You still have to go through background checks, health checks ect.
The US Immigration process
- Thread starter Bamspeedy
- Start date
You still have to go through background checks, health checks ect.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
America is shooting itself in the foot with her immigration policy, since immigrants always provide economic growth and generally are skilled and/or ambitious as well - a trait that is increasingly lacking among "native"
P) Americans.
America is supposed to be a country everyone can come to and live the American dream, but now its immigration laws are just slightly more open than the ones in Europe, Japan and South Korea. If had America today's immigration laws throughout the 19th century, Mexico would have probably been a more important country today.
P) Americans. America is supposed to be a country everyone can come to and live the American dream, but now its immigration laws are just slightly more open than the ones in Europe, Japan and South Korea. If had America today's immigration laws throughout the 19th century, Mexico would have probably been a more important country today.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Seems like a legit process, they simply need to make it more speedy. If you hadn't had that delay when your sent the paper work back to the consulate it looks like you would have finished the process around the 9 month mark. Thats sounds about right for a process that involves a lot of background checking.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
That background check stuff is nonsensical, noting that there are alot of born American citizens who wish to do harm to the US and did not need any background check at all to get their right to live in and have citizenship of the US.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
And to where would those American citizens be deported to?
Why you think any country would want to allow "more" criminals into their borders is interesting. Are you one of those for totally free and unrestricted immigration? Noble idea with no grounding in reality.
Background check on the sponsor is for the safety of the immigrant (sex crimes for example), and background check on the immigrant could be for the safety of the sponsor (fraud for example).
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
You know where.
I don't think any country would wants to have more criminals into its borders. But checking backgrounds of immigrants is just a waste of money and people who could be used to actually solve crimes: You can pass a background check and still commit a heinous crime later. Also, the only way to legally migrate to the US is by family ties, high levels of education or investment and these are seldom the kind of people that commit crimes in to begin with.
No, but in most countries immigration laws are too tight without any good reason.
A state must look out for all its inhabitants anyway, clean background or no. If it has reason to be suspicious, I guess a country may do a background check on the go.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
America is shooting itself in the foot with her immigration policy, since immigrants always provide economic growth and generally are skilled and/or ambitious as well - a trait that is increasingly lacking among "native"
America is supposed to be a country everyone can come to and live the American dream, but now its immigration laws are just slightly more open than the ones in Europe, Japan and South Korea. If had America today's immigration laws throughout the 19th century, Mexico would have probably been a more important country today.
Immigration policies should reflect the requirements of the country in it's current state, and are not fundamental qualities permanently established by our nations founding documents. They were designed to be and always have been in a state of constant adjustment from day one.
The idea that our immigration policy should harken back to the turn of the last century is not a logical position or a legal/ moral requirement.
As to your next post, America is for Americans first and for most. Who we chose to share it with, and we do a lot of sharing, is up to us and us alone. Non citizens have no claim on anything we have unless it is via a process we voluntarily allow.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
True. But a immigration induced population growth wouldn't hurt: They pay taxes but they don't use welfare.
The 19th century proved it was practically feasible.
I suppose that is true in some way. And America certainly has been less ethnically nationalist than most European countries. I am not an American myself, but the reason why I bring this up is because I think many countries (America included) could learn from the current experience, as the US immigration is quite broken: Quotas for permanent residents are way too low, and many end up in temporary guest programs where they can be legally hired for a much lower price than permanent residents and US citizens, causing unemployment and wage depression.
What I'm saying is that much more permanent residents should be allowed, while temporary guest worker programs should be eliminated: This advice probably applies to many countries.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I remain firmly of the opinion that we should get rid of residency permits, work permits, and preferably even visas. There should be no quotas whatsoever when it comes to immigration regulations.
Some degree of criminal background checks seems necessary, at least to determine if the would be immigrant is a fugitive from justice whom we are bound by treaty to extradite. The most important requirement for immigration should be health screenings to protect society from the spread of epidemics.
Some degree of criminal background checks seems necessary, at least to determine if the would be immigrant is a fugitive from justice whom we are bound by treaty to extradite. The most important requirement for immigration should be health screenings to protect society from the spread of epidemics.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Actually, immigration laws have always been an excuse to keep certain "undesirables" out of the country, or to severely restrict their rights. It first started by excluding all black and Asian immigrants from citizenship. Then it forbade immigration of any Asians coming to the US to be contract laborers, which was then expanded to ban anybody who was Chinese. That particular law wasn't finally repealed until 1943.
At the turn of the 20th Century, the immigration laws excluded even white "undesirables", such as "anarchists" and "socialists" from eastern Europe who thought workers should be treated fairly and that they should be able to join unions and even strike to protect those interests. Those laws stayed on the books until 1965. At that time, Mexican immigration was first restricted.
At the turn of the 20th Century, the immigration laws excluded even white "undesirables", such as "anarchists" and "socialists" from eastern Europe who thought workers should be treated fairly and that they should be able to join unions and even strike to protect those interests. Those laws stayed on the books until 1965. At that time, Mexican immigration was first restricted.
In that case, none of you who are not aboriginal/Native should even be there.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
I played the whole game of Deus Ex Machina Human Revolution last week. Hell, it took me longer to finish it because I spend most of the time reading the in game e-books. :/
One peculiar story in one of the books had a narrative where United States were having inner domestic problems with sucessionist movements all across the country, and the economic catastrophes that caused many American seeking refuge in Canada. Snowbacks I think was the pejorative word used to describe them.
Found it!
One peculiar story in one of the books had a narrative where United States were having inner domestic problems with sucessionist movements all across the country, and the economic catastrophes that caused many American seeking refuge in Canada. Snowbacks I think was the pejorative word used to describe them.
Found it!
