Every country on the planet appears to have restrictions on immigration. Most of the time we don't discuss the policies of countries other than the United States in new submissions to HN, even though HN is an international forum, because most countries are lousy enough to be entrepreneurs in and lousy enough to live in that no one on HN wants to immigrate to those countries. (Instead, most people on HN discuss how to get OUT of dozens of other countries around the world, and in many cases how to immigrate to the United States.) When we consider that the actual number of legally authorized immigrants to the United States each year is one of the highest such numbers in the world (does ANY country have more legal immigrants each year?), it's hard to make a case that the United States is missing out on immigrants by its current policies. Perhaps there are some policy changes to be made on the margins, and on my own part my policy preference would be to make immigration to the United States legally easier and much more commonplace, but the way to make the case for policy reform is to show law-abiding Americans that the policy changes help their lives. The Americans I know, including many law-abiding first-generation immigrants, want policy reform that makes like better in general for all people already in America, as well as for people intending to immigrate here.
[1] Second paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_State...
My uncle immigrated in Spain for instance; entered and worked illegally at first (since a Schengen visa was required of him, and he could find illegal work more easilly anyway), but forward 15 years later, and now he has full citizenship and a perfectly legal driver's license. And he has had a legal job for 10 years already.
For me I have the following difficulty - you can't obtain a visa for work in the US if you don't have a college degree in the domain you want to work in. And then it's extremely difficult to be a startup founder that way, since with that kind of visa you can only work as an employee and have a sponsor. Unless you can obtain a Visa at the lottery or for extraordinary merits.
This is absolutely insane - since I just got out and bought a college degree in CS, waited 3 years to get it of course, but I got it, and now I can get an US Visa.
But then again, why should I? Why wouldn't I go work in Zurich or in London or in Berlin, or just stay where I am, since obviously the US doesn't want me?
Within Europe, yes. It's hard to immigrate into Europe coming from outside.
"Especially as an EU citizen."
Only as an EU citizen. If you're not, it's hard to travel around Europe - you need a lot of papers, for each country you go to, and it's not a matter of filling in a form online and they'll send you the papers; it involves certified translations, several appointments with embassies and the like, etc.
As to the last sentence, there is a reason people flock to the US - because it's simply a better climate there to start a business. Good luck in Zurich (of all places! the Swiss are as close-minded and protective of their nationality and 'independence' as it comes!) or anywhere else in Europe. Of course it can be done, many companies are founded and are successful; but nowhere near the same level as in the US.
(European here)
Immigrating to Europe from outside Shengen space is as hard as getting to US from outside.
http://www.ssab.gov/documents/IMMIG_Issue_Brief_Final_Versio...
High productivity farm land is being destroyed by development at an alarming rate. The US is steadily becoming a food importer in category after category, where once we exported. This puts further pressure on our already abysmal trade deficit. This is also a national security issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_%28Oregon_regional_govern...
the statistics for number of new citizens per capita remove that bias. and then the USA ranks #26. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_percap-immigra...
And why can't we tackle these problems at the same time? Why can't we even tackle these problems _one_ at a time? The Dream Act has been under review since 2001. It is a bill that can be voted on and passed in literally two days. Why not? ... I'll answer. Our impotent Congress, two year election cycles, and media that no longer holds anybody accountable.
I'm not a Minuteman and I'm not going to argue for any border fences, but it seems like the root cause of the problem is that the risk of getting caught is so low that many people try it. The real solution would be to make people not want to immigrate illegally in the first place.
Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. You got what you wanted faster because your family broke the law.
I still believe that children who are brought here illegally should get a lot more leniency because they weren't responsible for their actions.
And some are lucky enough to simply be born in the US, and squander those opportunities anyway. I think its a bit funny to be citing "the law" as a grounds for which to argue this. It really has to go above and beyond what current laws are, into a moral and philosophical discussion of how people should treat each other. After all, in a time where there were no "laws", the settlers who landed in America pretty much raped the native population and took what they wanted. Where's their (the natives') justice? The entire south west coast (texas, arizona, california) was taken in wars from ACTUAL native mexicans. And now, a mexican can't walk across his ancestral land because of "immigration law". That seems kind of funny and wrong to me.
