CONSEQUENCES

For all the huffing and puffing, the bottom line is math.

When your small state has 4.2% unemployment and you chase off tens of thousands of workers, there will be pain. It's time for a real guest worker program.

Comments

"There are a bunch of homeless people wandering my city. I'd like to see these lazy bums put back to work. Until my city is cleared of these bums, I don't think we need more guest workers."

Use those guys to baby sit your kids.

[Legal and waiting]

Would you pay $40/hour for a person who would watch over a homeless to do crappy work with an output barely worth $5/hour? If you pay the bum $6/hour to do that work, that's a loss of $41 every hour they work. What if an illegal worker in the same profession produces $50/hour worth of output and is charging $10/hour? Would not it be cheaper to hire an illegal for $10/hour and pay $10/hour for a shelter and food to the homeless and get $30/hour of value for the society out of it than make the homeles work at a loss of $41/hour to the society?

That's the truth many people are not willing to admit - it is cheaper to feed the native bum and hire a hard-working immigrant than to make the bum work.

There are a bunch of homeless people wandering my city. I'd like to see these lazy bums put back to work. Until my city is cleared of these bums, I don't think we need more guest workers.

[Legal and waiting]

"You think you are special because you have a masters degree from a US university. The only thing special about you is that you were born in a non-retrogressed country."

In fact, I do not think I am special at all. I think the per country quota is discriminating and a bad policy alltogther, but you are still welcome to hate me for being born in "the rest of the world".

[A]

"By that time many of the SOB senators who are trying to screw me and other EB legals over may be dead."

Former klan member Robert Byrd of West Virginia for sure.

[Sid]

"It used to be 14 years originally. It does not have to be 14 again, perhaps 10 would do. But certainly 5 or 7 seems too short."

I've already stayed in this country legally for more than 7 years. By optimistic estimates, I'll get my GC in another 5 years and will be able to apply for a citizenship after another 5. So, the best case scenario is 17 years.

By that time many of the SOB senators who are trying to screw me and other EB legals over may be dead.

"How long is good enough according to you? 14 years or 21 years?"

It used to be 14 years originally. It does not have to be 14 again, perhaps 10 would do. But certainly 5 or 7 seems too short.

[A]

"And even then the lower number (7 years) is too short a waiting period. "

How long is good enough according to you? 14 years or 21 years?

[A]

"I thought I replied to this already. This is true only for a small fraction of immigrants like those caught in EB retrogression and those waiting on asylee petitions. So sure for these categories, some or most of the time spent in the US should be counted towards the wait period for naturalization. And even then the lower number (7 years) is too short a waiting period. "

You think 7 years is a short period of time and someone else will have an argument that these people are too close to getting the social benifits, I mean looking at the age factor. You would like to see someone being interested in american political process at the same time you want to put "nationalization period" of 14 years totall contradictory.

"Most of the legal immigrants have to spend anywhere 7 to 15 years before they can naturalize anyway unless waivers are available like serving U.S army."

I thought I replied to this already. This is true only for a small fraction of immigrants like those caught in EB retrogression and those waiting on asylee petitions. So sure for these categories, some or most of the time spent in the US should be counted towards the wait period for naturalization. And even then the lower number (7 years) is too short a waiting period.

[A]

"Saudi Arabia for ever (i.e. you cannot naturalize)."

Please dont compare U.S.A with Saudi Arabia , I know that Saudi is a close ally of U.S.A but I dont think many U.S citizens want anything close to Saudi system. I dont want to live in Saudi Arabia either unless you want to ...:)

"Nebulous concept, but one measure is that people should be more interested in the American political process than the politics in their home country."

Yeah if that were the case , how do you measure ones interest in U.S political process? If you ask dems they have a solution for this , an affidavit :) I can say one thing for sure I follow american politics more than many americans do . Shouldn't the comparision be with average american than a news junkie in that case?

"An extended naturalization period is not that unusual "

Most of the legal immigrants have to spend anywhere 7 to 15 years before they can naturalize anyway unless waivers are available like serving U.S army.

