The Vast Majority of People Who Want To Immigrate to the U.S. Have No Legal Option
A new Cato Institute report highlights just how hard it is to come to the U.S. legally.

Critics of illegal immigration often say that foreigners should simply wait in line and come to the U.S. the "right" way. But "fewer than 1 percent of people who want to move permanently to the United States can do so legally," according to a new report by David J. Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute.
"Legal immigration is less like waiting in line and more like winning the lottery," writes Bier. "It happens, but it is so rare that it is irrational to expect it in any individual case."
In a 2018 Gallup poll, 158 million adults interested in leaving their home countries said they most wanted to relocate to the U.S., the Cato analysis explains. (Even with a more liberal U.S. immigration system, George Mason University professor Ilya Somin correctly points out that some of those 158 million would likely be deterred by "moving costs" like learning a new language or landing a job.) "While it is not perfect," Bier says, the Gallup poll is "the best available estimate of the demand for green cards." He continues:
Meanwhile, administrative data indicate that roughly 32 million immigrants—adults and children—were attempting to become U.S. legal permanent residents in 2018, and the United States granted legal permanent residence to only about 1 million people….This means that about 80 percent of people wanting to immigrate to the United States could not even attempt the process, and about 99.4 percent did not yet qualify that year.
A foreigner who wants to secure a green card—which allows them to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely and later apply for citizenship—must qualify for one of five selective categories, says Bier. There's the refugee program, where "qualified refugees have less than a 0.1 percent chance of being selected for resettlement" and only some nationalities are eligible; the diversity lottery, where "applicants have a 0.2 percent chance of receiving a green card"; family sponsorship, which is capped for relatives beyond spouses, minor children, and parents; employment-based self-sponsorship, which requires high professional or financial standing; and employer sponsorship, a pathway so byzantine that very few employers actually use it.
Many factors keep foreigners from qualifying for those categories. Those include low annual visa caps, a lack of U.S.-based sponsors (whether employers or qualifying family members), narrow definitions of eligible nationalities, and cost. Some groups, including Indian nationals, can face decadeslong or lifelong waits for green cards—even if they're already in the U.S. on renewable work visas.

Today's legal immigration system is drastically different than what it was historically. Post-independence, the U.S. took a broadly liberal approach to welcoming newcomers. "Even when it finally adopted some rules in the late 19th century, immigrants were presumed eligible for permanent residence unless the government showed that they fell into specific and usually narrow ineligible categories," writes Bier.
Now, would-be migrants have to prove their eligibility based on strict prerequisites that vanishingly few can fulfill. That shift hasn't reduced demand for migration pathways—it's just created a black market, much like other forms of prohibition. Rather than looking to a sensible, straightforward, and sanctioned visa application process, migrants of many stripes look to smugglers and illegal entry to reach American soil. This has made their journeys far more dangerous (and, in many cases, deadly).
Bier suggests some reforms to help American employers and would-be foreign workers and reduce illegal immigration. One is the creation of "a streamlined work visa program for year-round, lesser-skilled workers." Another is the repeal of "overall and country-based employer-sponsored caps" for visas, which can lead to unfathomable wait times, barring workers from bringing their skills to the U.S. economy.
Liberalizing the immigration system would be a boon to both migrants and native-born Americans, to say nothing of the huge benefits that would come from new Americans starting businesses, filling critical jobs, and contributing to their local communities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So loosen legal restrictions and tighten illegal ones. It's insane the loops that legal immigrants have to jump through while illegal immigration is rewarded.
Reason's approach to the issue thus far has been exactly backwards.
The comments here show a few unsurprising things:
1) The issue isn't illegal immigration, it is immigration, period.
2) A lot of the nativists are bigots.
3) Having a mostly White country by restricting immigration is more important than having a prosperous country.
4) The nativists want a massive Big Government to enforce unnecessary immigration laws.
The US needs massive amounts of immigration if it is to stay even remotely competitive with China and India. Only immigration will stave off chronic labor shortage and eventual demographic collapse. Europe and Japan may have already passed the point of no return. The biggest asset the US has is that people want to come here. The biggest liability the US has is that too many Americans don't want anyone else to come here.
My first English ancestor came here in 1610. Maybe we would have done better had my ancestors been able to figure out which of the later arrivals would have descendants who would slam the door shut, and instead have done unto them what their descendants would do unto others.
I don’t want to live in third world country. So fuck off with your leftist faggotry.
Everyone wants to immigrate to the US. And no, we can't take them all.
Lame, tired narrative is lame and tired. Do you ever get tired of obliquely calling Native Americans, African Americans, and even Mexican or Indian Americans mostly-white racist natives and bigots because you really just hate humanity?
No, you silly goose, we are not bigots and we are it trying to keep America white. And, one of the very few things the fed gov is Constitutionally empowered to do is enforce our immigration laws to protect Americans.
No nation can survive if it has no borders and anyone can come here, whether or not we want them or need them.
I have no doubt that is true for you and many other commenters here. However, there are at least a couple of right-wing commenters here that do very much want a white nation.
Cite?
MUST. HATE. WHITEY.
The mantra of the left.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.Apprichs.com
Jack straw, seems you consider yourself the cultural expert. Maybe you should consider your myopic fantasy as compared to your beloved ancestors who simply plundered, raped, pillaged and murdered millions so as to prevent “unpure blood infestation. Sanctimonious twit. Yet another closet democrat racist calling a kettle black.
???
3) Having a mostly White country by restricting immigration is more important than having a prosperous country.
What does immigration have to do with brown people?
The Latin American and Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, that come into the US are primarily brown-skinned. Shocking!
So, the immigration restrictions we have are specifically designed to not let them in, in favor of the Irish and Polish?
I answered your question, “What does immigration have to do with brown people?”
Now you have moved the goal post to talking about “our immigration restrictions”.
My answer to this second, completely different question of yours is our current immigration system doesn’t show signs of being “designed” to achieve anything. It’s just a big, dysfunctional mess.
I did not move the goalpost. You implied... no, that's not the right word... you came right out and say that immigration is about brown people because brown people are immigrating. Then I had a followup question about immigrants who weren't brown.
Whatever. You are one of those people who is just smart enough to be able to use rhetorical tricks to try to win arguments but not smart enough to realize why winning argument at the cost of truth is not a desirable goal.
Wow, your attempted pedantic invective was shown to be an illogical stretch and you respond like a child with an insult. It’s no wonder you have everyone blocked. Your tired shtick is just so obvious anymore.
Whatever. You are one of those people who is just smart enough to be able to use rhetorical tricks to try to win arguments but not smart enough to realize why winning argument at the cost of truth is not a desirable goal.
And Liarson is one of those people who's just dumb enough to constantly post stupid shit, and stupid enough to think he's clever.
My first English ancestor came here in 1610. Maybe we would have done better had my ancestors been able to figure out which of the later arrivals would have descendants who would slam the door shut, and instead have done unto them what their descendants would do unto others.
Unfortunately, under the Jared "Most Libertarian Governor who just-wants-to-leave-you-alone" Polis, 1610s immigration system didn't provide for free healthcare, food stamps and housing assistance.
This! The problem is that we're fresh out of something for nothing. Aren't the leftists the same one's trying to get "somebody" (not themselves) to cure homelessness? Yet, it's leftist enclaves that have the most homeless. Too bad leftists don't just give up on trying to "solve" things, because they only make problems worse. If leftists had realism, instead of idealism, they wouldn't be leftists.
