Immigration

What is the Diversity Visa Lottery Donald Trump is Blaming for Yesterday's NYC Attack?

The president has already called for eliminating the program.

|

Allan Tannenbaum/Polaris/Newscom

Reports that Sayfullo Saipov—the Uzbek-born terror suspect in yesterday's attack in New York City that killed 8 people and wounded 11 others—entered the country thanks the State Department's Diversity Visa Lottery have set off a wildfire controversy about the little-known program.

President Donald Trump in a tweet quickly pinned the blame for the attack on the visa program and demanded "merit based immigration."

Others, like Sen. Jeff Flake (R–Ariz.), have hit back, pointing out Schumer supported getting rid of the Diversity Visa Lottery as part of a 2013 immigration reform effort.

Missing from this political Twitter-based tit-for-tat an explanation of what exactly the Diversity Lottery Program is.

The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program was created by the 1990 Immigration Act, and signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) did sponsor the original proposal to create a "diversity visa" as a way of increasing immigration from countries that send comparatively few migrants to the United States through other channels. Schumer's proposal was later rolled into the 1990 bill.

The program has been controversial. Bills to undo the Diversity Immigration Visas were introduced in 2005, 2007, 2009. The 2013 "Gang of 8" immigration reform bill, which would have allowed for greater immigration in many instances, included a provision eliminating the program, as does the restrictionist 2017 RAISE Act.

Conservatives have long opined that the program allows low-skill immigrants into the United States, and that the program is susceptible to fraud.

Every year, 50,000 visas are made available through a lottery to "low admission" countries, defined as those that have sent fewer than 50,000 people to the United States in the past five years. The Attorney General is responsible for determining which countries count as low admission.

Those hoping to gain admission under the program must have a high school education (or its equivalent), or have worked for two years in a job that requires a further two years of experience or training.

Migrants that meet these qualifications submit their names each year into an electronic lottery run by the U.S. State Department, which then selects winners. Nearly 10 million qualified entrants entered the lottery for the 2015 draw (the last year for which statistics were available), and 125,514 were selected to apply for a Diversity Immigration Visa.

The visa application process includes an in-person interview with State Department staff at a consulate or embassy. Visa applicants must provide a birth certificate, records of a medical examination, as well as any court, police, or deportation records that might exist for the applicant.

State Department staff then confirm this documentation, and issue visas to the 50,000 to lucky winners. Family members of winners are allowed access to the United States as well.

The diversity lotteries began in 1995, meaning roughly 1.1 million have entered the country since through the program.

As a result yesterday's grisly attack in New York City by a lottery recipient, and the president's finger-pointing at the program, calls to eliminate the Diversity Visa Lottery will only grow louder.

Advertisement

NEXT: A Clash of Visions Over Taxes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The program has been controversial.

    Unlike any other thing Congress comes up with.

    1. My Whole month’s on-line financ-ial gain is $2287. i’m currently ready to fulfill my dreams simply and reside home with my family additionally. I work just for two hours on a daily basis. everybody will use this home profit system by this link………

      ======================
      http://www.webcash20.com
      ======================

  2. What seems to be missing is the fact that Saipov entered the country in 2010 on this visa lottery program. Back then, ISIS was just starting to get going. So we don’t know if he was already a radicalized ISIS follower back then, and the government’s background checks missed it when they reviewed his visa application, or if he came here relatively “normal”, and then became radicalized while here. If that’s the case, then extra “vetting” or background checks wouldn’t have helped.

    1. Extra vetting will allow the vettors to spot radicalizeability.

      1. [citation needed]

        1. [sarcasm detector needed]

          1. Seriously, is radicalizeability even a word?

    2. I doubt vetting would have helped since it is pretty obvious that the only purpose of vetting is to satisfy pre-existing domestic political rhetoric.

    3. Radical is a nihilist euphemism for “principled.” Saracen berserker principles call for the initiation of deadly force because Allah and tradition. Conservative carpet-biter principles call for the initiation of deadly force because Jesus and tradition. Libertarian principles call for avoiding the initiation of force because reason, freedom, life. All three are radicals, but two of them are mindless non-thinkers following deadly principles.

  3. I understand why the open borders types don’t see a problem with the program.

    But why would anyone else support this debacle?

    Harvard, Google and the New England Patriots don’t use a lottery to choose their students, employees and players.

    They don’t need to have a job offer, a relative in the country, any real skill. This is importing immigrants just for the Hell of it.

    1. IIRC Canada and Australia both use a skills-based points system.

    2. Why is it the government’s business to pick and choose who gets to visit here, either temporarily or permanently? Certain restrictions can be placed on who can enter, such as no one from a country we’re at war with, have to show proof of immunization, etc.

      What EXACTLY are your requirements, other than the possession of a pale pasty skin tone? Is it jobs? Then let’s let anyone in who has a job. Relatives? Then let’s anyone who who has a relative here in. What you can’t do is base the law on the arbitrary whim of the moment.

