Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CPslograd

Chain migration

Recommended Posts

Id like to avoid Trump bashing and liberal bashing in this thread if possible and discuss the specific and related issues.

Chain migration is a big deal being talked about right now.  But there is a reason it exists.  The idea is that their relatives help with job placement, assimilation, and the financial costs of immigrating.

My wife has 17 aunts and uncles on her fathers side.  All except the youngest were born in the Acores.  They didnt get to all come at once.  Her dad (the oldest) and her uncle (the second oldest) got green cards first.  After they had established extended employment history, another sibling was allowed to immigrate.  And then another.  They all worked at the packing house in Sanger at one point or another.  Eventually they moved on to other jobs.  Two of them became very wealthy business owners.  There is a range of "success" obviously when you are talking about 18 siblings, but theyve all successfully assimilated and become productive citizens and tax payers.  That was an example of chain migration, and the built in support system helped them assimilate and reduced the burden on government resources.  

In chain migration, at least in the 70s and 80s, you had to have a sponsor who was already here, the whole idea of that was to reduce their reliance on government resources and to ease assimilation.

I understand that chain migration rules have loopholes, and there are some negative impacts from those, thats part of what I want to discuss.  But its not as simple as "chain migration is bad".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

17 Aunts and Uncles?  On one parent's side?

:blink:

Are they Mormon?

 

Sounds more catholic. :hmmm: 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chain migration was initially authorized under Republicans with the idea that white immigrants would be the ones to take advantage of it.

 

Didn't work out that way so now they want to end it 

These policies have significant impact on real people. They should be based on facts and empathy, not racism and fear. People are individuals, not bargaining chips and scape goats.

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for chain migration. Especially if the people who promised to leave, actually left. Out with the weak. In with the motivated.

 

Chain migration is much better than free rein illegal immigration.

 

Wish there was a legit study done on Las Vegas illegal immigration. You can pull numbers from statistics and it is easy to see the negative impact it has had, especially to school district, but an overall study on the issue. From government costs to comparison of people who did it legally.

All is well, For Rice is gone.                  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, CPslograd said:

Id like to avoid Trump bashing and liberal bashing in this thread if possible and discuss the specific and related issues.

Chain migration is a big deal being talked about right now.  But there is a reason it exists.  The idea is that their relatives help with job placement, assimilation, and the financial costs of immigrating.

My wife has 17 aunts and uncles on her fathers side.  All except the youngest were born in the Acores.  They didnt get to all come at once.  Her dad (the oldest) and her uncle (the second oldest) got green cards first.  After they had established extended employment history, another sibling was allowed to immigrate.  And then another.  They all worked at the packing house in Sanger at one point or another.  Eventually they moved on to other jobs.  Two of them became very wealthy business owners.  There is a range of "success" obviously when you are talking about 18 siblings, but theyve all successfully assimilated and become productive citizens and tax payers.  That was an example of chain migration, and the built in support system helped them assimilate and reduced the burden on government resources.  

In chain migration, at least in the 70s and 80s, you had to have a sponsor who was already here, the whole idea of that was to reduce their reliance on government resources and to ease assimilation.

I understand that chain migration rules have loopholes, and there are some negative impacts from those, thats part of what I want to discuss.  But its not as simple as "chain migration is bad".

 

 

I think any legal immigration that reduces the need for government intervention is a great idea.  We need the labor in this country and we need to get away from our dependence on illegals.  Not enforcing the law and exploiting illegal immigrants by many employers, politicians and political parties is a huge problem in this country.   If a potential immigrant has a relative or sponsor in this country I think that is worth more than any other factor I could come up with.   

I know my family the german and irish ancestors all came into this country over a decade or so with the first ones paving the way and the others following them.  There was no immigration law to speak of in the 1820's but it still was a viable and successful method of moving across the world to a new society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2018 at 7:29 AM, CPslograd said:

Id like to avoid Trump bashing and liberal bashing in this thread if possible and discuss the specific and related issues.

Chain migration is a big deal being talked about right now.  But there is a reason it exists.  The idea is that their relatives help with job placement, assimilation, and the financial costs of immigrating.

My wife has 17 aunts and uncles on her fathers side.  All except the youngest were born in the Acores.  They didnt get to all come at once.  Her dad (the oldest) and her uncle (the second oldest) got green cards first.  After they had established extended employment history, another sibling was allowed to immigrate.  And then another.  They all worked at the packing house in Sanger at one point or another.  Eventually they moved on to other jobs.  Two of them became very wealthy business owners.  There is a range of "success" obviously when you are talking about 18 siblings, but theyve all successfully assimilated and become productive citizens and tax payers.  That was an example of chain migration, and the built in support system helped them assimilate and reduced the burden on government resources.  

In chain migration, at least in the 70s and 80s, you had to have a sponsor who was already here, the whole idea of that was to reduce their reliance on government resources and to ease assimilation.