"This is not an immigration concern since they are citizens :-)."

Yeah but they can marry anyone of their choice according to your thoery :)

"How do you measure the productivity? Is it based on the taxes a prospective immigrant paid or something else?"

Yes, net taxes paid would be a good measure where net taxes paid = Taxes paid - social services used.

"As far as the productivity argument goes what should be done with "non productive" citizens? "

This is not an immigration concern since they are citizens :-).

"How do you measure "nationalization" ? Please explain more ... "

Nebulous concept, but one measure is that people should be more interested in the American political process than the politics in their home country. An extended naturalization period is not that unusual - Italy and Germany makes you wait for 10 years, India for 12 years, Saudi Arabia for ever (i.e. you cannot naturalize).

[Sid]

"As far as the productivity argument goes what should be done with "non productive" citizens? I see so many of them on Market St in San Francisco every day ."

:-) Even those bums can marry Russian/East European/Thai mail order brides and give them LPR status. Marrying a US citizen for a GC is one of the biggest scams in immigration.

[A]

"The point is there are too many people who get a free pass via the spouse/child route. If we are to choose the most productive immigrants, then this is a logical place to start looking for reductions in the existing immigrant flow as this is the largest consumer of numbers."

How do you measure the productivity? Is it based on the taxes a prospective immigrant paid or something else?

As far as the productivity argument goes what should be done with "non productive" citizens? I see so many of them on Market St in San Francisco every day .

[A]

"The idea is that people should nationalize before they become citizens"

How do you measure "nationalization" ? Please explain more ...

"Looks like the person making that "new arrivals" argument ran away :) "

No I did not. I just have a day job.

"Please be clear on why you want a policy where "new arrivals" are discouraged from marrying someone from abroad where as citizens are free to marry anyone from anywhere?"

The point is there are too many people who get a free pass via the spouse/child route. If we are to choose the most productive immigrants, then this is a logical place to start looking for reductions in the existing immigrant flow as this is the largest consumer of numbers. New immigrants can either a) marry someone before they come b) marry someone within the country or c) leave the country, marry and apply again - which in itself is not a bad option if the total wait time to get in is shorter.

"There seems to be a contradiction somewhere in the argument that LPRs should be discouraged to marry non-citizens or LPRs but it's fine for citizens."

They are separate things. The idea is that people should nationalize before they become citizens. Increasing the wait time for naturalization will help in this goal. It will also coincidentally have the other salutory effect of reducing the number of immigrants admitted because they were spouses/children.

"Yes, those filthy new arrivals - who says they should be able to marry whom they desire and live together happily ever after"

Well, you are calling them filthy, not me. People can certainly choose to marry abroad by choosing to leave. But then I forgot you find rules abhorrent and hard to follow.

"every time someone declares that they are only agaist illegal immigration, and that they are all for legal immigration, it always turns out... well, not so much"

And vice-versa. Every time someone claims to support illegal immigration, it does not mean they support legal immigration. Witness the rabid support from the illegal immigrant community for CIR 2007 - a bill which did more to advance the restrictionist agenda than anything we have seen yet.

[Dream Act guy]

The CNN Youtube immigration questions was disappointing. Thumbs down for CNN.

[Sid]

"We are all in it together."

No we're not. When the per country quota in EB is removed, then you and I are going to be on the same boat.

You think you are special because you have a masters degree from a US university. The only thing special about you is that you were born in a non-retrogressed country.

[Legal and waiting]

A and Sid, that's kind of exactly my point - every time someone declares that they are only agaist illegal immigration, and that they are all for legal immigration, it always turns out... well, not so much. You know, like someone starting a speech with "I am not racist" always ends up declaring "macacaisms".

We are all in it together.

[A]

"i believe the point was that somehow this represents "assimilation". correct me if i am wrong..."

Looks like the person making that "new arrivals" argument ran away :)

[legal-forever-waiting-forever]

i believe the point was that somehow this represents "assimilation". correct me if i am wrong...