      This isn’t about open borders. Figure out what “open borders” actually means before you declare anyone against total lockdown to be an open border type.

      1. It’s pretty clear Reason is full open borders. They don’t want to deport anyone who is already here, and they don’t want to take any measures to dissuade anyone else from coming in. Can’t get much more open than that.

        If you are asking what I wan, right now I’d have a time out on all green card holders with the exceptions of spouses and minor children of already US Citizens.

        Plus a very few O visas for truly outstanding individuals in their field, not this H1-B SQL coder nonsense.

        1. “If you are asking what I wan, right now I’d have a time out on all green card holders with the exceptions of spouses and minor children of already US Citizens.”

          Why?

          What are you so afraid of?

          1. Not afraid.

            We’ve got more people in the country than we need already.

          2. Why do you want more people so badly. They aren’t any more likely to sleep with you than the ones that are here.

          3. What are you so afraid of?

            Getting run over by a truck, for one

        2. Open Borders means no restrictions on crossing the borders. At all. No vaccine checks, no criminal checks, no customs, no checking for fruits and vegetables, no numerical limits, nothing. Even more open than the border between California and Oregon. Not even some dude waving you through while he masturbates in the booth. Nothing. Nada. Anarcho-Capitalism run rampant.

          We don’t have that. We will never have that. No one in congress is suggesting that. Not even Mr. Moobs wants that.

          Letting a fixed number of people in after we vett them, do a background check, eyeball their vaccination docs, and inspect their papers, is NOT open borders.

          1. If you’re not going to dissuade people from coming illegally and aren’t going to deport them once they are here, then yes, it is Open Borders.

            Plus, according to the people down-thread there is no “fixed number of people” to vett as there can be no third party or central authority that “knows” how many people is “enough.”

          2. The Libertarian platform blows airy smokerings about open borders, just as the Second Amendment does about a Free State. But the meat of the platform plank about is blocking dangerous lunatics. Mohammedans, as nearly as I can ascertain, are exactly the same as Robert Dear (the Colorado Planned Parenthood berserker). Mystical fanatics have no logical alternative BUT the initiation of deadly force. Face it.

      2. “What EXACTLY are your requirements, other than the possession of a pale pasty skin tone?”

        What should the requirement be? At least the ability to consistently pay more than $25000/year in taxes, because that’s how much every new American costs.

        Leftists and racists like you generally don’t qualify, and neither do most Europeans desire their pasty skin tones.

      3. “What EXACTLY are your requirements, other than the possession of a pale pasty skin tone?”

        What should the requirement be? At least the ability to consistently pay more than $25000/year in taxes, because that’s how much every new American costs.

        Leftists and racists like you generally don’t qualify, and neither do most Europeans desire their pasty skin tones.

    3. Re: MiloMinderbinder,

      I understand why the open borders types don’t see a problem with the program.

      Well I have a problem with it while advocating for borders being open to the free movement of goods, services and, yes, labor.

      A lottery-based system is far removed from a market-based system where market forces determine who comes in and who goes out. Immigration, just like every other human action, should be an activity regulated by the market and not central planners.

      1. Let anyone who has a job in. But they pay the same taxes as everyone else, follow the same rules as everyone else, no handouts. Do a background and medical check, but otherwise none of my business. Hell, I’m even fine with numerical limits.

        The problem is not that immigrants are sending their kids to public schools at the taxpayers’ expense, the problem is that we have public schools paid for by taxpayers. The problem is not immigrants using the emergency room for basic care, the problem is that we have a healthcare system micromanaged by the government and financed indirectly by the taxpayer. Private schools should be able to enroll anyone they want. Private clinics should be able to admit anyone they want. It’s none of the government’s business.

        My beef is with the attitude that Joe Blow in some rustbelt weed patch should get to personally vet each and every immigrant waiting on the docks. What moral right does he have to decide who I can or cannot rent an apartment to two thousand miles away?

        1. The problem is not that immigrants are sending their kids to public schools at the taxpayers’ expense, the problem is that we have public schools paid for by taxpayers. The problem is not immigrants using the emergency room for basic care, the problem is that we have a healthcare system micromanaged by the government and financed indirectly by the taxpayer.

          And those problems aren’t going away any time soon. And they’ll never go away when we import 300+ million third worlders.

          When presented with the same argument over Gay Marriage (get gov’t out of the business of marriage) the Reason staff claimed since that wasn’t an option we had to compromise our Libertarian principles and embrace gay marriage.

          Since we aren’t getting rid of taxpayer-financed public schools anytime soon, the answer is to limit the number of immigrant kids in those schools.

          1. Since we aren’t getting rid of taxpayer-financed public schools anytime soon, the answer is to limit the number of immigrant kids in those schools.

            Rock solid, comrade! Individual liberty will clearly only ever be enhanced by this approach.

            1. I posit that importing a bunch of Democrat-voting, Teacher Union-enabling immigrants will make the end of tax-payer financed schools an even remoter possibility.