I would love if everyone could look up the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" - its something similar to the concept of the "golden rule".
We're all human beings, this isn't just "ours", "theirs, and "yours".
If we opened our border with Mexico, there would be a flood of immigration that would make the southern states a lot more like the Mexico they are trying to escape from than the US they are trying to escape to. This is purely a pragmatic argument. No one wins in this case (in the long term at least). It's also harder to provide for our national security if we can't control our borders (think how the borders were frozen for the few days after 9/11 -- no one knew what was going to happen next).
Since having an open border would be good for no one, it must be regulated. Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here.
These are purely pragmatic arguments. Waxing poetic about history and philosophy is a rathole that won't actually help solve this problem. The Trail of Tears is a terrible mark on our history, but opening our borders with Mexico isn't going to give Native Americans their civilization back.
More so, I asked for you to see the situation in a different light. I think its really easy for you (or others) to say "country's full, you'll have to get in line like everyone else", while ignoring the circumstances of real people like the author of the article, and in essence, ignoring your own history and how you got to where you are. In my opinion, its actually a bit arrogant and self-centered, to think that its just that easy to dictate something so complicated as immigration.
Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here.
If you could tell me, what "fairness" and "regulation" did you face when you came to America? Or your parents, or their parents, or theirs' as the case may be. The only difference between you and anyone else is when and where you were born, thats all. Its crazy to think you have entitlement to rights and opportunities, simply because you were born this side of an invisible line.
Exactly, you seem to prefer to philosophize and invoke moral criticism than to actually discuss practical solutions.
> I think its really easy for you (or others) to say "country's full, you'll have to get in line like everyone else"
I started this thread by arguing that we should have compassion for people who run into headaches while trying to immigrate legally, and that we should aim to make things easier for them.
> while ignoring the circumstances of real people like the author of the article
I started this thread by arguing that people brought here as children deserve more leniency.
> The only difference between you and anyone else is when and where you were born, thats all. Its crazy to think you have entitlement to rights and opportunities, simply because you were born this side of an invisible line.
The only difference between me and Bill Gates' kids is who we happened to be born to, but that doesn't entitle me to grow up in Bill Gates' house.
It is you who are making an argument of entitlement. A Mexican is no more entitled to come and work in the USA without a visa than I'm entitled to go and work in Mexico without a visa. The only "right and opportunity" I am invoking is the right to live in the community where I was born, a right and opportunity that most of the world enjoys.
The only thing that makes my position more privileged than a Mexican's is that my countryman and ancestors have built a more prosperous economy than Mexico has. That's dumb luck on my part, no doubt, which I am grateful for. I didn't do anything to earn that.
But there's no way everyone on earth is going to be born with equal opportunity. And there is no virtue in opening wide the gates of immigration if just ends up making the (currently) desirable place more like the (currently) undesirable place.
I started this thread by arguing that people brought here as children deserve more leniency.
Obviously, we don't hold children to the same standard as adults. However, the fact that its not an implicit belief (to give a child benefit of the doubt) and has to be explicitly stated by you shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority. Here's why: you already believe that this person is a criminal, that all illegal immigrants are criminals and should be treated as such. That even though he came here as a kid, that this is all he knows and lives, we should be lenient when we consider kicking him out. I see selfish ration and logic in your words, but I see no compassion or sensibility for others.
A Mexican is no more entitled to come and work in the USA without a visa than I'm entitled to go and work in Mexico without a visa.
You'll never work in Mexico because nobody will pay you a livable wage, thats the difference. It sounds the equivalent of someone saying: "I don't step through your garbage dump looking for food, so you don't step through my wine vineyard. That's called fairness."
The only "right and opportunity" I am invoking is the right to live in the community where I was born, a right and opportunity that most of the world enjoys.
Another folly in your history books. See: slavery, colonialism, trade blocs, etc. Unfortunately for some, opportunity has literally been taken away and societies forever changed. By "most of the world enjoys", you probably mean the privileged elite. You know, the people who account for something like 90% of the worlds wealth in 10% of the population.
> has to be explicitly stated by you shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority.