[Sid]

"Please be clear on why you want a policy where "new arrivals" are discouraged from marrying someone from abroad where as citizens are free to marry anyone from anywhere?"

That was precisely my point. There seems to be a contradiction somewhere in the argument that LPRs should be discouraged to marry non-citizens or LPRs but it's fine for citizens.

[a]

"New arrivals would just have to wait a longer period before they became citizens, as a result of which they would be less likely to marry from abroad."

Please be clear on why you want a policy where "new arrivals" are discouraged from marrying someone from abroad where as citizens are free to marry anyone from anywhere?

[Legal and waiting]

"No one is telling people what to do - citizens would be free to marry and adopt anyone. New arrivals would just have to wait a longer period before they became citizens, as a result of which they would be less likely to marry from abroad."

Yes, those filthy new arrivals - who says they should be able to marry whom they desire and live together happily ever after. Of course, it makes sense to split those stupid American-hating lovebirds for 14 years, they are not citizens after all, they have no rights.

Congratulations, you are a typical bigoted anti.

"I think that guest workers should have the opportunity to eventually pursue permanent residency. The antis in the Senate forced through amendments that required guest workers to go home and barred them from pursuing permanent status."

If it is a realistic opportunity, then what you say would be true. Unfortunately a common feature of guest worker programs (H1B included) is that only a fraction of people eventually graduate to permanent residency. Moving to a guest worker program is a major part of the reformist agenda and is seen as a good way to stop people from participating in the political process in order to preserve the ethnic balance of political power.

"Here we go - let's tell people who they should marry and where they should adopt! That's the height of the American freedom!"

No one is telling people what to do - citizens would be free to marry and adopt anyone. New arrivals would just have to wait a longer period before they became citizens, as a result of which they would be less likely to marry from abroad.

"Yesh, right, with the number of American couples adopting from overseas you suggestion is going to be very warmly welcomed."

How is this relevant? The number of people adopting from overseas is a small minority compared with the number of people dissatisfied with the immigration system - and that includes the illegal immigration supporters as well.

"just curious- does that figure come from FB?"

That is just FB.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/IS-4496_LPRFlowReport_04vaccessible.pdf

"so pretty much everyone agrees ..."

I wouldn't be so bold. But if you plan on staying on in this country you have to understand the issues and what people mean when they say "immigration reform".

[Legal and waiting]

"20-30% of FB is a small number?
33% of FB if moved to EB would increase EB 4 times!!"

Forever, you are again looking at measely crumps thrown to you in a converstation framed by the antis (as in "let's redistribute the categories"). Let's not redistribute - let's look at what's the right number for EB, and if that number should be capped at all. The truth is that for the economy the right number for EB is probably 1-2 million a year. If we make people accept that, then the rest of the restructuring becomes easy.

[Legal and waiting]

"In 2006 spouses and children were 54.6% of total LPRs admitted, while siblings constituted 5%. As a result of this imbalance only targetting immediate family members will make a big difference. "

Yesh, right, with the number of American couples adopting from overseas you suggestion is going to be very warmly welcomed.

[Legal and waiting]

Here we go - let's tell people who they should marry and where they should adopt! That's the height of the American freedom!

[Greg Siskind]

>>'is it not better to encourage immigrants to become Americans sooner rather than wait so very long? let them be true participants'

Exactly. Which is why I think guest worker programs are inherently 'anti'. Not just anti-immigrant but anti-democratic<<

Jack, I agree with you, but mainly because I think that guest workers should have the opportunity to eventually pursue permanent residency. The antis in the Senate forced through amendments that required guest workers to go home and barred them from pursuing permanent status. If you look at the original McCain Kennedy bill from 2006, you will see that the guest workers would have the opportunity to pursue permanent residency and that employment-based green card quotas were raised substantially to accomodate the increased demand.