            2. Forcing me to pay for more education for other people’s kids does not advance “individual liberty”.

        2. “Let anyone who has a job in”

          If you don’t make significantly above median wages, you end up being a net cost for tax payers. So, a job isn’t sufficient, it needs to be a high paying job.

          Therefore… Let everybody with a job paying more than $100k/year in, and give them a green card if they can maintain that income for 10 years.

    4. The reason the diversity lottery exists is because there are precisely ZERO immigrants who are currently allowed without some pre-existing crony connection. Which you hint at yourself. Our existing system is entirely cronyist and there is little/no support for actually reforming the whole thing so that it isn’t cronyist.

      1. Not propping up religious fanatic dictatorships in South America would reduce the number of people fleeing the tender mercies of their own altruist governments. Transforming neighboring (and distant) countries into mystical slums is the State Department’s primary function, judging by the results.

  4. This asshole showed up in 2010, and the so-called “Gang of Eight” was in 2013, which shitbag Jeff Flake surely knows.

    See Flake, this is why your popularity is below 20% in your own home state, forcing you to retire to spare yourself the embarrassment of getting your ass kicked in the next election. Because even when you say something that technically is correct, it’s still a fundamentally dishonest distraction that doesn’t remotely invalidate the original point.

    1. Also, the Gang of 8 proposal was just to massively expand immigration, no matter what they claim, which would’ve made that program irrelevant.

    2. Flake is focused on the Schumer finger banging.

      End result is that people who don’t like Trump stay mad at Trump. Policy Trump doesn’t like gets terminated.

      Trump wins.

  5. The visa lottery is sorta pointless. The number of applicants is huge so it’s basically zero chance of getting a visa that way.

    However , if trump.wants merit based immigration, he shouldn’t be trying to limit opt and h1-b visas. Those are the closest thing we have to merit based immigration at the moment.

    1. Pointless for who? By my count close to 1.5 million people have gained entrance to the US, not because they have something to offer, but because they won a f*cking lottery.

      OPT – Great! pPut US citizens at more of a disadvantage. OPT employees don’t have to pay SS or Medicare Taxes and the employers don’t have to pay their matching share. So businesses can save 15% on payroll by not hiring an American. Great deal.

      1. OPT – Great! pPut US citizens at more of a disadvantage. OPT employees don’t have to pay SS or Medicare Taxes and the employers don’t have to pay their matching share. So businesses can save 15% on payroll by not hiring an American. Great deal.

        It makes sense when you realize Meade wants completely open borders and gives no shits about the citizens of this country,

        1. I give a shit about the equal human rights of all people to pursue happiness.
          I feel no particular reason to think that the lives of those who by accidents of history happened to be born within the arbitrary geographical boundaries of the US are more special than any other lives.

          1. Then go fucking home.

          2. Which is nice and touchy-feely — but the US GOVERNMENT is an expression of AMERICAN desire for self-governance not a desire to hold hands around the world in order to teach everyone to sing in perfect harmony.

            Indeed, the easiest way to keep the US government involved in global wars and global policing and global nagging and global subsidizing is to pretend that borders aren’t meaningful. It’s ‘libertarian’ only in the sense that Trotskyism is also libertarian – a notion that an ideology must be imposed on the entire world because that’s the only way adherents to that ideology can imagine it working.

            1. What the hell does that have to do with stopping individuals who just want to exchange money for labor from coming to the US to do that?

              1. Because their interests/desires are IRRELEVANT. The US government is accountable to Americans and only Americans.

                1. Which Americans? The people who are threatened by competition, or the ones who want to hire them?

                  1. That is up to Americans to decide. The reality is that those Americans who want to hire foreign labor have always had the ability to set up operations overseas and hire foreign labor. And we have BY FAR the lowest re-import tariffs in our history – so there is not even an actual economic disadvantage. There is no protectionism IN ACTUAL PRACTICE. There is only some fucking theory – bleated by those who have tilted the playing field in their direction – and who are now whining that that they should have the exclusive right to keep the government in their personal pocket (re immigration policy) to keep the playing field tilted in their direction. Because freedom. It’s fucking bullshit.

                    And I FAVOR increased immigration. I just fucking DESPISE most of those who advocate it.

                    1. I really wish open borders types would quit claiming to be libertarians. They are obviously anarchists.

                    2. The reality is that those Americans who want to hire foreign labor have always had the ability to set up operations overseas and hire foreign labor.

                      To approximately the same extent that Americans are free to go look for work in other countries. Do note that most of the anti-immigrationists are also anti-trade and also the same people who bitch about outsourcing.

                      The fact is that immigrants who want to come here and the employers who want to hire them are not doing anything that violates the rights of any US citizen, and no American citizen has the right to demand they stop engaging in such voluntary trade.

                      The US government should simply butt out of people voluntary employment relationships. If an immigrant can’t find a job, they can go home. immigrants that can should be welcome to stay and nobody should object to that and claim the right to preferential employment treatment on the basis of their nationality.