Fine, then amend the immigration laws so immigration paths are less restricted but welfare is more constrained. You don't even have to solve the difficult problem of trimming back entitlements in general; just restrict them for immigrants.
That’s racist.
They tried that in California. A federal judge ruled it unconstitutional, now there up to their necks with illegals on welfare.
It's funny how he doesn't even have the basic understanding to discuss a subject, yet he comments with matter-of-fact smugness.
Dunning-Kruger arrogance is one of the most detrimental things that has become so common anymore.
Brilliant!
I had to think a bit about which logical fallacy you are committing here. While it may be true that Colorado offers what may be overly-generous assistance to illegal immigrants, it is one state out of fifty. They don’t determine immigration or welfare laws for the entire country.
Finally, realized you are making a “slippery slope” argument. Sure, the entire country could end up like Colorado, but it’s not like we have no control over whether that happens or not. We could amend our immigration rules so that immigrants are not offered as much largess, especially from the Federal level.
Thank God you were here to find someone’s logical fallacy who disagrees with you. Amazing!
No, the issue is illegal immigration.
You’re a massive idiot. And no one gives a shit about your leftist lies.
“The comments here show a few unsurprising things: 1) The issue isn’t illegal immigration, it is immigration, period.”
I literally said the exact opposite in the comment you’re replying to.
“A lot of the nativists are bigots.”
According to your one drop rule, I’m not even technically white, as I’m Métis.
“Having a mostly White country by restricting immigration is more important than having a prosperous country.”
My ethnicity wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for immigration. My mother and sister-in-law are immigrants to Canada. My brother and sister are immigrants to the US.
Inventing phony narratives about your opponents and their intentions are why you guys always end up losing debates.
It's just tired and lazy leftist narrative spewing. I'm so sick of self righteous white leftists pretending to be all superior by calling everyone racists in order to ostensibly bully and feel superior. It's intellectually and morally devoid at this point.
And the irony is it tends to show who the actual racists are. Which they tend to be so bubbled and blind to it.
It’s intellectually and morally devoid at this point.
At this point? Lefty shits like Liarson and charlie have always been intellectually devoid.
They just project their true feelings. They feel that way inside so they assume everyone does. Left virtue signals.
Good job, shreek, you managed to stay in character without using the word "cracker"!
That is a ridiculous argument. Europe, China, India, England, Japan, etc., are basically monolith! It SHOULD be hard to immigrate to the United States. We need to take people that will benefit the country, not to go on welfare. We are an established country! We need another Ellis Island type immigration process. We have most Americans that has no idea about our history, Constitution, government, and the sacrifices made to keep this country free! This is not a charity case. People shouldn't be able to just walk into our country. However, have a process that takes the best and brightest quickly, fix the sorry education and get Americans skilled, stop with the partisan rhetoric on immutable characteristics such as race and sex, stop attacking religion, stop censoring opposing voices, push marriage, faith, and patriotism, and make every able bodied person do at least two years in the military. This will put us back on track to being a great nation for everyone!
So, don't offer immigrants the same welfare that is offered to citizens. Problem solved.
Racist.
You do understand that such a "solution" is lnt remotely doable, practicable, or even appropriate, right? Moreover, you do realize this argument is very in line with leftist desire to create a permanent underclass of people in this country to do all that terrible work the privileged, leftist white folk don't want to do.
Again, it's amazing how many selfish white saviors there are out there who don't realize they are the actual racists. I know it's in your nature, but you shouldn't try to be like that.
Yes, we should not have quotas and we should not allow immigration unless it benefits the country and there is a need for a specific skill!.
“It SHOULD be hard to immigrate to the United States.”
“We need another Ellis Island type immigration process.”
Those two statements contradict each other.
charliehall, thanks for a NON-foaming-at-the-mouth, nativist-bullshit-extremist input! It is QUITE refreshing to see, in these comments! Humans are humans, and... When humans (including illegal sub-humans) are outlawed, only outlaws will be humans! Hooray for the humans!
(But "158 million adults interested in leaving their home countries" can't all move here, practically; we've not got that much room to spare... I admit that. We must find some middle ground here. Nativists aren't helping.)
If migrants can make this country rich, why aren't the countries they come from rich?
Because their native nations are run by power-hungry Marxists and authoritarians who have ZERO respect for private properties... Just EXACTLY like many power-pig assholes on THESE pages right here, who want to tear down Section 230! Private property rights for me, but not for thee! Your web sites are all belong to MEEEE!!!!
They enthusiastically elected their power hungry marxists.
It's hard to squeeze a whole Economics 101 course into a comment, but just consider that an individual's income/wealth may be affected not only by their own labor and effort but by the type of system in which they are laboring. It just might be that the same amount of labor is rewarded more in a system with property rights and sensible laws, thriving businesses, free trade, etc.
So we should be overthrowing other governments, for the own good of course.
Bigots? Nonsense.
We value our nation, and its freedoms, well designed government, and a culture that is more about achievement than about corruption or family connections.
Most who wish to immigrate come from nations that are very poor due to their culture - one that is inimical to our values. That was not true in the days of free immigration, where it was western europeans, with similar values.
Libertarians would rather call people bigots than to recognize that uncontrolled migration would result in all the failed ideas from those poor countries would come here and destroy ours - including destroying any chance Libertarianism has.
Most of those who wish to immigrate are not bad people, but they come from a bad culture. We see something similar in the economic immigrants coming here to Arizona from California, and then voting for the same failed policies that is turning California into a socialist dystopia.
Exactly, and the reason that California is such a mess is because people migrated from other liberal states and turned it into the hell hole it is today!
People don’t get that.
Been here my whole life. A few decades ago I was a very rare native for people my age, everyone was from somewhere else. And what they’d do is come here and start acting like the stereotype of the “Wacky Californian.”
I know everyone hates the fact that the Bay Area has been draining it’s shit into Idaho and Texas and Colorado, but… well, they did it to my little paradise, so I kind of have a “fuck ’em, now they know how I feel” attitude at times.
I’m confused my immigrant grandfather was considered poor, native scum in Denmark and was probably considered poor, immigrant scum by many American who got here before him. His culture was dirt farming but he came to America because he knew it was a place where his hard work would be rewarded and he could get ahead.
Your idea is that people escaping from shitty places are infectious vectors of the shit they are trying to get AWAY from, at great personal cost. I reject your collectivist thinking; I believe in individuals.
And yet the Somali population in Minnesota voted overwhelmingly for Ilhan Omar because she is Somali. Demonstrable fact based on multiple interviews with voters. So not so much individual but rather tribal. People come from a different system en masse, they bring their system with them. This is a major change from the past when immigrants were a) coming to escape a political system and b) wanted to assimilate.
And they're basically here because of the broken system they come from. I have probably a dozen friends and family that live in and around the twin cities and St. Cloud MN and not one has anything good to say about all the changes they're seeing due to the huge influx of Somalis there. Seems you're right about the tribalism aspect... according to what I've been told they show zero intention of assimilating and instead move to an area and basically drive everyone else out. Seems these people are nothing like the Ellis Island type of immigrants and from what I'm hearing bring nothing whatsoever positive to contribute to the communities they've been implanted into.
