|
Instant Sunrise posted:Also an idea: end employer-based sponsorship of immigration, replace it with an employee-based system that doesn't have such a hugely unequal power dynamic like the current system does. Could you explain what employee-based system means? Pretend like I'm an idiot (you don't have to pretend).
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Could you explain what employee-based system means? Under the present system, somebody must have a US company sponsor them in order to immigrate to the US on an H-1B visa, this lets them live and work in the US for 6 years (10 if the company is a defense contractor). There's a lot of poo poo the company has to do in order to do it and it acts as a sword of Damocles over any H-1B employee's head, since if they get laid off they have 60 days to find a new job with somebody willing to go through all whole process all over again (but without being subjected to the cap on new applications). So by getting rid of the employer sponsorship requirement, and just letting people who meet the H-1B requirements (college degree) come in, along with a much longer grace period for unemployment, it gets rid of that sword of damocles over their heads, which in turn will give prospective employees more leverage W/R/T salary negotiations, and will prevent companies from using H-1B workers as a cudgel against workers born here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Under the present system, somebody must have a US company sponsor them in order to immigrate to the US on an H-1B visa, this lets them live and work in the US for 6 years (10 if the company is a defense contractor). Ah I see, that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Under the present system, somebody must have a US company sponsor them in order to immigrate to the US on an H-1B visa, this lets them live and work in the US for 6 years (10 if the company is a defense contractor). The thing is, the whole visa system isn’t about becoming citizens and it’s good to have simple temporary visas too and it’s less that the h1b system itself is bad and more that the whole system is so bad that a little temporary work visa program got overloaded into being a system people have to use as an immigration system and it’s bad at being that. Like in a better system the people that wanted to move here would have a functioning system then the people that needed to work here for a year on a specific job then leave could have h-1bs to be a quick and simple thing. Like lots of countries you just fill out a form and pay a hundred bucks and you can come in and work some limited scope job then leave and that is a separate thing from the more complicated actual plan to live there system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The thing is, the whole visa system isn’t about becoming citizens and it’s good to have simple temporary visas too and it’s less that the h1b system itself is bad and more that the whole system is so bad that a little temporary work visa program got overloaded into being a system people have to use as an immigration system and it’s bad at being that. But you can't ignore the possibility that someone who wants to "just" work here might decide they also want to live here, either on the merits of quality of life, or because they got romantically involved with someone here. But why even bother? If you have a system where you can just come here, pay a nominal fee, and become a permanent resident, why not just have that? Somebody comes here, becomes a permanent resident, works, and then if they want to leave they just leave and let their residency lapse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:But you can't ignore the possibility that someone who wants to "just" work here might decide they also want to live here, either on the merits of quality of life, or because they got romantically involved with someone here. I mean, every time you take a weekend trip to canada you don't want to go through the whole rigamarole of becoming a canadian citizen, you WANT there to be a system for temporary entry that is separate from the immigration system. Once the guy falls in love and changes jobs there should be a new more immigration focused form he goes and fills out. "Improving" the temporary visa system and keeping people in it isn't actually good for them, by design it's meant to be a lesser system for people that don't need full immigration rights. The problem isn't that that exists, since it should exist, the problem is that the greater system has been crippled so people have no choice but use the temporary entry system to be a permanent entry system with no path between the two. But even in a utopian open border society you'd still want the two tiers of the guy coming in for 9 months to set up a factory that doesn't have to deal with all the paperwork to sign up for all the long term systems that will never apply to him and the open immigration where you come in and sit down and they sign you right up for access to rights and services of a US citizen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, every time you take a weekend trip to canada you don't want to go through the whole rigamarole of becoming a canadian citizen, you WANT there to be a system for temporary entry that is separate from the immigration system. Once the guy falls in love and changes jobs there should be a new more immigration focused form he goes and fills out. I'm just saying, once you've decided that committing to staying in the US is most of what you need for a permanent residency, a lot of the "temporary" stuff is entirely irrelevant. It's like when you go to Florida, you can go there for a week for vacation, or you can go for a summer job, or you can move there for longer. You only have more paperwork once you're there long enough that residency is an issue, and even then at no point will you be "deported" back to Michigan. At worst they'll say "hey, you've been here for more than 6 months, you need to pay state taxes and get a state driver's license to replace your out-of-state one".
