# Let's talk about 'rational' immigration policy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2019, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754 "2019-08-16T17:41:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2019, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/41 "2019-08-16T22:06:13Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Whatever the plan or policy is ask yourself how is it going to handle mass migration from the consequences of sea level rise and climate change? Well, my tentacled friend, how _would_ your policy handle mass migration from the consequences of sea level rise and climate change? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2019, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/42 "2019-08-16T22:44:41Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Did I say that? Did I imply that? You said you want to establish a limit based on countries. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2019, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/43 "2019-08-16T23:01:48Z")
Immigration policy shouldn’t be an isolated policy. It should be a subset of growth, economic, and humanitarian policies. The US and other first world countries need to take a look at their age demographics and ensure that the working age population is being maintained, and the ratio of retired/working age isn’t becoming unsustainable. Likewise, countries need to look at how their labour market is being filled. If fundamentally important economic sectors such as agriculture or healthcare are being largely staffed by immigrants, then there needs to be easy means for employers to import legal immigrants. It’s asinine to have economic sectors dependent on illegal immigrants, but not provide a stream of legal immigrants. The alternative would be to accept the inflationary hit by clearing those sectors of illegal immigrants, but very few people are openly advocating for that trade-off. The US and other first world countries also need to relieve at least some of the suffering of the victims of global conflict. It’s not going to be possible to quickly resettle everyone who’s been forced into a refugee camp. However, trying to improve the circumstances of people who’ve demonstrated that they had no resort but to flee their homelands is a worthwhile goal. Specific to the US, something like 3% of the population is made up of illegal immigrants. The OP doesn’t allow for the removal of those illegal immigrants, but we should acknowledge the scale of the problem. There needs to be some way to bring those illegal immigrants “inside” the system. Maybe something like a good-behaviour probationary amnesty? Have the illegal immigrants register as some new status of probationary immigrants, keep a crime-free record for five years, stay employed for most of that time, and they can become a fully legal permanent resident. At the same time, they’re on a one strike and you’re out status with regards to crime. However, that needs to be a one-time amnesty and not a repeated policy every time there’s a wave of sympathy towards illegal immigrants. Which does mean that there will still need to be strong border enforcement. One additional thought is that proximity shouldn’t be considered a virtue. It’s easier for Central Americans to get to the US-Mexico border and sneak across. That shouldn’t be an entitlement to do so. There needs to be an intermediate stage where people who are genuinely fleeing persecution are safeguarded, but are not allowed to become economic migrants. Ideally, they would go into refugee camps in Mexico, although I’m not sure if Mexico would agree to that solution. My other thought is that desperation is also not a virtue. There seems to be an idea that if someone has travelled a thousand miles through harsh conditions, it proves that they are worthwhile to enter the country they wish to immigrate to. Likewise, if they have suffered privation or cruelty during their journey, that makes them even more deserving. I don’t think that rewarding foolhardiness is a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2019, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/44 "2019-08-16T23:13:40Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Explain to me what standard you envision for determining which countries, continents, or geographical regions are good sources for immigrants and which countries are bad sources for immigrants. There probably should be a basis for trying to ensure geographical fairness for the different types of immigration applications. That basis should also try to ensure that the opportunity to apply for different types of immigration visas is not weighted towards established groups. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2019, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/45 "2019-08-16T23:23:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You said you want to establish a limit based on countries. I see. What I meant was there’s be a quota based on something regional. Something like 250k/continent per year. Or maybe as a function of source country population. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/46 "2019-08-17T00:35:24Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Something like 250k/continent per year. It seems a little unbalanced to give Australia (population 31,000,000) and South America (population 422,000,000) the same quota as Asia (population 4,463,000,000) and Africa (population 1,216,000,000). > [@octopus](#): > > Or maybe as a function of source country population. Using the examples I mentioned above, that would be something like: China - 1,398,700 Nigeria - 20,100 Mexico - 12,700 United Kingdom - 6600 Canada - 3800 (I used 0.1% of the country’s population.) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/47 "2019-08-17T00:50:23Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > 1. Might need to figure out a way to end birthright citizenship. Do you mean that, if you’re not a citizen, and you have a kid in the country, you don’t become a citizen yourself? Or do you mean that, if you’re not a citizen, and you have a kid in this country, the _kid_ isn’t a citizen? ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/48 "2019-08-17T03:06:36Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > 3 - Reduced chain migration. If you have a kid here you’re not guaranteed to stay here forever. Even if your kid is a US citizen, you are not. This is already the case and has been for decades. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/49 "2019-08-17T04:16:23Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Do you mean that, if you’re not a citizen, and you have a kid in the country, you don’t become a citizen yourself? Or do you mean that, if you’re not a citizen, and you have a kid in this country, the _kid_ isn’t a citizen? If not a citizen and have a kid then should the kid automatically be a citizen? How many countries do that? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/50 "2019-08-17T04:17:33Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Well, my tentacled friend, how _would_ your policy handle mass migration from the consequences of sea level rise and climate change? My plan isn’t complete! ☹ ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/51 "2019-08-17T04:35:49Z")
