The Glade 4.0

I was wondering what people here think about Trump's proposal.

Don't you restrict everyone who doesn't meet current visa requirements?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No. We let them in anyway.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

It's more that we either don't catch them, or once we do catch them we just give them a court date 5 years from now that they won't show up to and then let them go because getting rid of them expeditiously would be mean.

Unless they're adult males with no family, then they're right out.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, we try to, but the question is about Muslims.

So that option is basically, "Treat muslims like everybody else."

Which is probably why most people pick it.

If someone picked "Let them all in!" they would basically saying Muslims should get preferential special treatment over everyone else trying to get into America.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Other: End all immigration for 15 years and let people assimilate like we did in the 60s.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

It's frustrating that despite all of the 'spying' our government does in the name of keeping us safe, that they really don't have any idea who present's a threat.

I really wish they'd stop pretending they can protect us from this kind of thing.

Honestly, as callous as it sounds, if I thought 'banning all muslims' would help, I'd support that cause. But it won't, so why bother?

The only thing I think would stop Islamic terrorism is if you took every Muslim from certain countries and relocated them to a large island like Madagascar. Then monitor the island to make sure nobody leaves. The other option is to kill them all. Neither is practical and both would be bad for many reasons (although possibly good for the environment). So the terrorism will just continue indefinitely. I don't think surveillance or current visa systems are effective enough to put an end to it, although maybe the situation would be worse without them.

If by "can't protect us" you mean "cannot stop 100% of attacks" sure. However, that's not a realistic goal. Some attacks can be prevented. Some people will try to argue we can't using the silly "anti-tiger rock" argument, but the flaw there is that no logical connection is shown between an arbitrary rock and the presence of tigers, while there is a fairly obvious logical connection between attempting to apprehend terrorists and preventing terrorist attacks from succeeding.

There is no dichotomy of "solution works perfectly or is utterly worthless". Rather, there's a cost-benefit analysis. Would the costs of blanket-banning all muslims (considering all costs, both the tangible difficulties of enforcing this, the legal difficulties surrounding U.S. citizens, and the more insubstantial effect on our political standing) be worth how much it would help?

It would, undeniably, help - vastly reducing the number of muslims entering the country would fairly obviously reduce the number of muslim terrorists that entered; it would filter out the ones too dumb to beat the system or which made mistakes, at least. It would not, however, be an ironclad guarantee that we wouldn't have an attack.

That is, ultimately, the reason a blanket ban is probably not a good idea. It needs to have ironclad-guarantee levels of success or very close to it to be worth the very obvious costs, and it won't be, primarily because it's likely to further radicalize muslims that are already here, USC and otherwise.

There are lesser measures that we should lok at, such as if the visa waiver program for some countries is allowing people from high-risk countries to circumvent the normal visa process, but that's not anywhere near the same as a blanket ban.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I am pretty sure that the nuclear strike I described that would be necessary to kill off the vast majority of the middle eastern muslim world would NOT be good for the environment, and that was just to put the suirvivors back into a nomadic state in a radioactive wasteland - not literally kill them all, and it didn't even bother with muslims not part of the middle east so I think we can safely say there would be no environmental benefits whatsoever to that course of action - or if there are, they would be vastly outweighed by the downsides.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well a nuclear strike would be bad in the short term for the environment, but once the radioactive particles decay over 20-100 years then plants and wildlife would return. Assuming the area isn't repopulated by people. Taking out all the Muslim populations, even with nukes, could be a very good thing for the Earth if those areas were kept as nature preserves afterwards. Now I'm not advocating it for humanitarian reasons, but it's good to have a full perspective on it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 72842.html
"20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl"

We're talking about a very different environment, and several dozen to several hundred nuclear initiations spread over a nontrivial portion of the Earth's surface rather than a reactor meltdown. It's true that the Chernobyl area has recovered in many ways, but all that background radiation effect on the local flora and fauna isn't fully know yet either - and more importantly. the same long-term environmental effects won't necessarily be present.