Hmm, maybe this isn't as much slam-dunk proof of the Somali community's progressive bent as you think:
https://islamism.news/2022/11/08/move-over-ilhan-omar-minnesota-republicans-pander-to-somali-islamists/
The first signs that Minnesota Democrats may be losing ground with the Somali Muslim community occurred in July, when a hometown crowd attending a “Somali Week” concert booed progressive Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) off the stage at the Minneapolis Target Center. A few weeks later, Omar barely survived a revolt in Minnesota’s reliably progressive 5th District, where she won by a razor-thin margin over a centrist candidate running on a shoestring budget.
You're not a bright individual. You don't seem to realize that the scores of people that illegally immigrate into the US are not the best nor the brightest. They are largely poor, diseased, ignorant, uneducated, criminal, and a whole host of other characteristics that we, as a country, and as a society do not want. If you don't believe me, then look at the scourge of illegal immigrants we have now. They contribute next to nothing. They soak on the system from tax-paying citizens in all forms of government handouts, and they heavily burden local localities in healthcare matters and education.
And that's all because they could never navigate the legal methods of entry into the US, so like the criminals and dummies they are, they pay smugglers to get them in. Do you see mass migration to China? Do you see mass migration to India? How about Mexico other than that country being a staging point for illegal incursion? Illegal aliens coming here isn't an asset. It's a massive liability. People going through the immigration process, as convoluted as it is are the assets. And your dopey white guilt notwithstanding and calling others bigots, because normal-thinking people don't want the undesirables here to bring their cultural rot from their respective countries to the US to bring it down, isn't the problem.
It's people like you that use emotional blackmail that is the problem. You'd rather see the US erase its borders for the sake of productivity? What's that matter, you can't mow your lawn on your own? Clean your house on your own? Watch your own baby without a foreign nanny? Have an actual American pick your food? Cook your own food?
This country needs a cooldown period of at least 20-30 years for immigration anyway. If I had it my way, I'd build a 50-foot tall 30-foot thick concrete bulwark wherever I could on the border, and for every 100 feet I'd have turrets mounted to repel any and all people who think they could sneak into the US. This country is going to drown in illegals at this rate and you can already see states like NY, CA, and Washington caterwauling about having illegals shipped to them. They are sanctuary states too. They don't like it.
Oh, and you can take your sanctimonious attempts lambasting the good word of doing unto others and shove it up your ass where it belongs.
Right on the money! Very well stated!!
The US needs massive amounts of immigration if it is to stay even remotely competitive with China and India. Only immigration will stave off chronic labor shortage and eventual demographic collapse.
WTF does that even mean? Are you serious? India is a total basketcase and will be forever. China is purely a low-cost producer. If they ever get even a tad bit well-off, they will no longer be a low-cost producer and all their export production will go somewhere else. Is your goal for America to be POORER than China and India so that we can be a low-cost producer of crappy shit? Back to the textile mills and child labor!!!!
Chronic labor shortage is a GREAT thing. It is what forces innovation. It is what creates a middle-class. It is what allows a regular person to dream of some life beyond work like a dog until you die. It is the only thing that actually drives immigration. No one migrates to a place where there is a labor surplus.
If there really was a labor shortage in the US, then wages would be rising FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER and that is what would be driving inflation. That is not what has been happening and is not the same as ‘there are millions of job vacancies for jobs that pay shit with part-time hours for crappy bosses and doing work that will disappear the nanosecond we can hire an illegal instead’.
And 'demographic collapse' is a completely different issue. Birth rates for women drop the nanosecond they can become educated and live a life.
Exactly right...try finding a construction job in pretty much any decent size city without being able to speak Spanish, it's not likely to happen. Wages in most of the skilled labor trades are stagnant at best because of the influx of cheap labor...and it's only a matter of time before those of us in STEM fields etc feel this as well.
Funny how the people directly impacted by it do not see this great economic benefit. Maybe they are just not as awesome as you, eh?
Your english ancestor came over in 1610. So you are saying you are the problem.
The garbage you wrote is the typical talking line. No, most American's aren't against immigration - they are against Illegal. They want to decide who gets to live here so they provide value. Also, starting to live here by breaking the law.
My current is from Turkey and has been working 10 yrs to become legal. She has done all the legal hoops. Are people like - leave/go back. No. Same with a Russian I dated who was legal.
Yes the system needs to be quicker. The border needs to be secured.
Your argument is full of crap.
The order of operations is tighten illegal, loosen legal. The Reason version is loosen legal beyond recognition, loosen illegal.
The laws should be strict and enforced for both legal and illegal immigration!
"United States granted legal permanent residence to only about 1 million people..."
Seems like a lot. That is almost half the population of San Diego every year? What should the number be? 1.5 million?
This article is entirely too modest. 158 million is just the tip of the ice burg. Once we open the borders and people see how easy it is, I bet we can get 10 times that number. The 158 million are the pioneers paving the way for billions more who also have no legal option to immigrate to the US.
You got it exactly right. My adopted son, who will eventually be a law-abiding American, has been waiting for ten years. In the meantime, tens (or is it hundreds) of thousands of parasites, a few (I hope) terrorists and an unknown number of other undesirables, who have nothing to offer, are welcomed in and rewarded at taxpayer expense.
It is typical of liberals that they consider all opposition to illegal immigration and to fake refugees to be motivated by "nativism."
So by definition they are mostly criminals.
Wrong. It is not a crime to be in the US without a proper visa.
So we are different than all other countries?
We aren’t, but leftists have to lie.
No lies. It is inconvenient for the nativist bigots but there actually isn't any criminal offense of being in the US without a visa. Entering the US other than at a port of entry is a misdemeanor that is rarely prosecuted, but that is only about half the people who don't have proper visas. And if you are an asylum applicant, you are a legal temporary resident even if you initially entered illegally.
Which untalented hack writer are you?
I think he’s a Jeffy sock. Sounds a lot like him.
He's sounding much more White Mikey-ish ITT, but this is a really old shreek sock.
Hi, Tulpa!
Cite?
Got it. You have no argument. So your only path is to attempt to put your opponent on the defensive by calling them racist.
It’s the democrat way.
When you realize they have no integrity, their insults lose their sting.
They throw out the term ‘racist’ with such ubiquitousness that it’s lost all meaning. They don’t even now how to use it. Like criticizing the Mexican government is ‘racist’. Even though Mexico is a country and not an ethnicity.
Wrong as usual shreek.
Well, not if you live in the wilderness eating roots and berries, I suppose. Once you get a job, yeah, it's a crime.
A misdemeanor is crime idiot. Even that right wing bastion CNN says it
Under federal law, it is a crime for anyone to enter into the US without the approval of an immigration officer – it’s a misdemeanor offense that carries fines and no more than six months in prison. Many foreign nationals, however, enter the country legally every day on valid work or travel visas, and end up overstaying for a variety of reasons.
Reference: cnn /2017/02/24/politics/undocumented-immigrants-not-necessarily-criminal/index.html
"Criminals by definition" is not what most people mean by "criminals".
I can't tell if you're agreeing with him or trying to prove him wrong by hitting yourself in the face with a brick.
Liberalizing the immigration system would be a boon to both migrants and native-born Americans, to say nothing of the huge benefits that would come from new Americans starting businesses, filling critical jobs, and contributing to their local communities.
There is no logic in this statement.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true. What boon, specifically, does massive immigration bring to native born Americans? And what of the businesses? If there are business opportunities, they'll get filled.
Nobody believes your shite, Fiona. You're just advocating for putting your thumb on the scale in favor of big business. Let more foreign workers in who are afraid to ask for a raise or quit to find another job lest they have to go back and you can suppress wages for workers. That's all you're about.