I was under the impression the various “rational” immigration policies put zero weight on the applicant’s country of origin (except in the case of refugees and asylum seekers)-- why would they care where the person is from?-- but rather prioritises people with more education, language skills, work experience, that fit into whatever sector the economy is seeking at the moment or already have a job offer, etc. There are also reciprocal arrangements, like in the EU, permitting free movement between member countries thus giving all citizens access to the larger market. As for denying jus soli, that is common outside the Americas, but opens up the risk of statelessness. That said, if the parents are already nationals of the country of residence, the child typically inherits citizenship that way. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/52 "2019-08-17T04:43:32Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > How many countries do that? Thirty-five (including the United States). For some reason, it’s mostly an American thing. Thirty of the the thirty-five countries are in the Americas. The other five are Fiji, Pakistan, Lesotho, Tanzania, and Tuvalu. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/53 "2019-08-17T04:52:07Z")
As a bonus, here are the five countries in the Americas that don’t have birthright citizenship: Bahamas, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Suriname. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/54 "2019-08-17T12:36:09Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If not a citizen and have a kid then should the kid automatically be a citizen? How many countries do that? Is this, in your view, a criterion that should be considered in formulating America’s citizenship policy? When advocates of gun control point out that very few other countries, especially industrial democracies, have the sort of easy access to firearms as the United States, and that almost none of them have the right to bear arms enshrined in their constitutions, the response is generally, “Well, the United States shouldn’t base its ideas of rights on what other countries do.” Birthright citizenship is also part of the US Constitution. Why should it be altered just because some other countries might not do things the same way? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/55 "2019-08-17T13:40:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Is this a one-shot, or an ongoing policy? That is, from now on anyone who can get across the border can stay permanently, or amnesty and then treat future illegal immigrants differently? > > Regards, > Shodan One shot. To avoid additional stress on the already broken CBP, we can back date it to say… June 1, 2019 (for the sake of argument). If you can show you’ve been here before that, you will not be asked to leave. All those here after that date will need to go through the normal intake process (not the current abhorrent process) and may or may not be permitted to stay on a case by case basis. The goal here is to avoid the chaos, expense and obvious pitfalls we’ve seen in recent ICE raids. IMO, that’s an entirely misguided and cruel policy. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/56 "2019-08-17T13:45:49Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If not a citizen and have a kid then should the kid automatically be a citizen? How many countries do that? If we have a working immigration policy, immigrants in-country are on a path to citizenship and I see no reason to deny their US born children automatic citizenship. I also don’t think there is an epidemic of alleged “anchor babies” that needs solving. Am I wrong about that? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/57 "2019-08-17T17:13:52Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If not a citizen and have a kid then should the kid automatically be a citizen? How many countries do that? The problem with not doing this is that you have the risk of creating stateless citizens. There are quite a number of social and economic issues with that. But, if you really want to do it, all you need to do is to change the constitution. Do you think that there is enough demand to get a constitutional amendment passed? How about while you are at it, and you are getting rid of citizenship by accident of geography, you also get rid of citizenship by accident of ancestry? No birthright citizenship for anyone, everyone has to earn it. I’m not a big fan of the idea, personally, but I’ll take it over removing citizenship gained by being born within the US or territories. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/58 "2019-08-17T23:29:20Z")
Another rational immigration policy: encourage “chain migration”. Family migration greatly reduces the chance of new immigrants needing social assistance from the government – they already have a family support system to rely on, meaning greatly increased chances at affordable housing and jobs. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/59 "2019-08-18T20:30:13Z")
For a topic so frequently and heatedly debated in the news, this has been surprisingly and refreshingly collegial. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754/60 "2019-08-18T22:00:19Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Two opposing positions are often expressed on immigration: > > 1. Left-wingers support “Open borders” > 2. Right-wingers support “Send them back - we’re full!” > > For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume both extremes are wrong with respect to reasonable US immigration policy. Additionally, I ask that posters accept the premise that any person currently not a US citizen (regardless of residency status) is not going to be forcibly removed from this country. They are here and will remain here as long as they wish as long as they obey all laws applicable to all US citizens and are not found to be violent criminals who pose a danger to society. > > If you agree to the stipulated, please join in the discussion to explore where the real differences lie between progressives and conservatives on this issue. > > What are some ideas/thoughts that you have around a ‘rational’ immigration policy? > > What policies would you like to see implemented or dismantled? I dont think many left wingers actually want true open Borders, and a lot of Right wingers have “Send them back, unless they are working for me”. So, my rational policy is this. Any employer can request “job invites”, much like a H-1B or H2A visa. The Labor dept looks at the work that employer wants, and approves a number. Labor contractors hire people to fill the temp visas, but are responsible (to a modest bond, say $5000?) make sure the worker goes back after the job is done. The Contractors are licensed by the Labor dept , and paid a fee by the US govt, they can also charge a fee to the employer BUT NOT the worker. Thus chicken line workers , hotel maids, lettuce pickers and the like can come in, do their work legally and leave. No "coyotes’ are needed. We had this before, it worked, and in fact have this now, but it’s tanged in incredible red tape. > **[Bracero Program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program)** > > The Bracero Program (from the Spanish term bracero \[bɾaˈse.ɾo\], meaning "manual laborer" or "one who works using his arms") was a U.S. Government-sponsored program that imported Mexican farm and railroad workers into the United States between the years 1942 and 1964. > The program, which was designed to fill agriculture shortages during World War II, offered employment contracts to 5 million braceros in 24 U.S. states. It was the largest foreign worker program in U.S. history. > The program was... As for people already here: if they entered legally but over stayed their visa, etc, they have to show 7 years of filing taxes and no felonies or known gang affiliations. If they did not enter legally, they have to show 13 years. Then they get amnesty and a green card, and can\* then start \*the road to citizenship. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-rational-immigration-policy/838754.md?page=4)