Immigration

The Pernicious Myth of 'Chain Migration'

|

President Donald Trump's war on immigration is in full-blown mission creep. No longer does he only want to throw "bad hombres" out. He's even targeting immigrants who pose no security threat to the country. And recently, he has become preoccupied with so-called chain migration.

"CHAIN MIGRATION cannot be allowed to be part of any legislation on Immigration!" he bleated in one tweet. The practice is "horrible" and "bad for the country," he barked in others.

The president is using nativist language to trash a noble goal of America's immigration system: keeping families intact, which, as it happens, has also worked wonders for America's economy.

The term is meant to conjure images of a process in which one immigrant comes into the country and then pulls in hordes of relatives, who in turn pull in hordes more, until entire tribes and villages are emptied into the United States. The White House even released an infographic to that effect.

But that's not how things work. Beyond spouses and minor children, American law allows immigrants to sponsor only parents, adult children, or siblings—not aunts, uncles, and cousins. Moreover, they can do so only after they themselves receive green cards or become naturalized citizens.

According to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis of government data, it can take up to 45 years for an immigrant to gain entry and pull in the next link in the "chain." Using a typical case, the study pointed out that if a Mexican-American naturalized woman sponsored her married son from Mexico, it would take the son and his wife 20 years to get green cards. If the wife wished to bring her siblings over, the quickest route would be for her to become naturalized, too, which would take five years. Sponsoring them would take another 20, by which time they'd be middle aged!

As the Mercatus Center's Daniel Griswold wrote in The Hill, the U.S. system admits only 2–2.5 family members of immigrants per year for every 1,000 residents. That's the same rate as in Canada and Australia—countries whose skills-based systems are Trump's alleged models. And about 66 percent of the foreigners America admits under this category are spouses or minor children. Hence, America can't stop what nativists call "mass immigration" without breaking up nuclear families.

Sadly, even failed Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, an immigration dove and Mr. Family Values himself, recommended rebalancing America's immigration system by cutting the family-based immigration that accounts for two-thirds of all immigrants to the country, and ramping up the employment-based immigration that accounts for a third. To his credit, unlike Trump, Bush favored raising overall immigration levels. He knows that without more foreign workers, America's workforce will diminish by 8 million by 2035.

One reason Republicans such as Bush badmouth family-based immigration is that they believe allowing in relatives rather than skilled professionals is not good for the economy. That's understandable—and profoundly mistaken. Indeed, with the exception of aging parents, immigrants leave their home and hearth and come to America only if they believe they have a good shot at achieving something better here. Regardless of which bureaucratic category they're admitted under, they do what it takes to be productive and get ahead.

A study by Harriet Duleep of the College of William & Mary and Mark Regets, then of the National Science Foundation, examined three decades of census data and found no difference in the final earnings of foreigners sponsored by family members vs. those sponsored by employers. Even though the former make less money than the latter initially, they also make far bigger and more rapid income gains over time.

Why? Immigrants who come on family visas aren't tied to specific companies or occupations. They're freer to acquire new skills and go into fields where they expect good returns, achieving an even snugger fit with America's labor market than those who already had positions waiting for them. And since they don't have jobs in hand on arrival, they have a lower opportunity cost for starting a business, and are more likely to be able to count on family support. Finally, the "best and brightest" have many options, but they often pick America because they have family here.

"Chain migration" is clever vernacular that does double duty for nativists. It demonizes the family-based immigration process while masking the real agenda: breaking up foreign-born families so as to encourage immigrants here to "self deport" and discourage new ones from coming. It'll be a tremendous loss for America's economy if immigration prohibitionists succeed.

NEXT: Brickbat: Drive On

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. Well, it’s nice to know that one can read headlines and figure out who wrote the article instantly.

    The president is using nativist language to trash a noble goal of America’s immigration system: keeping families intact, which, as it happens, has also worked wonders for America’s economy.

    Can you explain why that should be a goal? Why should it be our concern that you bring your mom, dad, adult children, siblings, etc here? You could always, you know, stay home if that is a desperate need for you.

    As the Mercatus Center’s Daniel Griswold wrote in The Hill, the U.S. system admits only 2?2.5 family members of immigrants per year for every 1,000 residents. That’s the same rate as in Canada and Australia?countries whose skills-based systems are Trump’s alleged models.

    No notation of their overall immigration level I notice.

    “Chain migration” is clever vernacular that does double duty for nativists. It demonizes the family-based immigration process while masking the real agenda: breaking up foreign-born families so as to encourage immigrants here to “self deport” and discourage new ones from coming. It’ll be a tremendous loss for America’s economy if immigration prohibitionists succeed.

    You seek open borders. You provide no reason why, FOR AMERICA, it is vital we permit this nonsense. Because you cannot.

    1. If Open Borders becomes US immigration policy does this mean that Reason will fire Shikha Dalmia since she will have nothing to write about?

      1. If you’re not an Open Borders supporter yourself, you should be careful of what you say, because I’m pretty sure there are some anti-Open-Borders folks here who would be willing to change their position just to make that happen.

    2. The pernicious myth on display here is the notion that Dalmia is remotely libertarian.

      1. What the actual fuck does libertarian have to do with restricting the free movement of people?

        Der terk er medercare?

        1. Why all the complaints, then, about Russia invading their neighbors?

          We should APPLAUD them for exercising their free movement of people, right?

          1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. BG Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

            This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

            1. Is it just me, or does this spam make more sense then Tony and is less annoying than Hihn?

              1. Don’t know if it makes more sense than Tony – but it surely makes more sense than Shikha.

              2. MikeP2 – it’s not just you.

    3. Right on cue the christianofascist commentariat sockpuppets leap onto any criticism of “chain migration” with whoops of “open borders” just as they dismiss the LP platform as “anarchism” without bothering to read it. Their tariff-and-spend forbears described a revenue-only tariff as “free trade” and pushed for increases until nullification by Civil War was in full swing before a perplexed Abe Lincoln was finally sworn in. This is the party that calls Dixiecrat coathanger abortion laws “pro-life” and has at least thrice caused crashes and depressions trying to enforce shoot-first prohibitionism (“ordered liberty”) with asset-forfeiture looting sprees. Pathetic mutilation of language is symptomatic of desperation.