You really ought not personally insult the guy you're discussing with... it doesn't help the discussion at all. Really uncalled for, haberman is disagreeing with you but he's being civil. If you don't like his points, argue without the insults.
To say something like "immigrant children broke the law, but since they're kids, we should be lenient when we consider punishing them", carries a pass of judgement that I perceive to be as a statement on whom is more righteous or more privileged. I don't feel like anyone has the right to pass that judgment nor harbor that mentality, just because they themselves are secure in their person and place by chance and fortune. It shows little thought or consideration for other human beings, especially when complex situations become simply labelled as " illegal immigrant", or "lawbreaker".
So while what I said may seem insulting, they are not intended to be direct insults. I feel what I feel, and I'm just doing my best to describe that.
If you came home and a homeless person was sleeping in your bed, would you consider it an intolerable passing of judgement to say they shouldn't have done that and you will be "deporting" them out of your house?
and if i had a huge house with more than enough space, and one day discovered that a homeless child had moved into a tiny space a few decades ago, contributed extensively to maintaining that space, and is now an adult, i would say it's completely intolerable for me to evict them at that point.
What bothers me about your attitude is that you invoke a sense of moral superiority to defend what is nothing more than breaking the rules to get ahead. It shows more compassion for the people who will take what they want than the people who work to get it.
I can have compassion for people who come to this country looking for opportunity. But I have 10x more compassion and respect for the person who is stuck in their own country because they can't get a visa than the person who decided to break the law to get ahead.
I'm pretty sure that I would feel the same way if I had been born in Mexico. I've always been a "wait in line" kind of guy, and I'm pretty sure I would resent seeing the most impassioned defense of immigrants directed at the line-jumpers rather than the people who are still waiting in line.
> Another folly in your history books. See: slavery, colonialism, trade blocs, etc. Unfortunately for some, opportunity has literally been taken away and societies forever changed.
Ok, I've let this slide up until now, but this is a very poor attempt at implying that America has been a primary perpetrator of crimes throughout history or has somehow obtained success by "stealing" it from others.
Present-day Mexicans are mostly descendants of the Spanish and the indigenous tribes like the Aztec and Maya. The Spanish conquered and colonized the Americas for 400 years, destroying entire civilizations and enslaving the people. The indigenous people practiced human sacrifice as well as slavery. No civilization has clean hands when judged by the standards of today.
And what exactly do you think the USA did to "take opportunity away" from "some" (this turn of phrase conveniently implies a general feeling of guilt without being specific enough to evaluate). Canada seems to be doing fine, so how are you going to pin Mexico's relative poverty on the USA?
> By "most of the world enjoys", you probably mean the privileged elite.
No, I mean "most of the world." People who are forced to leave their home are called "refugees," which are estimated to be 62M people worldwide, or 1% of the world population.
It's true. If we applied the same rules to countries that we do to the mafia, you'd be a criminal conspirator in an agency that has routinely used murder for control and profit.
Did you go to an American public school?
And your hero Che Guevara?
But the complicity of other countries in no way lessens the fact that much of the USA's wealth, and thus success, is stolen.
I could also make the usual snarky comment and say that by the letter of the "law" we owe native americans a whole bunch of land. Maybe even the land your house is on.
No, I'm assuming that regulating immigration is right because not regulating it has demonstrably bad consequences, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
If regulating immigration is right, sidestepping that regulation is wrong, just like driving without a license, running a bank that doesn't keep enough reserves, or building a house that doesn't have safe wiring.
Even if we accept this premise, however, the same situation applies within the United States. Many people commit crimes in one state and later move to another, where they may or may not commit further crimes. This is such a widespread phenomenon that there's a constitutional clause requiring courts in each state to give 'full faith and credit' to courts in other states, so that criminals can't escape justice by just hopping over the nearest state border. Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first?
Are you suggesting that US borders with Canada and Mexico, as well as our maritime borders, should be as open as the borders between states?
But yes, I think we should be moving towards abolition of external border controls over the long term and dissolution of geographic borders with immediate neighbors like Mexico and Canada in the short term.
I think it's clear that our current system is broken. It's far too expensive to enforce our current system, so we're left with laws that are ineffectual. Reality trumps abstract ideas, and I think we need laws that deal effectively with the reality of our situation.