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
moving to a country is actually different from temporarily going to a country and it’s fine to have two systems since what each group wants and needs is different. The issue isn’t that temporary visas exist, the problem is people forced into them that should have had better options. It’s like visiting a friend, stay for a week and you absolutely do not want to get written into the lease, plan to stay and being kept out of the lease harms you. Different systems for different situations. If you are moving here you want the rights and responsibility of being a citizen ASAP, if you are just here to set up a machine at the new factory and leave you want a simple system that never engages you in anything that doesn’t apply to you. Having two good systems and people free to use the right one for their situation and move between them as needed is ideal, not mashing everyone in some bad compromise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:moving to a country is actually different from temporarily going to a country and it’s fine to have two systems since what each group wants and needs is different. The issue isn’t that temporary visas exist, the problem is people forced into them that should have had better options. Do you need a visa to visit your friend?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 13:10
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do you need a visa to visit your friend? In another country? sure, if it's a country that requires visas for visiting. In the apartment analogy? The point of that analogy is that you gently caress someone over if you force someone to be put on the lease to stay the night but that you also gently caress someone over to be "kind" and let them stay for years and years and deny them the rights being on the lease would give. And you want someone to be able to stay short term just on light verbal permission but someone that really lives there wants to be on the lease day one. And the two systems are for people with different wants and needs and just mashing the entry visa system to be a bad immigration system or to mash the immigration system to be a bad visitor visa system are both bad and the solution is to actually fix the problems and have both, not make everything worse by making it impossible to immigrate here then force people into some eternal second class citizen state because they are in a program not made for people that are citizens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:In another country? sure, if it's a country that requires visas for visiting. But sometimes it might work out, you visit a friend and realize you want to live in that area - if it works with that friend (say they're looking for a roomate anyway), you can talk to the landlord about getting in on the lease; if you don't, then you find another apartment there. Your friend could ask you to leave his specific house and maybe will remove you by force if you insist, but you won't get deported back to Michigan or barred from that area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:But sometimes it might work out, you visit a friend and realize you want to live in that area - if it works with that friend (say they're looking for a roomate anyway), you can talk to the landlord about getting in on the lease; if you don't, then you find another apartment there. Your friend could ask you to leave his specific house and maybe will remove you by force if you insist, but you won't get deported back to Michigan or barred from that area. Yes, and that point you can go through the process of getting on the lease or whatever. As far as I can tell, OOCC is only arguing that there should be multiple different processes for migration depending on what the end goal is, not that once you've picked one, you can never change if your circumstances change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:But sometimes it might work out, you visit a friend and realize you want to live in that area - if it works with that friend (say they're looking for a roomate anyway), you can talk to the landlord about getting in on the lease; if you don't, then you find another apartment there. Your friend could ask you to leave his specific house and maybe will remove you by force if you insist, but you won't get deported back to Michigan or barred from that area. I mean, this metaphor is getting muddled up, but yes, when you are just visiting it's correct that your friend should be able to just say "get out" and you have to, once you have moved in fully you should have legal immunity and even standing to your friend. Countries that aren't broken manage this, they have it so if you work short term you fill out a short form and your company submits a thing then you can work for the length of the contract, and it's not even part of the immigration system at all and it's only when you have intent to immigrate they actually collect the needed information and do the interviews and whatever. Like at the very least even in super utopia when you show up at the airport you'd want two lines, one where they give you a SSN so you can get enrolled right in all the utopian social programs and one where the guy stamps your passport and waves you through and says not to worry about anything (and the company submits a one page tax form on you if you are working).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, this metaphor is getting muddled up, but yes, when you are just visiting it's correct that your friend should be able to just say "get out" and you have to, once you have moved in fully you should have legal immunity and even standing to your friend. Why would you need two lines at the airport? Why not manage moving to an open-borders country the same way you manage moving from one state to another? Or from one EU state to another?