Of course, what she leaves out is that the immigrants starting businesses are the ones from Europe and Asia. One suspects it isn't these immigrants she's interested in importing.
They are too white.
Where I live the new prosperous business owners are mostly from the Dominican Republic.
The ones who cut your grass?
You live in a shitty neighborhood?
Post your address to confirm. Fucking LOL.
That's surprising, shreek. It's a long drive from Key West to Dog Dick Georgia.
Although I'm fairly new here, it's not taking long for me to realize who's basically completely full of shite...
Liberalizing the immigration system would be a boon to both migrants and native-born Americans[.]
“Assertion presented without evidence."
It's what her benefactor, Charles Koch, told her to write.
Wrong. If they were here legally, no one could threaten them with such a thing.
Yup. It is the nativists who want to oppress the immigrants who are already here.
Stop putting down black people.
Whose sock puppet are you?
You're not even a subtle troll. Just say some stupid talking point that wasn't even true 25 years ago. I mean, it worked then to demonize those against ILLEGAL immigration, but we're way past that.
You should work harder for your 50 cents. But do it in someone else's threads.
Why all the anger in your comments?
What boon, specifically, does massive immigration bring to native born Americans?
I'll answer, despite your putting your thumb on the scale by sticking the word "massive" into that question: are you aware there is currently a massive labor shortage in the United States?
Are you aware the unemployment rate is at a 2 year high?
You're aware that, occasionally, the free market benefits labor more than management. When you decide to constantly short circuit it so it ALWAYS benefits management...it is not a free market.
I’m arguing here for letting free market be free. And you are arguing for controlling the free market top down.
Your concept (and that of Reason) of free market requires an even playing field throughout the world and a set of common principles throughout the world. It's why we can have free market between states. But the world is a very dynamic and heterogeneous place. As such, the type of almost laissez-faire world market concept you're claiming isn't real.
Are you aware that the work force participation is at an all time low? There isn't a massive shortage. It's people being paid not to work or thinking they are too good for certain jobs.
Let's see your massive shortage data. Put up or shove it
They have no legal option!
...Followed by a graphic showing the legal option.
I know. Fiona Harridan could pass for a NJ politician with her...spin.
Fuck off cunt! The US, and in fact no country, does not belong to the whims and desires of foreigners. They want a better life then make their country into their version of paradise.
I note the costs of illegal immigration are, once again, missing entirely from Fiona's diatribe. Fix the entitlements, get the totalitarians out of power and then we can talk. Until then you're demanding sacrifice without a payoff.
What are these costs of illegal immigration?
I'll list off a few of the good things. They do shit-jobs for shit-pay and don't complain about it. That means we don't have to. If they work fraudulently they pay Social Security taxes and will never get anything back. They live somewhere which means they're paying someone's property tax bill. They buy stuff, which means they pay sales taxes and new markets spring up to cater to their tastes. And in a generation or two they'll just be Americans.
What's your gripes?
"What are these costs of illegal immigration? I’ll list off a few of the good things. They do shit-jobs for shit-pay and don’t complain about it."
Speaking of shit, my neighbor came to this country illegally and has no respect for private property and lets her dog roam and shit on my property. She can GTFO.
My melanin-challenged neighbors from the trailer park lets their dog shit in my driveway, blast Kid Rock when they're not listening to their diesel truck idle, get visited by ambulances now and then when someone overdoses, have never shown any signs of having a job, and carry large bags of empty alcohol containers to the redemption center every week.
Wherein drunky forgets that he's supposed to be a 6-figure computer programmer living in a palatial estate and vacation in QUARTER MILLION DOLLAR AirBNBs now, and not a hopeless alcoholic drug addict living in a section 8 rental. Whoops!
In a trailer park.
Meanwhile these new immigrant neighbors of mine seem ok. I'm guessing they're from Pakistan because they look Indian but they wear Muslim garb. Their kids play with the neighborhood kids and with my kid and seem nice enough. I haven't gone to meet the parents though. Just to introduce myself as "Hey I'm [redacted]'s dad. If he/she ever causes trouble I live over there. I'll give you my number if you want." I've done that with other neighbors. Not them. Yet.
Cool story.
Fuck off pussy. Back in your trash can. Just like Oscar the Grouch.
Wherein drunky forgets the dozens of times he's drunk-posted his life story and railed on for hours about how his "cunt" wife got custody of the kids.
I don’t believe he has kids, or was ever married. Just drunken delusions.
The biggest cost of illegal immigration is borne by those at the bottom of the ladder. And I’m not even going to bother explaining the obvious.
But the utilitarian argument in favor of open borders is unethical as fuck. Like most utilitarian arguments. As long as Koch and Zuckerberg benefit a LOT, then it’s OK for those on the margins to lose all opportunity, tread water, and indeed be forced to compete with the entire third world? For them to lose all legal protections and all ability to influence their own governance?
That makes no sense.
Policy, not immigration, hurts those at the bottom of the ladder. That's the purpose of minimum wage, licensing, guilds, union, an everything else designed to curb competition in the workplace.
If you mean that illegal immigrants hurt people by circumventing the unfair laws that hold down the poor, well then I don't know what to say. You should be focusing on the unjust policy, not the immigrants.
Yeah, we need more welfare recipients to improve the economy.
Policy, not immigration, hurts those at the bottom of the ladder.
To a point.
The reason there was a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment among recent immigrants in early America was a keen sense that– work, sometimes being scarce, became even scarcer as more and more cheap labor got off the boat. That was in the complete absence of “policy”. When you have a lot of something, the price of that something goes down, except in libertopia where that rule holds loose and slow when it comes to labor, but hard and fast everywhere else.
The policies that are in place now, yes, I would agree. Minimum wage laws make illegal immigration more attractive, and hiring verified citizens unattractive. Why would I hire you when I have to pay you $15 Now!, unemployment insurance, possible healthcare benefits, stick to a whole bunch of other regulatory burdens, when I can just drive to the home depot and ask several guys to jump in the back of the Ford f-150 and drive to the job site, and pay them a couple of hundred flat rate in cash.
And if I live in Colorado, I don't even have to feel bad about it, because they'll get free healthcare.
Policy, not immigration, hurts those at the bottom of the ladder.
ILLEGAL immigration undermines all workforce policies and laws. They won’t and can’t complain about anything – which is precisely why employers will hire them. As you admit.
And I’m obviously not demonizing the immigrant themself. The two people I mentioned – Koch and Zuckerberg – are neither illegals nor immigrants. They are the ones who drive policy. And in their case, precisely the policy you prefer. Which means you admit that immigration policy CAN be a thing. You just don’t like it when those at the bottom have any voice about policy.
Hey, wasn't it you who said you'd never heard of a Cuban sandwich despite being a professional gourmet chef because there's no spics in Maine, drunky? How about you shut the fuck up about things you don't comprehend because they've never affected you?
Arguing for a permanent underclass to do those icky jobs you don't want to do is vile as fuck.
Exactly... basically just another form of slavery or servitude, advocated for by people who love to call everyone else racists
It isn't hard to make a fair system. Get rid of h1b and the other exceptions. Get rid of all of the steps and go directly from background check to auction available spots. It also eliminates all of the government employees that do interviews and that take bribes.