No, I'm arguing that it's more right than no regulation. But I'm not that interested in debating with someone who puts words in my mouth.
"I'm arguing that it's more right than no regulation"
See, more black and white. I don't think anyone is suggesting no regulation. You aren't putting words in my mouth are you? ;)
Why don't we create a legal process to let people that want to work here come and work. Why limit it so much?
Huh? Our current system simply isn't enforced. It's not a matter of cost at all. It's just expedient for an alliance of big business and certain political elements to allow a continued flow of criminal aliens.
I mean, look at Israel. They enforce a much more restrictive immigration system at low cost with no difficulty. Or Japan, or Korea, or any of dozens of other nations.
Whatever tribes were able to hold out are today richly compensated - see the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
Yeah, that's real fair.
>I don't understand why it's so controversial among the pro-immigration crowd to say that people shouldn't come here illegally.
It's because the official green card process is [utterly ridiculous](http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/01/what-part-of-legal-imm...) and stacked against almost every prospective immigrant. It's one of those cases where the law has failed to catch up to the underlying economics of the situation: immigrants need jobs and the US has a need for cheap or highly specialized labour.
That is the process that needs to be reformed. Kicking out the people who are already in the country doesn't achieve anything other than waste more money and ruin more lives.
It achieves fairness about who gets in. Rules may need to be revised, etc. No arguments here. But while the revision is taking place or not taking place the rules need to be followed.
If a rule is unjust to begin with, I don't see how being fair in its application is all that paramount. Insert any number of parallels to the War on Drugs here.
What positive benefit would come about due to kicking Vargas out of the country? Those on his side will just be angry, and the xenophobes will just remain as they are, satisfied that they ruined a life.
Yes, if my GC failed, i'd be strongly disappointed, to say the least, would be forced to start to think again where to go - Canada, England, Germany, Australia... didn't want back to Russia (even though programmer's salary there would make me live comparably much better than i live here) - tough choices ...
These poor guys waiting for a piece of a tough dirty day job - what choice they have? what alternative did they have before crossing into US illegally if what they have now is supposedly a better one?
That's why, in my view, immigration laws have no legitimacy whatsoever. Where you are born is complete chance. Some of those who happen to be born in better places think that it serves them well to keep others out in order to keep that unfair competitive advantage. Sometimes it's the very same people who pride themselves of being in favor of free trade, a level playing field, antiprotectionist, etc. A ridiculously disingenuous position considering the most important thing everyone has to trade is their own time, effort and skills.
They find all kinds of spurious reasons to defend this unfair and blatently self-serving position. One of the worst is that all countries have immigration laws. This argument mixes up practical matters with ethical ones. Obviously, it's difficult for one country to unilaterally abolish all immigration laws. But that shouldn't convince anyone that these laws have any moral foundation or are based on democracy or that they personally have a right to tell others where to settle.
But such is the case. If Jose or anyone else wants to change this inherent unfairness they can do that.
Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line. It is extremely unfair to the people who are also trying to immigrate to the US, but do so by entering lotteries, applying for GCs and all.
"Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes"
The guy didn't choose to be put in that situation, that decision was made for him. I think that's deserving of some empathy ... but that's just me.
You are just claiming that it's ok to have discrimination by contry of birth.
Well, unfair discrimination is NOT OK. That's why you are getting downvoted.
I personally did not downvote you. Even though I strongly disagree - at least you are trying to understand.
For me, it comes down to what he said here: >Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line.
The thing is that everyone else who is in the line is also hoping for a better life. So what justifies someone cutting?
In this specific case, he had no choice in the matter (put on a plane as a kid) so I think he should be allowed to stay. But every other adult is, in my opinion, cutting in line.
Share with us why immigrants are discriminated against and if this discrimination is fair.
I understand your position and, philosophically, it's an interesting one to take. But if you take your position to the extreme then there should be NO concept of citizenry.
It's all fine and dandy as a theoretical concept but has no bearing (or utility) on the real world. In the world, we are citizens of nations and citizenship is defined by laws. In the US, that citizenship can be given through birth.