The situations really aren't terribly comparable, although I suppose I can't blame you for using Chernobyl as an example since there's a shortage of nuclear wars to use.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The current visa requirements are kind of ridiculous. 100,000 legal immigrants a year for a country of >300 million people is just stupid, but that's about how many permanent immigrants we'd be allowed to take if the laws were strictly enforced.

It's not ridiculous at all, given that we don't need them to fill the labor market. There's nothing "stupid" about it whatsoever; legal immigration numbers should be based on the needs of the gaining country, not the immigrants.

That's why you see so many "refugees". A lot of the "Refugees" are from the Balkans, are Syrians and Iraqis that were already in the Balkans or Russia, or if from Central America aren't refugees in any sense - they're economic immigrants. They see the status of "Refugee" as an end run around the laws. In Europe, you see them talking about what country is their "first choice" like they were applying for college or some ****. It's fairly clear that they're far more interested in what benefits they'll get that evading ISIS - much like here, where they'll tell you with a straight face they're a refugee but then admit that they plan to return to Honduras in 4 years because magically all the problems will be gone or something.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

European migrants claim to be refugees because EU countries are party to a refugee treaty that makes it illegal to send them back unless they can prove they're not refugees. The US isn't party to this treaty.

It's actually arguable that a strict interpretation of the immigration laws in the US means no immigration is allowed at all other than the green card lottery. E and H visas are technically nonimmigrant visas and you have to swear you have no intent to immigrate in order to get one. The fact that you can immediately turn around and file for a change of status with an H visa and start the green card process is really questionable. The legal fiction that let's you pursue a green card under an E visa is even worse, as you're not even allowed to file change of status with this visa.

Which only buys you people claiming to be refugees hoping to get in on those sweet, sweet social benefits, hopefully while living on your own little tribalistic enclave.



That's because peoples' status do indeed change sometimes. However, since fraud in order to get into a legalized immigrant status is, in fact, a thing by all means lets eliminate any possibility for change in status of nonimmigrant visas. While we're at it we can abolish the fiancée version of the 'K" visas.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

My issues with immigration is not about immigration itself, but how it's seemingly prioritized.

I don't know about the USA, but for a person from a first world, wealthy country to immigrate to canada, it's extremely difficult. We seem to prioritize third world shitholes over first world countries. In itself, this isn't an issue, but then we refuse to recognize the professional degrees of people coming from those third world shitholes. So you end up with Pakistani doctors and engineers driving taxi cabs. (If a British medical doctor lucked out and somehow immigrated to canada, they'd have their degree recognized right away.)

Immigration, as Diamondeye says, is not done for charity or altruism. It is not to help the immigrant. It is to help the country receiving the immigrants. As such, we should prioritize not by the needs of the applicants, but by the demand for the skills or financial benefits they bring to the country.

Refugees are a different thing altogether. That IS done for humanitarian reasons, so the priorities can be different.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Part of that is the simple fact that shithole-dwellers are far more likely to really want to relocate to a non-shithole from Shitholeistan or ****.

It isn't universally true that we don't recognize degrees from other countries, but we do pretty strictly scrutinize them because the education simply isn't what it is in the West. There's a reason people from those countries are so keen to come here for college even if they DO want to go back - American and other Western institutions of higher learning are just a lot better. Many education systems still emphasize a lot of rote learning.

The big problem in US immigration is that it is very hard for a person to become an immigrant without either a family or an employer sponsor. We have very little control of our immigration because we've created a system that prioritizes family relations over the needs of the country, and to a lesser degree the needs of corporations.

In this sense its the worst of both worlds - it emphasizes the needs of neither the country nor the immigrant in favor of accommodating the needs of particular families that just happen to already be citizens or legal immigrants. The country at large doesn't benefit from importing people that happen to be someone else's random relatives and immigrants that want to come here can't really petition on their own merits.

Then we're surprised that they use the refugee status to try to get around this.

