Immigration Policy

[Arkady]

Here's an interesting policy discussing two competing views about how immigration should work.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/immigration_reform_and_boehner_should_u_s_policy_be_more_like_qatar_s_or.html

One route is to accept relatively few immigrants, but then to grant them something close to full, immediate participation into the rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens there. This is the Scandinavian approach. The other route is to accept a relatively large number of immigrants, but to treat them as a second tier of residents --guest workers-- who don't get access to a lot of the social spending and some of the protections afforded to citizens. This is the approach taken by the oil-rich Gulf states.

It's an interesting choice, because it needn't fall into predictable left/right tendencies. It's possible to be a lefty and take the view that it's better to allow a lot of immigrants with a "second class" status than just a few with a "first class status." Although the article argues, from a liberal perspective, in favor of the Scandinavian approach, it touches on the humanistic argument for the Gulf approach:

"If we think of immigration policy as involving a quality-versus-quantity trade-off, Pritchett, who sees immigration from poor countries to rich countries as an important strategy for fighting global poverty, chooses quantity. If more Bengalis, Beninese, and Bhutanese are allowed to work in rich countries, they’ll be able to send more in remittances to their families back home, which in turn will help lift more families out of poverty. This is true even if these migrant workers aren’t granted many freedoms, if they’re paid far less than local workers, and if they’re only allowed in the country for a limited period of time. Indeed, from a poverty-fighting perspective, you’d actually want migrant workers to turn over pretty often: Each time one batch goes home, another batch could come to Doha or Dubai to earn money and send it back to their native countries. This churn is a great way to spread the wealth."

I actually agree with that approach, at least if you start from the premise that there's a choice between the quantity of immigration you allow and the quality of status you can afford to provide to immigrants. I think that a preference for higher quality and lower quantity amounts to a preference for lots of disadvantage and suffering you can't see over a little disadvantage and suffering you can see. It amounts to being so sensitive about seeing people living a relatively hardscrabble and unfair life here in the US that you'd prefer to send most of them home to live a MUCH tougher, much more unfair life in some country, so that you can keep a few of them here and have them live much better, fairer lives.

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

Here's an interesting policy discussing two competing views about how immigration should work.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/immigration_reform_and_boehner_should_u_s_policy_be_more_like_qatar_s_or.html

One route is to accept relatively few immigrants, but then to grant them something close to full, immediate participation into the rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens there. This is the Scandinavian approach. The other route is to accept a relatively large number of immigrants, but to treat them as a second tier of residents --guest workers-- who don't get access to a lot of the social spending and some of the protections afforded to citizens. This is the approach taken by the oil-rich Gulf states.

It's an interesting choice, because it needn't fall into predictable left/right tendencies. It's possible to be a lefty and take the view that it's better to allow a lot of immigrants with a "second class" status than just a few with a "first class status." Although the article argues, from a liberal perspective, in favor of the Scandinavian approach, it touches on the humanistic argument for the Gulf approach:



I actually agree with that approach, at least if you start from the premise that there's a choice between the quantity of immigration you allow and the quality of status you can afford to provide to immigrants. I think that a preference for higher quality and lower quantity amounts to a preference for lots of disadvantage and suffering you can't see over a little disadvantage and suffering you can see. It amounts to being so sensitive about seeing people living a relatively hardscrabble and unfair life here in the US that you'd prefer to send most of them home to live a MUCH tougher, much more unfair life in some country, so that you can keep a few of them here and have them live much better, fairer lives.

so how do you feel about folks that lie, cheat and use dishonesty to gain employment in countries that they skirted all immigration requirements to get there?


I would guess you think they should be rewarded

 

[NightSwimmer]

I'd like to see a hybrid approach. I'd prefer to encourage those who want to become US citizens by fast-tracking citizenship to as great an extent as is feasible, but I'd also like to make it much easier for transient laborers to enter and leave the country legally without gaining full citizenship status.

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

I'd like to see a hybrid approach. I'd prefer to encourage those who want to become US citizens by fast-tracking citizenship to as great an extent as is feasible, but I'd also like to make it much easier for transient laborers to enter and leave the country legally without gaining full citizenship status.

same question for you.



so how do you feel about folks that lie, cheat and use dishonesty to gain employment in countries that they skirted all immigration requirements to get there?


They have already demonstrated serious character flaws.

I have been throught the process twice with immediate family members other than the INS being understaffed making the process slow it is not out of line with the processes of most other countries

 

[NightSwimmer]

same question for you.



so how do you feel about folks that lie, cheat and use dishonesty to gain employment in countries that they skirted all immigration requirements to get there?

I disagree with that wholeheartedly. That is why I oppose our current wink & nod policy of making immigrant workers illegal and forcing them into the black market. I'd rather have a well regulated, legal visa program for temporary workers.

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

I disagree with that wholeheartedly. That is why I oppose our current wink & nod policy of making immigrant workers illegal and forcing them into the black market. I'd rather have a well regulated, legal visa program for temporary workers.