[Jack]

'is it not better to encourage immigrants to become Americans sooner rather than wait so very long? let them be true participants'

Exactly. Which is why I think guest worker programs are inherently 'anti'. Not just anti-immigrant but anti-democratic. I am a very civic-minded, pro-democracy person and view people as more than 'labor' or 'workers'. Democracy is served by getting as many people as we can involved in government and getting big business OUT of government. Having even a small % of our population permanently shut out of democracy is a bad, un-American thing. The guest worker concept is of big business, by big business, and for big business.

'It's time for a real guest worker program'

I am fairly new here and you've probably described your vision before, but would appreciate a brief summary of what is a 'real' guest worker program?

[legal-forever-waiting-forever]

This is not true for everyone. It holds true for a small fraction of people caught in EB retrogression who happen to hold a work visa or those waiting for an asylee petition. The idea behind increasing the wait times for naturalization is to ensure that people nationalize and drop ties to the home country before they naturalize.

does this mean you agree that if someone has been here 10 years already, the need for another 5 years waiting is moot...?

[legal-forever-waiting-forever]

In 2006 spouses and children were 54.6% of total LPRs admitted, while siblings constituted 5%. As a result of this imbalance only targetting immediate family members will make a big difference.

just curious- does that figure come from FB? or is that total including EB? also that figure is likely to include citizens, or doe they have different numbers? assuming there are children involved we really are not talking about someone that goes "out to find a spouse" after getting a GC. a child suggests there is a more established family. restricting immediate family from entering would be a serious detriment to any immigrant....

siblings may be only 5%- but remember they are adults and they then bring their families. so presuming the above number is for LPR's only and FB only, a chunk of that 54.6% does come with the siblings- let's say another 5-7 % (could well be more since these are mature families). so pretty much everyone agrees (except the absolute family proponents who can block it all) that we can at least get back 12% of the numbers- that would double EB straight away.

"So, no, I am not really on the same page with the restricationists. Immigration is good for the country"

Again, the restrictionists agree with you. In fact the term restrictionist is a misnomer, a more accurate term may be reformer. A common theme is that reformers think the current system is broken, and you certainly have said you believe the current immigration system is a "fiasco".

The reformers don't want to cut off immigration, just change its composition. As Brimelow puts it in Alien Nation -

"The problem is not necessarily immigration in principle - it's immigration in practice. Specifically, it's the workings of the 1965 Immigration Act and its subsequent amendments."

"Many people are already married when they get an green card. others are on the verge of getting married. spouses and children are hardly the people to target."

The idea is to differentiate between the long term citizen who happens to fall in love with a foreigner and the newly arrived immigrant/citizen who is now trying to marry and bring over someone from the home country.

"I would strongly agree that extended families need to be curtailed especially entire families of adult siblings. That alone would make a big difference rather than targeting immediate family members."

In 2006 spouses and children were 54.6% of total LPRs admitted, while siblings constituted 5%. As a result of this imbalance only targetting immediate family members will make a big difference.

">10 years to a GC and THEN another 5 years of "character checking".
is it not better to encourage immigrants to become Americans sooner rather than wait so very long?"

This is not true for everyone. It holds true for a small fraction of people caught in EB retrogression who happen to hold a work visa or those waiting for an asylee petition. The idea behind increasing the wait times for naturalization is to ensure that people nationalize and drop ties to the home country before they naturalize.

[Sid]

"Given that much of this demand is driven by recent immigrants these two changes will reduce demand and increase the odds of people finding a spouse from within the US."

Presumably, the reason for GC quotas for spouses of LPRs is to encourage them to assimilate and marry US citizens. I've never understood why the same logic does not apply to citizens. It's more likely that the citizens have grown up in the US, have assimilated to a greater extent than LPRs and will find it easier to connect with another citizen. LPRs often find it very hard to connect romantically with US citizens because of the accent and cultural differences.

IMO, either the quota for immediate family members for LPRs should be removed or it should be applied to US citizens as well.

