You immigrate into and emigrate out of. “In” (modified to “im” for words beginning in m) is the Latin prefix for in; “ex” or “e” is the Latin prefix for out.
Right, but as I said, it doesn’t provide an easy workaround for UKCs not from NI.
The US authorities are the people who made this rule, so I can only guess as to the reasons why. First thought is that the RoI government will (or used to) recognise anyone born on the island of Ireland as entitled to Irish nationality if they wanted it. Maybe the US has chosen to follow this principle in order to satisfy the many ethnic Irish folks in the US.
But I do not know except to say that as you know, the US can set whatever rules it likes for immigration, and this would seem to be one of them.
No.
Good answer. Wrong question.
A good answer is still good even if it’s only tangentially related to the original question.
I can understand the need for the two terms if you consider them from the perspective of a single nation. A country can have both an emigration policy and an immigration policy that are distinct from each other.
But which term is correct when you’re referring to the act of passing from one country to another? If you’re emigrating from one country, you’re immigrating to another one. Every act of emigration must have an equal act of immigration and vice versa.
True but I’m wondering how this specific exception arose. When Congress enacted the law, did they write in a specific exemption for Northern Ireland? Or is there some general provision in the law that defines certain exemptions and Northern Ireland just happens to qualify? Or was there some provision for creating exemptions and somebody - Congress, the President, the INS - granted Northern Ireland that exemption.
What would happen, for example, if the Obama administration decided to tweak the noses of the anti-immigration crowd and announced that residents of Chihuahua, Sonora, and Tamaulipas were now eligible to apply for diversity visas because they no longer counted in Mexico’s total?
They’d be Australians with dual citizenship with the UK. Regular Australians like me who were born here to Australian parents couldn’t get a UK passport without becoming UK citizens. Let’s not confuse the Merkins, who already have an apparently unlimited amount of nonsensical ideas about the Commonwealth.
That’s why I attempted to exclude it from the post, it just muddied the issue.
Free to a point: for tourism yes, but if someone from the EU wants to work in Switzerland, that someone still needs a work permit; fixing residency in Switzerland also has requirements not present when a EU citizen moves to a different EU member state.
Migration, no prefixes. Like V-shapes in the sky, but with more baggage 
Strictly speaking, what you can do is enter any country and remain there for three months while you look for work. You won’t actually have a right of residency there until you come up with some means to support yourself. There are some exceptions here for students, family members etc, but that’s the basic principle underlying the free movement of workers. It isn’t just a carte blanche right to go live elsewhere in the EEA - which distinguishes it from the right of a Glaswegian to go live in Belfast, etc.
Bingo. Actually, the fact that Irish people from the south of Ireland can avail of this visa is solely due to the Irish American lobby. I mean think about it, it’s called the “diversity visa”; more people of Irish ethnicity is hardly something that’s going to increase the diversity of the US.
As to Cayman, there are restrictions that functionally only work in one direction.
Persons with UK citizenship may visit the Cayman Islands on a tourist visa which is acquired as a stamp in the passport upon arrival in Cayman. In order to permanently relocate and/or work in Cayman a UK citizen must obtain a suitable visa/work permit from the Cayman authorities.
There is no preference given to UK citizens for residence visas or work permits. In fact Cayman has a points system for those seeking permanent residence that has a diversity aspect that works against UK citizens. Citizens of lesser represented countries can get up to 20 of a needed 100 points based upon the relative scarcity of their countrymen holding work permits. UK citizens only qualify for 15 of a possible 20 points in that category. A citizen of any other European country would get the full 20 points.
In the reverse, Caymanians hold British Overseas Territories citizenship. With that they can quite easily obtain a full UK passport. Once they have the UK passport they can move to the UK proper, live and work there, and have freedom of movement of any other UK citizen.
Yes, you’re correct. It’s an important difference.
Are you sure? As far as I can see, the EU/Switzerland treaty uses about the same wording as the EU Treaty of Rome, giving all people the right to work in any country. So a “permit” is automatic if you can support yourself:
Citizens of France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, have full rights to freedom of movement since June 1, 2007. No more transitional measures apply. However, if labor immigration from EU countries should become excessive (more than 10 percent of the average of the previous three years), Switzerland has reserved the option of reintroducing quotas until May 31, 2014 (specific safeguard clause).
[/QUOTE]
But they seem to have activated their safeguard clause:
So anyone wishing to move from the EU have to hurry, just a few days left before quotas are in effect!
As I’m from Norway (part of EFTA), it seems there are no quotas for me. Yay!
Not really. It’s more in the way the rule was written. Anyone from a country that falls below the 50,000 rule is eligible.
In terms of actual visas issued, Irish citizens were given seventy-six in the last lottery. For comparison, the top ten nations were:
Uzbekistan - 3212
Iran - 2428
Egypt - 2013
Nepal - 1953
Nigeria - 1887
Ghana - 1689
Ukraine - 1439
Ethiopia - 1419
Democratic Republic of the Congo - 1221
Russia - 1096
This may get too political for this forum, but the US view of the Irish problem is heavily influenced by the American Irish community and their votes.
The Government of the 26 counties claimed all 32 counties until the Good Friday agreement put this on hold (not too loudly because it would have queered their EU membership where it is forbidden for one member country to covet their neighbors ass!).
I think that the separate treatment of NI is a result of supporting this Irish American view of the government of Ireland.
I wonder how the US would feel if we in the UK suddenly decided to require visas from Texans!
But it’s not just the view of the government of Ireland. There is a significant population in Northern Ireland who has always identified as Irish. The exception primarily benefits them but also their Unionist neighbours.
I’m not really sure what your point is about Texans.
The permit may be automatic but you still need to get it and still need to prove that you can support yourself, have a job, etc., and can still be kicked out for “failure to file paperwork in a proper and timely manner” (they’re Swiss, they like things done in a proper and timely manner), whereas in the other case there is no paperwork to file, no work permit anybody can ask you to show (you need to get added to local UHC schemes as appropriate, but that’s a completely different animal, it’s a requirement in Switzerland as well and if you brought your EU UHC card you have a whole year to do it).
I still have my two Swiss work permits in the “mementos” drawer, they’re from 2006/7 and I did get asked to show them several times. In Italy or the UK, there simply wouldn’t have been anything to show, there isn’t a work permit.
Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey impose strict controls on residency (“housing controls”) that do not advantage UK citizens over other EU citizens.
A housing licence is also a “right to work” document.
So in the case of the Channel Islands, the answer is yes, there are restrictions on those wishing to relocate from the UK.
And the answer to this has to be that I don’t know, because it will depend on how the US law that allows this is written. I think the speculation that the exception has to do with the power of Irish Americans and the fact that the RoI government offers citizenship to anyone born in Ireland might be a place to start, but I have no idea whether this was an executive decision on the part of the US immigration authorities or something placed in the law by Congress when it was passed.
Presumably, the same arguments would be relevant to whether or not parts of Mexico could be included. All of this is up to the US authorities. Perhaps poster Eva Luna might know?
Yeah, but the Irish American lobby was one of the key pressure groups that got the legislation brought in in the first place, the whole purpose being to ensure more visas for Irish people. Calling it a “diversity visa” and setting a quota high enough that a small and sparsely populated island is never going to reach was a clever political tactic. If the legislation had been drafted by people who couldn’t care less about the Irish and really wanted to achieve diversity, they might well have based on something like ethnicities claimed on the US census, in which case the Irish wouldn’t have got a look in.