It isn't hard to make a fair system. Return to the pre 1965 system that applied to the Western Hemisphere, and apply it to the entire world. You have to go to a US embassy a consulate in your home country to apply for a visa. If you aren't a criminal, a terrorist, some other kind of anti-American subversive wannabe, or likely to become a public charge, you get an immigrant visa. No quotas.
As long as we continue to insist on the concept of "available spots", which was introduced in the 1920s as a racist measure to keep ethnic groups considered undesirable from immigrating (Jews, Italians, Poles, Greeks, Russians, etc.) you will not solve the illegal immigration problem. But the nativist bigots don't want immigration, they prefer a poverty-stricken mostly White country with a chronic labor shortage to a prosperous multi-ethnic country.
That would also be simple and fair. I have a hard time convincing anyone that unlimited immigration is something that should be tried.
It seems to work for the states and for EU members. When I point this out they say we should limit immigration within the states - those damn Californians.
It does not work for EU members. Europe is rife with problems due to their insane immigration policies. Not only does it not work, it’s made Europe a nightmare.
Sweden is proposing stricter laws as I write this. The Social Democrats are afraid the liberal laws are making them a "refugee magnet" and want a 3 year cap on refugee status and immigrants can't stay past that unless they show knowledge of things like Swedish language, culture, and that they have an income and are supported.
The greens are with them, but the green party wants much stricter rules.
This is but one example. EU immigration, especially with the flood of refugees out of the middle east, has been super thorny. Having grown up on the border, I just sit back and chuckle to myself, muttering "Told you so."
So the no-go zones that mysteriously crop up in the EI and the terror attacks are no biggie?
You have to go to a US embassy a consulate in your home country to apply for a visa. If you aren’t a criminal, a terrorist, some other kind of anti-American subversive wannabe, or likely to become a public charge, you get an immigrant visa.
This is the exact same position advocated by every person you've called a nativist bigot. The only proviso they place with regard to quotas is in *direct* correlation to social welfare programs that didn't exist in or have massively expanded since the 60s or the 20s.
But, for some reason, you insist on calling everyone who came to the reasonable conclusion well before you showed up around here nativist bigots and racists for no apparent other reason than you want to insult people of a different race than you.
You're like a secret "evul-bigots" double-agent parody, except just self-righteously retarded instead of funny.
It isn’t hard to make a fair system. Return to the pre 1965 system that applied to the Western Hemisphere, and apply it to the entire world.
You had me until the bold...
It damn well should be applied to anyone who wants to emigrate inland from the Pacific Coast.
Sounds great shreek. That would mean about 97% of the 27 million illegal spics in the country would have to leave immediately. There are two tragedies in life: one is not getting what you want, the other is getting it.
Let's keep one thing clear: the broken, unwieldy immigration system we have now was not created and is not supported by people who are "anti-immigrant". It was created and is supported by people in high places who are pro-illegal immigration.
Wrong. The system was created by racists in the 1920s, as I mention in another comment. They wanted to keep out the ethnic groups they considered undesirable. By the 1960s, southern and eastern Europeans weren't considered as undesirable as before, but people from Mexico and Brazil were, so restrictive quotas were applied there.
The system created in the 1920s hasn't existed for decades. Try to keep up.
The system back then, though, saved our country from disaster. The Immigration Act of 1924 stopped what would have been a massive influx of immigrants, allowing previous immigrants time to assimilate.
He sounds like Hank Philips trying to lecture us all about Comstock Laws or Michael Hihn trying to interpret Heller as pro-gun control.
They have to lie, they have to pretend we have always had unrestricted immigration.
In the early days, the need to come here on sailing ships was an effective restriction. Today, an airline ticket to the USA from anywhere in the world costs much less than illegal immigrants are paying now to traffickers to get them here.
We also maintained an expectation of assimilation, not an obsession with maintaining differences.
Good Christ you're fucking historically illiterate, shreek. The Immigration Act of 1965 did away with national origin quotas you stupid fucking faggot. Teddy Kennedy bragged about how his support for that act was responsible for "browning America."
Show me a vocal critic of those of us who aren't fans of current immigration law, and I'll show you someone who probably wouldn't be able to got through the process if they were trying to get in.
If a spelling test is involved they certainly wouldn’t let you in.
So?
So by what principle other than "Fuck you I was born here!" do you have to object to people entering the country and contributing ten times the economic output that you will ever create in your entire life?
The main basis of representative government is that representatives are for the present. If you can just import people who will outpace you, you will very soon cease being represented.
Maybe we should adopt Mexico’s
immigration laws, eh sarc?
Sarchasmic; If they are as super-capable as you claim, why don't the millions of border hoppers that you want to force on us simply stay in their own countries and enjoy life there?
Either that or: how about you pay for your own pets?
Most of us here aren't drug addicted, alcoholic welfare queens living in section 8 housing and collecting SSI, drunky. The illegal spic from Honduras who cuts your wife's new husband's law for half of minimum wage will undoubtedly create more value than you could in 15 lifetimes, but I contribute more to the economy in a week than he does in a year.
When Fiona boots up her computer I bet it always shows the date and time as 06/15/1875, 16:13:12.23.
Odd. Mine always boots up at 01/01/1970 00:00:00.
That was the beginning of time as far as networked computers are concerned.
The Vast Majority of People Who Want To Immigrate to the U.S. Have No Legal Option
Good. Maybe they can learn to take a hint.
"A new Cato Institute report highlights just how hard it is to come to the U.S. legally."
GOOD!
Your login name is fitting.
The Vast Majority of People Who Want To
Immigrate to the U.S.Rob a Bank Have No Legal Option"Legal immigration is less like waiting in line and more like winning the lottery," writes Bier. "It happens, but it is so rare that it is irrational to expect it in any individual case."
And you have exactly as much of a "right" to immigrate to the US as you do to winning the lottery.
That's one awesome sense of entitlement on display here.
I can see the point that if the world were one giant private property paradise, then yes, you would have the right to move wherever you want. But clearly that ain't the world we live in. My neighbor's mom brought her to this country ilegaly and then got on all the welfare (this is all self-admitted from her own campaign website). No wonder she doesn't respect private property boundaries and lets her dogs roam and shit on my property. Point being that millions will come here like she did just to milk the system and get high paying sinecures as state government diversitycrats. Fuck them. Stay the fuck out.
millions will come here
If we threw open the doors, HUNDREDS of millions would come.
Agree 100%!
Illegal invading this country right now because of the administrations open borders is showing a total disregard for American citizens!
Nailed it!
You can either have a generous welfare state or unfettered immigration. You cant have both.
By that same logic you could outlaw trailer parks.
Then where would your mom live?
Who said I had a mom? Maybe my kind reproduces by fission.
You were produced by anal sex.
With what?
An inbred Manatee.
Mr Woodchipper; That is 100% true, and was the Libertarian Party's outlook on it until very recently.
Do you mean before or after the MC insurrection?
"The Vast Majority of People Who Want To Immigrate to the U.S. Have No Legal Option"
Please name a developed country where this isn't true. You can't just move to a developed nation without any means of support, which would preclude "the vast majority" who want to immigrate to any developed country. Australia ain't having it. They put illegal immigrants in prison camps.
I looked at moving to New Zealand about a decade ago, and it certainly wasn't as simple as "buy a plane ticket and show up". They want some sort of evidence that you're going to be able to support yourself. Oddly enough.
Sounds racist.
What is odd about it! That sounds like a very smart requirement!
So 158 million would like to immigrate to the US. The population of the USA is somewhar less than 332 million.
