This should be the immigration policy of the United States:
I don´t know if I posted this before, but like if you agree. Comment if you don´t.
My proposed immigration requirements
Posts
Total:
40
-->
@Alec
Both sides, the left and the right talk about immigration reform.
Immigrants complain about the process being too hard. This 7 step requirement list would make it much simpler and easier for the immigrants coming in and would lead to more legal immigrants and less illegal ones.
Proposed requirements for coming into the US. Other western countries can modify this as they see fit.
*All loans are paid with .5% APR interest rate(adjusted for inflation).
Required for greencard and citizenship.
Required for citizenship.
- Can’t be convicted of any jail punishable crime under US law in the past unless proven innocent in all convicted crime/crimes. No exception to minors.
- Must have a steady, consistent job that benefits America and doesn’t take jobs from people already here. Can’t be on welfare. Exception to minors and to people here on college.
- Pay $50 for your green card. If you can’t afford it, take out a government loan.* No exception to minors unless parents pay for their citizenship cards as well.
- Must renounce all allegiance to all other sovereign states and must pledge allegiance to the United States and swear to take arms on its behalf in the event of a draft. Exception to minors, but they must do it at 18.
- Must know English fluently. If you don’t know it, you would be legally required to learn it in courses that you pay for. If you can’t afford it, you would have to take out a loan. No exception to minors.*
- Pay $50 for your citizenship card. If you can’t afford it, take out a government loan.* No exception to minors unless parents pay for their citizenship cards as well.
- Must settle in the state that the US gov tells you to. The immigrant is allowed to make a list of states that they would be fine with settling in, and the gov is allowed to take that list into account. If the immigrant is indifferent, they must put that they don ́t care on the list. All states listed will need a reason why.
-->
@Greyparrot
I don´t know why you copied my idea without the highlighting, but I´m assuming you agree with it, so it´s a win.
Requirement no. 2 is ridiculously vague. Any employed immigrant is technically taking a job opportunity from everyone else who's looking. So can immigrants not be employed at all? Are they just supposed to live on welfare?
-->
@Swagnarok
The market has a history of making a huge number of jobs in a short amount of time when necessary. After WWII, a fear of employing women was that they would take jobs from men and this would cause the unemployment rate to rise to 50%. It was a reasonable fear, just not justified because the market made jobs for everyone. The unemployment rate once women were involved in the US workforce never rose nearly this high after WWII in the US. Some women owned businesses. This employed others. Other businesses grew in power because they had way more employees then before. Immigrants are merely the new female in this regard. Why reject the economic opportunity to have the stock market skyrocket, benefiting the half of the US population that owns stock? All that tax revenue would enable the US to pay off our debt at unprecedented rates without raising taxes on the american worker.
-->
@Alec
The market has a history of making a huge number of jobs in a short amount of time when necessary.
Lol no it doesn't. People create jobs only when it's profitable to do so with low risk.
The people who don't do this have no capital left.
-->
@Greyparrot
The market will still create jobs for everyone that goes out and gets them.
-->
@Alec
And if that was true, everyone in Venezuela would be employed, simply because people are looking for work.
It took me all of half a minute to see that this plan is utterly asinine.... Numbers 2, 4, 5 and 7 in particular made me lose brain cells as I read them.
For number 2, a vast majority of immigrants are not going to have a job lined up for them when they come here, as has been the case with just about every group of immigrants in US history. What has been the case throughout history is that immigrants have left their original countries due to warfare, bad economy, corrupt government, or some other calamity that has forced them to decide that its literally better for them to roll the dice and start a life in a different country completely from scratch rather then try to make things work out where they currently are. Immigrants come here and are willing to accept any job that will have them, which 95% of the time are low paying jobs that are very labor intensive that most Americans already dont want to do themselves.... The additional demand that it cant be a job that would be 'taken from someone already here' adds to the stupidity of the whole plan since 'a job that could be taken from an American' can be defined to mean pretty much any job you want it to, for the 5% of high paying jobs that are staffed by high-skilled immigrants who could be doctors in their own countries but want to be doctors here in America instead, that rule completely shuts them out from entering the country because the higher-skill jobs are ones that could very conceivably go to Americans.... So rule number 2 bars poor immigrants because they wont have a job lined up for them, and also bars wealthier and higher skilled immigrants by barring them from practicing their profession in the US just because there are people who also want to be doctors.