[legal-forever-waiting-forever]

no name,

Many people are already married when they get an green card. others are on the verge of getting married. spouses and children are hardly the people to target. I would strongly agree that extended families need to be curtailed especially entire families of adult siblings. That alone would make a big difference rather than targeting immediate family members.
14 year naturalization is de facto already true. >10 years to a GC and THEN another 5 years of "character checking".
but really is it not better to encourage immigrants to become Americans sooner rather than wait so very long? let them be true participants and be invested in the country's future imho.

And moving to a guestworker program is also one of Brimelow's recommendations as a good way to transition from the current system without unnecessary hardship.

"How do you think Americans will feel if they would not be able to bring a new spouse or an adopted child with them into the country? How about sponsoring parents? "

The proposed solution to this is two parts -

1. Returning to a 14 year waiting period for naturalization.

2. Elimination of the FB categories for spouses/children of LPRs.

Given that much of this demand is driven by recent immigrants these two changes will reduce demand and increase the odds of people finding a spouse from within the US.

[legal-forever-waiting-forever]

20-30% of FB is a small number?
33% of FB if moved to EB would increase EB 4 times!!
the problem is precisely with that 33%.
and if you think removing that has no opposition..think again!
no one wants to let go of what they have.

[Legal and waiting]

Well, it does make sense to give preference to the employers and needed workers, but the truth is that about 50% of the family system is not going anywhere. How do you think Americans will feel if they would not be able to bring a new spouse or an adopted child with them into the country? How about sponsoring parents? Exactly. That's around 50% of current FB, the unrestricted immediate family part that is not going anywhere for as long as Americans get to vote. The rest of the FB is two parts - overly restricted where it should not be and the ones that are ok to get rid of, provided there is another way to immigrate.

So, what we are left with is a small number of FBs (20-30%), like adult children and brothers and sisters, who should be able to immigrate through employment system, should that system start working again. I bet many of them would rather take a 2 year EB route than a 15 year FB route, so I really see no opposition here. But to get the EB system working, either quotas should be canceled or dramatically increased.

So, no, I am not really on the same page with the restricationists. Immigration is good for the country.

Hey L&W,

You sound like you may be able to make common cause with some of the restrictionist point of view. In Alien Nation Brimelow points out how the current immigration system is a "fiasco" that discriminates against employers and workers since the vast majority of green cards go to people with family connections.

This leaves most workers with no way to immigrate to the US.
Hence the goal of immigration reform should be to gut the family based system and replace it with one that serves employers and workers.

[Legal and waiting]

"Its as simple as putting ,Because I dont have an ATM card or money in my account I will rob the bank. "

Incorrect. More like - I will take a credit line out. Americans are willing participants in all of the "illegal" misdeads. If Americans were not so willing to hire them (which is CRIMINAL, by the way, unlike working without authorization), they would not have been here.

So, the bank breaks the law by willingly issuing a CRIMINAL loan to that person, and now yelling "Robbery!". That's the American way you are standing for?

"There is no such thing as "illegal immigration fiasco". Immigration system is a fiasco that results in prolifiration of illegal immigration, since there is no other way for these people to come. Simple is that."

Its as simple as putting ,Because I dont have an ATM card or money in my account I will rob the bank.

[Legal and waiting]

"To be precise, ILLEGAL immigration fiasco is fueling racism and all sort of craziness."

There is no such thing as "illegal immigration fiasco". Immigration system is a fiasco that results in prolifiration of illegal immigration, since there is no other way for these people to come. Simple is that.

[Another voice]

"To be precise, ILLEGAL immigration fiasco is fueling racism and all sort of craziness."

Yeah which means that there is the smart and practical way of handling things and what we have now.

"Immigration fiasco is fueling racism and all sort of craziness."

To be precise, ILLEGAL immigration fiasco is fueling racism and all sort of craziness.

[Legal and waiting]

The scary thing is the stupidity of the people who made comments to the article. Immigration fiasco is fueling racism and all sort of craziness.

[Another voice]

I guess the moral of the story here is another one bites the dust. These same result happen where ever they try the enforcement only aproach. I hope they feel the pain to realize that is not a smart way to deal with immigration. I am sure these people are saying "Be careful what you wish for you may just get it".