      1. This has nothing to do with abortion. Don’t bring abortion into it.

      2. “American law allows immigrants to sponsor only parents, adult children, or siblings?not aunts, uncles, and cousins.

        You left one category out: spouses. So those siblings and adult children each bring their spouses, each of whom has their own set of parents, siblings, and adult children. All of those also have spouses, who have parents, siblings, and adult children…

        1. Not to mention those types are well known to marry their aunts uncles and cousins who then marry all their children and grandparents to each other. Before you know it – immigrants are gonna be taking over our front porches and playing Dueling Banjos.

    4. Bravo!I totally enjoyed your clear and concise rebuttal to this “free for all” promoting liberal. Thank you. Quite refreshing .

    5. I wouldn’t be inclined to vomit nearly as often if not for the contributions of Shikha. Only someone who does not give a crap about America could think the way she does.

      Is there anyone who reads Reason who enjoys her lunacy? If not, why is she still here? Does she have blackmail material on someone?

      Chain Migration:

      The term is meant to conjure images of a process in which one immigrant comes into the country and then pulls in hordes of relatives, who in turn pull in hordes more, until entire tribes and villages are emptied into the United States… Beyond spouses and minor children, American law allows immigrants to sponsor only parents, adult children, or siblings.

      So approve one person who has a spouse, 5 brothers and 4 sisters, two parents, 2 minor and 4 adult children and you suddenly have 19 people where you only intended to admit one. Then when each of the brothers and sisters and adult children brings THEIR 6 kids and spouses, the total is suddenly up to 110… and of course then the spouses recruit their brothers and sisters and parents and their kids…

      Invite 1 get 200+? How is that NOT a “horde”?

      Of course, that’s what the communist/socialist Demoncraps want.

      Your dissociation from truth and reality makes Donald Trump look positively honest and sane by comparison.

      Trump is right – and Shikha is… delusional, deceptive and a liar.

      1. Can a person be delusional and a liar at the same time? 😀

  2. “The president is using nativist language to trash a noble goal of America’s immigration system: keeping families intact, ”

    Keep families intact!
    Only allow foreigners with no family to immigrate to the US!

    1. Help keep families intact! Deport illegal aliens back to the countries where they left their wives and children!

      1. That’s some family reunification we can all get behind!

      2. That’s some family reunification we can all get behind!

  3. President Donald Trump’s war on immigration is in full-blown mission creep. No longer does he only want to throw “bad hombres” out.
    ###

    American First was always central to Trump’s immigration policy. That means we let in those who benefit the mass of Americans. That keeps out a lot more people than just “bad hombres”.

    Doesn’t Reason have anyone to champion open borders who can do it without incessant lying?

    1. Championing open borders REQUIRES lying, and ignoring property rights. It’ anti libertarian.

    2. “President Donald Trump’s war on immigration is in full-blown mission creep”

      Apparently enforcing the fairly liberal immigration law in your own country is “war” now.

    3. The LP platform committee wrote: …we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. National Socialist prohibitionists interpret that as “open borders.” Then again their interpretation of freedom is: 8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

    4. If you listened to her rhetoric you would know that he essentially things all immigrants are criminals, rapists, murderers, and thieves, but some small minority of them are “okay people”, the rest are all criminals.

  4. ” Beyond spouses and minor children, American law allows immigrants to sponsor only parents, adult children, or siblings?not aunts, uncles, and cousins. ”

    So, Joe immigrates to the US. That allows his parents and siblings to immigrate too.

    Now all the siblings of the parents can immigrate. — All Joe’s aunts and uncles
    Now the adult children of all Joe’s aunts and uncles — All Joe’s cousins

    So, Reason lies again in service of Open Borders propaganda, denying the plain facts of chain immigration.

    Chain immigration. Totally incompatible with merit driven immigration. Totally incompatible with America First.

    1. No, no, no. Didn’t you see the part about how it can take 45 years to pull in the next link of the chain? That sounds like a big number, so it’s obviously no problem! Also it was according to data compiled by the National Foundation for American Policy, and a name that neutral means they’re definitely not partisan in any way.

    2. Yeeeeeesssss!!!!

    3. And brought to all of us in 1965 by Ted Kennedy. What a surprise.

    4. It should only be spouses and children. That seems like a reasonable compromise, and it should all be merit based outside of this. Given those limitations we should at least triple the number of allowed immigrants. Especially from countries that have Western values.

  5. ” Sponsoring them would take another 20, by which time they’d be middle aged!”

    And what does it matter what happens to the United States in 20 years?

    1. Buybuydavis,and what’s 20 years,they are spending it anyway in America taking advantage of all the benefits and social programs.

      1. People spend their whole lives trying to make a better future for their kids.

        Does Shikha have kids?

        Note that the rulers of Europe, selling Europe’s legacy down the river for power today, are remarkably childless.
        https://goo.gl/TmsAs2

        Here’s a bio on Shikha
        https://goo.gl/ZMFaen

        Seems like all her extended family is still in New Dehli, while she lives in the US with her husband and dog. She has a son from a previous marriage. I wonder where he is.

        I don’t see a lot of skin in the game for America, past or future.

        Money Shot from the Bio:
        “She considers herself to be a progressive libertarian”

        A Progressitarian! Bwahahaha! It’s official!

        1. Yup. I think that’s one of the most obvious problems with a lot of these people. Many don’t have children, so they literally don’t care about the future. I can’t count the number of times talking with my grandma or father about politics when they said “Well, I’ll probably be dead before XYZ is a problem, but I really hope for your sake XYZ gets sorted out.”