For number 4, Pledging allegiance and agreeing to be drafted in the army is fine, but requiring that they renounce allegiance to their country of origin is straight stupid. Immigrants are allowed to have pride for their country of origin and be proud of their cultural heritage while also live in the US. Having pride for your original country or country of your ancestors does not mean you cant also have pride in the United States, yet this rule treats that as a falsehood. hell Americans in this country have PARADES to celebrate their heritage from foreign countries, and the biggest one of them all is probably the one for Irish people in New York held every year.... In addition to being plain stupid, there's also no way to enforce this rule either as anyone can simply say that they will not be loyal to their previous country and then just do so anyways.
For number 5 there are pockets throughout America where you can get by and be a good citizen while not having the best English. New York, Seattle, LA, San Diego, Miami, El Paso, Chicago, New Jersey... There's even a big Somali community in North Dakota of all places due to a refugee resettlement program from the 90's. A lot of immigrant couples or immigrant families make it work by having one of the parents or eldest children be the most proficient in speaking English and then help the rest of the family keep up when they hit a speed bump..... From the get go, its possible to be able to live in America and be a good citizen while not being completely fluent in English, and this isnt even getting into the fact that 1) Coursework arguably isn't the best way to teach immigrants English, and 2) requiring that they pay for it is just unnecessarily cruel
Lastly with number 7.... What the fuck is even the point with number 7? Not only would it be needlessly bureaucratic to have the government spend a ton of tax dollars on deciding which state each and every immigrant should settle in, but Im pretty sure it's not even Constitutional for the government to say which state you have to live in. If a Japanese immigrant wants to live in Wisconsin because they always dreamed of having a dairy farm and because they like cold winters, is the government going to reject that request and force them settle in Washington with many other Japanese Americans?.... This power could also be easily exploited by a corrupt administration to also have immigrants only live in a handful of states just for political purposes. Of all the rules in the list you give, this one far and away makes the least amount of sense.
-->
@Imabench
There really should be only 2 requirements.
1) Don't be a welfare liability or a criminal.
2) Be fluent enough in English to understand the laws and customs, or have someone in your family that can explain them.
-->
@Greyparrot
Even then though there is still an American Principle to let in immigrants no matter how likely their chances are at being pretty low income for a majority of their lives, just so that their kids and future generations can have a better shot at making it big. Its not just the highly skilled or the highly fluent or the highly wealthy that should be allowed in, it should be open to those who are willing to work hard and do what it takes. That kind of thing isnt going to show up on any sort of test though, so you just have to let those people prove themselves and have faith in them, but if things really go to shit then deport them.
My main focuses regarding immigration is that 1) They shouldnt have a problematic criminal record, i think we can all agree on that, and 2) Also shouldnt just be a lone young male seeking immigration, because historically speaking, its the lone males who on their own are the most prone to falling into crime or even becoming an extremist of some sort. People who wish to immigrate with families to support on the other hand are going to prioritize their families over themselves almost every single time, and can be trusted to keep their shit together as much as possible otherwise the entire family might get fucked because of it.....
-->
@Imabench
The thing about requirement one is purely a practical pragmatic matter. There's only so much of the welfare pie to go around, and families with vested interests and investments in America should supersede non-Americans. Just look at all the homeless Americans we have on the streets right now, and we aren't even functionally bankrupt with national debt yet. Imagine what's going to happen to Americans when the Moody's rating slips and hyperinflation sets in. Ittle make our current problems seem like nothing.
-->
@Imabench
I mean maybe it was an American Principle before FDR fundamentally transformed the country into a welfare state, but that blessing is the curse that requires means-testing immigrants now to make sure we don't go bankrupt faster than we already are heading.