Can the US absorb in any given year over 47% of its current population?
I would suggest, as a purely practical matter, that the majority of those people cannot immigrate to the US, and certainly not legally. This is simply an unworkable notion.
That stood out to me. About 1% of the people who want to come legally were allowed (ignoring the numbers who arrived illegally.) That doesn't sound like much when distanced from the context. Does she think that all 158m people should be allowed to do whatever? The premise of her argument destroys itself without even taking a gentle consideration of what would result
This is faulty reasoning. There may be 158 million people who want to be the first to immigrate here. That doesn’t mean all those 158 million people would all want to come after the first, say, 10 million have already come here and filled available jobs and housing.
Both human society and nature are full of examples of systems that naturally reach an equilibrium, yet immigration critics act like they are unfamiliar with the concept. It's especially a headscratcher to encounter people in the comments section of a libertarian website who act like they are unfamiliar with the phenomenon of a system reaching an equilibrium since the concept is a cornerstone of libertarian thinking.
Get your Invisible Hand out of your pants.
The 158 million number as given seems to be what the "majority" who cannot legally immigrate is based on. The point of mentioning it is that it is faulty reasoning, so why bring that number up?
Fair point. Sorry for misunderstanding the gist of your argument.
It is an irrelevant number. As you pointed out, that many people could never immigrate here, and as I pointed out that many people wouldn’t really want to.
So, mike, let in 10 million or so, and when the jobs aren’t as plentiful they will stop coming? These “poor, desperate people”, fleeing poverty and possibly physical danger will suddenly change their minds and stay home?
Is that really the fantasy world you live in?
And why haven’t the ten million who’ve legally immigrated over the last ten years reduced the demand, or the ten million before that? To reach equilibrium the standard of living in this country has to be as bad as the standard of living in the country the immigrant is leaving.
The vast majority of people who want a yacht have no legal option to get it either.
(And although letting in one immigrant may be less expensive than a yacht, letting in the sum total of everyone who wants to immigrate isn’t.)
Yeah, the vast majority of people who want to kill other motorists for cutting them off in traffic have no legal options either.
Now, the vast majority of people in San Francisco looking for a place to shit or who want free stuff up to the per-incident total of $950? *Those* people have options!
Can they just take a shit right in the middle of a store and *then* wander off with $900 worth of stuff? Because if not, that's a clear sign of oppression.
Especially if the poopetrator isn't addressed by their preferred pronoun!
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Seems like their legal option is to follow the rules.
And, what ... the rules cannot be changed?
The Vast Majority of People Who Want To Immigrate to the U.S. Have No Legal Option
Good. It needs to be a lot harder.
The Vast Majority of People Who Want To Homestead in the City Park Have No Legal Option
The Vast Majority of People Who Want To Take Stuff from the Supermarket Have No Legal Option
The Vast Majority of People Who Want To Force Others to Engage in Sex Have No Legal Option
The Vast Majority of People Who Want To Kill People They find Annoying Have No Legal Option
You're winning me over to this position.
The vast majority of people who want to move into a mansion in Beverly Hills (including me) have no legal option either! But Beverly Hills has no moral obligation to provide everyone with housing, just like the USA has no moral obligation to provide a home to everyone on Earth.
And the US already takes in over one million immigrants per year (and that's just the ones we know about) - more than any other nation on Earth. So how many more should we take?
Sure - back when this land had abundant resources for all, no severe water shortages, and carbon footprints weren't a thing. More importantly, there was little to no welfare state. Now we have to feed, house, clothe, and educate everyone living here.
The US continues to have abundant resources for all. The severe water shortages are limited to a small fraction of the country. The same people who complain about immigration also oppose doing anything about carbon in the atmosphere. And the US welfare state is now LESS generous than that of many of the countries from which people are immigrating. For example, Mexico has universal health care. (Americans go to Mexico for health care in large numbers now.)
The US continues to have abundant resources for all.
To bad we aren’t allowed to extract them .
The US continues to have abundant resources for all. The severe water shortages are limited to a small fraction of the country.
Where large populations live.
Wrong!
For example, Mexico has universal health care. (Americans go to Mexico for health care in large numbers now.)
Americans can get free healthcare in Mexico?
Everyone I know who has gotten healthcare in Mexico, voluntarily or not, says, "Unless you're going to die before getting back across the border, don't get healthcare in Mexico."
Everyone I know who's worked healthcare on either side of the border prefers to work on the American side. Mandatory vaccinations for COVID are nothing in comparison to having to label peoples' (Americans) needles for re-use or having to guess at diagnoses because the nearest working CT scanner is hours away.
It's really either kind of sad-in-a-Michael-Hihn-fashion how mistaken charliehall is about this or really fucking evil about how few shits he gives to treating Mexican healthcare workers like dirt so that Americans can enjoy botched unnecessary cosmetic procedures to make themselves look like failed medical experiments.
Mexican healthcare workers like dirt so that Americans can enjoy botched unnecessary cosmetic procedures to make themselves look like failed medical experiments.
Sounds like a gender-affirming care paradise.
On counterfeit Mexican steroids:
I was able to stop dancing and escorting, which was making me depressed
How can work that's just work make you depressed?
“I was doing a lot of whippets and shrooms, and then I just kind of realised through that spiritual awakening that maybe it’s best for my overall wellbeing to just kind of tone it down a notch you know, with the surgeries,” she explained.
Check out Jordan Peterson over here.
"She had her first boob job at age 21 in Mexico by a local dentist"
Occupational licensing doesn't seem to be such a big deal in Mexico. They have food trucks too so, libertarian paradise?
Yes, you go to Mexico, cross illegally to the US and you get free healthcare.
"you go to Mexico, cross"
Yes it's a two way street. A lot of old and sick Americans live in Mexican hospices and old age homes. They are legal, for the most part, and a lot cheaper than American counterparts with similar services.
Small fraction?? It's the entire southwest region of the country! Including areas that don't get a lot of publicity. I used to live in Arizona back in the 90s, and even before the current crisis the water tables there were already non-sustainable. If Lake Meade gets much lower it will go to deadpool status, and no water churning through Hoover Dam. That will be such a disaster that we might see Americans fleeing to Mexico instead.
So, then, the immigrants would be more likely to go to other areas of the country. Problem solved.
Yes, like Martha's Vineyard!
Not the best example, considering Martha’s Vineyard is an island with a limited aquifer:
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/drinkwater/marthasv.html
Islands tend to be like that.
All that's doing is shifting the problem elsewhere.
No, it would be shifting to where there isn’t a problem.
And creating a new one!
Wherein shreek has to abandon the green wing of his Marxist-Leninist Democratic party in order to rationalize more illegal immigration.
The amount of bullshit in your short paragraph is astounding. Carbon isn’t a pollutant, and Mexico p’s shitty socialist health care has nothing to do with the private clinics Americans visit in Mexico. They visit them because of the rices, which are low because they don’t have the equivalent of the bloodsucking trial lawyer’s lobby, which has a great deal of control over your democrat masters.
Now fuck off you lying piece of shit.
"The same people who complain about immigration also oppose doing anything about carbon in the atmosphere."
False. I say increase it.
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1669457436829454336?t=6JuJTk3nEg9I3mte2emNzA&s=19
Just yesterday, Ione Belarra, Spain's Minister of Social Rights and Agenda 2030 (actual title) says children don't belong to anyone.
[Link]
The Mexican cartels trafficking children across our unsecured border would disagree.