          They CARE, because they have progeny that they care about. A lot of childless people I know in their 30s/40s seem to have the same Don’t Give A Fuck attitude about the far flung future too. I don’t have kids yet, but plan to, and so I DO care about beyond my own lifetime.

  6. ” Indeed, with the exception of aging parents, immigrants leave their home and hearth and come to America only if they believe they have a good shot at achieving something better here. ”

    How many billions of people in the world would be better off in America than remaining in their own countries?

    Most all of people from the biggest shitholes in the world. The most illiterate, most crime ridden, most corrupt, least free.

    1. Most people would be better off in America.
      Most countries would be better off if their people stayed home and worked to make their country better.

      This is the pernicious evil of low-barrier immigration as it perpetuates a skill-drain on the countries that need those skills the most.

      Haiti is a sh”hole in no small part because so many people with success-traits left Haiti for greener pastures.

      Open borders is evil. A lie told for base political reasons that does nothing but increase global suffering.

      1. MikeP2~ I’ve often argued this but liberals refuse to believe this. The proof in in the immigration.

  7. The president is using nativist language

    You know, words do have meaning. Perhaps people who are ostensibly libertarian* should not assist leftists in destroying the meaning of words.

    *I know she’s really a proggy in drag, and almost couldn’t type that.

    1. “You know, words do have meaning.”

      So you think Trump isn’t a Nativist?

      1. No, he’s a patriot.

        1. He’s no fucking patriot, that’s for damn sure. No one who is a patriot is under the thumb of Russians

      2. “So you think Trump isn’t a Nativist?”

        I think he is. I think he ought to be. I certainly am, by this definition:

        “A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 1800s, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants.

        This explains the attitudes of probably 80+% of the World’s population, including the attitudes of many of those nationals that wish to come here.

  8. Why do so many immigration foes simply default to acceptance that immigration is a proper function of the state? [note that it is no part of the definition of a state]
    All other issues aside, what possible business is it of a government? Why?

    Yeah, yeah, the pernicious impacts of the current arrangements. feh. Camel’s nose under the tent flap and all that.
    States do not own the members of their populace.
    States do not have the right to control who or how you associate with others, regardless of their location or place of origin. And regardless of their attempts to do so.
    States do not have the right to pick your pocket to support somebody else, regardless of their location or place of origin. So we’re just going to accept that that last bit happens and therefore the rest can and should be trash canned? I think not.

    That is, or ought to be, foundational.

    1. The State should not fund a massive welfare system by taxing people

      The State should not force people to associate but it does under penalty of fines and jail.

      Are you going to stop this when your open borders policy comes into effect?

      1. It needs to be stopped irrespective of immigration.
        We’re working to stop it, with varying degrees of success.

        Ultimately, this is non-responsive. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
        What makes government control, in the current fashion, over immigration legitimate?

        1. If the main argument against the free movement of peoples is in fact the costs, then why not try to fix that aspect, instead of treat the issue like it must have a black or white solution? It seems to me that a reasonable compromise would be a guest worker program that allows people to freely come to the US (no limits, no lines, no BS) while making these people ineligible for things like welfare, medicaid, unemployment, etc.

          If you want to come to the US and work and bring and support your own family (or anybody for that matter) then give these people Tax IDs and let them work within our current system of laws.

          The fact is that prohibition of labor, like all forms of state prohibition, just drives the activity underground. Walls and laws don’t and won’t eliminate the issue. The Nationalists are the ones that are simply kicking the can down the road instead of offering a principled approach.

          1. No open borders.
            No chain migration.
            Build the wall.

            After all that, let’s sort out who is left here illegally that we might keep, and then institute a streamlined guest VISA worker program that suits the needs of the US Citizen.

          2. If These States were to quit exporting the shoot-first prohibitionism lovingly described in the State Department Report “International Narcotics” report that caused the March 2015 Flash Crash (It’s free to download). There is the blueprint for forcing the entire planet to subsidize Coors & Budweiser, The Liquor Trust and Big Tobacco by shooting and jailing foot-dragging miscreants in what they imagined were “their” countries. Small wonder refugees are fleeing to somewhere else, and ironic that the “somewhere else” is where the prohibitionist chickens come home to roost!

          3. “… making these people ineligible for things…”

            You have been asked repeatedly how this would be enforced when we cannot even enforce existing immigration law, and you have steadfastly refused to provide any meaningful answer.

            My answer to you is: You first, then we can talk.

          4. For me the costs have been entirely secondary.

            It’s the voting.

            Government is a gun. Voting points the gun.

            There are already enough people pointing that gun at my head in the US, and people too eager to do it as well.

            The problem is that people from other countries are generally *even more* eager to point that gun at my head.

            Import people less libertarian than Americans, get a less libertarian country. It’s not rocket science.

        2. What makes government control, in the current fashion, over immigration legitimate?
          The fact that this is not an anarchy.
          That the citizens of the US are supposed to abide by the foundations upon which it was built.
          That we adhere to the US Constitution, which explicitly places naturalization – the admittance and bestowing of citizenship on immigrants – within the power of “the state”.
          It is right there – Article 1, Section 8, Fourth power.
          There is a lot of talk about the federal government assuming powers not granted by the Constitution – the welfare state, most often – but the subject if immigration is one that the Founders declared to be in the hands of Congress.
          Don’t like it? Change the Constitution, or leave.

    2. “so many immigration foes”

      I’ll answer your questions once you explain whether that statement was made out of ignorance or mendacity.

      Because being a foe of illegal immigration does not by necessity make you a foe of all immigration. And, assuming you’ve actually been following the conversation here you’d know that many of the people opposed to illegal immigration have expressed support for higher levels of legal immigration.

      1. I call bullshit.
        “Illegal” immigration means nothing more nor less than ‘contrary to legislation’ immigration.
        We all do things, probably daily, that are contrary to legislation.
        I don’t fucking care about whether or not some group congenital morons was able to pass legislation saying this is wrong or that is wrong.
        The challenge remains, what justifies this legislation as law?
        What justifies the state, qua state, interfering?

