Skip to main content

This will be short.

I keep reading on this blog that "There are no legal paths for Mexicans to immigrate to the U.S."

The simple truth is that citizens of Mexico have dominated, yes dominated, the legal immigration system in the U.S. for years now.

There is plenty of data for anyone who is interested. Spend some time with the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. For 2010, Table 3 of U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2010 shows that citizens of Mexico were granted 13.3% of all LPR's, more than the next two countries China and India combined, and more than all of Europe for 2010. For the year 2009, Mexican citizens accounted for 14.6 percent of all LPR's, more than the next three countries combined, and half again as much as all of Europe.

The following represents the typical comment on this blog.

A diary a while back here explained that.  After removing all the various special categories. there were something like 280 slots left for a Mexican to apply for

My response to this individual, my response generally, is "yes, and the reason for this is the U.S. family based immigration system"

Family-based Immigrant Visas

Now, the plan from some of 'the groups' is remove numerical caps on the F-1 thru F-4 categories, and also allow for skills based immigration in addition to the current unlimited categories.

Family Immigration: Repairing our Broken Immigration System

Because there are more people who qualify than visas available through the preference system each year, many close family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents are waiting in long backlogs. For example, spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents must wait 7 to 10 years to unite their families.

The fact that the F1 thru F4 categories have quotas, and these quotas have backlogs, means the that the U.S. immigration system is 'broken', and we need to 'fix it'.

This coming from (the Immigration Policy Center) the front group for the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)

    I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

    by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:53:17 AM PDT

  •  Biased, xenophobic FAIL (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HGM MA, Timaeus, Xapulin, Sentido

    Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

    by Miggles on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:56:14 AM PDT

    •  What Is Biased And What Is Xenophobic? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Utahrd, rcnewton

      You don't ever get to these points. You simply label it thus and therefore it is as you label it.

      You want to deal in religion or hyperbolic partisanship, fine, believe what you want to believe.

      I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

      by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:00:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I guess saying that there are too many (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Xapulin

      unskilled Mexicans in this country is not xenophobic by the diarist's standards!

      "A lot of the people who call themselves Left I would regard as proto-fascists" - Noam Chomsky

      by HGM MA on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:25:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Love The Exclamation Point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WestTexasLiberal, rcnewton

        It gives the claim a lot more punch.

        You are half right however, I don't think that anyone can make the case that we need more unskilled workers in the U.S.

        They certainly could not make that case and at the same time blame the Republican Party for falling wages and a declining standard of living.

        I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

        by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:35:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whatever... the very definition of nativism (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          klompendanser, Timaeus, Xapulin

          is blaming immigrants for economic stagnation and diminished living standards. If you're going to peddle such bullshit, you should at least own the title.

          "Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." — Hunter S. Thompson

          by HGM MA on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:44:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't quite understand, do you support (0+ / 0-)

    the effort to remove caps on green cards or oppose it?

    •  I Support Eliminating The F-1 Thru F-4 Categories (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rcnewton

      And using those numerical quotas to create some possibility to immigrate to the U.S. based upon skills.

      Beyond being politically pragmatic I think it is the right thing to do. I believe that in many ways the current family based system has been a complete failure.

      I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

      by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Need To Add Here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rcnewton

        This is one of a very few things that I would change.

        I don't believe that the U.S. immigration system is fundamentally 'broken'.

        I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

        by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:12:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that more skill-based immigration (0+ / 0-)

        will be useful (Canada, UK and Australia do a better job there). I wouldn't eliminate these categories b/c family unification is a legitimate goal. And smth needs to be done with agricultural workers and long-term illegal US residents.

      •  supers - most readers don't know (0+ / 0-)

        what F-1 through F-4 means in lay terms. You might want to edit your diary and replace the immigration specific terms with a lay explanation of what they mean.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:32:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  From The Diary Link (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib
          Family Preference Immigrant Visas (Limited): These visa types are for specific, more distant, family relationships with a U.S. citizen and some specified relationships with a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). There are fiscal year numerical limitations on family preference immigrants, shown at the end of each category.  The family preference categories are:

          * Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and their minor children, if any. (23,400)

          *Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried sons and daughters (age 21 and over) of LPRs. At least seventy-seven percent of all visas available for this category will go to the spouses and children; the remainder is allocated to unmarried sons and daughters. (114,200)

          *Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and their spouses and minor children. (23,400)

          *Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, and their spouses and minor children, provided the U.S. citizens are at least 21 years of age. (65,000)

          Note: Grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws, and cousins cannot sponsor a relative for immigration.