As for unskilled labor that "does jobs Americans don't want".... (which Taly didn't bring up, but here it is)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicagarrison/all-you-americans-are-fired#.upQGOBMDe

There are in fact Americans that do want and have been doing these jobs, but companies don't want them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That is not the point. The vast majority of legal immigrants that immigrated here based on employment have committed fraud, it's part and parcel to the process.

Remember, there are actually no quotas for green cards. If you can get an employer to sponsor you, you can get one. The issue is that the green card application takes years to process, and it's pretty much a given that no employer is going to spend five figures today in order to have a chance of getting an employee five years from now. In order to get sponsored, you first have to get a temporary worker, nonimmigrant visa (which are the visas that have the quotas) in order to work for the employer, the granting of which is contingent upon you swearing under oath that you have no intent to immigrate. Of course, you took the job in the first place with the understanding that your employer would sponsor you for permanent residency as soon as you began working. So you were pretty much flat out lying when you swore you had no intent to immigrate, you were already planning on doing permanent residency before you even took the job.

For H visas, this is permitted under the legal fiction of, well, you didn't want to immigrate when you applied for the temporary visa, but after actually arriving here, you became so enthralled with the freedom and culture and whatever that you changed your mind. We'll just overlook the fact that the majority of H-1B visa holders started the permanent residency process within two weeks of arriving, surely this is the reason. For E visas, you're not even allowed to apply for a change in status this way, but you can still be sponsored for permanent residency and USCIS just kind of ignores what you swore to when you got your temporary permit.

This is why it's really hard to criticize illegal immigrants on an ethical basis for what they do, unless you win the green card lottery or have a direct blood relative that's already a citizen, it's pretty much impossible to immigrate here without acting unethically.

There is no connection at all between ethics and laws. There's nothing unethical about doing something completely illegal. There's no such thing as objective ethics, either, so we can't say with certainty that any illegal or legal immigrant has done anything unethical at all.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

First, you haven't established that the vast majority of petitions are fraudulent. Second, people exploiting loopholes in the process doesn't make it "part of the process"; if it was it wouldn't be a loophole.



So you contend that there are entire classes of visas that go entirely unused. Show your work, including the "5 figures" part.



No, you actually don't. There is nothing stopping an employer from sponsoring you without a temporary visa.



No, actually it isn't. At no point in the immigration progress is "enthralled with the culture and freedom" a criteria.

As for E visas, you do realize that these visas require significant investment of capital that the applicant will be controlling? Furthermore, they can be renewed 2 years at a time, an unlimited number of times so why would you even bother with a change in status? It contains no barriers to work for adult children or spouses either. The sort of person that applies for an E visa is generally quite well off in their home country.

This is why it's really hard to criticize illegal immigrants on an ethical basis for what they do, unless you win the green card lottery or have a direct blood relative that's already a citizen, it's pretty much impossible to immigrate here without acting unethically.[/quote]

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's not a loophole when it's used by the vast majority of people immigrating via employment. We wouldn't have people complaining about immigration quotas if it was actually a reasonable option to get green card sponsorship without getting a temporary work permit first, because there is no green card quota.



What? I have no idea what you mean, here. The 5 figures is what it costs for the company to do a job search and prove to USCIS that they can't find a suitable US worker. Yes I realize companies get away with doing little here today, but we were assuming that the requirements were actually going to be strictly enforced.



That's technically true, but it's not realistic. The company needs to hire someone today, not spend a bunch of money on an application so they can then wait five years and hope the application is accepted so they can get a worker five years down the line. Surely you can see this is not a reasonable way to hire workers.



I was referring to the treaty trader E visa, which is given to foreign employees of foreign corporations with a presence in the US, if they need to bring in people from home to run their US operations. This is the visa my family used to immigrate to and eventually become permanent residents of the US, so I'm well familiar with the process of "swear up and down that you don't want to immigrate, then immediately do the exact opposite."

For H visas, you need to change your status because it's a nonimmigrant visa. You're not supposed to be trying to immigrate with one. The change of status is there to change your status from "not trying to immigrate" to "trying to immigrate." The fraud part comes in because its blatantly obvious that the majority of status changers were already planning to do so when they swore they weren't going to try to immigrate.