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Why would you need two lines at the airport? Why not manage moving to an open-borders country the same way you manage moving from one state to another? Or from one EU state to another? I mean, why even have countries at all I guess. In a world with countries though the answer is that a new factory is opening in wyoming and two men from germany are starting work there, one of them is a german engineer hired to set up a chemical mixer, he's gonna set it up, make sure it runs for 6 months then leave and never come back or think about it again and have a happy german life. the other guy was born in germany but moved to the US and got this cool new factory job and has a wife and kid now and votes in every election and has honk if you love america tattooed on his butt and is american and barely even remembers he used to be german where he will never return ever again. Both of those things are valid. A system for foreign workers who are foreign and want to stay foreign can and should exist along side a system of becoming american. They aren't the same thing, and either person would be annoyed and frustrated to have to go through the other's process or system or have the status the other is assigned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, why even have countries at all I guess. But there is no arduous process that you needlessly undergo under open borders. You just go in either way, and in one case you don't stay enough time to require all the registration to become a permanent resident, nor through whatever the step is to become a citizen (which I can see being required even with open borders, as it changes how the country is responsible for your conduct internationally). It's funny that you're putting it this way, by the way, because Americans are notorious for moving to, say, Germany and then isolating themselves in an enclave of other expats and staying "American" even though they were there for 6 years and married and have kids there. I was born in California, and now have been in New York since 2010. The only process I had to undergo that was special to me making my home here was to register to vote here rather than where I was registered previously, and after a year of residency I qualified for cheaper tuition. I got my US license here, if I had had one from a different state I would also be required to change that to a local one or face penalties. On the other hand, I also came here for a visit in 2000, stayed at a hotel for a week or two, then left. I wasn't required to do any of the things I mentioned earlier, and I didn't want to, and because I wasn't staying here that long, I didn't have to. In neither case did I have to stand in a different line or get a special visa. Now if you don't want open borders, that's a different thing, and we can talk about the various processes that would entail. But open borders obviate pretty much all the distinctions you're making, and all the paperwork they entail. If you do want open borders, you have two models you can start from: moving from one state to another in the US, or moving from one country to another in the EU. In neither case do you need to do anything different before you make your move. It's only as your stay becomes longer and you move the center of your life to the new place that paperwork comes up. Why not do it that way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
You get that california and new york both have the same federal government, right? That the reason you don't need to do paperwork to move is that you are still in the same country and they still have all the paperwork you filled out over your life. Like I can imagine a reciprocal agreement with the EU or something where we share databases to make relocation easy, but like, we aren't very near some one world government thing where information on everyone on earth is in just one big database any country can search. We will still need an immigration system even if we make some deals with particular countries we might sign a deal to have like england share citizen data so we can import it automatically, but we aren't making that deal with the government of Libya or something any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You get that california and new york both have the same federal government, right? That the reason you don't need to do paperwork to move is that you are still in the same country and they still have all the paperwork you filled out over your life. What are the things that are shared on the Federal level?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:What are the things that are shared on the Federal level? Are you asking me what the US government is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Are you asking me what the US government is? I'm asking you what is it that you think that the federal government has about you that is relevant for allowing someone to move to your state. Aside from the very fact that you are a US citizen, of course, but we're trying to establish a contrast with open borders, so that aspect is not relevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
