My proposed immigration requirements

Author: Alec ,

Posts

Total: 40
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
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.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.*
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

*All loans are paid with .5% APR interest rate(adjusted for inflation).


Required for greencard and citizenship.

Required for citizenship.

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @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.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
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?
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @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.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @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.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @Greyparrot
The market will still create jobs for everyone that goes out and gets them.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @Alec
And if that was true, everyone in Venezuela would be employed, simply because people are looking for work.
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
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.




Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @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. 
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
--> @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.....  
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @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.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @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.
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
--> @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. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @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.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @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.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
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.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @Imabench
I'll address your claim when I have the time for it.
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
--> @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. 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @Imabench
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
If they are low skilled immigrants, they can take jobs that americans won´t apply for.  

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.
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
--> @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.  
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @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.

Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
--> @Alec
You want to amend the constitution to eliminate the freedom of travel and association?
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @Snoopy
I´m saying that under my proposal, a constitutional amendment isin´t necessary because it only protects freedoms not infringed by law.
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
--> @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.