Originally posted by Seitse$10,000 is kinda crazy, but $2,000 would make more sense to me. Why? Because, quite frankly, the only way to get a greencard in any reasonable amount of time these days is to hire a lawyer. And lawyer fees add up to around $2000 for a greencard.
It sounds really interesting, I cannot deny it. But I am worried how
some of those people could get the money to buy the greencard.
They leave their country because it is corrupted, dirty, poor, and
lacking opportunities while a small elite gets fat and rich, i.e. Mexico.
The desperation to get the money, thus, would send more and more
to drugs, prostitution and crime.
Just a thought. Maybe USD$10,000 is enough.
My wife is going through the process right now - she immigrated initially through a workers visa from Serbia and we met here and married.
We applied for the greencard about a year and a half ago, but it's been stuck in someone's file. After hearing several cases where people in the same situation hired lawyers and had it processed within a couple weeks of doing so, I think we're going to bow in and do the same.
But I'd sure rather pay $2000 to the government than the lawyer....
I live in the uk and i believe that immigrants are good for the country. They do the jobs other people don't want to do. They spend that money on rent and food etc. It's good for the economy.
If they left the country there would be a real mess in all the offices because no-one came in at 4 in the morning to clean them. It would be imposible to get any fast food. These are silly examples but frankly, I think the country would be in serious trouble.
These people get off their backsides, move to another country and work hard to improve their lives. Isn't that the whole ethos behind western capitalism? Isn't this the kind of person a country needs? I think they fit right in. They just make the rest of us look bad, sitting around on our fat @rses that's all.
Oh, and governments will tell you that you work like a dog for almost nothing after tax because of the immigrants. It's an easy excuse for their own incompetence. Admittedly they have a difficult job. Governments always blame everyone's misery on the weakest groups in society, it used to be drug addicts, now it's immigrants.
Who says it's your country anyway? This is my planet. I should be free to roam!
The way I view immigration is that it is akin to the NFL draft where each country in the league (in this case, the developed world) select the top players from the ranks of college football (in this case, immigrants from so-called poor countries). In this example, the United States has the first 10 picks in the draft (which gives us an enormous advantage over our rivals around the league) and instead of taking the best players (i.e., doctors, engineers, scientists, botanists, geneticists, neurosurgeons, computer programmers, etc.,) we're squandering our choices on day laborers, hotel maids, fruit pickers, etc. It doesn't make sense. Moreover, we won't be competitive with the rest of the league.
Originally posted by joneschrYou guys are all missing the point. The fees are designed to winnow people out. By paying $50,000 for citizenship, it would separate the ones who really want to be here from the ones who only want to come here for better economic opportunities (and in general will soak up $80,000 more in benefits than they pay in taxes) and generally go back home when they turn 40.
$10,000 is kinda crazy, but $2,000 would make more sense to me. Why? Because, quite frankly, the only way to get a greencard in any reasonable amount of time these days is to hire a lawyer. And lawyer fees add up to around $2000 for a greencard.
My wife is going through the process right now - she immigrated initially through a workers visa from Serbi ...[text shortened]... w in and do the same.
But I'd sure rather pay $2000 to the government than the lawyer....
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIf the goal is to distinguish who really want to be in the U.S. what about payment plans? (seriously) How to solve the issue of default on payment, for example?
You guys are all missing the point. The fees are designed to winnow people out. By paying $50,000 for citizenship, it would separate the ones who really want to be here from the ones who only want to come here for better economic opportunities (and in general will soak up $80,000 more in benefits than they pay in taxes) and generally go back home when they turn 40.
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseSounds like a great setting for a game!
It’s 2014, and the soldier of the future returns to encounter a new and more imminent threat along the recently completed wall on the U.S./Mexico border. The Ghosts are more powerful with an upgraded Integrated Warfighter System (IWS) but will have only 72 hours to assess the threat and stop the rebels from reaching US soil. With a border that’s 1,900 mile ...[text shortened]... the need for something like this? It's already an associated state just like Puerto Rico!
2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedSasquatch.
Ok, America is different to the UK. I wasn't really defending illegal immigration to your country, I was just speaking from my own experience.