Is that fair? Maybe not. But life's not fair. America has established a legal immigration system in order to (try to) make it fair. Simply ignoring that whole system and questioning the basic order of things seems like just an excuse to cut in line.
Yeah. It's just what the first people to go somewhere say when someone else tries to join them. "Take off, we first settlers don't want you here."
We don't recognize first-posters as owning the thread, or (except in the USA) first-solvers owning the formula, so why should we recognize first-squatters owning the land?
> It's all fine and dandy as a theoretical concept but has no bearing (or utility) on the real world.
Not at all. The concept of doing whatever you want is firmly established in the real world. Your adoptive countrymen weren't welcomed here (or at least, not in much of 'here'). They came by force and trick, murdering and stealing.
At least today's undocumented immigrants live in peace.
Did you RTA? The whole article was about how he lives in constant fear. OTOH, my parents were legal immigrants and have no guilt over the british colonists who took this land over from the native americans. Same goes for me.
You can stick your head in the sand but, at the end of the day, you still have to obey the laws of the country you're in. Even if you join a cult or live in the remote mountains of Montana, you're still bound by law. This is true for you and for people who come here illegally.
You really don't have much to complain about.
As for law though, and obeying it, no. No, you don't have to obey the laws of the land you're in. In fact, there are times no good person would do so. It's just rules other people made up, not 'right'.
You're right I can't change the law but I can undermine it - make it easier to break and escape punishment for. Waste resources chasing ghosts instead of waging war and evicting the needy.
Prior to introducing that immigration system there was no legal discrimination by country of origin.
Whether there should be no concept of citizenry is a different topic outside of scope of this discussion.
Is it more fair to have a free for all where people sneak in?
It's convenient to say something is not fair as justification to break all the rules.
But what is the justification for discriminating immigrants?
Discrimination, in the legal sense, says that there should be no prejudice against people by race, gender, sexual orientation, disability and other protected groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
But legal status is _NOT_ a protected group.
Here's another way to look at it:
Criminals lose rights. They lose the right to roam freely in public among many other freedoms. Some of them lose the right to vote. By your definition, we discriminate against criminals since we treat them differently than we do law-abiding citizens.
Do you disagree with the disparity in this treatment?
Many people see illegal immigrants as breaking the law. Ergo the use of the word "illegal." Many people see them as criminals.
Ergo, differential treatment (or discrimination) is justified.
Even outside of these concepts, discrimination happens all the time. When people apply for a job, the smarter, more qualified candidate is discriminated against lesser candidates. Is this not fair?
When the NFL drafts certain players over others, that's discrimination. Is this not fair?
Anytime a person is chosen over another, you have discrimination. Your assertion that it is inherently unfair is wrong.
Many undocumented immigrants are. They're ignoring it.
And, if you do catch and deport them, at great cost, you're just cutting one more local job. Congrats.
Why not? Think about it has hacking / routing around a broken system and it doesn't sound so bad. These are precisely the kinds of people I want living in working in the US: hard-working individuals who want to better themselves and those around them, and are willing to do anything to get there.
Or maybe I just hate waiting in lines.
I think that's a fair point. A more important argument is that making the system too lenient towards people who have come here illegally creates the wrong incentives.
What I really don't get is how incapable the bleeding hearts are of understanding that immigration hurts the weakest Americans. Wages are driven down. See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers? See the unemployed American blacks in your city? Think really hard and try to connect the dots...
This dynamic applies well farther up the economic food chain.
Repressive government policies. Exactly.
We're supposed to believe the free market is efficient and useful, but that free people are inefficient and problematic.
But overall I just feel that the compassion about immigration is misplaced. I don't understand why all the pro-immigration people say "look at these poor undocumented immigrants -- we should make life better for them." I think the people we should have compassion for are the people who are trying to do things the right way but running into headaches. Those are the people we should make things easier for, not the people who are willing to break the law to get what they want.
I really don't think we want a situation where breaking the law is the best way to get ahead. If I was waiting to get into the US, I would be pretty upset to see all the benefits going to the people who cut in line.
I don't understand why it's so controversial among the pro-immigration crowd to say that people shouldn't come here illegally. Naturally more leniency should be extended to children.
EDIT: It is stories like this that I feel we should be solving with immigration reform: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2685261