        Being a critic of ‘illegal immigration’ makes you a fan of denial of critical distinctions.
        Why this violation of legislation matters and others do not remains unaddressed.
        Principled libertarian objections to immigration are missing in action because the default is to deny the critical distinction between violations of law and violations of legislation. A distinction libertarianism seems to rely on.

        1. No rule of law, got it.

        2. The right to free association gives us polity.

          Combine that with property rights and you get borders.

          And that’s just the natural law version of how we get legislation. Legislation that is nothing more than codification of said natural law.

          None of this should come as any surprise to an actual libertarian. Leftitarians are understandably confused when legislative ipse dixit does not match their desired version of ipse dixit. Or “bullshit,” as the case may be.

        3. “I call bullshit.”

          And that’s fair enough.

          The point is whether we want open borders or not. If you don’t, then we want at least *some* immigration illegal.

          And I do.

          I want immigration that benefits the mass of US citizens. When it doesn’t, make it illegal, and prevent it.

          Government of, by, and for the people meant US citizens, not everyone in the universe. *For* US citizens.

          It’s strange that this can even be questioned. I always took it as a bedrock principle of representative government that it should represent those governed, and not foreigners.

          1. “Government of, by, and for the people meant US citizens, not everyone in the universe. *For* US citizens”

            And endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights meant what exactly? Was that only for British Colonists?

            1. This is a terrible non sequitur my dude

            2. Everyone is endowed with those rights, but the United States of America is not constituted to protect *everyone’s* Liberty.

              “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

              We = The People of the United States
              That’s the “We” relative to the Constitution for the United States of America.

              Not everybody in the world. “Ourselves and our Posterity”. We decide who gets to join our club.

              1. So does the Constitution establish the rights of man?

                1. There is no such thing.
                  Rights are only available when government is there to protect them from someone who has more power, whether physical or political.
                  No man has a right to enter your space and set up shop, there, use your resources and allow others, he decides, should be able to do the same thing.
                  It is the foundation of civilized societies, that personal property be held inviolate, supported by a democratically elected government.
                  Anything else is the law of the jungle.

                  1. “Rights are only available when government is there to protect them”

                    This, on a libertarian site? That rights require government flies in the face of everything we are supposed to believe, right on down from Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, etc.

                    “No man has a right to enter your space and set up shop”

                    On the contrary. EVERY man has a right to enter my property if I allow it. It’s not the governments job to protect me from the boogeymen on the other side of some imaginary line. If I need the government to protect my property, that’s up for me to decide.

                    “that personal property be held inviolate,”

                    Held by whom? You’re advocating that the government can control who has access to private property based on where they were born.

                2. So does the Constitution establish the rights of man?

                  No. The Constitution establishes a government and a nation-state, and grants it certain powers, and denies it others, with such grants and denials made by the governed.

            3. See above – the closing graph of the DoI. As free an independent States, the US may declare, and defend it’s sovereign borders. The author, and signers didn’t mean non-colonists had no rights, they just meant that one of those rights was not the ability to freely disregarding our right to determine how are borders are controlled.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t like to read.

              2. ^ Citation needed

      2. Under Positive Christianity, Third Reich immigration laws made “Jewish” synonymous with “illegal” just as today’s Republican and Democrat laws make “plant leaves” synonymous with “illegal.” Any questions as to why a “national language” is so important to proponents of Spanish-style fascism? “Illegal” is Newspeak for “thought-criminal,” pure and simple.

        1. Reductio ad Hitlerum

          Bravo!

    3. Why do so many immigration foes simply default to acceptance that immigration is a proper function of the state?

      Probably because it is actually one of the legitimate functions of government.

      Boom. Mind blown.

    4. “Why do so many immigration foes simply default to acceptance that immigration is a proper function of the state?”

      Because we’re not anarchists.

      The US federal government was *constituted* by a group of people to form a more perfect union among themselves. Not with everyone in the universe.

      ” To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

      And sometimes the rule is – “You can’t come here”.

    5. There are borders to country for a reason we do not live in the anarchistic, completely free market that extremist libertarians masturbate over in the shower. We live in the real world.

  9. rebalancing America’s immigration system by cutting the family-based immigration…. to the country, and ramping up the employment-based immigration…

    No one ever explains why this is a bad thing.

    Why is having 66 out of a hundred immigrants possibly unemployed better than having 66 out of a hundred immigrants employed?

    1. Actually, the article did. Folk that come over without being chained to a specific job have note freedom to find the “best fit”, whether that’s a job they already have skills for, getting new skills, starting as business, or whatever.

      You know, that whole “free market > regulated market” thing y’all give lip service to?

      1. So you’re saying that immigrants who come here because someone hired them were simply assigned the job? They were chained to that job by forces outside themselves?

        Or did they didn’t study and work hard in that particular field, then apply and interview to get the job?

        You know, the way the free market ACTALLY works, as opposed to the ‘free’ market that only lives in leftists heads.

        I think that, for decades, you all just said stupid shit, and were the only ones really allowed to say anything, and then when they got rid of the Fairness Doctrine it was all downhill–but you could still delete your pasts so you hung on–now, you can’t even do that, so all your stupid shit is just sitting there, so everyone can look at it and laugh at the idiocies you espouse.

        And you can’t grasp why they’re laughing–after all you’ve got a ‘study’ and some ‘polls’.

        1. And see, whenever you call someone out for being ‘stupid’, the gods of the interwabs strike–

          “You know, the way the free market ACTALLY works, as opposed to the ‘free’ market that only lives in leftists heads.”

          It should, of course, be ‘actually’

        2. So you’re saying that immigrants who come here because someone hired them were simply assigned the job? They were chained to that job by forces outside themselves?
          Nope.