          I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

          by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:36:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm fairly strongly opposed to illegal immigration (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rcnewton

        But I can't sign on to getting rid of "F" visas. In fact, one of the reasons that I am opposed to illegal immigration (and any sort of amnesty) is for precisely the reason that we cannot sustain unlimited immigration and a relative of a legal immigrant should be absolutely have priority over an unrelated person who broke the law in order to get here.

        If we eliminated 90-95% of illegal immigration (which I think is very possible), then I think the pressure of F visas would be greatly reduced and we could then have discussion about expanding the number of skilled visas.

        •  Any Agreement With The Republican Party (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rcnewton

          Is, and has, included increasing the number of LPR's for skilled workers. This has been worded along the lines of eliminating F-1 thru F-4 in the trade.

          I don't understand why one should be allowed to sponsor their married sons and daughters and their children to begin with, and most especially why this should be called 'family re-unification'.

          What the U.S. family based immigration system has become is a bootstrap for serial migration, and we are told this is all in the name of 'diversity'. Horse . Shit .

          If we eliminated 90-95% of illegal immigration (which I think is very possible)

          The only way you're going to do this is with the 'tamper proof ID' of IRCA, and neither political party, nor the zealots on either side of the political spectrum, are going to go for that.

          I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

          by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:13:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've never heard of family reunification (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rcnewton

            being couched in the name of "diversity". We have a diversity lotto, and correct me if I'm wrong, family reunification plays no role in it.

            You of course see no reason that someone should be able to bring in their married children, unless of course you found yourself living 10,000 miles away from them, in which case you would be very much interested in bringing in your married children.

            Yes, there is "chain migration" but what's wrong with that? That's how this country was build. Send over the able-bodied males, and if and when they establish a living, he'll send for the rest of the family.

            The key question for me is that first person. If you took out the chain migration that has its orgins in the 1986 amnesty and other backdoor anmesties, I think then you would have numbers that we can accomodate. It's that first link that I'm most worried about, not the rest.

            •  And They'll Send For Their Family (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, there is "chain migration" but what's wrong with that? That's how this country was build. Send over the able-bodied males, and if and when they establish a living, he'll send for the rest of the family

              And they'll send for their family. And they'll two friends, and they'll tell two friends, etc. Pretty soon, the U.S. legal immigration system becomes dominated by one country (sound familiar?).

              I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

              by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:36:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, it is "familiar" . . . (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FG

                . . . that's my point. It's been going on since the Mayflower, the Scots-Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Chinese. That's the way this country was built, people establishing themselves, then bringing over their families. I repeat, there's nothing fucking wrong with that as long as it starts in the legal entry of someone that we have determined has something to contribute to this nation. If it starts in an illegal entry of someone who should not have ever been here in the first place, that's something different.

                One note: I do think that those who are genuinely concerned about illegal immigration do a great disservice to the issue by harping about legal immigration. If you think that we need to get control of illegal immigration for a variety of reasons, I 100% agree with you. If you really just think that there are too many brown people in the U.S., then fuck off. I want nothing to do with you.

                I trust that you are not amongst the latter, but to the extent that you start whining about the tens of thousands at most who come into the U.S. from Mexico due to family reunifications, you weaken the case for addressing the millions who come across illegally by allowing our opponents to tar all of us as people who just don't want brown people coming in.

                Illegal immigration = bad; legal immigration = good. Yes, we need to collectively determine the correct priorities and numbers and there's always room for debate, but as noted above, I think we've done a decent job of that. But any blurring of the distinction between illegal and legal immigration just becomes fodder for your opponents. That's exactly what they want, for the public discussion to always be about "immigrants" and "immigration" writ large, with no distinction made between legal and illegal. Don't fall into that trap.

              •  What do you mean by 'tell the two friends'? (0+ / 0-)

                Which part of F1-4 has the category for 2 friends? Or do you think people these days don't know that US exists? The only thing people can realistically tell their friends is how to immigrate illegally.

          •  But the biggest category there is spouses (0+ / 0-)

            and minor children of LPRs. Eliminating that is unnecessarily cruel (if you admit these people for some reason, why deny admission to their spouses and minor kids?) and pointless. If you want to argue that F3 and F4 should be eliminated, it makes more sense.