Before world war I there was no such thing as border controls, true story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Before world war I there was no such thing as border controls, true story. Chinese Exclusion Act? Among other anti-immigrant initiatives. Maybe this was the case in Europe tho, no idea about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I'm asking you what is it that you think that the federal government has about you that is relevant for allowing someone to move to your state. Aside from the very fact that you are a US citizen, of course, but we're trying to establish a contrast with open borders, so that aspect is not relevant. Social security? Criminal record? Selective service registration? Passports? All the dozens of state issued things that are managed nationally to be nationally equivalent ? I don’t feel like I know what your asking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Social security? Criminal record? Selective service registration? Passports? All the dozens of state issued things that are managed nationally to be nationally equivalent ? I don’t feel like I know what your asking. Social security and passport are just information that says that you are a US citizen. Selective service registration doesn't mean anything, either. No state checks your criminal record before allowing you to move there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Social security and passport are just information that says that you are a US citizen. Selective service registration doesn't mean anything, either. No state checks your criminal record before allowing you to move there. I am really struggling to understand what you are asking. The US has a federal government then smaller provinces called states. If you go to a different state you are still in the same federal government. You don't need to fill out paperwork to get a background check or prove your marriage or show your tax information or prove you are able to drive or anything when you move states because the information all either already sits at a national level or was issued by a local government given authority to grant those things in a way that is valid nationally. Like think of all the interactions you've had with state government, they are US states, if you go to a state in cambodia or france or something they don't know any of that stuff and none of it automatically transfers or is given to you on forms that are inherently valid there. If you take a trip to cameroon and somehow decide to get a legal name change or some other government function and then come back to arizona they are going to make you have to actually tell someone you did that and fill out forms telling them, they don't know, they don't talk to cameroon about that stuff, the forms cameroon issues aren't entered anywhere in the US. and if something asks for your birth certificate and the name is wrong you aren't going to be able to just pull out some random paper and be like "camaroon said it's okay". Like literally any interaction you've had with the state or local government, only that government knows you did it, putin doesn't bolt awake from his sleep with a psychic message everytime someone in thailand gets married. If you want another government to know you gotta tell them too (typically by handing them the proof the other government gave you) if you move states you are still under the same government or in local governments that talk to each other and can say "yeah, we got a record of that and we all use a minimum of the same set of general standards" if you pull out an alaska drivers licence in texas or a marriage licence from hawaii or a birth certificate from oregon. If you go to australia, they don't know what you did in connecticut and the forms from connecticut are only valid in that they let you get new forms from the other country if needed. Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Mar 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
well the racist keebler elf is officially suing California over SB-54, which prevents state and local law enforcement orgs from sharing data with ICE. ICE by the way, is only supposed to detain people who are "likely to escape." http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-california-immigration-20180306-story.html But for the sake of argument, lets look at the history of lawsuits regarding state cooperation of federal immigration laws. Arizona v. United States, Enforcement of immigration laws is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government Galarza v. Szalczyk, States and Localities are not required to hold people in jail because ICE asked them. ICE Detainers are voluntary requests. (3rd circuit in Pennsylvania) Morales v. Chadbourne, ICE detainers are a form of seizure under the 4th amendment and require probably cause. (First Circuit in Rhode Island) Vohra v. United States, ICE detainers are warrantless arrests (Federal District Court in Santa Ana) Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Co., I already effort posted about this here. Jimenez-Moreno v. Napolitano, Detainers actually do have to have some proof that somebody is "likely to escape" and ICE can't issue them willy nilly. Orellana v. Nobles County, Denying somebody the opportunity to post bail because of an ICE detainer is a warrantless arrest Lunn v. Commonwealth, Cooperating with ICE detainers is a violation of the 4th amendment. (but in Massachusetts) Buquer v. Indianapolis, Indianapolis tried to pass their own law that would let Indianapolis cops arrest based on assumed immigration status, similar to Arizona's struck down SB 1070 law. It got blocked in court before it could be enforced. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is having a hissy fit because he can't draft California cops into doing his job for him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Has anyone seen anything about the way the Trump judicial appointments are likely to affect these? I know I've mostly only posted internment related items, but I didn't want this disappearing in the morass of the Trump thread today: Is there still a point where the optics are bad enough to make a difference? That it's being allowed is the result of generations of dehumanizing messaging. How do we begin walking that back?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