With the E visa, since you can't change status to "trying to immigrate," you're technically not supposed to be able to get a green card at all while here under such a visa. However, USCIS simply does not care and lets you do it anyway.

How does any of this have anything to do with it NOT being a loophole?



They don't have to do the job search every single time which greatly reduces those costs - assuming it actually DOES cost 5 figures to do it; I have no idea where that number comes from. Furthermore, maybe you missed the article about companies actively discouraging and getting rid of American workers?



Surely you can see that it does not actually take that long, since we do not, in fact, have wide varieties of Visas going totally unused? You also may not be aware of it but there's such a thing as "long-range planning" and "forecasting".



Aside from the fact that you keep trying to explain to me how visas work despite the fact that I was required to learn all of them - and still have the manuals at hand - what you don't seem to understand is that E visas don't prevent you getting a green card by any and all means; it's just that there is no means that pertains to the E visa.

A "change in status" means that some external factor has come into play. For example, if you were to come here as a single adult on an E visa, meet a girl, and get married you could petition for a change in status because now you're the spouse of a US citizen. The E visa never enters into it.

The reason USCIS does not take much action on those obviously-fraudulent oaths by the way is because it's very hard to actually prove what your intent was at the time of the oath beyond a reasonable doubt.

In any case, all you're demonstrating is that our entire system is set up to not be to the benefit of the country.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Loophole generally refers to a rare case of a few people gaming the system, not what is essentially standard procedure where almost everyone uses it.



The article is talking about employers hiring H-2s, they weren't going to sponsor them for residency in the first place and without such sponsorship, they're not actually immigrants.....that's why it's called a "nonimmigrant" visa. The vast majority of people that get permanent residency in the US through employer sponsorship do so by getting an H-1B, E-1, or L visa first.

It's going to cost at least $10,000 to have your company have an immigration attorney do the paperwork for the labor petition and the I-140, run the required ads, and interview any candidates that respond to these ads.



Whether or not nonimmigrant visa categories are going totally unused is irrelevant unless employers actually want to sponsor people on these visas as permanent residents. Also, as I explain down below, H and L visas are the only relevant visas that are actually eligible for permanent residency sponsorship in the first place.



http://www.americanlaw.com/dintent.html

In fact, E visas actually are supposed to prevent you from getting a green card. The Immigration Act of 1990 only recognizes H, K, L, and V visas as being valid for dual intent, you are not supposed to be allowed to seek permanent residency while here on any other visa. USCIS allows E visa holders to seek permanent residency based on the fact that the E visa definition doesn't have the line where it requires that the alien have a foreign residence that they have no intention of abandoning. This really is what you would call a loophole and the rationale is extremely dubious, I'm not sure if it would hold up to actual scrutiny.

Every single person that is present in the US on a nonimmigrant visa that wants to be sponsored for permanent residency has to file for a change in status, you have to change your status from nonimmigrant to immigrant. Seriously, assuming you are already present in the US, this is a baseline requirement of the process. It doesn't matter if you want to change your status because you married a US citizen or because your employer filed for a labor certification, you have to file for this yourself if you want the permanent residency. Since E visas should not recognize dual intent, you should have your E visa revoked the second you attempt to file for change in status, followed by them deporting you, but USCIS just isn't enforcing this.

The only people that don't need to file change in status is the people that aren't in the US at all and were somehow being sponsored for a job without getting the temporary work permit first. However, this rarely happens because, like I said before, very few employers are going to want to file for a labor certification, do the required ads, wait for the labor cert to get approved, then file for an I-140, wait for that to come back, and then hope after some number of years have passed that the person they filed all this for still actually wants this job.

I realize it is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all those H and E visa holders that had their employer file a labor petition and filed for change in status immediately after arriving lied when they said they had no intent to immigrate, but the fact remains is that most of them did, and under the assumption that the laws would actually be enforced, none of them would be allowed to immigrate.