  •  One question, why are you in favor of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timaeus

    eliminating these visas? Besides the obvious conclusion that one would get from this.... which is that you feel that there are too many Mexicans in the US already, why are you against reuniting families?

    "A lot of the people who call themselves Left I would regard as proto-fascists" - Noam Chomsky

    by HGM MA on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:22:29 AM PDT

  •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xapulin

    It's natural that there would be many immigrants from Mexico.

    And the statistics you cite here do not alter the fact that it is extremely difficult or impossible for the average Mexican worker to immigrate legally to the United States.

    It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

    by Timaeus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:03:11 AM PDT

    •  Here Is The Full Comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rcnewton
      No. There actually are not legal paths for

      Mexicans to come into the country.

      A diary a while back here explained that.  After removing all the various special categories. there were something like 280 slots left for a Mexican to apply for...

      You think the USA hands out work permits to anyone?  You think the numbers are unlimited?

      You're right about being uninformed about the impossibility of any means of "coming here legally."

      As I have written, the claim is made again and again.

      The claim is false. Welcome the reality based community.

      I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

      by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:08:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Those are falsehoods. (0+ / 0-)

        130K mainly family-based Mexican immigrants in 2010 is a drop in the bucket. The comment you quote is accurate.

        It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

        by Timaeus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:21:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Have No Idea What This Means (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rcnewton

          130K mainly family-based Mexican immigrants in 2010 is a drop in the bucket

          And as I have written, you're going to believe what you want to believe, irrespective of what is 'accurate'.

          I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

          by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:26:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The facts in this diary are incorrect. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HGM MA, Xapulin, FG

    For example, using the DHS source cited by the diary, the actual numbers for 2010 are:

    Total LPR admissions: 1,042,625.

    Mexico: 139,120.

    China 70,853.

    India 69,162.

    As you can see, the total from Mexico does NOT exceed the total from China and India combined.

    More importantly, this nativist diary by one of the major anti-immigrant voices here seeks to create the impression that there is a vast flood of Mexican legal immigrants.  That's simply false.  139,120 Mexican immigrants is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the huge U.S. population of approximately 310,000,000.

    Moreover, it mainly reflects the reality that there are many relatives of Mexicans in the United States, for obvious reasons. Most of those immigrants had to wait in line for years, some of them for more than 15 years.

    At the same time, Mexican workers who want to come to the United States to work for awhile, but not with plans to immigrate permanently, find it almost impossible to do that.

    It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

    by Timaeus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:19:42 AM PDT

    •  I Will Concede That I Was Off By 895 Individuals (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rcnewton

      For the 2010 data.

      Please substitute the 2008 figures for the 2010 figures, for 2008 Mexico was about 17% of the total, you can then do the math on larger plurality then the 2010 figures.

      I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

      by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:31:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, By The Way (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rcnewton

        If the 2008 figures don't work for you, feel free to use any number of years going back to about 1989.

        I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

        by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:33:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your arguments are nonsense. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Xapulin

          There are approximately 100,000 Mexican immigrants per year.  There are approximately 310,000,000 people in the United States.

          Thus, the number of Mexican immigrants is equal to less than 1 in 3,000.

          That's like having a good-sized town of 3,000 people and one Mexican guy moves in.

          It just isn't the flood of brown people that you're worried about.

          It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

          by Timaeus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 10:07:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think he's arguing that there's (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rcnewton

            a "flood" of legal Mexican immigrants. I think he's arguing that there are more Mexican legal immigrants than there from any other country, and that this goes against the argument that our system is somehow biased against Mexicans (or other brown people).

            I happen to strongly disagree with him that we should get rid of F visas. I actually think that our legal immigration system as it exists actually pretty closely matches what it ought to be, with the priorities being, in order more or less: (1) family reunification; (2) economic need/benefit (to America); and (3) diversity. Ad to that the relative small numbers of exceptional cases such as asylum and trafficking victims, etc., and I thint it's a system that basically gets it right. I do think the numbers in all categories should be expanded, and there should be an easy/efficient/cheap way to obtain a temporary work visa, and I definitely agree with some of the proposals that would grant visas with graduate degrees in tech fields, and other things along those lines. But for all of that to be possible, in my opinion, first we have to actually get control of the illegal system so that the vast majority of the immigrants and temporary workers are entering through legal channels.

