If you serve in the armed forces and don't commit crimes, and apply for citizenship you will most likely get it.
Also the US accepts alot more immigrants than Japan, China, and many other countries.
Most of the complaints about immigration come down to this, there is much more demand than "supply".
The overwhelming majority of people in Japan, China, etc. hasve ancestral roots in their respective countries going back thousands of years before written history. They live in “their land”, their ancestors’ land.
On the other hand, America as we know it is a country of immigrants, practically every “native” American is an N-th generation immigrant, 2 <= N <= 25.
It’s silly to compare immigration policy without regard to historical origins of countries.
Similarly, even the smallest companies (like miniscule, 5-people startups) are able to get visas for people who meet the college degree requirement with basically no issue.
Also, they don't tie your work visa to your employer[1], so you don't get indentured servitude or the threat of getting kicked out of the country after being fired.
Meanwhile I have heard countless horror stories from many people trying to do even the most basic stuff when it comes to immigration in the US. And it sure sounds like you are, at a basic level, treated like a suspicious person who might be a criminal.
You can say "oh look at the numbers" but I have heard roughly zero positive things about the American immigration experience. And (what I think is the most important thing), I have heard many stories about the opacity and randomness of the American bureaucracy.
And, you know what? Most countries _don't_ just kick someone out on the first crime they commit. And they don't try to hold it over the head of the person. It's possible to have an immigration system that doesn't treat the people coming in as indentured servants.
[1] HSFP visa non-excepting, but if you can get HSFP you can get a standard working visa
"most countries _don't_ just kick someone out on the first crime they commit."
Neither does the US. Most of the time the crimes that lead to deportation are felonies. Why is the US obligated to keep non citizens who commit serious crimes?
The US is under no obligation to take anyone.
The system certainly isn't perfect, warrants criticize. But some of the complaints are ridiculous and come down to again way more demand than supply.
(Update, I don't agree with you, but I hope HNers will not downvote you as a few are)
Of course countries can do whatever they want (just from the notion of application of power). But I see immigration as a two way street. There's an invitation to come into a society, and a request to participate in it. Other people in society get second chances, they get opportunities to improve... I feel like extending that to everyone is the logical conclusion of a just society.
And... yeah maybe there's some abstract notions that underpin the US system. But when you look at the facts on the ground, I just don't see how you justify the draconian decisions applied to people after they've been a part of society for so long. What's the point of a bunch of theory if the practice turns into things like "ICE can lock someone up for years without them being allowed to see a judge"?
At least it's not at Australia-level cruelty, I guess...
Even beyond than that, there are multiple facets of both legal and illegal immigration. Maybe the US both accepts larger numbers of immigrants legally but is also more intolerant of certain kinds of applicants than others.
When dealing with huge issues, I think it's deceptively easy to simplify the issue more than you realize. I know I've ended up in arguments where after far too much effort I realized we both actually more or less agreed with each other, but were simply focusing on different aspects of a larger issue.
The United Kingdom as well: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/05/where-is-the-f...
The first limit on immigration in the US was the Page act in 1875, which restricted immigration of Chinese women.
Before that there were no limits.
Yeah, it seems now it needs to cage children to deter their pesky parents from seeking opportunities in the land of opportunity.
one is that USA for being the world superpower and through their media monopoly is always in the spotlight.
The second is that USA spend too much time saying how wonderful they are (that if you look to history with a little objectivity is not so wonderful). Reaction to this is almost inevitable.
I would like to present a trivial recent example: as you know, USA retired from the climate Paris agreement and, in general, is not doing so much like other nations despite being the worst in per capita terms.
Well, it seems that the new president want to go back to the Paris agreements and is framing it like "going back to led the world" in climate change. Going back to led the world? really?
I know, I know, this a sentence for internal consumption but still, how do you think it sounds in other countries?
I didn't touch the little fact of invasions of third countries and military bases all around the world.
So, maybe there is something to this fad? Maybe take it like feedback to correct a few things?
Do you have sources to back any part of this statement? It would be surprising to see US doing less and being worth that, for example, Germany and its coal or China and its industrial complex. Otherwise it seems to be another example of "blatantly false anti-US comments like this get voted up without any data to back them up".
It seems that what it's in dispute is the "not doing so much like other nations". I would say there are two ways to look at it: pledges and historical data.
I don't think is necessary to demonstrate that the USA current pledges are below the Paris agreement countries.
For historical I just will take 2019 that was a specially good year for USA CO2 reductions.
from https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-leads-world-reducing-co...
>>"It’s true that, according to the IEA’s February 2020 report, the U.S. achieved a greater absolute reduction in CO2 emissions than any other country, in 2019. However, claims that the U.S. therefore “led the entire world” or was a “global leader” in CO2 emissions were belied by the fact that other countries (including Germany, Japan, and likely others) achieved a superior rate of reduction in CO2 emissions. Although not a country, the European Union achieved both a larger absolute reduction and a greater rate of reduction in CO2 emissions than the US did. "
(1) - https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...
In terms of popular political support I would say that the United States is very anti-immigrant, and has been for a very long time. The reason the U.S. continues to let in so many immigrants is because of business interests, which have always held considerable political power. And the reason the U.S. has such diversity of immigrants is because of the peculiarity of our laws (e.g. by promoting so-called chain migration, a term Trump has turned into a pejorative), which have largely stayed the same because of inertia and political deadlock, but as you pointed out this is likely to change soon.
Also, the U.S. is no longer unique in terms of its large foreign born population. The U.K., for example, has roughly the same percentage. Brexit is no coincidence. Ditto for Germany. Though AFAIU German anti-immigration sentiment is mostly focused on immigrants from outside the E.U. (e.g. Turkey), whereas a large part of the sentiment in the U.K. is focused on Eastern European immigrants. Thus Angela Merkel has managed to placate voters by tacitly supporting harsher restrictions at the E.U. border, the short-lived Syrian influx notwithstanding. Brexit was driven in part by, e.g., people being pissed at low-wage Polish migrants.
I'll agree that the U.S. isn't worse than other countries. And I suppose our history as being a melting pot relatively unique unto the world is still worth something. (Though many parts of Latin America also saw similar migration flows at the turn of the 18th century. There are still German speaking towns in Brazil, Welsh speaking towns in Argentina, and a curious number of ethnic Japanese all over South America.) But we don't really stand out anymore one way or the other.
Plus H1B is limited to having degrees (or a lot of work experience) in a small subset of occupations.
The US could bring over 1 million doctors in one year if it were legal.
H1B is only one specific case of immigration: generally speaking the developed world allows for unconstrained immigration if you have a job offer. Americans are particularly restricted in hiring foreigners, which is also one reason why it has so much illegal immigration.
Do you have to show ID? Passport? Proof citizenship?
What about undocumented immigrants? They're human beings and can infect everyone else too. Has anyone thought of them?
for what reasons?
Americans accept immigrants into their Armed Forces but regularly deport them even after they’ve served and been in combat.