I can't disagree with the overall theme of your idea but that doesn't answer the question.

 

[NightSwimmer]

I can't disagree with the overall theme of your idea but that doesn't answer the question.

I answered your question. Maybe you simply don't like my answer?

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

I answered your question. Maybe you simply don't like my answer?

Do these indirect replies mean you feel people that lie, cheat and use dishonesty to gain employment in countries that they skirted all immigration requirements to get there should be rewarded?

 

[NightSwimmer]

Do these indirect replies mean you feel people that lie, cheat and use dishonesty to gain employment in countries that they skirted all immigration requirements to get there should be rewarded?

If that's what I believed, then that's what I'd say. How simple do I have to make this, Lupe?

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

If that's what I believed, then that's what I'd say. How simple do I have to make this, Lupe?

The question is simple you just are not answering it. You have merely stated how you felt immigrant workers should be handled and no comment whatsoever about the ones already here by way of devious means

 

[as seen on tv]

which of those routes prevents 500,000 to 1 million mexicans a year from entering this country illegally, displacing those here legally from landscaping, janitorial, kitchen, and construction jobs?

we've had immigration reform and mass legalization in the past. something almost identical to what the democrats have proposed in 2013 happened during the reagan administration.

people refuse to admit it, but the USA (compared to europe) has both the most generous immigration policy PLUS the highest level if immigrants flouting that generosity and working here illegally.

 

[Arkady]

so how do you feel about folks that lie, cheat and use dishonesty to gain employment in countries that they skirted all immigration requirements to get there?


I would guess you think they should be rewarded

I was hoping to confine the conversation to just the question of the choice between those two models of immigration, rather than getting caught up in other aspects of the immigration debate, which can be big topics in their own right. To answer briefly, though, at least for people who immigrate illegally in order to escape poverty or other difficult circumstances, and who are otherwise hard-working and law-abiding in their new country, I'd be merciful about the initial dishonesty/lawlessness. If there's ever a case for amnesty, it's that kind of sympathetic hard-luck story. I wouldn't, however, go easy on those who employ those who don't have legal authorization to work here. Such people are, for the most part, privileged, and they're trying to cheat their competitors by using labor that costs less than the legal market demands. Moreover, I'm less sympathetic to them since they're breaking their own countries' laws, which is more of a betrayal. And, I'm more hopeful that cracking down on illegal employers could do some good, since it would dry up the supply of illegal jobs, which attract illegal immigration, rather than trying to go after the workers themselves, which simply creates new job vacancies that attract more illegal immigration.

 

[Arkady]

which of those routes prevents 500,000 to 1 million mexicans a year from entering this country illegally, displacing those here legally from landscaping, janitorial, kitchen, and construction jobs?

we've had immigration reform and mass legalization in the past. something almost identical to what the democrats have proposed in 2013 happened during the reagan administration.

people refuse to admit it, but the USA (compared to europe) has both the most generous immigration policy PLUS the highest level if immigrants flouting that generosity and working here illegally.

Of the two approaches, the Gulf approach would be more likely to prevent mass illegal immigration, since it would saturate those lower-end jobs with cheap legal workers.

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

I was hoping to confine the conversation to just the question of the choice between those two models of immigration, rather than getting caught up in other aspects of the immigration debate, which can be big topics in their own right. To answer briefly, though, at least for people who immigrate illegally in order to escape poverty or other difficult circumstances, and who are otherwise hard-working and law-abiding in their new country, I'd be merciful about the initial dishonesty/lawlessness. If there's ever a case for amnesty, it's that kind of sympathetic hard-luck story. I wouldn't, however, go easy on those who employ those who don't have legal authorization to work here. Such people are, for the most part, privileged, and they're trying to cheat their competitors by using labor that costs less than the legal market demands. Moreover, I'm less sympathetic to them since they're breaking their own countries' laws, which is more of a betrayal. And, I'm more hopeful that cracking down on illegal employers could do some good, since it would dry up the supply of illegal jobs, which attract illegal immigration, rather than trying to go after the workers themselves, which simply creates new job vacancies that attract more illegal immigration.

Yes a crackdown on employers would be good but the reason illegals keep coming is because there is little chance they will be deported once they arrive and their heads are filled with dreams of food stamps and big fat income tax return checks thanks to their anchor babies

 

[Arkady]

Yes a crackdown on employers would be good but the reason illegals keep coming is because there is little chance they will be deported once they arrive and their heads are filled with dreams of food stamps and big fat income tax return checks thanks to their anchor babies

What evidence do you see that food stamps and income tax return checks are drawing them here? Those things are set at subsistence levels even for families where everyone is eligible -- in a family where only the citizen/children are eligible, and the non-citizen adults are not, coming here to try to live off food stamps and tax return checks would be a recipe for starvation. They come here, instead, to work. They're lured by the availability of jobs that pay better than what's available back home. Get rid of those jobs, and people will stop coming here.