          I’m saying that I, an American, am free to continue shopping around for a better job. If I do so, then I end up in a position better suited for my qualifications and abilities, and the person that ends up being hired to replace me is also in a position better suited, and so-on. So by allowing employees to optimize their job to match their skills, the system as a whole is more efficient.

          An immigrant worker who has their visa tied to a specific job does not have the ability to look for a better job. Their residency is based on their current job. So that optimizing church doesn’t happen.

          So yeah, consider two folks, one who’s brought over on a work visa, and one whos brought over on a “family” visa, in the long-run the “family-visa” is more likely to be more productive because they’re free to optimize. The work-visa person? Can’t optimize.

        3. The US is plenty large enough to have a free market, 320 million people is plenty to try out that experiment, we do not need to let millions and millions of illegal refugees come in and try to set up sharia law neighborhoods. We need to filter those who want to fit in with our culture and western values, not try to pull us back 800 years.

      2. yep nothing keeping them from changing careers once they get here.

  10. “a noble goal of America’s immigration system…”

    Citations needed

  11. The welfare state is an affront to the liberty of every person who bears the burden of funding it.

    Rewarding people who have already demonstrated a willingness to break the law, even if only one (realistically we know it will be much more) gets added to the dole, is a further insult to liberty.

    1. It also perpetuates a society of leeches and encourages progressivism through coddling and identity politics through attempted government ‘fairness’ through hand outs.

    2. I know no one who is not willing to break the law, some law — as long as by law we mean, which we must in such discussions, legislation.
      You’ve never run a stop light? Failed to participate in a census? ‘Cheated’ on your taxes? Operated a motor vehicle that was not up to legal requirements? Failed to pick up after your dog? The list is endless.

      We all break laws, willingly and frequently. Willingness to break the law, in the sense of legislation, is a moral responsibility, not a moral failing.

      1. The punishment of a speeding ticket is a fine. Pretty much everyone who ever got a ticket has accepted the punishment for a law they knowingly violated. Violating immigration laws has a punishment of deportation. YOu choose to violate those laws, you face the punishment.

        A reductio ad absurdum argument like the one you’re making ends up in intractable logic.

      2. Do they claim no consequences for their choice to violate the law? By what higher authority do they exempt themselves from what others accept?

        Willingness to break law is not, in and of itself, a moral responsibility. The choice is the moral responsibility. Not adequately justifying your choice is indeed a moral failure.

        You, so far, have justified nothing, merely exerted the ability to choose to violate the law.

      3. “We all break laws, willingly and frequently.”
        And when called to account, honorable people accept the punishment that is prescribed by that law, and don’t whine and protest that the law is unfair and demand that their breaking of the law should be rewarded with the gains made through that act.
        And not only their breaking of the law but that the entire population of those who have, along with whatever other laws they have broken to perpetuate their law-breaking, be given a blanket amnesty.

  12. “Migration?” They’re not birds… They don’t go back and forth every year.

    So, regarding illegal immigration: it’s illegal. Punish them for their crime and then send them home.

    Regarding legal immigration: if it helps citizens of the US, than I believe it’s justified. If it doesn’t, the policy needs to be revised.

    Our governments do not exist to help the rest of the world. Our Nuclear missile policy isn’t to hand them out to all foreign nations because “we are the world.” Our patents and technology aren’t handed out freely to the world because “Kumbai.”

    Why should our citizenship be handed because of your feels?

    How many words in this article are about THE FEELZ?

    1. Re: migration

      Funny story, we actually *did* have migration on the southern border. Folks came over for seasonal agricultural jobs, then returned home when the season was done.

      It wasn’t until we got stricter on “border security” decades ago that seasonal laborers stopped returning home, and started bringing their families over and transitioned from being a “migrational workforce” to an “immigrant workforce”.

    2. “Punish them for their crime and then send them home.”

      And send a bill for the costs their stay in the US have incurred to their home countries.

    3. “So, regarding illegal immigration: it’s illegal. Punish them for their crime and then send them home.”
      It is not, really punishment. It simply returns the situation to what it was, before the law was broken.
      It would be as if a bank robber, if he returned all the money, was allowed to go on his way.
      Or is it the proposition of the open-borders crowd that everyone, not living in the United States, is being punished?
      As for the “dreamers”: We don’t allow the children of the bank-robber to keep the money he stole, or anything he bought with said money. Their gains from their parent’s law-breaking, as far as can be achieved, should not be allowed to continue, let alone rewarded, through granting them a benefit that those, whose parents didn’t break the law, cannot claim.

    1. Go home Shikha! Go GTFO tReason

      1. Deport Shikha!

  13. Hans Hermann-Hoppe discusses immigration and property rights.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hojvT_BDlxQ

  14. A Shikha article from the title alone!

  15. Reason is just trolling the commentariat, it’s how they get their laughs while waiting for the blue wave come November.

    1. That blue wave better borrow some cash quick. The DNC is flat broke and has some debts they can’t pay on hop,of it. GOP has $40 million in the bank and no debt.

      1. I love how that works out too. The Dems are broke, and the Rs (as fucked as they are!) are debt free and have money in the bank, DESPITE raising less money during the last cycle.

  16. “According to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis of government data, it can take up to 45 years for an immigrant to gain entry and pull in the next link in the “chain.” Using a typical case, the study pointed out that if a Mexican-American naturalized woman sponsored her married son from Mexico, it would take the son and his wife 20 years to get green cards. If the wife wished to bring her siblings over, the quickest route would be for her to become naturalized, too, which would take five years. Sponsoring them would take another 20, by which time they’d be middle aged!”

    I wan’t aware that (i) everyone on Earth was somehow entitled to live in the United States or (ii) streamlining/reforming/improving our lawful immigration problem wasn’t possible.

    “Hence, America can’t stop what nativists call “mass immigration” without breaking up nuclear families.”

    Well, shit, then let everyone in! What other choice do we have? The science is settled!