            •  I agree, except for the last sentence. (0+ / 0-)

              I think we have too much enforcement, not too little.

              It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

              by Timaeus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:12:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I respect your opinion a lot (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rcnewton

                because I know it's well-informed, but I really fail to understand how we can have "too much enforcement" when the fact of the matter is that there is mass non-compliance with the law. We do agree that approximately half of the people who come to our country to live and work each year do so illegally.

                If only half of the people in the U.S. paid their taxes, would you say that there was already "too much enforcement" of our tax laws?

                I genuinely don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that there is too much enforcement.

                •  Well, I think that, because I'm one of the few (0+ / 0-)

                  people who are actually in favor of open borders.

                  If today's world requires free flow of goods, free flow of resources, free flow of money, free flow of information, why should it not also permit freel flow of labor?

                  Every human being has a God-given natural human right to work.  It is not appropriate for government to restrain that.

                  Harsh enforcement has all kinds of harsh unintended consequences. For example, it used to be common for young Mexican guys to leave their rural villages and come to the United States to work for a few years, after which they would return home with enough to support a family.  But now it's incredibly dangerous to cross the border.  So guys like this end up bottled up inside the United States.  It would be better for everybody if the borders were completely open.

                  We don't need immigration law enforcement at all. Regular law enforcement could take care of any immigrants who were law violators.

                  It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

                  by Timaeus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:57:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't Tell Me How Much The Constitution Means Then (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Utahrd

                    We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

                    Because in your open borders fantasy world the statement above has no practical meaning, there is no real reason that I should pay taxes -- in your open borders fantasy world it's every man/woman for themselves -- no social programs, no safety net at all for the old or the infirm

                    Bring it the fuck on -- it'll be like the old west -- but don't at the same time claim that you're a Democrat, because really your true politics can best be described as libertarian or anarchist, and to claim that you are any kind of 'progressive' is just laughable.

                    I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

                    by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:04:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This foaming at the mouth is incoherent. (0+ / 0-)

                      My position is not inconsistent with law nor with the Constitution.

                      And I'm a yellow dog Democrat, not a libertarian or anarchist, God forbid.

                      And I don't use the label "progressive."  I'm a yellow dog Democrat.

                      All that stuff about taxes and the safety net?  Totally irrelevant to what I said.

                      The United States is in a state of permanent decline. You're the one with the fantasy view. We could completely open the borders and the rate of immigration would not appreciably increase.

                      It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

                      by Timaeus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:13:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  BS (0+ / 0-)
                        We could completely open the borders and the rate of immigration would not appreciably increase.

                        Why are there then 15 million people a year applying for the 50,000 diversity lotto visas?

                        •  Good question. (0+ / 0-)

                          But I stand on my point.

                          Suppose the United States started letting in 15 million a year in the DV category. (I'll assume you're right about that number, although it seems high to me.)

                          How long do you think that would persist?

                          FWIW, I've always opposed the idea of visa "lotteries." I favor open borders.

                          It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

                          by Timaeus on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 07:01:49 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Well I appreciate the honesty (0+ / 0-)

                    I'd think about supporting that if it were done by treaty on an international basis. If every country in the world were to sign on to say that anyone who shows up in our country has an immediate right to immediately work there. But unilaterally, I think is just insanity. I don't have a right to work in Mexico, or Canada, or France, Germany, etc. I have a right to work in only one country, the U.S. If we unilaterally grant everyone else the right to work here, but nobody grants us the right to work in their countries, not only is that unfair, but it would inevitably lead to much worse labor market conditions for workers here, and much better ones everywhere else. Not something I would ever consider signing on to.

                    You're example of the Mexican work who used to be able to go home regularly is for me a prime reason that I believe there should be a much easier, more efficient, expanded and cheap way to obtain temporary work visas.

                    •  More Stupidity From The 'New Democrats' (0+ / 0-)

                      "Hey, let's try this and see if it works."

                      And when it doesn't work, and you go looking for someone to take responsibility for it and provide answers about what they are going to about it -- what do you get?

                      "Hey, let's try this and see if it works"

                      I give you 'comprehensive immigration reform' or, better yet, let's just throw open the borders and let the devil take the hind most.