-->
@Greyparrot
lol
Its not the fault of immigrants that the US government has forgotten how to balance a checkbook. If your fear is defaulting or triggering hyper inflation, clamping down on immigration isnt going to do a damn thing about it. Cut down on military spending, raise the age to collect social security, dont give a giant fuckin tax break to the ultra wealthy for no damn reason.... Immigrants have about as much to do with the national debt being as high as it is than the islands nation of the Maldives, they shouldnt be the ones punished because Senators and presidents dont know what the hell theyre doing anymroe.
-->
@Imabench
What a horrible thing to say. It's not the immigrant's fault...
you're right of course. The blame is totally on us for having no enforceable laws at the border and no checks on runaway welfare spending.
If you're going to leave the front door to your house wide open, don't be surprised when you come home to an empty house.
-->
@Imabench
As an addendum to that, the fact that we are lawless at the border is the direct cause of all the dead kids being killed by their parents in an attempt to gain a better life. Think of it this way. Imagine if CPS was completely eliminated in this country and parents could be awarded money for every child they have. You wouldn't be able to blame the parents for child endangerment/neglect at that point.
In fact, the USA's backward policies and laws reward immigrant parents for endangering and neglecting their children, cultivating an environment for even more kids to suffer.
-->
@Imabench
I'll address your claim when I have the time for it.
-->
@Greyparrot
There is so much of your response that is so blatantly incorrect that there is literally no point in continuing this conversation with you since you arent even close to having a feasible enough understanding of reality enough to discuss it.
-->
@Imabench
If they are low skilled immigrants, they can take jobs that americans won´t apply for.Immigrants come here and are willing to accept any job that will have them, which 95% of the time are low paying jobs that are very labor intensive that most Americans already don't want to do themselves
The additional demand that it cant be a job that would be 'taken from someone already here' adds to the stupidity of the whole plan since 'a job that could be taken from an American' can be defined to mean pretty much any job you want it to, for the 5% of high paying jobs that are staffed by high-skilled immigrants who could be doctors in their own countries but want to be doctors here in America instead, that rule completely shuts them out from entering the country because the higher-skill jobs are ones that could very conceivably go to Americans
Let's say that there is a need for doctors and 5 native born americans apply for it and 3 immigrants apply for it. The doctor´s office would take them all in, all 8 of them to help save patients lives. In this high skilled job, no one loses out on an opportunity. As long as there is enough openings, which there almost always is especially for high skilled jobs, the immigrants can select a job they like that they think they are qualified for.
but requiring that they renounce allegiance to their country of origin is straight stupid.
I based this off of existing US law. This requirement can be modified, but they should to be American first. If they were from China for example, fleeing communism, that´s honorable and all, but if that's the case, why would they honor China? They fled China because they hated China and respected America more.
For number 5 there are pockets throughout America where you can get by and be a good citizen while not having the best English. New York, Seattle, LA, San Diego, Miami, El Paso, Chicago, New Jersey
If you checked out the document, you would see that this is merely a requirement for citizenship. Under this plan, it would be legally possible to not know a word of English and still get a greencard for example. You can live in the country, you just can´t vote until you learn English and pay a processing fee for the citizenship card. I don´t want to have to provide dozens of translations for voting ballots and it prevents separatist movements.
1) Coursework arguably isn't the best way to teach immigrants English
The immigrant can select any method they want to learn it. They can learn it in a class. They can learn it due to exposure.
What the fuck is even the point with number 7?
The point of this is to help keep the US integrated and to prevent separatist movements.
Not only would it be needlessly bureaucratic to have the government spend a ton of tax dollars on deciding which state each and every immigrant should settle in
It would be cheap. The immigrant largely decides what state they settle in. Many immigrants won´t care what state they settle in. 160 million people want to come to the US. Because of this, for every 2 native born Americans that exist in the country, there would be 1 immigrant. This helps spread the effects of immigration more evenly across the country.
but Im pretty sure it's not even Constitutional for the government to say which state you have to live in
Where does the constitution say this?