  17. now it takes 45 years to become legal. outlandish numbers that disagree with all others need to be backed up.

    Chain migration is very real.

    1. A little anecdotal info on chain migration.
      My friends neighbor became legal. So then he brought in his parents, isn’t that nice, anyway they are over 65 so they automatically now get Social Security checks from a system they never paid into. Meanwhile i’ll be lucky if I ever get to collect.

      1. You’re lying.

        Shikha says it takes 20 years to get legal, and then 20 more to get anyone else in.

        Your neighbors parents would be dead by then.

        See the sarc? See the cradle?

      2. Ronnie’s complaint is an indictment of Farther Charles E. Coughlin’s “Little Flower” radio sermons pushing onto the FDR Administration the “generous old-age pension” Adolf Hitler put in the National Socialist platform of 1920. Repealing the income tax would be the way to correct matters. Instead, Coughlin’s Gee-Oh-Pee admirers demand: “a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion” copied from the Prohibition Party platform published after the 1972 LP Plank became the Roe v. Wade decision. If the Prohibition and Republican party fascisti had their way the earth’s population would be 14 billions all trying to get into These States to escape Teetotalitarian financial collapse everywhere on the globe–and finding conditions even worse here!

        1. Is there some kind of shortage of staying-marginally-off-the-lunatic-fringe medication?
          So many, here, displaying the symptoms of the mental disorder that is liberalism/progressivism/communism.

          WHERE ARE THE 0BLAMOCARE MEDS WHEN WE NEED THEM?

  18. >Using a typical case, the study pointed out that if a Mexican-American naturalized woman sponsored her married son from Mexico, it would take the son and his wife 20 years to get green cards.

    And yet….

    >family-based immigration that accounts for two-thirds of all immigrants to the country,

    1. Yup. They literally discredit their own argument, with their own facts, in the same article. GENIUS!

  19. >Using a typical case, the study pointed out that if a Mexican-American naturalized woman sponsored her married son from Mexico, it would take the son and his wife 20 years to get green cards.

    And yet….

    >family-based immigration that accounts for two-thirds of all immigrants to the country,

  20. “People should only be allowed to cross the imaginary line if they wade through 20 years of government bullshit first” – a bunch of libertarians

    1. “You have no say in whether your country imports statists to the voting booth to take away the freedoms you have left” – a bunch of libertarians

    2. Imaginary lines ….. like the property line of your home for example. Damn these imaginary lines!

      1. Hey hey hey Mag, no fences on those imaginary lines now. If people want to cross an imaginary line you have no right to interfere!

  21. ” the U.S. system admits only 2?2.5 family members of immigrants per year for every 1,000 residents”

    and then

    “America’s immigration system by cutting the family-based immigration that accounts for two-thirds of all immigrants to the country”

    which is it. Does chain migration hardly admit anyone, or does it account for 2/3 of all immigrants? If it’s 2/3 then yes it needs to change. Focus on skills

    1. Krone, the first number is a non sequitur meant to throw you off. Chain migration exists via family reunification. It accounts for the vast majority of permanent resident immigrants. It takes 5 years to be able to sponsor 3 family members. Then 5 years for them to do the same.

      Indian guy moves here. 5 years and he’s got a green card. Now he’s eligible for reunification. Picks wife and his parents. 5 years and now his siblings and inlaws are here. 1 immigrant became 12

  22. Those who advocate for open borders have the difficult job of ensuring that all, or most, of American labor protection laws are voided while also giving themselves the awesome task of dismantling the system of welfare and benefits that flow from the FedGov via taxation. Y’know, so we’re back on the same footing we were on when the Statue of Liberty was erected in 1886?

    It’s a monumental task, but I note that Dalmia is there on the front lines suggesting…none of the above.

    Weird, it’s almost as if she’s in favor of bankrupting American taxpayers at a faster rate than it’s already occurring based on feel-good story telling.

    I’ll take people like Dalmia seriously once they’re able to actually recognize second or third order consequences of their ‘feels based’ legislation. I never see her mention the fact that most of these illegal aliens wouldn’t be technically qualified for a job that only requires a high school education. Bizarre, right? But hey, those lawns aren’t going to mow themselves and that roof over your head isn’t going to repair itself right?

    Those with an education are more likely to go through the legal process since they have job skills America wants. Low skill immigrant labor is only valuable in immigrants because the welfare state isn’t taking care of them already, so unlike American born low-education low-skill labor they must actually work instead of receive transfer payments.

    1. Shikha should be deported as a subversive. The balls on this bitch for come into my country and telling us who we have to let in like this. Fuck her, she needs to go.

      1. She’s a citizen, as far as I know, so deportation shouldn’t ever be on the table as far as I’m concerned.

        She’s not a ‘subversive’ in my opinion because it seems that she lacks the intelligence to realize what the end-game would be for her own policy preferences. It’s ignorance with her, and frankly it’s the same story with most of the people who advocate for ‘free borders’ absent all of the plethora of things that need to be reversed to make it even conceptually workable.

        There have been almost 100 years of ‘reform’ that have made open borders untenable. If you want those reforms, then you are not serious about open borders. If nothing else, that should be your takeaway.

        1. I don’t think any of us have any idea if Shitma is a US citizen or not. I don’t think she is a subversive. I just think she is stupid. She is not merely ignorant, because attempts have been made to educate here. Therefore, based on the definition of stupid (ignorance that cannot be corrected) she is stupid.

      2. The fake name sockpuppet repeats the Comstock law of 1873 with its confiscation and burning of “obscene and disloyal” literature. Gosh… how original!

        1. Hey jackass, I’m not a ‘sockpuppet’. This is pretty much how I post unless I’m on my laptop and I post as Las of the Shitlords’. Which I have frequently, and openly disclosed. So not a sock. And the only reason I keep that one is due to an account glitch keeping me from logging in as Elias on my laptop.