                      I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

                      by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 12:22:39 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Me Too (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rcnewton

              I actually think that our legal immigration system as it exists actually pretty closely matches what it ought to be

              Which is why I constantly invite individuals to tell me why it's 'broken'. On his radio program last week, I invited Fernando Espuelas to explain to me why the U.S. immigration system was 'broken'.

              Espuelas' response? To paraphrase 'There are 11 million people in the U.S. illegally, this is proof that the system is broken'.

              My response? To paraphrase 'No, this is proof that 11 million people chose to break the law'. Mr. Espuelas couldn't tell me anything else that was 'broken' about the U.S. immigration system.

              I do think the numbers in all categories should be expanded, and there should be an easy/efficient/cheap way to obtain a temporary work visa

              And the result here is that you will get even more un-skilled un-educated workers from low wage countries. Because that's where the family based immigrants are coming from now, and expanding F-1 thru F-4 will simply exacerbate that condition.

              What you need to follow on here with is why the U.S. needs more un-skilled un-educated workers from predominately Mexico, Central America, and South America?

              What job sectors is this increased number of immigrants going to work in, what are the jobs that the immigrants from these expanded categories going to do, and what kind of impact is this going to have on those job sectors and those jobs?

              Final question. What is the difference between importing cheaper labor to a job, and exporting a job to cheaper labor.

              I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

              by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:29:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think that we need to import (0+ / 0-)

                more unskilled and un-educated labor into the United States. But there are competing interests. No matter what you are drawing arbitrary lines about what really matters. Technically, why should you be able to bring your wife/husband? If you fall in love with a foreigner, maybe you should just have to move to their country, as opposed to bringing them to ours. But I don't think very many people would agree with that. Morally, ethically, we have that rule because people think it's the right thing to do, not because it will somehow benefit our economy or labor market.

                Again, I do think that if we are going to be "liberal" about family reunification, it makes the case even stronger to be extremely conservative about allowing an illegal entry to begin the chain. But if we shift back to having a much greater percentage of our immigration coming through legally, then I think even the chain migration issue will be lessened, not only because the quality of immigrants in the "chain" will likely be higher in terms of education and skills, but because people with skills and education are likely to come from families with less of an economic imperative to immigrate (they can travel back and forth more freely, and probably have a better status quo in their home countries).

                So, again, I think the source of the problem is not family visas, but illegal immigration.

                There are a lot of difference between exporting a job to cheaper labor and importing cheaper labor to a job. But I also question the premise. I don't support the use of temporary work visas purely for the purpose of finding cheaper labor. The laws governing the existing programs do not support that either. The legitimate purpose of temporary work visas is to allow some separation between foreign labor needs and the immigration system. There are a lot of people whose labor for one reason or another is needed in the United States, but who have no interest in immigrating here. I think it's essential to at least make a genuine attempt to first determine whether a certain kind of foreign labor is really "needed" or not, but having done that, I think there's very good reason to allow some people to work here without having to go through the process of immigrating here.

  •  Umm...what? (0+ / 0-)
    I keep reading on this blog that "There are no legal paths for Mexicans to immigrate to the U.S."

    Quidquid id est, timeo Republicanos et securitatem ferentes.

    by Sura 109 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:03:56 AM PDT

    •  Even Though I Have Provided One In This Diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rcnewton

      No, there really is no citation needed, and I suspect you probably don't believe what doesn't conform to your world view anyway.

      I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

      by superscalar on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 11:31:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But that's different (0+ / 0-)

    Incompetent, corrupt Mexican officials frittered away a large area of their country to the US in the 19th century.

    Incompetent, corrupt Russian officials frittered away a large area of their country to the US in the 19th century.

    Now, corrupt, incompentent Mexican bureaucrats are stealing everything not nailed down.

    Now, corrupt, incompentent Russian bureaucrats are stealing everything not nailed down.

    Journalists in Mexico disappear if they say the wrong thing.

    Journalists in Russia disappear if they say the wrong thing.

    So why do we let in so many more Mexicans than Russians?  

    It's because Mexican food is better than Russian food and Mexicans can't beat us at ice hockey?

  •  Is is not racism, it is horrifing fear (0+ / 0-)

    I have stopped thinking of racism whenever immigration
    or the Dream Act comes up in political debates. I now have
    convinced myself that the real reason for so much push
    back on allowing Mexican families to stay togother in this
    country by deportations, is straight up fucking fear that a
    new racial majority is coming..in our lifetimes. Booo, the
    real brownie is coming.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site