                    3. “The fact is that immigrants who want to come here and the employers who want to hire them are not doing anything that violates the rights of any US citizen”

                      Bullshit. You violate my rights as a US citizen and tax payer by forcing me to pay for government services, insurance, and other benefits of immigrants who don’t make enough money.

                      Given per capita government spending of $25k per year, that’s how much an immigrant needs to pay in taxes just to break even. Note: that’s actual taxes paid by the immigrant, not “economic activity” or “positive economic impact” or “taxes paid by others through job creation”.

                      (Incidentally, I’m an immigrant myself.)

                    4. Immigrants are not permitted to receive welfare. When people say they receive welfare, they’re talking about the same roads and schools that everyone else uses. I actually pay LESS taxes for the immigrant because I know that person isn’t going to be able to access the welfare system ot the same extent. And denying people the right to work is a really stupid way to go about keeping them from using government services.

          3. The issue isn’t boundaries, it is government services and who pays for them. Every low income immigrant you want to bring takes money from existing American tax payers, like me. Yours is not a libertarian position.

      2. Are those one-year student internships really terking er jerbs?

      3. How is this different than the argument for closed shop unions?

        1. It’s not. Trumpistas are really just old school labor movement douchbags. It’s not a coincidence that they hate both immigration and trade – because it threatens blue collar labor.

          1. Whereas Hazel doesn’t work. Yea fuck those guys and their jobs like Hazel doesn’t have.

            1. Fuck people who think their nationality entitles them to a job more than anyone else.

              1. *Trump voice*

                I dub thee “Hysterical Hazel”.

      4. It’s actually not a good idea to not pay SS and Medicare taxes , because having ten years of payouts into SS can help in certain visa categories, depending on the immigration path someone ultimately takes.
        I would advise OPT and H1-B visa holders who are interested in immigrating to pay SS and Medicare anyway.

    2. While I know you enjoy being a cock holster for big companies — but where is the humanity in bringing in a foreigner, paying them well below market value for their service and removing any option they have to try and improve their situation since their employer controls their visa?

      1. The solution to that is to make H1-B visas transferrable and at the discretion of the employee, rather than specific to a particular employer, not to reduce their numbers.

        1. That’s the same thing as saying the H program should be scrapped.

          The numbers are damn near irrelevant or at least secondary. The management/operational issue is — WHO decides what the criterion for immigration is. Currently it is the employer. It will NEVER be the actual immigrant. So the only real issue is – if not the employer, then WHO?

          1. Well, you could probably write in some modifications that simplify the process of switching to a different employer without entirely scrapping it.
            If you want to just give a temporary work visa to everyone who graduates from a US university that would be even better though. Let the individual decide who they want to work for, and if they can find an employer who likes them enough to go through the expensive time consuming process of applying for a green card, they can stay.

            1. You’re missing the issue. ANY policy has to have some set of processes by which it is actually managed. Bloviating theories doesn’t DO ANYTHING.

              H program can not exist without the process being initiated BY THE EMPLOYER. That’s how it is structured and that cannot be reformed. If someone else is going to initiate, then it is an entirely different program. eg your ‘every university graduate gets a work visa’ is an entirely different set of processes. And unless you just want to replace employer cronyism with academic cronyism, then you damn well better figure out to prevent universities from gaming the system to their advantage. It ain’t simply gonna ‘work’ because — ‘freedom’.

              1. I’m not the one advocating immigration regulation. I’m advocating modifications to the system as a compromise that would address some of the issues people claim the H1-B program suffers from. If I had my way,anyone who could get a job would be able to come here, provided they passed some background security checks. There would be NO laws demanding employers prove they couldn’t hire an American and so forth. The more regulations you have, the more they are going to be gamed. Any regulatory system is going to end up being gamed, but the answer is not to ban immigration and create an even larger black market. if you think H1-B visa holders are exploited because they can’t change jobs …there are lots of alternative mechanisms that would let them change jobs.

        2. They already are.

      2. Also, the employer isn’t allowed to pay them below market wages, by law. They have to prove that they are paying them the prevailing wage for their position as part of the application.

        1. 1) That is patently false.
          2) The leeway one gets in determining their position is impressive.

          “I’m overpaid for the field of brain surgeon, leper, and crack whore”

          1. I have been an H1-B visa holder. I know what I’m talking about. Iv’e been through the process. They aren’t allowed to pay you less than the prevailing wgae.

            Foreign Labor Certification

            The requirement to pay prevailing wages as a minimum is true of most employment based visa programs involving the Department of Labor. In addition, the H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 programs require the employer to pay the prevailing wage or the actual wage paid by the employer to workers with similar skills and qualifications, whichever is higher.

            There, that took me five seconds to Google you deluded fucking retard. Stop believing everything you hear on whatever troglodyte alt-right bullshit websites you crawled over from.

    3. Trump doesn’t want merit-based immigration. He and his hardcore supporters don’t want ANY immigration, legal or illegal. Look at MiloBender’s comments, he wants a timeout on all greencard holders with very few exceptions. Fortress America, here we come, baby!