If a Japanese immigrant wants to live in Wisconsin because they always dreamed of having a dairy farm and because they like cold winters, is the government going to reject that request and force them settle in Washington with many other Japanese Americans?
Since I would prefer it if the Japanese immigrant settled away from other Japanese immigrants to help integrate and assimilate the Japanese person quicker and to give rural America some immigrants, I would be fine with them owning a dairy farm in Wisconsin. The immigrant has a say in where they would go under my plan and this would be taken into account. If lets say they are moving for jobs, and their company has a place in NY and Missouri. The immigrant can go to Missouri and that solves it. The goal of this requirement is to maintain integration and unification so America isin´t divided on cultural grounds.
This power could also be easily exploited by a corrupt administration to also have immigrants only live in a handful of states just for political purposes.
The point of the rule is for immigrants to live in every state in significant numbers to maintain integration and to prevent one area from becoming so immigrant that it wants to break away from the non-immigrant rest of the country. My main concern is with the Hispanics. If we allow them to settle wherever they want, most would settle in urban areas and in the South West. If they become too hispanophone, they might want to break away from the US on cultural grounds. Many countries have experienced multiculturalism only for it to destroy their country, like Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia.
-->
@Alec
Where does the constitution say this?
The 9th amendment reminds us that it doesn't have to be enumerated. Freedom of travel is protected as a fundamental right.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Plus, the question of where in the constitution it says the federal government cannot do something is backwards. The federal government does not have legal authority outside of what is mentioned in the constitution. What is not mentioned is reserved to the states, and to the people.
-->
@Snoopy
In the event that my proposed immigration policy would go into place, the 9th amendment would not apply because there would be a law against the unrestricted settling of immigrants. That only protects against freedoms not removed by law.
-->
@Alec
You want to amend the constitution to eliminate the freedom of travel and association?
-->
@Snoopy
I´m saying that under my proposal, a constitutional amendment isin´t necessary because it only protects freedoms not infringed by law.
-->
@Alec
We literally have an amendment that says "shall not be infringed". Obviously a federal law "infringing" on that particular right is unconstitutional, and would hopefully be ruled against by the supreme court. You're not making any sense in that last one.
-->
@Alec
Take some time to learn our Constitution, otherwise you can't consent to a vote.
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
BONUS
26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
If they are low skilled immigrants, they can take jobs that americans won´t apply for.
Alright well that solves about half the issue then with that one. The text doc word for word says "Doesnt take jobs from people already here" which was the big issue I had since there are many positions and jobs that are labor-intensive with pretty poor pay that many Americans themselves wouldnt take....
The other issues now are in regards to 'Must have a steady, consistent job'. The first issue is that because a lot of the jobs that Americans dont normally take also happen to be positions that have sporadic demand throughout the year. Farming seasons only last so long, construction jobs come in boom and bust cycles, etc. If those high intensity low wage positions are not considered 'steady and consistent', then the immigrant can be denied entry even though theyre willing to work an open job that Americans dont want to do but is a necessary job that needs to be done.
The other issue is that these kind of jobs often arent ones that immigrants have 'lined up' before entering the country. What usually happens is they immigrate and THEN look for what jobs are available for them to accept. Rule #2 implies that immigrants need a job before they can even step foot in the country, which just isnt realistic due to the nature of how immigrants get a job sometime after they enter the country and get a read on who or what is hiring
As long as there is enough openings, which there almost always is especially for high skilled jobs
But even if there aren't enough openings, what is the logic in not allowing immigrants with a solid skills-set from immigrating into the country? The reason why the US has achieved its status as the biggest economy in the world is because it held a monopoly on high-skilled talent following ww2 since everywhere else was either bombed to smithereens or an oppressive communist dictatorship..... Immigrants with high skills (college graduate as a measure) should be allowed into the country regardless if they have a job lined up or could apply for a job where there is already some competition. Their skills would make them the best candidate to be a benefit to the country you could ask for at that point
If they were from China for example, fleeing communism, that´s honorable and all, but if that's the case, why would they honor China?