At least one person at ICE couldn't stand the awful bullshit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.d311488aecae Not, y'know, the abuse and civil rights violations and whatnot. But it's something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
Trump admin is ordering EOIR judges to meet a quota of 700 cases per year. That’s 2.68 immigration cases per working day. Which means that EOIR judges will be pressured to judge and move on, which means that any chance of getting a sympathetic hearing went out the window.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Trump admin is ordering EOIR judges to meet a quota of 700 cases per year. At least they might spend less time in the ICE concentration camps. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Thanks for the excellent op, it was enlightening to read. I am now fully for abolishing immigration controls and unionizing all new immigrants to the US
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 12:06
|
|
|
The op also makes me realize how laughable and racist the dems’ “demographics are destiny “ plans were. We’ve been totally complicit in the brutalization of immigrants even before we let them down wrt daca, but expected that the tiny crumbs of succor we gave them would be enough to buy their eternal support and gratitude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
Anna Flagg, The Marshall Project - "The Myth of the Criminal Immigrant" Hannah Dreier, ProPublica/NY Mag - "A Betrayal: The teenager told police all about his gang, MS-13. In return, he was slated for deportation and marked for death." After The War fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Trump admin is ordering EOIR judges to meet a quota of 700 cases per year. Will that pace leave enough time to teach three-year-olds how to represent themselves in court?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Will that pace leave enough time to teach three-year-olds how to represent themselves in court? lolno. Anyway, the last week tonight episode about the shitshow that is EOIR is extremely good and informative and covers a lot of the same points I made in the effortpost about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
On the truly staggering level of sexual assault in ICE detention facilities and the lack of action to do anything about it, or even document it properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:On the truly staggering level of sexual assault in ICE detention facilities and the lack of action to do anything about it, or even document it properly. At least the people involved got fired v  vIn Britain the current prime minister (back whe she was at home office) rather famously claimed instead that disclosing rapes in detention centres would harm the commercial interests of their operators (G4S). Allegedly one guard was accused of sexually assaulting 7 women, for which he was placed on unpaid leave. Searching for "Yarl's wood" on BBC comes up with a ton of depressing rape poo poo. A multi-month hunger strike was staged by the detainees. Nobody really cared, well except for local media who were more worried about the detainees breaking out than anything else. They also wouldn't let a UN delegation visit the detention centre, instead attacking the Brazilian inspector for daring to suggest that Britain could be doing something wrong (with a very heavy tone of "look at your own country"). Private Speech fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
So, because of the latest controversy regarding how Trump is handling immigration, I chose to start trying to do research. I've tried reading the Immigration and Nationality Act, I've tried talking with folks I've known to be interested in politics...I've tried a lot of things. But, this is all still very confusing to me; and it's been very hard finding a source of knowledge that wasn't either clearly biased, or written in a way that I couldn't understand. So I have to ask. "How much of what's happening is Trump's own initiative, and how much is a byproduct of an already broken system?" Is Trump adding on his own terrible twist on things? Or is he merely working to enforce a system that was already broken from the start (as this thread's OP has lead me to believe)? If it's the latter, why was it not a bigger issue under Obama's administration (which would, presumably, have been propping up the same broken system)? If anyone could enlighten me, I would most appreciate it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 12:06
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:So, because of the latest controversy regarding how Trump is handling immigration, I chose to start trying to do research. I've tried reading the Immigration and Nationality Act, I've tried talking with folks I've known to be interested in politics...I've tried a lot of things. But, this is all still very confusing to me; and it's been very hard finding a source of knowledge that wasn't either clearly biased, or written in a way that I couldn't understand. It’s kinda both TBH, the immigration system was a broken patchwork of overlapping laws and agencies, and the pressure and scope of enforcement that Trump has placed on it has made the flaws far more obvious. Adding to that, you have the Trump administration doing a lot of genuinely evil poo poo that’s wholly unprecedented or just made up wholecloth by his administration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Instant Sunrise, you should post that Twitter thread you made about American colonialism in the Americas. Also relevant: https://twitter.com/clintsmithiii/status/1013075141490864128?s=21 Edit: Another thread: https://twitter.com/ositanwanevu/status/957653193873346560?s=21 Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jun 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 17:19
|
|