      1. Well, yeah. It’s a motte-and-bailey in multiple respects. Say you only oppose illegal immigration, then work to reduce legal immigration, say you want merit based immigration, then try to cut programs that bring in high-skilled immigrants. When anyone points this out, retreat to the more defensible position, claim everyone else is lying about your positions.

        1. I mean the Trump administration has put its principles on paper- the Raise Act. It’s super popular with voters.

          You still don’t know what motte and bailey is and this is like the fifteenth time you’ve tried.

          1. Well, this is a new form of argument. “We’ve always been against legal immigration, and we’ve never said we weren’t”

            Let’s see how long this one lasts.

        2. Trumpists are in favor of legal immigration in the sense that Chicago is in favor of legal gun ownership. Once all immigration is banned, it’s technically true that you support legal immigration.

  6. I want merit based.

    They should be able to rent a Home Depot truck and drive it down the sidewalks of New York more competently!

  7. …roughly 1.1 million have entered the country since through the program.

    That’s a lot of sleepers.

    1. And all of them are murderers and rapists. You can tell just by looking at them.

  8. This argument against this type of visa makes about as much sense as the post-Vegas arguments against bump stocks. If this type of visa didn’t exist, would it have stopped this attach? Maybe, probably not. He may well have gotten here on some other kind of visa. Or some other guy on a different kind of visa could have been radicalized. Or a citizen could have been radicalized. If he had a H-1B visa because he was some kind of computer wizard, would that be an argument against H-1Bs?

  9. Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan wasn’t even on Trump’s Muslim travel ban. What a failure.

    1. Diversity lottery shit for brains.

      1. Have you ever had an independent thought in your stupid fucking life?

    2. Be patient. Glorious Leader can only ban one nation at time…

  10. One of the things it is, is nearly the only way a law-abiding, single, unmarried, productive but non-STEM rockstar, non-sports figure has a shot at settling in the US. I knew one such. He never won the lottery and went to Canada instead.

    1. And we probably have enough “law-abiding, single, unmarried, productive but non-STEM rockstar, non-sports figures” that we don’t need to be importing random Uzbeks.

      1. How do you know that we “have enough”? How did you make this determination? Why should it be up to any third party or central authority to decide when there are “enough” people here?

        1. Because if no one will decide we’re going to have 300,000,000+ random third-worlders moving to this country which will render it unrecognizable. No more 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, etc.

          http://news.gallup.com/poll/15…..grate.aspx

          And that number is probably understated. Gallup says 150,000,000 would move to the US. Another 150,000,000 have another Anglo-sphere or Western country as their first choice. So we just throw open the door and we get 300,000,000+ plus their spouses, dependents, parents, siblings, cousins-law, etc.

          1. I’m fine with taking those 10 million Indians. Good people. Let’s brain drain the shit out of their country.

            1. Nope, sorry. You can’t just have the 10 million Indians. You need to take everyone who wants to come. Because there is no central authority or third party who can possibly know when the country has “enough” people.

          2. Yes yes. Must keep out those dirty filthy Third Worlders, lest they corrupt the purity of essence of America.

            Heaven knows it was bad enough when those damn Micks and Wops came here to defile the proper WASP order of things.

            1. Import the 3rd world, you are the 3rd world.

        2. Basically it’s okay for high skilled immigrants to compete with high skilled citizens, but gawd forbid any low skilled immigrants got to compete with low skilled ‘Muricans! We gotta keep that Democratic Party base strong!

      2. Who is this “we”?
        And why do you get to claim to speak for it?

        1. Remind me Hazel, what is your position on the the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act’s public accommodations and private employment sections?

          Cause if we’re going to engage in a Libertarian Purity Test, I won’t to know whom I’m up against.

          1. Hazel has let’s just say a dark skin fetish. Which is a shame because her poor husband supports and she’s clearly got something else on the brain.

            1. Stop talking about your cockolding fetish Sam, it’s creepy.

  11. The real point here is that radicalize is a stupid, stupid word.

    1. No stupider than calling communists liberals (something Herbert Hoover supporters take as Revelation). The Suprema Corte thinks the First Amendment says it’s OK to send the cops out to shoot people over peyote and DMT. Given that, what makes allahu akbar saracen berserkers running amok in These States the “free exercise” of religion? If memory serves, suicide berserkers weren’t even interested in America until George Holy War Bush went military industrial complex on Ottoman Empire turf Over There. Surely one bunch of religious conservatives being irrational does not justify importing another bunch even more dangerous.

  12. “Sen. Chuck Schumer (D ? N.Y.) did sponsor the original proposal to create a “diversity visa” as a way of increasing immigration from countries that send comparatively few migrants to the United States through other channels”

    Trump is fairly compelling on is the idea that whatever various polices are, they should serve to benefit the United States. That wasn’t a main consideration for sixteen years prior.