          Clear enough for you? If so, you can go back to babbling about abortion intermittently. Even though this article isn’t about abortion.

    2. The LP platform advocates getting rid of Comstock laws (and Roe v Wade was our victory there), the 1848 Communist Manifesto income tax, and much of the other looter legislation the National Socialist “right” and International Socialist “left” enacted to create the situation both brands of communo-fascist altruism caused in the first place. Yet instead of voting for the only platform written to undo the damage, these illiterate bipartisan cretins flock here to splatter us with their ordure-throwing tantrums. Our 4 million LP spoiler votes must be severing some pretty large arteries on both sides of the Altrurian aisle.

      1. Yes, but it starts to appear disingenuous when people like Dalmia only talk about immigration in isolation. It amounts to lying about the means to people to get to those ends.

        Essentially Dalmia only wants to talk about the warm and fuzzy parts of ‘immigration reform’ instead of the part where welfare benefits are ‘taken away’ from those poor American’s that don’t have enough skills to meet even minimum wage jobs.

        The list literally goes on and on of things that severely hamper the end-goal of ‘open immigration’ that are never, ever talked about in her articles and I can only assume she doesn’t talk about those things because they get in the way of her narrative and because those things are overwhelmingly more popular to the electorate than dreaming babies.

        To put in the most straight forward terms, American’s like their transfer payments and labor protections a whole lot more than illegal immigrants. That’s from all sectors of society, too, not some fringe of wing-nuts in either party (we’re the fringe wing-nuts in this scenario). If they aren’t willing to get rid of the former, well then I’m sorry you don’t get the latter. That’s just how it works, and to think otherwise is to believe in unicorns.

  23. Could U ,w/your impressive psychic powers,tell me how2tell when the president”barks” or when he may be “bleating?”UR predjudiced comments about our President lumps UR telling comments N2’loco liberal Trumpzihrenia’ category.Illegal immigrants have been shoved onto Americans who want 2Bfair yet R struggling w/the liberal idea there should B no border,laws,citizenship,or accountability 4any1who wants what Americans have.We struggle cuz theres recent machinations 2flood countries w/troubled immigrants.Why?Could globalist think if we take care of them,they will automatically fall in line and be greatful?It doesn’t work that way.TheseR different cultures. Whenever different cultures R put N w/another 2compete w/resources,&have1part; of the political Sphere telling the masses they R disenfranchised should demand even more-well UC what’s happening.No 1wants strife.We can’t keep flooding our country w/needy folk all@once2 fill a imagined quota.Yes,there R those who want 2work.Americans Rjust now getting jobs,we can’t support those who can’t,why bring more here?ThereR entire families W/children living N streets homeless!It’s always the rich that R the 1s hollering 4no borders,responsibility,registration,etc.,wonder why?Most their houses already have walls around them(as does Obama’s new million dollar mansion)and security cameras2protect theirselves from the unwashed masses,yes?

  24. Chain migration helps bring in nearly a million new statists every year. What libertarian wouldn’t be on board with that?

    1. To be fair it’s probably something like 800,000 new statists. There’s probably about 20% that aren’t. But they’re drastically outnumbered, and democracy is a numbers game.

  25. For some actual facts on immigration, see
    https://www.uscis.gov/family

    Refugees and asylees can bring over spouse and children
    Green Card holders can bring over spouse, unmarried children
    US citizens can bring over spouse, children, parents, siblings

    Apparently you can apply for citizenship, which takes 6-12 months of processing, after you’ve lived in the US with your green card for 5 years. If you’re married to a US citizen, that reduces the wait period to 3 years.

    It would be nice to see an article that honestly analyzed the timelines for chain migration, instead of the incessant Shikha lies.

  26. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  27. “Indeed, with the exception of aging parents, immigrants leave their home and hearth and come to America only if they believe they have a good shot at achieving something better here.”

    Problem is almost everybody in the world would be better off working at a McDonalds here, versus doing quite well in their home country. They could still be better off, all the while they’re bringing down the average income in the USA, and putting strain on tax payers. Even our native born poor are net negatives for taxes paid in versus taken. Just school/roads etc puts them way in the hole. This has to be supported by Americans with good jobs. FAIL.

    “National Science Foundation, examined three decades of census data and found no difference in the final earnings of foreigners sponsored by family members vs. those sponsored by employers.”

    I don’t believe this for ONE SECOND. There is no way in hell that the statistically average Somali with waaaay less than a highschool education averages the same as an Indian programmer, German engineer, or Chinese doctor. Or a Somali doctor for that matter, as there must be a few!

    I’ve seen stats on some of these immigrant groups, like Haitians. Their unemployment rate was around 20%, their average income was less than half the US average IIRC. That is total horseshit.

  28. The bottom line is this Cosmotarians: Sometimes you have to choose between real world outcomes vs principles.

    They don’t always line up nicely where it’s all good vs all bad. The practical outcomes of this will be highly negative for liberty in this country. So you have to ask yourself: “Is feeling good for doing what I think is the moral thing worth destroying every other freedom I hold dear?” Because that’s the choice.

    Also, I hate how people pretend like NOT letting somebody into the US is tantamount to murdering them or something. There’s nothing immoral about somebody having to stay in their home country! If we were comparing letting people in versus machine gunning them and bulldozing their bodies into ditches that’d be one thing… But simply not allowing them in, it’s not wrong or mean or immoral in any way. The 21st century doesn’t need manual labor, so we should only be letting in educated people. Period. One 100K a year worker is a trillion times more of a net taxpayer than a 25K a year worker, given that the 25K person takes more in benefits than they pay in, and the reverse is true for the 100K a year guy. Every 25K a year person that comes in will REQUIRE a higher tax rate on everybody else. It’s bullshit.

    1. “The bottom line is this Cosmotarians: Sometimes you have to choose between real world outcomes vs principles.”

      If your principles lead to the real world destruction of your principles, that’s a sign that you haven’t thought through your principles.

