www.ditl.org

Someone posted this on Dakkadakka and I thought it was good information.



The fast track to becoming a US citizen is 6 to 7 years. It can take as many as 28.

I'm not sure that I see the point. OK, it can take a long time. However, some people don't think marijuana should be illegal - but if you get caught with it, it's still a crime. In like manner, we may not like the immigration process, but circumventing it is still illegal.

The point is that it's not just a simple matter of paperwork someone doesn't want to do. It's that it's virtually impossible to legally immigrate without having a close relative, a skilled job already lined up, or a lot of cash. If you don't have one of those three your odds are pretty close to zero. Even with one of those ins the process can take the better part of a decade to three to go through.

That's why illegal immigration is rampant, we've made it almost impossible to do it legally.

OK, it's tough to immigrate legally. Bear in mind that the item you've provided displays the cases of legal residence and citizenship, not work visas or similar; however, I'll go along. So, it's tough; and... ? Whether it's tough or not doesn't change the illegal status of illegal immigration.

Also, before I make any further value judgement on that I'd have to see how our process stacks up compared to the process in the other major First World nations.

Lastly: so what if it's tough? Have we asked anybody to immigrate?

OK, I should explain that last comment. I should ask, instead: why is it our responsibility to make it easy, if we're not inviting immigration?

BTW, is this conversation a role reversal between us, or what?

Why should it be difficult to immigrate? I said it on Dakkadakka:

If helgrenze's numbers are accurate, and from what I know they look to be pretty decent we only allow 511,000 people to legally immigrate every year. For a country of immigrants with "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free..." on the doormat it seems like a mixed message. To me if someone wants to be an American our answer should be, "Sure! Come on, the more the merrier," not, "Hmmm, sorry. We've let too many of you foreigners in this year already. if the death squads don't get you feel free to try again next year." The whole idea that we turn away people who want to become citizens seems un-American to me, or at least to my rosey eyed interpretation of what America should be about.

We've got the invitation right on the door. By existing we invite people to join us. By holding ourselves and our way of government up as "the best" we invite people to become a part of it. By espousing freedom as our core principal we invite it. If we're going to tell people how great freedom is then answering their request to join and experience it with us with, "Haha, sorry, but no," just makes us some of the biggest dicks in the world.

Tyyr wrote:By existing we invite people to join us.

I don't buy it. BTW, when did you convert to bleeding-heart?

Tyyr wrote:By holding ourselves and our way of government up as "the best" we invite people to become a part of it. By espousing freedom as our core principal we invite it.

Bull-pucks. We hold our own processes up as "best" because they're our processes. If we didn't think they were best, they'd no longer be our processes. You and I both live our lives the way we think is best, because that's what sane people do - neither of us, however, by doing so is inviting people to join the Church of Tyyr or the Golden Path of Mikey.

Mikey wrote:Bull-pucks. We hold our own processes up as "best" because they're our processes. If we didn't think they were best, they'd no longer be our processes. You and I both live our lives the way we think is best, because that's what sane people do - neither of us, however, by doing so is inviting people to join the Church of Tyyr or the Golden Path of Mikey.

Really? Then why vote, engage in debates, even voice an opinion? Do you do so with no intention of trying to convince people that you're right and bring them around to your point of view? If someone did would you tell them to piss off, the party's full or would you welcome them?

First of all, the original message was in a time when the USA was a Pioneer country, with lots of land masses to colonise and an industry to build up, which isn't the case anymore.

Second of all, I do not see the problem with having restriction regarding the immigrants who are allowed to become citizen. You do not want loads of additional unqualified, unemployed workers when you already have plenty of those in the U.S.

I do not see why the U.S. should be more open than other countries when it comes to immigrating rights. Just because you have a history of promoting said immigration (either free immigrants or as merchandise) doesn't meant it's the case anymore.

I do not think the US are doing the right thing by building this fence on the Mexican border, nor doing what's best for itself in the way it treats latino workers/aliens. But on the other hand, I do not believe that a national policy should be based on an outdated moral principle that just doesn't have a hold on modern realities.

Watching this, I feel like the universe flipped upside down...

SolkaTruesilver wrote:First of all, the original message was in a time when the USA was a Pioneer country, with lots of land masses to colonise and an industry to build up, which isn't the case anymore.