So would Joe Biden.
Sounds like another socialist government that should be violently overthrown, with all the socialists executed for good measure.
As it should be. WE should decide who comes in and who doesn't depending on our needs - not theirs. It's deliberately hard...leave it alone and close the damn borders!
It should be kept hard! And the laws should be strictly enforced! And they should speak English! We have thousands of enclaves of non-English speaking immigrants even though they have been here many years. That should not happen!
What if your idea of "our" needs doesn't jive with my ideas of what "our" needs as far as my trying to hire an employee, bring my family member in the country, or some other reason I want to let someone in the country? Seems like you want to control what "our" needs are.
The vast majority of people who want to have sex with supermodels have no legal option.
Now I have a sad.
Virtual Reality will solve that.
Elon Musk promised us genetically engineered anime catgirls and all we got was government subsidized shitty electric cars that catch on fire.
This is a very silly LIB article.
None of those people have a right to come here illegally. We have the right to let in ONLY those WE choose.
We don’t need all those people. We need to get Americans OFF welfare and demand they work.
Stephen; True.
Absolutely!
I just tried to move to Australia, I have high job skills, speak the language proficiently. I answered all of their questions yes except for one. I wonder which one it was?
Well, now that Australia doesn't want me, what about Canadia?! I mean, free healthcare, right?
Damnit, there go those selective categories again. Ok, what about Latvia?
"Ok, what about Latvia?"
What about Bhutan? I knew a Canadian man who married a Bhutan citizen and resident. There's a largish trading town on the border with India, Phuntsholing. He was free to spend time with his wife on the Bhutan side during the day, but had to return to India every night.
This is a weak argument. We are talking about what laws America should have. You know the beacon of freedom, nation made great by immigrants, melting pot of the world.
Yes, feral Haitians are the secret ingredient to America’s superpower status.
Of course limiting immigration is the right thing to do. Unfettered immigration will always be the wrong thing and lead to more troubles. Can you imagine no limits and the 158 million adults interested in leaving their home coming here? It is unbelievable that anyone could actually think that is good!
We used to have immigration laws but the administration in control has destroyed it.
"Post-independence, the U.S. took a broadly liberal approach to welcoming newcomers."
No Irish need apply
Whites only
etc?
Chinese Exclusion Act?
If California is paying reparations to anyone, it should be to those they actually discriminated against.
“Asians don’t count”
-Democrats
As a native, it's not the post-independence US's broadly liberal approach to newcomers that bugs me as much as their broadly liberal approach to the natives... and, since we're all friends, we'll just pretend that, even for the newcomers, all the indentured servitude was 100% safe and effective with no downsides.
Earn over $600 a day easily from your own time sharing home. I made $18,781 from this job in my spare time after graduating from college. “r111 years of easy work and steady income is amazing. No skills required for this position. All you need to know is how to copy and paste anything online.Sign up today by following the details on this page.Detail Are Here—> workingbitecoin12.com
Yeah, I'd have to guess that Irish immigrants didn't exactly feel welcome here for a good chunk of years after we won our independence - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nigger
The United States can't, and won't feed all the people that want to come here. We can't give them all the freebies they and their children demand either.
If the libtards in this thread want unbridled immigration; how about they pay for that themselves? That will involve importing non-existant food from the rest of the world- the same world that has 828 MILLION malnourished people in it right now https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-un-report--global-hunger-numbers-rose-to-as-many-as-828-million-in-2021 .
The 158 million people that want to move here mostly live in poor, overcrowded countries. They want to bring that here to us, instead of curbing their own reproductive excesses where they live.
They don't need our food and water. They need condoms.
More people will grow the economy, resulting in more food being produced. Malthus was wrong, look it up.
Which explains why quality of life is so much higher in India than Finland.
Can any of you libertarian autists take a break from masturbating to supply curves and honestly examine the conditions needed for a flourishing society?
There’s a limit. Especially in the short term. If we suddenly had another hundred million indigents it would destroy this country.
Immigrants are making “demands”? What is their leverage used to make these demands?
White guilt
Judging from California, it's not all that hard to immigrate. But give Newsom and few more years and no one will want to.
Pretty sure there are about 6 billion people that would like to move here. We're full. I suggest we start asking our citizens that hate this country to sell their citizenship to more deserving people.
You would be wrong. Most people want to stick around the place where they grew up.
Today's legal immigration system is drastically different than what it was historically. Post-independence, the U.S. took a broadly liberal approach to welcoming newcomers. "Even when it finally adopted some rules in the late 19th century, immigrants were presumed eligible for permanent residence unless the government showed that they fell into specific and usually narrow ineligible categories
This is just ideological bullshit.
The US 'adopted rules' starting in 1790. Specifically - only free whites of good character were allowed in and they were expected - even required - to become naturalized citizens (of the particular state) quickly. Indeed, the colonial era (1773) BAN on naturalization by the colonies themselves was an important enough grievance to make it into the Declaration of Independence - He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands Which is why the US made sure that naturalization was a federal responsibility.
Even so - fewer than 8000 immigrants were admitted each year until 1820. Roughly 0.3% of the natural population growth then. Insignificant. After 1820 the numbers started growing specifically because the US negotiated bilateral agreements with dozens of countries. BILATERAL. Through the State Dept not Congress. Meaning that in principle migration could freely occur in both directions. Wouldn't be a bad principle even now.
Even then however the numbers didn't really ramp up to the point where the US became the migration magnet. Until the various Irish potato failures (annually from 1830 on - and aggressively pushed out from Ireland to the US by the English in the famine years) and the 1848-9 liberal revolutions in Europe.
The reason there were very few federal laws re migration itself is because the STATES controlled the management of that until 1868 (14th Amendment) and 1875 (Chy Lung v Freeman). The feds only controlled ships entering ports - which is how the feds controlled/monitored migration and why the US had passenger lists early (which really is great for genealogy).
There is really something profoundly dishonest or lazy when Cato and its ilk just handwave away what happened because they want to ignore what actually happened. It's based in DC isn't it. Dishonest and lazy.
BILATERAL. … Meaning that in principle migration could freely occur in both directions. Wouldn’t be a bad principle even now.
Yup. And I’ve even said as much. Reason/Cato is barely pro-2A in this country and only pro-1A in other countries when it generally suits their bungling, half-assed, globalist, white supremacist narrative. If Reason/Cato were even remotely, objectively, pro-rights in any other country or around the world, open borders *might* make sense. As it is, it’s very overtly inviting people naive enough to submit to oppression in their own country and/or ignorant enough of history throughout the world to come here and fall for the same statist tricks all over again.
Their takes on Free Trade and cabotage are similarly retarded. Again, I think Remy hit it on the nose when he portrayed the Cheetoh-stained hippy out side a tent city in Seattle saying "... and *that's* how you run a global economy."
Can anyone tell me why "Born in India" is an automatic disqualification in self-sponsorship and employer-sponsored guest visa? I'm having a hard time finding info on that.
So what's the big deal? Every nation on the planet (well, excet a few chaotic violent ones no one would want to live in anyway) have rules and qualification they place on anyonewanting ti immigrate. Coule decades back I got a wild hare and looked into emigraing to New Zealand. Here fill out this quesionnaire. Fine. Aska bunch of questions, honest answers, responses each carry points. If you can't truthfull answer the questions and get a hugh enough score, the answer is NO until you can retake the questionnaire and get a high enough score. Cash money above $100K USD brings some points. $500K brings more than five times as many points. Married and brinigng your spouse helps. Above age forty hurts. Ten years or more in a solid trade helps some but not as much as one would think. Dirty criminal record? Might as well stop there. I could not bring enough money to offset my above forty age status.Andwer was NOPE. Come back with half a $Mil in yer britches.