      “Thou shalt not coerce” is clerico libertarianism, a religious Thou Shalt Not.

      It fails to take into account that not all interactions are voluntary. No one consulted me about Hihn being on this planet. I would have declined.

      That involuntariness is baked in, as is a lot of other involuntariness. The trick is to maximize liberty in the face of that involuntariness. Those who wash their hands of dealing with that involuntariness to create and preserve Liberty are free riders on those who don’t, all the while puffing themselves up with moral preening about their ideological purity. They are pacifists in the fight between liberty and tyranny.

      Anarchists have the same problem communists do – the question “how is that supposed to work?” Because their plans don’t work. The best mankind has been able to come up with to defend liberty involves states, and laws, and police. And borders.

      Libertarianism will exist where it can defend and does itself. If Libertarians refuse to defend it because muh principles, it will cease to exist.

      1. I agree with pretty much all of that!

        “They are pacifists in the fight between liberty and tyranny.” is so true. Being a free nation, in a world of oppressive ones, requires keeping up your guard, and fighting the good fight, it doesn’t just happen. Libertarians think somehow it’ll all just work out magically, despite all evidence to the contrary. Keeping liberty has always been an intentional act historically speaking, it never just happens.

        Liberty exists in the USA specifically because people fought, and KILLED, to make it happen. If the founding fathers had just sat on their asses and said “Yeah King George is a total dick, but you know that NAP says I’m not allowed to kill people to provide a better life for myself and my progeny… Oh well! Muh principles!” Then we’d be slaves still. No free speech, no gun rights, we’d have a Queen on our money still! I’m GLAD they killed people to create this great nation.

        Fortunately we don’t have to kill anybody, we just have to control our borders a bit, and hopefully educate all the people already here a bit better, and we might be able to hold onto it. But that’ll never happen if we have an endless stream of new people from non free nations. At least not without an ideological purity test for citizenship, which of course open borders people would also oppose.

        1. When people immigrate, their politics immigrates with them.

  29. If Chain Migration is a myth, then there should be no problems whatsoever with ending the policy.

    1. ZING! Exactly. If soooo few people use it, why not cancel it… And if tons of people are using it, then the criticisms have at least some merit.

  30. And since a Wall won’t do anything, there is no reason not to build one and prove that.

  31. Oh look everyone … SHITMA is back. YAWN.

  32. “Reason”: Let everybody in. “Reason” isn’t very reasonable at all on this issue, I guess the left “libertarians” don’t care if the illegal immigrants flood and clog the welfare and medical systems, fill the prisons and violate private property rights by crossing over said property when their breaking the law crossing the border. Unfettered immigration is not good, in fact, “Reason” has this fancy notion that the south of the border folks will all become libertarians if they come into the country when the opposite has be proven every time. The illegals vote for the party that erodes freedom and gives them more benefits. So it explain to me “Reason”, how is it that a majority of illegal immigrants and legal immigrants support the party i.e. the Democrats that give them free stuff?

  33. Attacking people who rightfully criticize diversity lottery and chain migration as,”Nativists,” is the typical left-wing trope. No one argues that spouses and minor children should be allowed to come as well. But the idea of allowing adult children, parents, and siblings (and by extension their adult children, parents, and siblings) because one initial person has a valuable skill or hell just won a lottery is insanity. The welfare regime has obliterated the self-selective immigration process that rigorously assimilated people culturally. Whether you like it or not sovereign country’s have the right and obligation to be picky with the immigrants they allow in and be constantly studying their contributions, whether it be the economy or welfare rolls to adjust it as needed. Libertarians value dissenting opinions, and with your demagogic, fact-devoid rants you Mam are no Libertatian.

  34. I think there is considerable evidence of cultural endangerment like in Europe. Look at what is happening in Germany, gaining a huge number of refugees hasn’t helped them at all and is bring out right wing party kooks with their hysteria and also is bringing in a population that thinks western values are to be undone and sharia law put in place. i don’t want that for the USA. I want controlled immigration, but I would like to see it increase and changed to strictly merit based with some exceptions of course like children and spouses.

    1. Yup. Rapid mass migration will only cause enormous tensions. The Alt-Right is only half joking when they talk about Right Wing Death Squads. If things get too far out of whack, you can bet your ass those jokes will become reality when people have put up with too much. It’s either make a reasonable compromise now, or an unreasonable snap back will happen in the future.

  35. Seriously, I don’t think the U.S. has *room* for more immigrants until a few people leave (I’m sure this site could generate some nominations). Biodiversity and reuniting families sound great but there aren’t enough decent jobs for the people who are already here.

    On the comedic level of the comments I’ve read, though…Right. All “nativists” should now gather the documentation that either (a) you’re an active member of a Native American nation, by birth, marriage, or adoption, or (b) you’re a direct descendant of one. Otherwise, good luck working out which part or parts of Europe or Africa you should go back to.

    Yes, I know that’s not even a fresh joke. I’m just surprised that this article hasn’t provoked fresher and funnier ones.

  36. The fact this broad is a “Senior reason analyst” confirms, once again, that reason has lost its way.

    And, for what it’s worth, since robots will be taking many of our jobs (or so the fear goes), having 8 million fewer workers by 2035 might not be such a bad thing, as it will make full employment for American citizens much easier.

  37. You have provided amazing detail in this blog. I liked your unique thinking. I admired your efforts. Thanks for sharing this wonderful post with me. Please keep me more update from your blog. I am very interested in your unique stories

    capsa susun online

  38. Online Safes Hotel WELKO Hotel Safe

    Commitment to genuine and new products 100%

    ? Commitment only gives customers the best products.

    ? Working from 7am to 10pm on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays

    ? Warranty statement, manual, home warranty for free.

    ? Payment on receipt and carefully checked (can transfer)

    ? Any questions about the product or need advice on fire safety.

  39. Wall won’t do anything, there is no reason not to build one and prove that. Kamar Set Mewah

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.