Ask that question to any Cuban in Miami and you'll get the same answer I give right here: because a nation is more then just the regime currently running it..... Cuba used to be a capitalistic island paradise that was effectively a 51st US state before Castro came in and screwed up everything, causing a massive amount of emigration into the United States. Cubans who immigrated to the US to become American citizens though dont hate Cuba because the government forced them to flee or made their live unsustainable, they love Cuba and are proud they are cuban, they just hate Castro and the regime currently running it.
Allegiance to a country doesnt mean allegiance to a regime or a government. It involves culture, heritage, history, language, much more then just political aspects and the policy positions of those who happen to be running the country at any given moment. Your rule though implies that allegiance to a country primarily applies to the politics of the country and those who currently run it, but thats just not the case a vast majority of the time.
This rule (Be fluent in English) is merely a requirement for citizenship
Not according to the document its not.... The only time 'citizenship' is even mentioned in your document is the rule after that where you demand that immigrants pay $50 to get their citizenship card... The way its worded in the document, the rule makes it look like people would be denied the ability to immigrate into the country if they dont speak English fluently, not that they would be denied citizenship if they dont speak english fluently.
I don´t want to have to provide dozens of translations for voting ballots
Lol. How big of an issue is that exactly? As diverse as the country is, only Spanish and maybe a few asian dialects along the west coast are spoken with enough frequency to have those specific regions have ballots where the ballots have a little extra space at the bottom listing the same choices in other languages as they are in English. Voting booths also usually have a person or two to help with translation the ballot for those who request one so this is a non-issue completely.
The immigrant can select any method they want to learn English. They can learn it in a class. They can learn it due to exposure.
Before the document said that if they didn't speak English fluency they would be required to learn it, be required to take classes to learn it, and that they would have to pay for those classes on top of it.
You also dont even address the point that immigrants can get by in society without knowing English fluently due to immigrant communities and having a family member be able to help with translations as well, so the rule even updated is still a bad one.
The point of having the US pick which state the immigrants live in is to help keep the US integrated and to prevent separatist movements.
In what world do people flee oppression and corruption in their own country to immigrate to the United States only to then be a part of a separatist movement to have that part America secede and become owned by the foreign country they just fled from? Thats just irrationally nonsensical on top of not being Constitutionally viable.
It would be cheap
Name one thing the US government runs that is done fairly cheaply where people are satisfied with how much is spent on the operation. The government cant even deliver mail without racking up billions in debt every year, its not going to be cheap to have an entire bureaucracy devoted to deciding where to send immigrants and keep up on the immigrants to make sure theyre still living there
The immigrant largely decides what state they settle in. Many immigrants won´t care what state they settle in.
Im gonna need you to clarify what your belief is here because those two sentences are fairly contradictory.
160 million people want to come to the US. Because of this, for every 2 native born Americans that exist in the country, there would be 1 immigrant.
im pretty sure that 160 million people want to win the lottery as well, that doesnt mean its actually going to happen.
This helps spread the effects of immigration more evenly across the country. (Later) The goal of this requirement is to maintain integration and unification so America isin´t divided on cultural grounds
It could also be abused to do the exact opposite of that and force immigrants to live in three or four states total. If Trump had the power to send all immigrants from Central America to California to put a massive financial strain on the state, and then tweet about how bad the state is run because of its liberal beliefs towards immigration, do you really think he would REFRAIN from doing that?
Even if there are good intentions behind the rule, it could 100% be used irresponsibly and corruptly
Where does the constitution say this (They cannot force a person to live in a particular state)
The 10th Amendment specifies that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved for the States instead. Because its not stated that the federal government can mandate which states immigrants live in, only states could do that. However, no state has authority over another state, so they cant require that immigrants live in a specific state since states dont have authority over each other like that.
My main concern is with the Hispanics. If we allow them to settle wherever they want, most would settle in urban areas and in the South West. If they become too hispanophone, they might want to break away from the US on cultural grounds.
But the thing is that Hispanics who live in the US have adapted their cultural traditions into Americanized versions of those traditions over time, the same as Japanese Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans, so on and so on.