    Saving the Iraqis from Hussein is a compelling narrative, but I was more interested in the benefits to the United States, Mr. Bush.

    I’m convinced that most of what Obama did in foreign policy was primarily for the benefit of others. From the Paris climate agreement to his refugee policy, Obama seemed to think that his job was to force selfish Americans to make sacrifices for the benefit of less fortunate people elsewhere in the world.

    I disagree with Donald Trump on legal immigration. I’d like to see our legal immigration policy become much more expansive, but that’s because I think such immigration is to the benefit of the U.S.

    I don’t really care about whether our immigration policy is to the benefit of certain third world countries, Mr. Schumer. Donald Trump may be wrong about what’s in the best interests of the U.S., but at least he’s right about the correct criteria being the best interests of the U.S. rather than the best interests of people from elsewhere in the world, who might not get an opportunity to come here otherwise.

    1. I respect your opinion, but I can’t see how bringing in millions of socialists is good for our country, even if they do contribute to the economy in the short term.

      1. I’d rather argue about that than whether immigration policy should focused on benefiting other countries.

        What’s the point in arguing about whether immigration is in the best interests of the United States with politicians who don’t care whether it’s in the best interests of the United States?

        Donald Trump may be wrong, but at least he’s reachable.

        And that’s my point.

        Immigration is controlled by Congress, it’s an enumerated power, and it should depend on popular support. However, within that argument about what the American people should support, I argue that that they should support a more expansive legal immigration policy.

        I wish people would nail down the question about who should benefit from our immigration policy and whether that policy should reflect the opinions of the American people–before I get into what that policy should be.

        Cart before horse.

        I suspect one of the reasons Americans don’t support an expansive immigration policy is because they expect their politicians to ignore their preferences and the interests. Fix that problem, and I bet the rest of it falls into place.

        And, yeah, to your point, the more we’re forced to pay for each other, the more picky people get about who comes across the border. The less we have to pay for each other, the less we care about who and how many come here.

    2. Any immigrant who pays less in taxes than the average per capita government spending is a problem. It doesn’t matter how handwavy you get about economic impact.

      That means we should welcome anybody who on average makes upwards of about $100k/year in the US. People who make less than that should generally not be allowed to work in the US: they simply aren’t productive enough to pay for the kinds of government services we lavish on every American.

    3. Any immigrant who pays less in taxes than the average per capita government spending is a problem. It doesn’t matter how handwavy you get about economic impact.

      That means we should welcome anybody who on average makes upwards of about $100k/year in the US. People who make less than that should generally not be allowed to work in the US: they simply aren’t productive enough to pay for the kinds of government services we lavish on every American.

      1. Any immigrant resident who pays less in taxes than the average per capita government spending is a problem.

        There, FIFY

  13. First thing I’ve heard from Harvard that made sense in ages.
    https://tinyurl.com/yadd8xed

  14. If we had an entirely merit based system, something bad would still happen, and then Trump would want to get rid of that too.

    1. Ooooo! The argument from Divine Revelation and divination of the future! Profound… really profound.

      1. Ain’t nothing about politicians being predictable that can be described as “divine”…

  15. “The diversity lotteries began in 1995, meaning roughly 1.1 million have entered the country since through the program.”

    1.1 million, plus however many more they sponsored through chain migration.

  16. My party does not want to bomb primitives on the other side of the planet. But the Democrats and Republicans have larger crowds of dupes endorsing their initiation of force and exportation of prohibitionism. So when someone you like is killed in escalation of those policies, remember that I voted libertarian. Don’t come crying to me after getting what you voted for.

  17. I don’t particularly like Trump using this incident to further his political goals. If this stuff should be stopped, it should be stopped because of its lack of merit.

  18. So where are all the conservatives condemning him for politicizing a tragedy?

    1. If you’re looking for conservatives, you’re at the wrong website.

      1. The comment section here frequently disagrees. But I’m talking about in general

        1. Schumer condemned him for politicizing the tragedy. I’ll say it a second time to make sure it sinks in. Chuck Schumer, whose knee-jerk response to every event is “Let me get on TV and talk about my new legislation to fix everything”, condemned someone for politicizing a tragedy. If you’re only going to call out one side for their hypocrisy, when both sides are guilty… Well, it just leaves half the job to someone else. Maybe that’s why you think this site is full of conservatives? Because people like you do the job of criticizing Team Red, and all that’s left for the libertarians to do is point out that the criticism applies equally to Team Blue?

  19. I lean liberal on quite a few issues, though not all. And this is one area where I am sick of the pandering the DEmocratic party has done with respect to immigration. As a son of immigrants, I appreciate the loosening of immigration laws over the years. But it doesn’t mean, we go free for all. And as Fareed Zakarai of CNN himself said, many immigrants wouldn’t come here if the culture becomes another mexico because if it did, they could go to mexico itself without the hassles of the selectivity. I am proud of my Indian ethnicity but quite frankly I do not want America to become another India.