The US isn't hurting for land mass and the whole reason our industry and country grew was we accepted immigrants and they helped make us what we are today.

Second of all, I do not see the problem with having restriction regarding the immigrants who are allowed to become citizen. You do not want loads of additional unqualified, unemployed workers when you already have plenty of those in the U.S.

Except that the unemployment and welfare lines tend to be chock full of red-blooded born in the U.S. of A. AMURICANS! while the immigrants do jobs most of us would consider to be "beneath" us.

I do not see why the U.S. should be more open than other countries when it comes to immigrating rights. Just because you have a history of promoting said immigration (either free immigrants or as merchandise) doesn't meant it's the case anymore.

I do not think the US are doing the right thing by building this fence on the Mexican border, nor doing what's best for itself in the way it treats latino workers/aliens.

Wait... what? So we're ok limiting immigration as much as we won't just so long as we don't actually try to enforce those laws?

But on the other hand, I do not believe that a national policy should be based on an outdated moral principle that just doesn't have a hold on modern realities.

I don't consider it an outdated moral principle. I consider it the only reason we're the nation we are today.

Tyyr wrote:Really? Then why vote, engage in debates, even voice an opinion? Do you do so with no intention of trying to convince people that you're right and bring them around to your point of view? If someone did would you tell them to piss off, the party's full or would you welcome them?

This is either accidentally tangential or intentionally red-herring-ish. The point has nothing to do with convincing people of anything; rather, that your prior argument that "America considers the American way to be best" isn't in fact an argument for uncontrolled immigration, but simply a natural quality of humanity. That very fact is why people do vote and do engage in debate.

However, the fact that I say "I'm an American and I like America" is not the same as "please emigrate to America and expect no control over the issue at all."

Tyyr wrote:

Second of all, I do not see the problem with having restriction regarding the immigrants who are allowed to become citizen. You do not want loads of additional unqualified, unemployed workers when you already have plenty of those in the U.S.

Except that the unemployment and welfare lines tend to be chock full of red-blooded born in the U.S. of A. AMURICANS! while the immigrants do jobs most of us would consider to be "beneath" us.

It's a very good argument, but it also clearly points out what is the real problem: unemployed people would rather sit on their arse rather than go do these jobs they feel is beneath them. I do not think making up for the lack of unskilled willing labor with immigration is a good thing, as the 2nd generation of these immigrants will just be as poor and probably as unlikely to get off their arse to do the work, since they will be cleared for social welfare.

I do not see why the U.S. should be more open than other countries when it comes to immigrating rights. Just because you have a history of promoting said immigration (either free immigrants or as merchandise) doesn't meant it's the case anymore.

I do not think the US are doing the right thing by building this fence on the Mexican border, nor doing what's best for itself in the way it treats latino workers/aliens.

Wait... what? So we're ok limiting immigration as much as we won't just so long as we don't actually try to enforce those laws?

Hmm.. no, what I meant is, I don't believe the US should automatically be a country with more open borders when it comes to immigration than other countries. That's the basic principle. Now, the US might want to open or close their border because of circumstancial economic motivations (ex: massive labor shortage/overflow), but not based on "The US should be a land free for immigrants!". You don't run a country with nice slogans.

that being said, as you pointed out, there is a need of labor in the US right now for the immigrants coming over from the mexican border. I do not know exactly what is the economical reason (need of competitiveness on the part of business owner motivates paying smaller salaries?), but the point is: there is a paradoxal unbalance of available jobs. The people come to the US for find job, which they DO, even if the country is running as very high unemployment rate at the moment. That is a big problem, as uncontrolled and unreported labor is tax income loss for the government, and these workforce are more likely to be treated like dirt, which is simply disgusting.

But on the other hand, I do not believe that a national policy should be based on an outdated moral principle that just doesn't have a hold on modern realities.

I don't consider it an outdated moral principle. I consider it the only reason we're the nation we are today.

[/quote]

Yes, because at the time, you badly needed the additional population and labor pool over most spectrum of labor avalable (factory worker, land owner, farmer, entrepreneur, etc...). It's not the case anymore, as your country changed its economical fundamentals.

So can I ask what the point of this thread is?

You can, but you'll have a 6-12 years wait to get a response.