Best example: Cinco De Mayo isnt even celebrated as a major holiday in Mexico apart from the Mexican state of Pueblo. Mexico's independence day is September 16th which is their major holiday, but Cinco De Mayo can almost be missed depending on what state of Mexico you're in... Cinco de Mayo is what happens when a large enough cultural group of immigrants gain a sense of community here. They dont try to drag their traditions with them, they sort of blend native traditions with life in America to create something new.
you did post it here
-->
@Imabench
The text doc word for word says "Doesnt take jobs from people already here" which was the big issue I had since there are many positions and jobs that are labor-intensive with pretty poor pay that many Americans themselves wouldnt take....
Someone has to do the jobs Americans don´t want to do.
What usually happens is they immigrate and THEN look for what jobs are available for them to accept.
They would have needed a previous job in their home country and any absences in work would have to be justified. This rule exists to make sure that they can hold a job. I don´t want to unleash a bunch of people coming to the country and getting welfare, which although they don´t right now, they would if we legalized them all if they didn't have jobs. They would merely have to have a good track record of work and would show that if allowed in the country legally, then they wouldn't be on welfare. Consider the 2nd requirement modified.
But even if there aren't enough openings, what is the logic in not allowing immigrants with a solid skills-set from immigrating into the country?
There would be enough openings for those who meet the requirements for most high skilled jobs. This is even the case for most low skilled jobs. If there weren't, these high skilled immigrants would not be able to get jobs because there are no openings and then either they or some American doctor would be out of a job and maybe having to pay off a huge debt from college bills. This resorts one of the doctors going on welfare due to lack of openings. Good thing there are no known maximums or caps for doctors and the only filters are qualifications.
I modified the 4th requirement. Want to check it out?
Not according to the document its not.... The only time 'citizenship' is even mentioned in your document is the rule after that where you demand that immigrants pay $50 to get their citizenship card
In the google document in post #1, I highlighted in 2 colors; green and blue. What´s in green is what´s required for greencard and citizenship. What´s in blue is just for citizenship. Greyperrot merely copied and pasted to make it look like it was the requirements for entry. In his forum post, the highlighting got removed accidentally.
Lol. How big of an issue is that exactly?
Bigger than you think if all 150 million immigrants come to the US. Since they would come from China, Nigeria, India, Bangladesh, Brazil and more, I don´t want ballots in Chinese, the Nigerian languages, Hindi (and all the minor languages in India), Bengali, Portuguese, and more. Plus, the English language is one unifying part of what it means to be a US citizen.
Voting booths also usually have a person or two to help with translation the ballot for those who request one so this is a non-issue completely.
This might be true. I haven´t seen anyone actually use this when I was at voting booths. I´m fine with it for any language that does not pose a threat to national sovereignty. The only language that does pose a future threat is Spanish, which in particular has a high chance of breaking away to form their own country if we make our borders this easy. I think the reason why so few Hispanics want to move to the US is because they feel rejected by Trump. With this policy, they would just come in. Learning English at least for them should be required in order to maintain national security.
Before the document said that if they didn't speak English fluency they would be required to learn it, be required to take classes to learn it, and that they would have to pay for those classes on top of it.
Now it´s implied that if you don´t know fluent English, you would have to learn it, whether you use classes or you try to do it on your own is up to the immigrant.
You also dont even address the point that immigrants can get by in society without knowing English fluently due to immigrant communities and having a family member be able to help with translations as well, so the rule even updated is still a bad one.
They can get by without knowing English in some situations. They can even get a green card without knowing English if they meet all the necessary requirements. They just can´t vote until they learn English, pay the fee, and move to a state that won´t make 1 area too immigrant in order to keep the country mixed, which would assiliminate the immigrants faster. The rule for them should exist until they assiliminate, maybe for 5 years and after that, the immigrant can move to whatever state they want.
In what world do people flee oppression and corruption in their own country to immigrate to the United States only to then be a part of a separatist movement to have that part America secede and become owned by the foreign country they just fled from?