    What liberals miss is with increased global connectivity., many new immigrants are conveniently holding on to many of their old values and find company in online communities that could slow down their assiimilation into American society unless they take the initiative to do so. If a muslim comes here, I would pose that person a lot of controversial questions in their interview and see how they respond. If they look disturbed, they get flagged for possible denial. I don’t want the muslim community in America to mirror what we see in England. When I was a kid, a lot of muslim kids assimilated easily in our society.

    1. And as Fareed Zakarai of CNN himself said, many immigrants wouldn’t come here if the culture becomes another mexico because if it did, they could go to mexico itself without the hassles of the selectivity.

      Maybe someone should enlighten Mr. Zakaria that Mexico’s immigration restrictions, and especially their punishments for violating them, are far more extreme than ours.

  20. Immigration into the US should be decided solely upon what is good for America and Americans. Creating a toxic culture of people who have no interest in assimilating, and who despise the basis of the US is a prescription for disaster.

    “Diversity” is another word ruined by the left.

  21. “Sen. Chuck Schumer (D?N.Y.) did sponsor the original proposal to create a “diversity visa” as a way of increasing immigration from countries that send comparatively few migrants to the United States through other channels. Schumer’s proposal was later rolled into the 1990 bill.”

    So he was for it before he was against it. But we hate the messenger, so we defend Schumer for unsuccessfully repealing the law, over actually creating it.

    Fun fact: CA gov Gray Davis who signed the massive pension kickback to govt unions which is driving the state bankrupt, now opposes the law saying it was a bad idea too. oooops.

    1. The reality is that the diversity visa program was originally created to give an amnesty to East Coast Irish. Ireland was still a basketcase in the late 80’s and a ton of people were still coming over on tourist visas, getting jobs, and then overstaying. But Ireland no longer had the alternative visa channels. A bit under half of diversity visas were given to Irish applicants until the mid-90’s. Which is when Ireland recovered economically (reducing interest in emigration in Ireland) and when the diversity visa program was formally expanded to spread ‘winners’ around.

  22. What about privatizing immigration, like the Gulf states have done? It seems to work ok for them, with a hard working and docile immigration population which far outnumbers the locals – yet does not completely change the character of those nations.

  23. The sad part is, with all of the current anti-immigration animus, that America has been down this exact same road before and evidently learned nothing from it. It seems we have to repeat this cycle for eternity: one group of immigrants comes here, become reasonably successful, then when the next group of immigrants wants to arrive, the current residents are far too eager to slam the door shut and keep them out, with lurid tales about how those “new” immigrants are nothing like themselves, they will turn America into a wasteland and destroy it from within. We saw that when Irish and Italians, mostly Catholic, were emigrating here, much of the Protestant majority wanted to keep them out as they would turn America into some horrible dystopia. Look at this campaign flyer from the 1850’s: It could be used almost word for word to describe what is currently happening, just replace Catholic references to Muslim ones.

    “We appeal to you in all calmness. Is it not time to pause? Already the enemies of our dearest institutions, like the foreign spies in the Trojan horse of old, are within our gates. They are disgorging themselves upon us at the rate of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR! They aim at nothing short of conquest and supremacy over us.”

    The Know-Nothings of the 1850’s were wrong about the Catholics then, and the Know-Nothings of today are wrong about the immigrants of today.

    1. Dude look at this mess the Irish made of the place.

    2. Past immigration restrictions were based on race and nationality and existed in a context of no welfare state and small government spending.

      What we are talking about today is race neutral immigration restrictions based on net economic contributions. Welfare states like the US and the EU can only finance themselves provided average productivity is high. Any immigrant that had below average productivity is a liability for the country.

      1. Oh c’mon Mark. You know that this is largely bullshit. Yes there are a few immigration restrictionists who are very careful to couch their arguments in economic terms. But there is a much larger segment of restrictionists who are much like the Know-Nothings of the 1850’s – scared of the foreigners, threatened by their competition, and willing to vote according to their fears to keep them out despite the long-term harm such an action will do to everyone’s liberties. Look at what Trump said about shutting down Muslim immigration – based on a religious test – and how it was received by his base – they LOVED it. No nuanced argument about economics there. Listen to the rhetoric from the right about immigration from third world countries. They often describe it as an INVASION. Just look at crap like this. This could have been taken straight out of the 1850’s. They aren’t talking about just jobs. It is a deeper fear of being “conquered” just like the Know-Nothings feared.

        1. One of my ancestors joined the Confederacy cuz he was a Know-Nothing and he had his memoirs written down late in life.

