But immigrating to the US is difficult even if you're from a rich country like one in the EU.

> But immigrating to the US is difficult even if you're from a rich country like one in the EU.

If you are thinking like my Portuguese friend complaining about how "hard" it was because it took six months to immigrate to the US, you have no idea how hard it is for other people to come to the US legally.

No, I'm talking about being completely unable to immigrate because they can't find an employer to sponsor them. I'm talking about failing the H1B lottery for years and having to leave.

I'm not talking about filing paperwork taking a long time.

I agree it's harder if you're not from a developed country, but it's hard for a lot of people across the board.

Never said it is easy, it's just much easier than immigrating to the US.

Legally immigrating to the US (getting a residence permit) is either a matter of luck (lotteries), extraordinary skills, very long waiting lists, or a combination of these.

On the contrary, immigrating to the EU is "just" finding a job on the local market and applying for some paperwork. And the EU does not discriminate you on the basis of the country where you've been born.

You make it sound like that's a bad thing. If you can get a job, hold it, and obey the law, why would it be important where you have been born?

I am curious which part of their comment makes it sound bad. It seems neutral to positive to me.

Interesting, thanks for asking. To me the thread's context was that some European countries are "importing" migrants to bolster their pension schemes and that this is a bad thing (why?) An argument about immigration ensued and those often rub me the wrong way, being an immigrant and stuff. The part of "the public sentiment [for stricter immigration controls] is there, but the laws say the other way" is triggering me, too, because it alludes to some kind of "silent majority" which around these parts (ie. Germany) is usually brought up by loud minorities from the far right. I'm not denying that xenophobia is on the rise (here and everywhere) but it is not the sentiment of "the public". Combined with a description that seemed to lament the apparent lack of stricter controls led me to question why it would be important where you are born if you obey the law. Thinking of that, why would it be important if you don't?

Anyhow, revisiting the thread I can see that the post I answered to could be meant differently. I thank you for that and would like to advance my apologies to the OP in that case.

> The part of "the public sentiment [for stricter immigration controls] is there, but the laws say the other way"

...was a response to this quote from original OP:

> generally Europe is very anti-immigrant

and there is "might be there" not "is there" in my post. I just don't really know the public sentiment in Europe enough to argue with original OP, so referred to the laws instead, to show that Europe is not anti-immigrant.

> Combined with a description that seemed to lament the apparent lack of stricter controls led me to question why it would be important where you are born if you obey the law.

It's not! To the contrary, my description was meant to show how harsh US immigration system is compared to the EU's.

> would like to advance my apologies to the OP in that case.

Please, nevermind. Your question was okayish in the context of the thread, plus I'm not the kind of person that can be offended by an Internet discussion.

Thank you for your reply! It is hard to uphold a conversation on HN over a longer time, so I appreciate your reply very much.