I understand that chain migration rules have loopholes, and there are some negative impacts from those, thats part of what I want to discuss.  But its not as simple as "chain migration is bad".

 

 

That's... pretty much how I feel, too. If someone comes over and is successful, they can sponsor further immigration - and given the relation, probably motivated immigrants. If someone isn't successful, they don't really get to sponsor anyone. 

I get the feeling that chain immigration is derided because it leads to chain immigration from places that aren't white. I never thought that such blatantly racist motivations would be a part of American politics again and I wouldn't have said that prior to 2017. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the low response rate in this thread, I would assume there is very little opposition to legal immigration.  I think the issue is more the limits and prioritization of legal immigration.  Common sense says we as a country can't absorb the other 7+ billion people in the world (or even all that want to come here).  More of a good thing is not always a good thing.  Appropriate levels of immigration likely is a net positive.  Sponsorship seems ideal to me, they have a support system when they arrive. 

I also think we need a pathway to citizenship for dreamers (I don't like the term).  It is not healthy for a society to have a immigration status class system where individuals are prevented from working and full participation in society.

   

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, happycamper said:

That's... pretty much how I feel, too. If someone comes over and is successful, they can sponsor further immigration - and given the relation, probably motivated immigrants. If someone isn't successful, they don't really get to sponsor anyone. 

I get the feeling that chain immigration is derided because it leads to chain immigration from places that aren't white. I never thought that such blatantly racist motivations would be a part of American politics again and I wouldn't have said that prior to 2017. 

I don’t know, I kind of think the whole thing is just misunderstood.

So, I looked at this article, and apparently the US prioritizes family reunification more than Canada.

https://qz.com/932244/american-versus-canadian-immigration-policies-are-not-actually-that-dissimilar-yet-the-us-is-cast-as-the-devil/

Why is no one calling Canada racist for favoring east and south Asians over Latin Americans and Africans?

I guess it just bugs me that people deride chain migration with no real sense of what it is, and why it is in place.  If we want to close the loophole that allows illegals to stay here, then bring their family, then enforce existing immigration laws, there isn’t a need for new ones.

I think if we were being honest, there is an economic argument to be made for implementing Canada style policy that by its nature favors certain regions over others.  But I’m not making that argument, nor do I think that renders Chain migration irrelevant.  I’m pretty sure if you look at Indians who emigrate to the US or Canada, you’ll find a “chain migration” trend with both groups.

You know what, phuck Canada.  Should of nuked those Tory bastards when we had the chance.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CPslograd said:

I don’t know, I kind of think the whole thing is just misunderstood.

So, I looked at this article, and apparently the US prioritizes family reunification more than Canada.

https://qz.com/932244/american-versus-canadian-immigration-policies-are-not-actually-that-dissimilar-yet-the-us-is-cast-as-the-devil/

Why is no one calling Canada racist for favoring east and south Asians over Latin Americans and Africans?

I guess it just bugs me that people deride chain migration with no real sense of what it is, and why it is in place.  If we want to close the loophole that allows illegals to stay here, then bring their family, then enforce existing immigration laws, there isn’t a need for new ones.

I think if we were being honest, there is an economic argument to be made for implementing Canada style policy that by its nature favors certain regions over others.  But I’m not making that argument, nor do I think that renders Chain migration irrelevant.  I’m pretty sure if you look at Indians who emigrate to the US or Canada, you’ll find a “chain migration” trend with both groups.

You know what, phuck Canada.  Should of nuked those Tory bastards when we had the chance.?

Well, yeah, Canada has always been pretty dang racist. Freezing deaths, how the Ugandan refugees were treated. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chain migration got completely out of control with cousins and nephews etc.   Completely ridiculous.   I don't even think brothers and sisters s/b included.  If I moved to Italy, I hardly think they should automatically allow my brothers and sisters in as well.    Maybe look at allowing a guys wife and kids to come here after he's been here a period of time and paid for his own citizenship would be the most should be allowed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pokerider said:

Chain migration got completely out of control with cousins and nephews etc.   Completely ridiculous.   I don't even think brothers and sisters s/b included.  If I moved to Italy, I hardly think they should automatically allow my brothers and sisters in as well.    Maybe look at allowing a guys wife and kids to come here after he's been here a period of time and paid for his own citizenship would be the most should be allowed.  

Why?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pokerider said:

Chain migration got completely out of control with cousins and nephews etc.   Completely ridiculous.   I don't even think brothers and sisters s/b included.  If I moved to Italy, I hardly think they should automatically allow my brothers and sisters in as well.    Maybe look at allowing a guys wife and kids to come here after he's been here a period of time and paid for his own citizenship would be the most should be allowed.  

 

43 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Why?

Exactly, what difference does it make as long as the immigrant is "sponsored"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2018 at 6:29 AM, CPslograd said:

Id like to avoid Trump bashing and liberal bashing in this thread if possible and discuss the specific and related issues.

Chain migration is a big deal being talked about right now.  But there is a reason it exists.  The idea is that their relatives help with job placement, assimilation, and the financial costs of immigrating.

My wife has 17 aunts and uncles on her fathers side.  All except the youngest were born in the Acores.  They didnt get to all come at once.  Her dad (the oldest) and her uncle (the second oldest) got green cards first.  After they had established extended employment history, another sibling was allowed to immigrate.  And then another.  They all worked at the packing house in Sanger at one point or another.  Eventually they moved on to other jobs.  Two of them became very wealthy business owners.  There is a range of "success" obviously when you are talking about 18 siblings, but theyve all successfully assimilated and become productive citizens and tax payers.  That was an example of chain migration, and the built in support system helped them assimilate and reduced the burden on government resources.  

In chain migration, at least in the 70s and 80s, you had to have a sponsor who was already here, the whole idea of that was to reduce their reliance on government resources and to ease assimilation.

I understand that chain migration rules have loopholes, and there are some negative impacts from those, thats part of what I want to discuss.  But its not as simple as "chain migration is bad".

 

 

Family reunification is another way to put it. I think you make a lot of sense here. 

You know it's interesting that you discuss the Azores. I'm from the valley. I'm not Portuguese, but I always enjoyed the fact that my friends' grandparents spoke a different language and cooked foods I didn't experience in my own home. I loved listening to a group of old Portuguese men talking in the mornings at my local donut shop. Chain migration makes the Valley interesting. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2018 at 9:52 PM, CPslograd said:

 

Why is no one calling Canada racist for favoring east and south Asians over Latin Americans and Africans?

 

 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, pokerider said:

Chain migration got completely out of control with cousins and nephews etc.   Completely ridiculous.   I don't even think brothers and sisters s/b included.  If I moved to Italy, I hardly think they should automatically allow my brothers and sisters in as well.    Maybe look at allowing a guys wife and kids to come here after he's been here a period of time and paid for his own citizenship would be the most should be allowed.  

Okay, I'm going to ask you again. Why? Why do you think that chain migration is "completely ridiculous"? I have a laundry list of reasons why I think it makes sense, but I'd like to hear your side first. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, happycamper said:

Okay, I'm going to ask you again. Why? Why do you think that chain migration is "completely ridiculous"? I have a laundry list of reasons why I think it makes sense, but I'd like to hear your side first. 

Chain migration does not look at why someone should get to come here in the first place.  We do need to look at what does this person have to offer?  Why do they get a "in" just because they know someone.  How fair is that?  And the biggest issue is there is no end to it.  So you let 1 person in and they get to bring 20 more?  WTF is that. No you let 1 person in, and then you look at the next deserving person. 

We don't need millions of people to pick crops and work in low paid jobs as in the past.  We need skills, people who can contribute more than a simple laborer.  There are still many young people, US citizens,  blacks, whites, etc. that do not have skills or a good job.  Bringing in constant flow of low skill labor simply represses wages in many of those jobs.  

So Rand Paul suggested the US allow the DACA people in and count that against the allowed legal immigration for some countries over a couple years.  The Dems didn't want anything to do with that.  The whole thing, illegals, DACA, the El Salvador people, etc. has nothing to do with what the US should do, it only matters to Dems that they can get these people citizenship to vote democrat.  They don't take into account how this helps or hurts existing US Citizens at all.  Its not even mentioned period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pokerider said:

Chain migration does not look at why someone should get to come here in the first place.  We do need to look at what does this person have to offer?  Why do they get a "in" just because they know someone.  How fair is that?  And the biggest issue is there is no end to it.  So you let 1 person in and they get to bring 20 more?  WTF is that. No you let 1 person in, and then you look at the next deserving person. 

We don't need millions of people to pick crops and work in low paid jobs as in the past.  We need skills, people who can contribute more than a simple laborer.  There are still many young people, US citizens,  blacks, whites, etc. that do not have skills or a good job.  Bringing in constant flow of low skill labor simply represses wages in many of those jobs.  

So Rand Paul suggested the US allow the DACA people in and count that against the allowed legal immigration for some countries over a couple years.  The Dems didn't want anything to do with that.  The whole thing, illegals, DACA, the El Salvador people, etc. has nothing to do with what the US should do, it only matters to Dems that they can get these people citizenship to vote democrat.  They don't take into account how this helps or hurts existing US Citizens at all.  Its not even mentioned period. 

Umm, what did your ancestors "have to offer"? My ancestors were mostly farmers from Germany; you know, people who planted and picked.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Umm, what did your ancestors "have to offer"? My ancestors were mostly farmers from Germany; you know, people who planted and picked.

 

Um, back then, coming to farm was something to offer.  Like I said, times have changed.  And btw, my ancestors didn't sneak in! They came in legally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...