          In the fall of 1850 I went on the steamer Uncle Toby with my father to learn the river as a pilot, and in the spring of 1852 obtained my first license. This was the first year government licenses were required of pilots and captains…In May, 1861, my license expired and I went to…inspector for the purpose of having it renewed. A diminutive, beer-soaked German, who had gained his place through the exercise of political pull, was…inspector. To him I stated the purpose of my call. He drew from the drawer of his desk a document headed, “Oath of Allegiance,” and, handing it to me, told me to fill out the blanks. When I had filled out the blanks on the license side he directed me to hold up my hand and take the oath. I inquired the reason for this new departure, and he replied in broken English that the “Secesh” were trying to disrupt the Union and everyone who wanted a license must take the oath. I indignantly told him that I had been born in this country, as were my father and grandfather before me. I had no objection to taking the oath but when I did it would not be from an alien. I then walked out, followed by Sam Bowen and Sam Clemens, who had entered the office just after I had and had thus overheard my conversation with the inspector.

          This occurred almost the same day as the Camp Jackson Affair.

          1. Requiring people to take an “Oath of Allegiance” is obnoxious, but not as obnoxious when there’s an actual shooting war going on.

            But you are right, American cultural insecurity has been a thing for a very long time. It seems we think that the very next set of immigrants who comes ashore will be the ones who finally usher in the destruction of America.

            1. Yeah – but that’s why I also mentioned the Camp Jackson Affair (now ignored in most Civil War history). A Union regiment (80%+ composed of strongly-abolitionist recent German immigrants – many not even citizens yet) captured a secesh militia and then panic-fired into a crowd of heckling civilian citizens – killing 28 and injuring 100+.

              It’s already HAPPENED. Non-citizen immigrants being used as the sharp end of a divide-et-impera strategy against citizens. Let’s not pretend that it can’t happen again – esp now with a volunteer army where we are granting citizenship for service – while spying on all citizens and viewing them as a potential threat.

              The problem imo is that these immigration/furriner debates turn ethnic/racist (furthering the divide-et-impera strategy) – when, if liberty is the goal, they should be more class/populist/anti-elitist (directed more at the puppeteers who want to maintain their monopoly over the policies/beneficiaries)

          2. I’m impressed that your ancestor knew Mark Twain!

  24. Here is Abraham Lincoln’s private views on the Know-Nothings. It is worth reading, for it is sadly applicable even today.

    I am not a Know-Nothing ? that is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equals, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.’ When it comes to that I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty ? to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.[

    1. These were his private views?
      Old Abe was, sometimes full of shit.
      Read what he said about the “negro” in the debates he had with Stephen Douglas – he wanted them out of bondage, but also out of the U.S. – to Liberia.

      1. Yup, Abe Lincoln wasn’t a saint. That is for sure. But his words in this case ring true.

        1. He had no problem locking up and killing Catholics who criticized his mass murdering ways.

  25. As with most laws the Diversity visa program is not enforced equally. Diversity is a misnomer when Mexicans are allowed to cross the porous border by the millions–literally–each year while others, like the Irish, are kept out. Entire communities and even states are being transformed within a few short years due to the influx of Mexicans. Mexican populations even in rural small towns go from perhaps 1% of the population to 30% in a year. If diversity is the goal, then they should do something about Mexican culture dominating in nearly every region of the U.S. Personally I don’t like Mexican culture and I don’t want to see American become like Mexico anymore than I’d want us to become another Sweden. Similar immigration laws used to be applied against the Irish because they were flooding into the US by the millions and there was fear of their culture taking over. Why are we not enforcing this law to hold back a huge influx of Mexicans? Diversity my ass. It’s about submission.

    1. I know, right? We need more stuff like this:

      The highest priority included attacks on the civil rights of Irish Catholic immigrants. After this, state courts lost the power to process applications for citizenship and public schools had to require compulsory daily reading of the Protestant Bible (which the nativists were sure would transform the Catholic children). The governor disbanded the Irish militias, and replaced Irish holding state jobs with Protestants. It failed to reach the two-thirds vote needed to pass a state constitutional amendment to restrict voting and office holding to men who had resided in Massachusetts for at least 21 years. The legislature then called on Congress to raise the requirement for naturalization from five years to 21 years, but Congress never acted.

  26. Did anyone else notice that this immigration diversity lottery not only allows the winner into the USA but family members.

    How many family members and what relation? Nobody will say. So 50,000 winners and probably at least a wife along with 2-3 kids.

    Another reason that people are pissed is because they are being lied to. The media tries to downplay how little 50k people are but that means double, triple, quadruple amounts of immigrants get to enter the USA from countries that usually do not like the USA. Those kids will never grow up to be terrorists if the father dies committing terrorism in the USA and is killed by Americans.

    That is a recipe for success!

    1. So quick to assume a causal relationship between a US policy and a terrorist attack. Maybe electing Trump caused it. They are correlated after all.

      Yet it remains too soon to talk about any policy response to Las Vegas. Why on the fucking earth could that be?

  27. Regardless of what one thinks of the diversity visa lottery system (I myself do not agree with it), I find it ridiculous of Trump to blame it all on the previous administration when this terrorist attack happened on his watch. Why weren’t the feds keeping an eye on this guy instead of going after potheads?

    1. Yup, say what you will about George Bush (jr) but after September 11 he got his act together and I don’t remember any terrorist act on American soil during his administration.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.