e., fruit designed for survive storage rather than taste good) rather than visit the local farmer's market? WTF.

I make it a point to not buy fruit from Chile, because I am voting with my taste buds that I want good fruit not cheap fruit.

My favorite fruit is the peach, and I wait for summer and farmer's markets so that I can get some ripe fruit (ever noticed how the supermarket peaches are usually unripe and never really ripen? they seem to go directly from unripe to rotten).

Maybe you live in North Dakota or some such remote place and Chilean fruit is all you get.

Anyway, just an excuse for me to sing the praises of California peaches. :)

is there really much competition? chile is in the southern hemisphere, so the seasons don't match up. i would have thought that when american peaches are in season, chilean peaches will be terrible, and vice versa.

as for transportation - america is a big country. i am not sure "local" californian peaches on the east coast will suffer much less than chilean peaches - in both cases, significant transport is necessary.

disclaimer: i live in chile.

Georgia. On the East Coast you'd want peaches from Georgia.

Ontario peaches are good when they are in season too, though I can't say I've had a fresh Georgia peach in season.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com