Having said this, i doubt you can correctly say
"I derive no benefit from illegal immigrant labor"
because economies are integrated, and one business making more money (perhaps by saving money on wages) may have positive effects on another, which will in turn effect other businesses. It would be hard for anyone to say they don't benefit from a large sector of labour within their country with any certainty.
I believe you would be surprised. Governments create statistics so you can blame the weak, in this case the immigrants, but the truth is they spend more money on war than immigrants. I know that's another issue, but do you see that they could be using immigration as a scape goat to deflect your anger at high taxes from their door.
Even welfare benefits are spent and returned to the economy as a whole. (or about 90% of them). The actual real value that is consumed is neglegable. I don't suppose they factored that in when they worked out the "statistics".
3 edits
Originally posted by twiceaknightHey, I hear you.
Who says it's your country anyway? This is my planet. I should be free to roam!
But the thing you're missing is that while you shouldn't be prevented from roaming, nobody owes you right to partake in the social services provided by the government you roam to.
And so, we shouldn't be required to support you with medical, education, retirement, fire, police, unemployment and other services.
That's the real problem. You get a bunch of guys illegally entering the country, not paying taxes, and begging for handouts.
Hey, I'm just fine with illegal immigrants being free to enter the country. But when they want me to pay for their unemployment after they've never payed the taxes I have to pay, then I have issues.
Governments have plans for how to support their citizens. They don't have, nor require, plans for supporting everyone in the world that decides to come to that country because their own government sucks.
They do have plans for legal paths to join the government, and register for that governments services. It's called legal immigration.
2 edits
Originally posted by slimjimHey, I totally forgot, compadre, it's true, that's your area!
The graphics are pretty good. The scenario is right on because it looks exactly like the Zona Rojo in Juarez. Even down to the graffiti on Avenida Mariscal.
Hey, if I can shoot some Mexican politicians in the game, I'm buying it!
🙂
The post that was quoted here has been removedAnd that is fine. As I said, not being an American myself, I have no voice in the decisions made by the citizens of a sovereign nation. However, that doesn't mean I think the blame lies much more on the U.S. companies and (let's speculate) the authorities that seem to benefit them.
The argument that not even an American citizen would work for $3 bucks is a good one, yet I wonder if the process the U.S. is going through right now is not the normal one of all developed countries: They develop, jobs become more service and high-tech oriented, and population lives comfortably while kids want to be systems engineers and not plumbers or cleaners anymore, thus the lack of those menial job workers must be taken by immigrants. Hard to say, because I haven't been in the States for long so I don't see the everyday life in Amarillo, San Fernando Valley, or Nogales.
I do suspect the whole thing is a vicious cycle, though. The IMF and the WB lend money to poor countries under the condition to liberalize their economy, cut social spending, open the doors to investment, and channel the money to huge infrastructure projects that can only be taken by the major corporations. Then speculative money flows into the countries while high risk loans are unleashed under the confidence that the IMF will 'bail-out' or 'rescue' when the collapse comes. When the collapse comes then more IMF loans are needed, and so on and so forth.
While that happens, the corporations keep cashing in: They have places where to produce with low wages, low environmental regulations and labor laws that are a joke, making a huge profit when selling those cheapily produced goods to Europeans or Americans (they produce in 'pesos' and sell in dollars, pounds and euros).
The problem, however, is that that vicious cycle pushes people to the developed countries, legally and ilegally, careless of what the normal citizen would think or feel.
At the end, I insist, it's not the fault of 'John' nor 'Juan' because, at the end of the road, they are far from Wall Street.
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedIllegal immigrants artificially depress the prevailing wage for a given job.
Maybe. But even if it's true, they depress it much more than a legal immigrant because they also pay taxes. A legal worker's wages are depressed much more if he's competing against a guy for whom the employer pays no taxes. The employer saves then doubly by employing an illegal immigrant instead of a local citizen: lower real wages and lower tax burden.
The employers of illegal immigrants are the ones that gain the most from keeping them illegal.
Catholicism teaches me that more socialism would be good for the world.
Why? I give you St. Thomas Aquinas:
On the limits of government regarding private enterprise:
[...]it would be against the principle of human government if men were to be prevented by the governor of the commonwealth from carrying out their own functions, unless perchance for a brief time because of some emergency.
or his reasons on why property rights should exist:
[i][...] it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First, because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all; since each one would shirk the labor and leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is insured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed (...) the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.