As it happens I'm really glad I was NOT stuck there when the whole covidiocy hit. Their Premierre was a real dimwit on the whole thing.. sort of like your Great Auntie the spinster al barmy with power and making everyone's life (except for hers, you will understand....) miserable. and I'd have been well and thoroughly ensnared in her lair, unable to escape.
Considering most immigrants are [Na]tional So[zi]alist supporters why would anyone think this is a curse? Is the new policy to let as many Nazi's in as possible?
Maybe the legal option should be for Non-Nazi's to begin with.
The numbers don't make sense! If 1 in 32 mil is not less than 1%...its 3%. Admitably not much diff, but still larger. Also, what's the point of the article...we allow more to come, in order so we can better manage it? That's like making all narcotics legal, so we can cheaper prices for it..ie; better for the consumer.
However, an interesting idea in the comments is to allow citizens to sell thier citizenship to any non-citizen...of course you'd have to keep the privledges to citizenship (or increase them) to make it viable.
That’s like making all narcotics legal, so we can cheaper prices for it.
Well, actually, that is a libertarian argument. So, not inconsistent.
I don't understand this.
You can't always get what you want.
I want a big beach house and a boat. But I can't have it.
If I work for years, I may get it.
You don't just get shit because you want it. And that includes becoming a US citizen.
And you don't get to just take things you want.
What the fuck is wrong with all you people who pretend to be libertarians at Reason?
Is it not libertarian to remove obstacles to people getting the things they want in life when there is no good reason for the obstacles to be there?
But there are good reasons for immigration to be controlled and orderly.
That depends. Is the US government beholden to removing obstacles for foreigners when the reason for the obstacle is to protect Americans?
There may be good reasons to argue about the protectionism. But it is an obscenity to argue that the American government should not be prioritizing the interests of Americans relative to foreigners.
I see a lot of that sort of argument. That immigration is good for the immigrants. Well no fucking duh. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be interested in migrating. That's just proposing a race to the bottom. Our goal is to turn the US into such an ugly shithole that no one will migrate here. That's the point where we can turn off immigration which by then will be imaginary anyway so we won't actually stop anything then either. The perfect libertarian scenario??
If you can't make the case purely on 'is it good for Americans', then STFU. And even then, a purely utilitarian argument (eg assume Koch benefits by $100 billion and every.one else loses $99 billion therefore do it) deliberately undermines self-governance.
Protect some Americans. For others, who want to hire an immigrant, or being family members or friends here, or have other reasons for wanting to bring an immigrant here it is the opposite of their interests being protected.
It is protection of a special interest group, and dubious if there really is such a threatened demographic, and if so whether they are really being protected or
need protection.
STFU
So, it boils down to don’t question your authority on the matter.
Here’s an idea. Why don’t we remove all the unnecessary obstacles in government that are plaguing US citizens in our country before we prioritize the needs of foreigners?
Is it not libertarian to remove obstacles
There ARE no 'obstacles'.
The US is willing to accept X number of immigrants a year. Nothing says we have to accept more.
We take in what we're comfortable with. I don't care how much you like my shit, if I say you can't have it, my owning it isn't an 'obstacle'. It's just how things are.
I say we should up the limits and admit more. It would be good for the country.
This country is not “your shit”.
It’s our country. The government isn’t here to serve the needs of foreigners. It costs to serve US citizens. As a democrat, I know that concept is anathema to you, but we’re right and you’re wrong.
The legal limits are what they are. You are welcome to vote or pursue political office to change that. If you can't have your way, tough luck. I disagree with the majority of the decisions made by government at all levels. That's the way it goes with a representative republic. If you don't like it, you are free to try to change the system within the confines of the law, start an armed revolt, more to another country that does things the way you want, or move to another country and try to change it legally or illegally. Whining that you are right about whatever policy course without justification will change exactly zero minds.
I am for allowing existing citizens to sell their citizenship and leave. We have plenty of useless Americans that could be traded for foreigners with a desire to succeed.
Let me see if I have this right, Fiona…it seems like you’re arguing that because it’s so difficult to come here legally, people have to break the law to come here…and the best solution to keep people from having to break the law is to liberalize our laws so they can come here legally. Is that about it?
Gee, what a novel argument. We have laws against shoplifting to keep people from taking something that doesn’t belong to them. But shoplifting laws force people who want to take something that’s not theirs to break the law. Ergo, we should get rid of shoplifting laws so we’d have fewer lawbreakers. Brilliant!
Well, the shoplifting analogy is playing out in real time right now in select cities of the US.
It’s going great! Lol.
That’s leftist thinking for you.
Huh? Why did you start go off on a tangent of talking about shoplifting, a clearly criminal activity with no upside for humanity, instead of immigration, a complex issue with upsides and downsides for various people?
Huh? Why did you start go off on a tangent of talking about shoplifting, a clearly criminal activity with no upside for humanity, instead of immigration, a complex issue with upsides and downsides for various people?
Let's call it 'unmoneyed shopping' then, so you can understand that labeling a crime not a crime doesn't actually make the crime not a crime.
If someone decides to go shopping without money because they don't have any money that still increases demand for the products they shop for without money. People get paid to make those products and the economy booms.
So shopping without money is an overall good.
Just like immigrating without documentation, or undocumented immigration.
See how I made both things sound like they're perfectly legal?
Now we can call all the victims bigots if they try to object to having their stuff stolen.
You’re still talking about shoplifting, with a little cartoonish portrayal of immigration tacked on the end.
You keep going on and on about immigration being criminal while I am talking about changing the laws for legal immigration. Where does illegality even enter a conversation about changing the laws?
It’s an analogy you ducking Marxist retard. Your idiocy is almost as excruciating as Groomer Jeffy’s.
Hey lefty's like Laursen - since the right is all bigots and whites hate everyone. How many immigrants have you taken in? You know to support to they find their way?
NY complaining about illegal immigrants...such a white area.
What about other sanctuary cities? They must have jobs if there is such a massive worker shortage.
It's all talk until it affects you. Go live on the border and than talk.
Mike would never do that. Like all democrats, he’s a hypocritical piece of shit.
It's tough to get into the US? Well, boo hoo. Why should it be easy? Try getting into Australia, mate. If all those people are so valuable, why don't they stay home and contribute to their own culture? If they're all such geniuses and hard workers, why is their native country going down the tubes? Just because a big green statue in a New York City (New York City!!) harbor sez gimme your wretched refuse doesn't mean we have to accept it.
"The Vast Majority of People Who Want To Immigrate to the U.S. Have No Legal Option"
No one has a right to emigrate to the US, or any other country for that matter; this is where Fiona fails to make an argument. So the title is correct, few have the option to enter.
Now let's stop rewarding those who bust through the border with their first act on US soil being illegal entry.
I am definitely against people looking for illegal ways to enter the country. It seems to me that normal people adequately perceive their value as a citizen. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur, but there are also more relaxed options that slavic brides are already using - https://uadates.com/slavic-brides.html This has already become a pattern in part (like Thai wives). But this way really works)) So you shouldn't talk about the lack of opportunities.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM