The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Cato's Green Card Game Dramatizes the Incredible Difficulty of Legal Immigration
The game enables you to develop a would-be immigrant character with a wide range of possible characteristics and see whether you can get him or her admitted into the United States.
In June, I wrote about a Cato Institute study outlining how legal immigration into the United States is nearly impossible for the vast majority of those who want it. Now, Cato has introduced its Green Card Game, which makes this point in a different way, and enables people to interactively explore how the US immigration system works. Cato Institute immigration analyst Alex Nowrasteh explains the game and the rationale for it:
Today the Cato Institute released The Green Card Game, a free online interactive game where players attempt to go through the legal immigration system. Click on the link to play. After you click on the link, you select an avatar, enter a name, and choose your biographical information, which includes your occupation, country of birth, and other characteristics.
You can even ask the game to auto-populate a random biography. The game uses your entered information to create a passport for your character. Then you are ready to start answering questions to attempt to immigrate to the United States legally…..
The Green Card Game is an unusual product for the Cato Institute, but we decided to take a chance and make it for several reasons. First, we hypothesize that many people oppose immigration liberalization because they don't know how complex and restrictive the immigration system is. Many years ago, I spoke to a conservative audience in Arizona about immigration. Afterward, an elderly woman asked, "I understand the benefits of immigration, but why don't the illegals just go to the Post Office to register and become legal? What are they hiding?"
Those questions are reasonable if you know nothing about the legal immigration system. Her question was spurned by ignorance, not by malice. As a result, we've identified ignorance of the actual laws as a significant problem in liberalizing immigration. Just imagine how hard it would be to talk about tax policy with someone who doesn't know that the U.S. has an income tax or even what it is. That's about where we are in terms of the immigration debate. Our game will teach people some of the basic facts so we can then have a better discussion.
Second, gamification can enhance learning. We produce great policy research at Cato, but only some people want to read blog posts, research papers, listen to an event with experts, delve into policy podcasts, or enjoy our other scholarly content. Some people, even members of Congress, want to learn on the go, and a game like this is a great way to learn that the legal immigration system is complex and restrictive….
Alex also gives some useful suggestions on how to play:
There are several ways to play The Green Card Game. For American players, I recommend starting by playing as yourself. Create a character with your age, education level, occupation, income, savings, and family with one critical change: Choose to be from another country. Many of us won the birth lottery by being born in the United States. See if you could have come here legally if you lost that lottery, but all else remained the same.
Another way to play is to enter the name of an ancestor. Pick a relative when they immigrated to the United States and choose their level of education, occupation, and country of origin. If they're from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, you've got a choice of countries. See if your ancestor could come to the United States legally today.
You could also play as a living immigrant family member or friend. Enter their biographical information best as possible and get a sense of what they went through to come here. At a minimum, it will give you a new respect for what they went through to become an American. You could even share the game with them to see if you could conjure any memories in them.
If you already have a strong opinion about immigration policy, try to create an immigrant character whom you think should be admitted or who absolutely should NOT be admitted. See if you can guide this individual through the legal immigration system. Use the result as evidence for whichever position you hold.
Relatedly, recreate the biographies of exceptional immigrant individuals like Andrew Carnegie, Katalin Karikó, Albert Einstein, Geisha Williams, John von Neumann, Qian Xuesen, Oscar de la Renta, or others to see whether they'd be able to immigrate legally. Some of them may be able to. Others wouldn't. You could also choose the "stereotypical" immigrant from your perspective, especially an illegal immigrant, and see if that person can come legally. You'll quickly understand why people pay smugglers to cross deserts instead of wasting their time on a legal system that often prevents them from even applying in the first place.
As noted in my post on the previous Cato study, ignorance of current law is far from the only reason for opposition to immigration. If you're a committed restrictionist on the grounds that immigrants damage the economy, undermine political institutions, or degrade American culture, you might even come away from the game happy to know that immigration is far more difficult than you might have previously thought. Nowrasteh and and I have addressed many of these issues in various books and articles. But they can't be resolved merely by understanding how the current immigration regime works.
But understanding the daunting nature of the legal immigration system does undercut oft-heard arguments that would-be immigrants should just "get in line" or "wait their turn." For many, there is no line available or their "turn" will never come. The earlier Cato study and the Green Card Game also highlight the irrational and inconsistent nature of many immigration rules.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No
In my case, it was 1644 so don’t try to guilt trip me….
I saw that movie in the 1980s. Matthew Broderick, right? “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
Close, 1991, “T2”
“It is in your nature to destroy yourselves”
“Guten Tag, My Name Moe-hammad Atta I have Engineering Degree from Hamburg Polytechnic Institute, I wish to obtain US Green Card to train for Air Transport Pilot Certificate in order to die for Caliphate and usher in a world without Infidels, I mean to become high earning Airline Pilot”
Let’s have a policy of “no negotiating with terrorists”…except if they ask to be let in the cockpit then it is fine to negotiate with them. 😉
No, Frank, the quote is from the movie War Games and spoken by the computer (WOPR, aka “Joshua”) after they essentially crash it by putting it into an endless loop by playing tic tac toe against itself.
That was back in the ’80s when you could actually slow down computers…
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s93KC4AGKnY
You are really bad at this. They were not “crashing” WOPR by having it play tic-tac-toe; they were teaching WOPR that there are no-win games.
“legal immigration into the United States is nearly impossible for the vast majority of those who want it”
Owning a Lamborghini is nearly impossible for the vast majority of those who want one, too. Simply stating reality doesn’t make something a public policy problem that needs to be addressed. Furthermore, it’s only examining the issue from the perspective of the immigrant. What role do the American people have in Ilya’s ideal reality? Maybe the vast majority of people who want to immigrate to the United States are undesirable by the vast majority of citizens here.
Yup. How popular is the position that anybody who wants to come to the US should be able to? Is that a mainstream position on the left?
That strikes me as a more or less “open borders” type position, which many people on the left claim to be opposed to.
There is quite a gap between “it should be easier for immigrants to come to the US” and “anyone who wants to come to the US should be able to.”
…and Mayorkas is trying his best do fulfill that second part.
Yeah, that’s kinda my point.
I suppose my point is that most people on the left seem to have the position that “it should be easier for immigrants to come to the US,” which is then usually portrayed by people on the right as the straw man of “anyone who wants to come to the US should be able to.” This happens here in the comments to almost every single Ilya Somin post, even when it has nothing to do with immigration.
But I think you are right, and most people on all sides of the political spectrum are against completely open borders. I don’t read Prof. Somin as arguing for that position either, but perhaps Brett is right and I’m wrong on that point.
Ilya has argued that the government has no authority to regulate immigration. Sounds open-borderish to me…
If anybody could express what limitation on immigration they’d approve of, perhaps the assumption that there is no limitation they’d not complain about would cease to be.
They are lying about what Illya said.
His article dissects several arguments made for restricting international migration and found those arguments flawed. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe there aren’t other valid arguments. To wit, from the article:
“Ultimately, I do not claim that international migration rights can never be restricted for any reason. Even the right to freedom of movement within national borders is not absolute, and some extreme circumstances can justify restricting international movement, as well. Rather, I make the more modest, but still significant, claim that freedom of movement should not be restricted based on claims of self-determination.”
It’s like saying Twelve advocates for no immigrants. That would be a lie, presumably, he is in favor of some immigration. Although, to use his own metric, maybe we should assume he wants no immigration unless he specifies precisely how much immigration he believes should be allowed.
Illya is on well on the pro-immigration side of the spectrum, but it’s just a lie to say he is pro-open borders, unless by that term you mean something other than, well, open borders.
IIUC Ilya Somin quite openly supports open borders.
But for those who don’t, even if we significantly increase the number of immigrants who are allowed to come here legally to something below “open borders” levels, we still have to tell aspiring immigrants to get in a line that they may never get to the front of, correct?
Yes, but as the chance for any particular aspiring immigrant approaches zero, at some point you do indeed “negate the claim that people who want to come here should do so legally.” It would be like claiming that anyone who wants to be rich should purchase mega millions tickets.
As for Prof. Somin and open borders, a quote or cite from his many posts here to back up your claim would be helpful.
sure.
More like claiming that someone who wants to be a billionaire should earn a billion dollars.
Some resources are constrained to the point where not everyone who wants them can have them.
And IIUC, most people who support more liberal immigration policies still oppose policies where everyone who wants to come is able to.
So even if you support tripling the number of immigrants allowed to come here, you’re still in the position of telling people to come here legally, when they may never be able to do so.
Thank you, I’m looking forward to reading it all when I have time. But this sentence is in the second paragraph of the introduction:
“Expanded migration rights can enable many more people to exercise political freedom by choosing which government they wish to live under.”
Expanded migration rights isn’t necessarily the same as open borders. Perhaps this is fleshed out in the article.
As for the rest, I do understand your point, you’ve made it a few times here. But my only point is that if/when it becomes virtually impossible for a prospective immigrant to come here legally, it makes no sense to say to him “if you want to come here, you have to do so legally.” And the game only demonstrates that it is getting to that point, for any particular prospective immigrant. The game doesn’t seem to be intended to show that this is a good thing or a bad thing, just a thing. Of course, we know that Prof. Somin thinks it’s a bad thing.
There’s also a big gap to “free healthcare for illegal aliens” or “it should be easier for immigrants to come to the US and get welfare” but the gap is well bridged.
“Is that a mainstream position on the left?”
No *wink*
One of those, “That’s Not Happening. And It’s Good That It Is.”
Indeed.
This is a really nice analogy. Everyone may want a Lamborghini. Not everyone can have one though. Just because I want a Lamborghini, doesn’t mean I can automatically get one legally. I mean, there are reasons that everyone just can’t have a (free) Lamborghini.
Maybe you inherit a Lamborghini from your parents. Sure, you lucked out. Other people inherited a Honda or Ferrari, and you didn’t. That’s “not fair”. You want a Ferrari. But it’s hard to get. And you just have a Lamborghini.
But maybe it’s OK if you steal a Lamborghini. What’s wrong with that? Except that makes it harder for other people to get a Lamborghini in the future. People who have been waiting for one, which you just stole.
You are really bad at analogies. Probably why you are all armchair and no lawyer.
And that doesn’t mean that you get to steal someone else’s Lamborghini…
Wish Somin would stop conflating legal immigration with illegal immigration.
I don’t think the majority of Americans oppose legal immigration but do oppose the lack of enforcement of current immigration laws which results in hordes of illegal aliens, visa over-stayers, false asylum claims and abuse of work visas.
Yes, and somehow thousands of foreign students each year figure out how to navigate the system, and many are able to legally remain after their studies. A bureaucratic mess does not excuse those who deal with obvious criminal cartels to violate a national border, and it is difficult to find another government which cares so little about border incursions.
JFC. You people have nothing but talking points. You see the word immigration and you spout out your nonsense, without ever reading the rest.
The entire point is that it’s not something that can just be “figured out.” The vast majority of people have no possible way to get admitted legally. The post expressly points that out, and your response is “Why can’t they just figure it out”?
Meanwhile, we get from others the talking point, “stop conflating legal and illegal immigration,” which has literally nothing to do with this post, as well as the canard “most Americans don’t oppose legal immigration,” which they absolutely do which is why every time Prof. Somin proposes making legal immigration easier for anyone, people throw a tantrum and chant “Open Borders Open Borders.”
Hell, here, the post didn’t advocate anything about immigration policy — it’s about informing people what that policy is — and we still get TiP chanting “Open borders.”
“Hell, here, the post didn’t advocate anything about immigration policy — it’s about informing people what that policy is — and we still get TiP chanting “Open borders.””
The post claims that the fact that most people who want to come here legally are unable to do so undermines the claim that people who want to come here should do so legally.
As I pointed out, that only makes sense of you assume that most people who want to come here legally should be allowed to do so.
That’s a fine position if you want to take it and defend it, as Ilya does, but my understanding is that most people, even pro-immigration folks, disavow that position. As you appear to be doing.
No; it makes sense if you assume that people who say that they’re not opposed to immigration actually mean it.
Here’s the issue. Let’s say you’re not opposed to immigration. But you just don’t want “unlimited immigration”.
Say 100,000,000 people want to immigrate to the US. That’s a lot. A real lot. (But reasonable based on polling) Perhaps you think that just 1,000,000 a year is more reasonable.
1,000,000 is still a pretty big number. Especially if you consider it’s every single year. But, even so, that’s “just” 1% of potential immigrants getting in.
Basing support for immigration on the % of immigrants who “want to get in” as opposed to the % of immigrants compared to the native population is a poor thing to do.
You assume for no reason that any easier policy has to be percentage based. Or care at all about demand, much less your made up demand.
The entire OP is about the number of people we let in, relative to demand.
Sarcastro will typically deliberately mis-state whatever you write. I’ve given up on him.
Let’s say you only want to let in X people per year. Is the country well served by having the primary filter be how good you are at navigating needlessly complicated paperwork? That seems like a pretty dumb filter for me.
That’s why the point of this game is fairly orthogonal to what you think the right immigration policy should be, because it exposes that whatever our policy preferences might be, they’re not actually the way we’re screening people today.
The paperwork isn’t actually that complicated. It’s relatively simple…easier than taxes in many cases. But, the tax analogy is a good one.
The paperwork is designed to apply the multitude of preferences for people we are looking for. We for example don’t want a terrorist to immigrate. So we ask the question “are you a terrorist”. Likewise, we don’t want people engaged in child prostitution to immigrate. So we ask questions like that.
There are other questions about income and such because we want people who immigrate here to not instantly just go on welfare. That’s unhelpful, as compared to someone who can contribute.
There’s no “point system” or anything else like that (like there is in other countries). And we have a strong preference for families and reuniting them, which is different from most other countries. (Whether you agree with that preference or not is different).
” Is the country well served by having the primary filter be how good you are at navigating needlessly complicated paperwork?”
Look, I helped my wife navigate that paperwork, so I’m not going to argue that it isn’t needlessly complicated, (Though that can be exaggerated, it wasn’t THAT hard to get through it without legal assistance.) and a bit obscure. And stupid things like, “We raised the fee by $2 while you were filling out the forms, so we’ll spend $5 mailing them back to you by the slowest means available so that you can send them back again with a slightly larger check.” (Yeah, literally happened to us; The US embassy gave us a handout with the fee schedule, didn’t mention it was going up in a couple weeks.)
But the forms were probing legitimate issues in a needlessly difficult way, and for almost everybody who’s kept out, it wasn’t the complexity that kept them out. It was failing the criteria, and/or the annual quota being filled.
And, honestly? The complexity of the paperwork might also be functioning as an informal IQ/literacy test, so, hey, maybe it’s not that objectionable.
“for almost everybody who’s kept out, it wasn’t the complexity that kept them out. It was failing the criteria, and/or the annual quota being filled.“
Isn’t the point of the exercise that that’s not true? That it is indeed the complexity?
Where does your sudden faith in the system come from?
How does that warrant the idea that Brett has “faith in the system”?
He says the forms were probing legitimate issues and might also be an IQ test.
He is defending the current policy.
Somewhere above I said that this isn’t the immigration policy I’d favor, and a lot of the complexity is unnecessary. I’d prefer a “skim the cream” system simple enough that most people in the world could verify in five minutes that they didn’t qualify, and go on with their lives without wasting time.
I think the only basis on which the complexity is defensible is as a sort of ad hoc IQ test, and I’d prefer a real one.
No, the point of the exercise was to demonstrate that it’s difficult for a random person to successfully immigrate.
It’s like winning the lottery. It’s not hard to fill out the ticket. It’s just the chance of being selected may be low.
I think you’re more correct about the point of the Cato exercise, but in terms of the actual immigration system, it’s both: it’s hard for a random person to successfully immigrate and minor paperwork issues can derail even people who otherwise could be lawfully admitted.
The paperwork issues can be corrected.
Yes, there’s paperwork involved in immigration. Also, in getting a passport. Also in taxes. Also in getting a business license.
Paperwork is a way of life. Simply because people can’t fill out a passport form correctly, that doesn’t justify them obtaining a fake passport instead.
“Isn’t the point of the exercise that that’s not true? That it is indeed the complexity?”
If that were the point of the exercise, the exercise would be fraudulent, because the complexity is moderate. The biggest problem in my experience wasn’t doing what was needed, it was finding out what you needed to do.
But for most people outside the US, it doesn’t matter if you hire an immigration attorney to do the paperwork for you, because most people either don’t qualify, or are in excess of immigration quotas.
And complexity has nothing to do with that.
“No; it makes sense if you assume that people who say that they’re not opposed to immigration actually mean it.”
Huh? Lots of people support a significant amount of immigration, and also don’t think that everyone who wants to come here legally should be able to. So it’s perfectly consistent for people, including those who support lots of immigration, to say, well, get in line, and if you never get your turn, so be it.
Out of curiosity how many immigrants should the USA allow in per year? Currently it’s over one million per year which works out to about the same population as New York City every eight years. How many more do you believe we need to allow in per year?
Operation Wet Back 2!!!
This time with live fire, eh you nativist psycho?
Not going to let people forget what you stand for.
Many of the people here who say they only oppose illegal immigration also oppose making it easier for people to immigrate here legally. In other words, they are opposed to the vast majority of people who want to come to the United States immigrating here legally.
To the extent “making it easier” means “dramatically increasing the authorized number per year,” absolutely.
And as demonstrated by the busing wars over the past year or so, that’s actually a sentiment shared across the political spectrum once we move past political platitudes and the rubber truly meets the road.
I’m responding to someone who claims people are only opposed to illegal immigration and not legal immigration. Many people here are also opposed to much of the desired legal immigration.
It scarcely proves hypocrisy on the part of people opposed to bank robbery, that they also don’t think banks should hand out free money to anybody who walks in the door. Even though that theoretically would mean that there’d be no more “bank robberies”.
Brett once again failing to understand the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum.
Maybe he likes a challenge.
It hardly proves hypocrisy on the part of people opposed to tax evasion, that they also don’t think that people shouldn’t have to pay taxes.
Better?
Oh, I understand it, but not being able to immigrate here isn’t a criminal penalty. (Usually.) It’s just not being extended a privilege you had no actual right to in the first place.
So the categories, which I understand quite well, are simply inapplicable.
Everybody except those who support largely open borders is opposed to much of the desired legal immigration.
That’s the view in some portions of America . . . but not the educated, inclusive, modern, accomplished, reality-based, skilled, worthwhile areas.
People in the educated, inclusive, modern, accomplished, reality-based, skilled, worthwhile areas of the US don’t support largely open borders, but also don’t oppose much immigration?
How many illegals are you sharing your digs with, Artie? How many low-income housing units on your block? In your neighborhood?
As I noted above, busing a mere handful of illegals to a number of self-proclaimed sanctuary cities aptly demonstrated how the bleeding hearts lose their religion immediately upon having to personally bear the consequences of their virtue-signaling policies.
I am not in the market for pointers from old-timey culture war casualties and racist right-wing xenophobes. You vote for the policies you support; I will watch my preferences continue to prevail in the modern American culture war.
You get to whine about it as much as you like, of course — so long as you continue to comply with the preferences of the liberal-libertarian mainstream, the culture war’s victors.
Wait, is it the preference of the liberal-libertarian mainstream, the culture war’s victors, that the vast majority if the people who wish to immigrate legally to the US be unable to do so?
I doubt it. That group tends not to include our remaining supply of xenophobes and racists.
So it’s that group that’s whining about having to comply with the preferences of … who?
Ah, the Rev and his word salads of empty, bigoted comebacks. ……
Thanks for the unneeded confirmation, Artie, that you’re cut from exactly the same NIMBY-drenched, externality-dependent, hypocritical cloth as your “sanctuary city” ilk.
Put your money where your mouth is, and I just might begin to consider giving half a rat’s ass about any moral high ground you might allege to occupy. Snowball’s chance in hell, &c. TTFN.
Like Martha’s Vinyard???
“In other words, they are opposed to the vast majority of people who want to come to the United States immigrating here legally.”
Well, how many people do you think should be allowed to come here legally? Should it be based on the number of people who want to come here, or something else?
So how many immigrants should the USA allow in per year? Currently it’s over one million per year. That works out to more people than in 40 of the 50 states every decade. Give an approximate number please.
In the context of a population of 330 million an annual immigration of one million would constitute a rounding error.
A million sounds like a big number. When I was a newspaper editor an intern generated a headline concerning a defense appropriations bill that included “$__ Million.” Reviewing the page proof, I asked the intern to check the headline; the intern observed no problem. “Should that be $___Billion?” I asked. The 20-year-old college student understandably couldn’t recognize much difference between “Million” and “Billion” in that headline — both were huge numbers, difficult to grasp. Rent at that time was probably 90 dollars each month. A McDonald’s hamburger might have been 35 cents. Plenty of people lived on $5,000 a year. The population likely was barely more than 200 million.
Even today, a million can seem a nearly unthinkably large number. In this context, though, it is not. Not nearly.
So answer the question. How many should we allow in per year? If over 1 million per year isn’t enough is 2 million? 3 million? 10 million? Simply saying “more than now” isn’t really an answer. Give me a general idea of how many per year you believe we should allow in.
Yes. We’re full. Most of America now has awful traffic, high housing costs, and just feels “crowded.” Most people don’t want to make the problem worse so that Marxists can pat themselves on the back or so that big corporations can get cheap labor.
Once you get outside the cities even California is wide open, I spent a month in Bishop CA one day.
That’s true, but, for better or for worse, that’s not where people want to live in modern America. Most of our population is clustered around the cities.
If we weren’t dealing with the problems of being flooded with illegal immigrants, we’d have the time and resources to deal with problems in the legal immigration system. Easy to sit up cozy in an ivory tower and a non-border state while you complain.
“This game is fixed!!!”
Why appeal to the public to remedy ills created by laws enacted by Congress whose members are well aware of the effects of the laws?
Have copies been provided to members of Congress?
Is the suggestion that laws disliked by some but left in place by Congress can be ignored, avoided, circumvented?
Does the game include chutes for the miscreants? Or, housing and work for all?
Um, because that’s how democracy works?
Do you have an example of law enacted within the last 12 months at the initiative of the Public”? No donor, party influence?
Donors aren’t members of the public?
“Create a character with your age, education level, occupation, income, savings, and family with one critical change: Choose to be from another country.”
How about TWO critical changes: You’re from another country, and that’s the country you’re trying to get into. Or, you’re from THIS country, and trying to get into a different country?
Don’t you ever get tired of demanding that people treat citizens and non-citizens as legally indistinguishable? Claiming that, if an American is entitled to be in the US, everybody else in the world must be, too?
Sure, it can be hard to get things you’re not entitled to get. You have to actually convince the people in charge of them to give them to you, when they’re not yours by right. Is this a novel concept for you?
Almost like access to girl’s and women’s bodies.
Another knee-jerk comment that doesn’t bother to respond to the post, which is not about “treat[ing] citizens and non-citizens as legally indistinguishable” at all.
No, it damned well IS about treating us the same. One of the premier privileges of citizenship is the absolute right to be IN a country. Everybody else is only in a country by that country’s sufferance.
The fact that you probably couldn’t qualify to immigrate here, or at least not promptly, if you weren’t already a citizen, isn’t an issue because If you weren’t already a citizen you’d not be ENTITLED to immigrate here!
Somin wants to erase the foremost distinction between citizens and non-citizens, that only the former actually have any legal right to be in the country.
We should hire the head of green cards of Qatar and have him develop our system.
Let me slow this down for you, Brett.
As others have supplied, the requirements for legal immigration are ostensibly intended to select for immigrants that we want here. They represent, from a public policy perspective, the sort of person we, as a society, have decided we want more of.
Thus, when it turns out that you are not the sort of person who can immigrate into this country legally, because you are not the sort of person we want more of – it might lead one to question the standards we’ve incorporated into our immigration policy. Perhaps it might lead someone such as yourself to think that our standards are too high, or too strict, since you no doubt think you’re a valuable contribution to our society.
Yes; it’s quite telling that people like Brett are afraid that simply teaching people how hard it is to immigrate here will cause them to think that it should be easier to immigrate here.
No, the requirements for legal immigration are not intended to select for immigrants that we want here, because the political system is broken. Most people support immigration based on needed skills. Our current system prioritizes “family reunification.” Most people don’t think that bringing in hordes of adult cousins and other unskilled people who are eligible for goodies is good for America.
The family reunification process, which most non-sociopaths approve of, does not allow anyone to bring in “adult cousins.” This, like the notion of “anchor babies,” is pure ignorance (though in the case of someone like hoppy, maliciousness as well). It’s a long process even for immediate relatives, let alone for family preference admissions,
Not that that would be bad. It’s better to allow people who already have ties to the country to come.
No, most people, including non-sociopaths do not think one Somali who wins the diversity lottery VISA should be allowed to sponsor 20 relatives.
I’ve never read him to be advocating that position, and he certainly doesn’t do it in this post.
No, it isn’t. The post is about a ‘game’ that educates people about how the immigration process works. It is not about advocating for treating anyone in any particular way.
Setting aside everything else wrong with your comment, this is utterly incoherent. If you were already a citizen you wouldn’t be entitled to immigrate here. American citizens can’t immigrate to the United States.
As someone who did immigrate here and become a US citizen, I am not sure what point you’re trying to make. That immigration is selective and hard for those who may want to seek it and it will disqualify many who might want to? This is not an earth-shattering revelation.
People aren’t entitled to immigrate anywhere. The USA makes it no more difficult than a lot of places. I’d like to know, exactly, what policy Somin thinks we should have. Complaining about difficulties in immigration without expressing why other than “people should be allowed to come here for…reasons” is not a very productive discussion.
I mean, the whole point is that it is an earth-shattering revelation to many. The reason many people are so resentful of illegal immigration is because they think that people are ‘cutting in line’ instead of waiting their turn. They don’t understand that there is no “their turn” for most of those people, that those people will never get admitted. One can say “Too bad so sad” if one wants, but at least that should be an informed position.
No, it’s only line jumping for the people who would have qualified. It’s theft of the privilege of being here, whether or not you’d have been legally gifted that privilege if you’d waited.
Theft of something you adamantly claim no one is entitled to? Of something that is not a zero sum thing? Of something that is neither property nor service?
1. Theft of something that you’re not entitled to, but may or may not be given at the grace of the host country? Sure, why not.
2. Who says it’s not zero sum thing? The resources consumed by immigrants are zero-sum. And in any event, try stealing a book from the bookstore, leaving a dollar on the table for printing costs, and telling them that what you stole wasn’t zero-sum?
3. It’s a limited resource that could go to someone else.
“Theft of something you adamantly claim no one is entitled to..”
It’s a privilege the public through the law has a right to offer and the right to decline. It is theft of privilege in that manner.
“The reason many people are so resentful of illegal immigration is because they think that people are ‘cutting in line’ instead of waiting their turn. They don’t understand that there is no “their turn” for most of those people, that those people will never get admitted. One can say “Too bad so sad” if one wants, but at least that should be an informed position.”
What makes you think it isn’t? As I said, the vast majority of people claim to be opposed to “open borders” which means that they understand that many people who want to come here will never be allowed to.
I mean, do you think Dale Carpenter didn’t understand that the people cutting ahead of him in line for the DOMA argument wouldn’t have been admitted if they’d gotten in the back of the line?
It’s a “game” that leaves out one of the major ways of “winning.” Having family in the country.
It’s like having an simulation of a game of football, and leaving out the concept of a touchdown.
If there is anything the can’t-keep-up conservatives attracted to a white, male, faux libertarian blog can’t abide, it is some genuinely libertarian content.
Quick! Another transgender sorority-drag queen-Muslim-transgender parenting-Black crime-lesbian-transgender restroom-white grievance-gay post, before the target audience gets too restive!
…and what keeps you attracted?
Calling a bigot a bigot is a noble and important endeavor. This blog offers a remarkable concentration of our society’s vestigial bigots — the Republican racists, superstitious gay-bashers, conservative misogynists, right-wing antisemites, half-educated Islamophobes, un-American immigrant-haters, obsolete white nationalists, etc.
At the marketplace of ideas, clingers deserve no free swings.
Then me calling you a bigot is therefore noble.
“clingers deserve no free swings.”
Says the biggest clinger of them all. When’s the last time you actually typed up an argument rather than a string of ineffective low grade venom?
Playing around with generated images of refugees and immigrates, the image generator can really put the “alien” into illegal alien.
https://stablediffusionweb.com/#demo
My suggestion.
Congress enact a law requiring every college and university which receives any government funding must house, feed, educate, train and ensure hiring of immigrants legal or not so that 100% of immigrants are accepted. Allocation to schools shall be in proportion to total amount of each school’s most recently reported endowment fund without deduction for special bequests, chairs, athletic, building or other programs. Housing, food, education, training and placement may not be subcontracted to third parties.
Is there anything else about modern America — other than immigrants, education, modernity, the liberal-libertarian mainstream, and the “elite” — that bothers you?
The triggered Rev is going off again.
Sounds like useful exercise in appreciating need for reform and simplification of legal immigration system, but too often immigration reform advocates undermine themselves by excusing illegal immigration.
How about a game where you try and become a citizen of, say, Switzerland or New Zealand?
Good point. Many nations we consider to be open have capital requirements for immigration far beyond the US, recognizing immigration as tool for national interests rather than mere charity.
Suddenly we should take into account what other countries do? How about capital punishment, or abortion, or single payer healthcare?
We generally don’t have the ability to change the laws of Switzerland or New Zealand. We can attempt to persuade Americans to vote for representatives who will change the laws in the United States.
That implies that there should be a change. No one seems to discuss what those changes should be or that they should automatically be a “all comers” type situation. From what I’ve seen, Americans don’t want open borders or EU style freedom of movement across them.
There is quite enough immigration to the U.S. currently, more than any place or time in the history of the world.
Immigration is a good thing, but everything in moderation, as the saying goes. We could do with taking a few years off at this point.
Actually we did that at the exact wrong time under Trump—we need more workers now. And the last time we cut immigration big time was in the 1920s.
Are you saying the almost total restrictions on immigration from 1924 to 1965 was a bad thing? How would a flood of immigrants during the depression and dust bowl have helped America?
All the people of the world should assemble at Woodstock for a giant music festival and what happens after can be figured out later.
Now do starting and legally running a business. Americans have a right to try to make a living. Immigrating isn’t a right.
Are you under the impression that Cato does not advocate for eliminating rules impeding the formation and operation of businesses?
Cato seems very focused on delivering unearned gifts to non-Americans and not very focused on securing Americans’ economic rights.
Almost as if they’re doing the bidding of their giant corporate paymasters who benefit from cheaper, more abundant imported talent. At the same time those billionaire corporate donors may face headwinds if Americans are able to start a competitive business.
I can see how someone less aware of his surroundings than Helen Keller might think that.
Once a pompous ass hat always a pompous ass hat.
I didn’t win the birth lottery by being born to millionaires either, but I don’t see Ilya trying to give me the millions of dollars that could’ve been my birthright. All the talk about the birth lottery of being born in America is nonsense. People are born in different circumstances. That’s called life. It would be physically impossible for everyone to live in the US, so stop acting like it’s some kind of defect to be born somewhere else.
Did you read that NYTimes article about the Canadians switched at birth?? I kept having to reread it because the guy that had an awful childhood that almost killed him and ending up in foster care ended up being very successful. The guy who grew up in loving household ended up in a “modest” home.
I was born in Canada and came to the USA at 24. Later qualified to become a permanent resident and, after 17 years of navigating the US immigration system, became a US citizen.
I wonder how many people consider me defective for following the process as prescribed? Yes, I got lucky but I also brought enough to the table to have the USA let me in. If there is one thing I’ve learned over the years is immigration is a privilege, not an entitlement or a right by mere desire. And no nation in the world has a limitless immigration system. They all have rules on who they let in to stay among them and make the place their “home”.
I do not understand this fixation on the USA as some kind of evil place for doing the same. The US immigration system is actually very generous in that regard. Lots of paths, lots of options. Far more than my birth country of Canada, that’s for sure! No one put out a Canadian version of the CATO game because it would flat out reject 70% of the people who started it.
And I didn’t get anything by virtue of immigrating except opportunity. Which I grabbed at with both hands. I won the lottery all right but it was the American Dream lottery.
“I do not understand this fixation on the USA as some kind of evil place for doing the same.”
That’s from people who don’t like America. Many of them don’t like Americans either.
Mexico can favor Mexicans. Canada can favor Canadians. Japan can favor Japanese. Every country can favor their own. They all have a right to their own choices and their own cultural prerogative. (And obviously their governments make policy for their own people.) Americans get condemned for it — by people who don’t like Americans.
This comment reminds me of people who think that we ought to reduce foreign aid from the 25% of the budget that they think it currently is. 70%? The U.S. blocks a much higher percentage than that. Canada’s immigration rules are far more generous than those of the U.S.
Good! so go to effing Canada
Look into them more closely. I have. When I say that it rejects 70% of those who apply outright, I’m not kidding. Worse, Canada makes would-be immigrants compete among themselves to determine who they let it. And unlike academic grading, there is no subjectivity or grading on a curve. They draw a line through the list and only take the top third. One CRS point off and you don’t go to Canada.
Oh and PS…the USA admits more immigrants in absolute numbers than any other country in the world. Canada has limited work visa options, limited family sponsoring, you can’t bring your parents in by virtue of being Canadian except in very limited numbers drawn by lottery, there is no DV Lottery, there is no special classes of immigration for national interest or outstanding ability. There sure as Hell is no tolerance for unlawful presence or illegal working and you can’t claim asylum at the Canadian border by virtue of getting there due to the US-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement.
We won’t even get into stuff like educational equivalency or professional qualifications or odious stuff like “Canadian Experience” that requires immigrants to work menial jobs or roles until they are deemed sufficiently acclimated to Canadian cultural norms to allow them advancement. Employers will decide when you’ve “fit in” enough. There is no equivalent to that in the USA. I speak from experience on that one.
So I think you ought to think again about Canada being more generous. Because, I assure you, it is not.
Oh and by the way, the USA admits more immigrants in absolute numbers than any other country in the world.
It should be easier to immigrate to the US legally. And we should change the law to allow that right after we expel most illegal aliens and strengthen border enforcement to prevent still more illegal immigration.
So, in playing the “game” it’s a bit broken for a few reasons.
1. One of the major ways to immigrate into the US is to have a family relation here. That’s very different from many other countries. But the “game” automatically eliminates family based immigration.
2. In playing the “game”, some of the wage brackets are severely broken and don’t match reality for prevailing wages in many areas. And when I use “prevailing wage” I mean “The wage the federal government lists for jobs that it offers itself”.
The game does not work properly.
I tried having my traits randomly assigned. I ended up as a 17 year old girl from India, Hindu. Okay, I can work with that. But, at the end, I was rejected, with the (I’m paraphrasing) message, “Nope, you are outside **Iran**, your country of orgin, and you have…”
How can a computer algorithm confuse India and Iran? If I had been randomly assigned India + Muslim, for example, then maybe I’d get the screw-up. But there are basically zero Hindus in Iran (less than 1/10th of 1%).
I was also surprised by the formatting of one of the questions. (Although maybe it actually does mirror the language used in the United States. I dunno. As a young woman in India, I imagined what a tribal teenager might have experienced. Genital mutilation, death threats, govt coercion, etc etc. The game gives 10+ options, but we have to choose just one. (It asks for the “worst” one that I have experienced). Does the refugee application really ask it that way? I was assuming that it asks, “Which of the following have you personally experienced? Select all that apply.”
With all these caveats; it’s still a quite interesting game to play, and it definitely could change people’s minds about how insanely difficult it can be to get in. I could not get in, as a New Zealander male attorney making $175,000 a year, with a firm multi-year job offer at the same salary from a US company. I could not get in as a female Sudanese medical student who had been raped and kidnapped by government troops. I think I was about to be accepted as an Australian journalist . . . but only after I added that I had won the Nobel Peace Prize and a few Pulitzers. 🙂
The game does appear to be broken, based on the income levels.
My suggestion: Should have made a mod for the dramatically better Papers, Please.
Here’s the issue. Leftists might not be for de jure open borders, and they might sincerely believe they’re not for open borders, but the policies they support along with the “They’re just looking for a better life” lead to de facto open borders.
It’s very much like with the gun controllers who will claim they don’t support a full ban, but aren’t able to articulate what restriction they think goes too far. What restriction on immigration would most immigration fanatics? The only one I’ve seen is that they aren’t a recent violent criminal. Nearly everything else, including that the person will be a financial burden to America, isn’t one that they think should be a criteria, because “we were once strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Allowing people to immigrate who will be a financial burden is charity. Most Americans don’t support immigration charity. They support immigration if they think it’ll make America better too.
As someone primarily concerned with the wellbeing of my family, community and country, this is only a concern if the difficulty in legal immigration is either causing the amount of immigration to drop below optimal amounts or causing the quality of immigrants to be sub-optimal.
Given that southern board illegal immigration alone in 2022 was nearly three times all legal immigration, it seems to me that we are greatly exceeding our legal immigration target and that tweaking the legal immigration process will have at best a negligible effect on the overall quality of immigrants. It makes little sense to put energy into increasing the supply of immigrants under such circumstances.
In other words, I have no interest in facilitating easier legal immigration when we already have a de facto open border.
Welcome to Ryanair’s cancellation policy guide. At Ryanair, we understand that plans can change unexpectedly. Our cancellation policy is designed to offer you flexibility and convenience. If you find yourself in a situation where you need to cancel your flight, we’ve got you covered. Learn about the timeframes for cancellations, possible fees, and how to request refunds or changes. Whether it’s a change in travel dates or unforeseen circumstances, we aim to make the process as smooth as possible. Explore this guide to ensure you’re well-informed about Ryanair’s cancellation policy before you take to the skies.
https://www.travomojo.com/cancellation-policy/ryanair-cancellation-policy/
really your blog is to,much better I am impressed by the details that you have on this website and posts like this. thanks Visit@ https://www.rananjayexports.com/gemstones/larimar
I respectfully read your valuable article and post. Your efforts have paid off. You have written a special, informative and qualified article. congratulations. I wish you continued success : moonstone jewelry
Unlock radiant success with our Skincare SEO Services. Elevate your brand, boost online visibility, and glow in the top search results. Transform your skincare business today!”
https://www.aerocityescorts.services/vatika-city-escorts.php
so you will make sweet memories if you are looking for Sikanderpur Escorts.I like to explore different areas. It will be really amazing if you decide to approach me outside.
Even though there are some early challenges, company incorporation in Dubai can be a straightforward and enjoyable process if you have the right support. Choosing where to put your company in the city of angels—on the mainland or in one of Dubai’s free zones—is the first step in creating one. It is recommended that you get in touch with company setup consultants located in Dubai as soon as you have a strong business idea. These professionals offer invaluable insights into the local market in addition to assistance with legal and regulatory requirements. Through process simplification, they make it easier for you to navigate the complex web of legal paperwork and procedures. https://best-solution.ae/