Immigration is the only hope for me to ever have a family. I was born in Switzerland to British parents who lived in France (in Geneva this is not unusual). Because I'm a citizen by descent, I can't pass on nationality to future children. My girlfriend is Taiwanese, and I'm a conscientious objector who will not take on Taiwanese nationality because of their mandatory conscription.
My life plan revolves around immigration visa requirements. I studied Electronic Systems Engineering at Lancaster University in the UK. That got me a Masters degree from a Washington Accord accredited university, in an English-speaking country (language requirements), in a STEM field (usually on the skill shortage list). Then I used Working Holiday visas to get experience in many countries, before deciding to stay in Taiwan for 4 years to get years of continuous relevant work experience.
Now I have the pre-requisites, I'm trying to find a job, but the majority of job listings require me to already have a visa.
Any leads for jobs would be helpful. I was focusing on New Zealand, Canada, or Australia, but by now I'm getting desperate and I'll take anything.
so the parent is a UK citizen but can't pass his citizenship on to his children? And his future wife is a taiwanese citizeen, but because he would have to enlist in the taiwanese army to become a citizen, they cannot raise their family there? Can someone flesh out the details for the clueless and unworldly like myself?
What part do each of these things play in the parent posters predicament vis a vis starting a family:
a) Being born in Switzerland b) Parents being British c) Parents being French residents d) Girlfriend being Taiwanese e) Mandatory Taiwanese Conscription Laws
What UK law prevents parent from marrying his GF and raise his children in the UK? Why can't he live in Taiwan as an expat and not join the army?
It is very difficult to immigrate into the UK. This is because fucking idiot racists appear to be influential in the polls, and governments keep tightening the requirements to appease the racists.
OP is a British citizen. OP is a British citizen by descent, which means their children are not automatically British citizens. OP's future wife is not a British citizen.
If OP wishes to move his wife and children here for more than 6 months they need a family visa. https://www.gov.uk/uk-family-visa
The family visa has minimum income requirements. https://www.gov.uk/uk-family-visa/proof-income
For the spouse you need a combined income of £18,600. If you already have children you need an additional £3,800 for the first child, and £2,400 for each additional children.
The rules for who is or isn't a UK citizen are quite complicated. Being born in the UK is neither required nor sufficient to get citizenship. If British parents give birth abroad their child will be British by descent. That child's children will be British if born in the UK, but not if born outside the UK.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/139807999382936/
The APRC offered to foreign residents of Taiwan expires if I move overseas for more than 2 years. So it's not really permanent e.g. if I moved to another country to look after ageing parents, I could never go back. The only "permanent" status is citizenship, and Taiwan requires foreigners to forfeit their previous citizenships to naturalise. It's not only the military issue.
You should look into this for Canada and Australia. You don't need a job to apply for these if you meet the criteria:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
https://www.immigrationdirect.com.au/work-visa/skilled-indep...
Even if I get an independent visa, I still need a job to pay for food and shelter. My current savings would only last about 2 months, far too short for the 5 years of residency to get citizenship there.
Otherwise, France now has a new VISA policy for talented engineers and similar profiles ("Passeport Talent"[0]).
[0] https://france-visas.gouv.fr/web/france-visas/passeport-tale...
By living in an EU country with you, your girlfriend should not have any visa problems.
If we only look at the economical aspect then the question about immigration is simply a crass question about averages. If the average applicant with their dependents are in the later group for the defined time frame then its a good policy to allow and encourage growth, and if its not then its better to prohibit. Here in Sweden a researcher did such study and unsurprisingly the result showed that for the time frame of 20 years the state economics from immigration is a net negative. It is very possible that over an enough large time frame that result will change but their study could not make such predictions.
The averages for H1B applicants and their dependents could be different but the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants. Its a good incentive for doing more studies but I would focus the moral perspective of liberty and humanitarian aid when it comes to immigration policy. I have strong doubt that a rigorous economic study would fall in favor of immigration for any time frame less than 50-100 years, based on my own reasoning, guesses and historical knowledge.
I would be very interested to read this study. Can you please provide a source?
What kind of immigration does the study account for? Is it refugee based or diversity based immigration which, naturally, could be a burden on the country because these most likely are not medium-high skilled immigrants. However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program which is only for employment based high-skilled applicants (granted some of these could be medium-skilled but these applicants are definitely not low-skilled) and contribute to the economy by paying taxes and contributing to the local economy by spending.
> the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants.
If there is an economic growth for the local companies, this certainly might correlate with the economic growth for the economy of the country. But I do agree with you that there should be a more focused study for this.
Sure, its was fairly rememberable since the new reportage went bad since the news reporter tried to address and ask question about the political aspects and the academic economy researcher was very academic about it. When they got the question "why did you do this study when it could be used as political material next election" the answer became something like "we were hired to do a study, and having knowledge about the subject is better than having no knowledge".
I also noticed that I did miss-remember a detail. The time frame was between 1983 and 2015, so 33 years rather than 20 years.
https://eso.expertgrupp.se/rapporter/tid-for-integration/ - report (there is a English summery linked on the page).
https://www.svt.se/kultur/medier/forskaren-i-uppmarksammad-i... - interview
> However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program
Yes, as I wrote that could change the result and if so it would make for a great news. Further studies is something that should be funded as the political environment around immigration is about as bad as it can be. I also believe the argument about immigration as humanitarian aid is a good one and focus the discussion towards reasonable middle ground rather than extremes.
Would it take a person with citizenship and remove their citizenship, or would it simply not grant them citizenship?
What it would actually do is get quickly struck down by the courts with no effect, since executive orders can't validly contradict federal statutory law or the Constitution.
Both sources of law currently protect birthright citizenship, except for the children of foreign diplomats who already don't benefit from it today (no new executive order needed).
H1B abuses have been long documented so while there are legitimate benefits to it, they are outweighed by the problems.
I see no need to present sources and results - I'm not claiming anything as fact, just stating opinion in a comment.
I have always supported left politics, and I think I understand the basics of supply-and-demand economics. If immigrants come to the US looking for work instead of bringing work, there should be a higher supply of labor, driving the low-end pay-rate down. Given that the low-end rate has gone down significantly throughout the 3 decades that I have been alive, how do we on the left reason that immigration is not a factor? Or is it?
Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies. Am I wrong about that?
My parents voted for Trump, (or we might say they voted against Clinton). They have since decided to support Bernie Sanders next time, but they point to immigration’s effect on the labor supply as the reason to keep the border closed.
I would like to think we can address this with far more dignified solutions than what is being popularly proposed, but first things first; what am I missing?
Because we can point directly to the tax policy changes that are largely responsible, starting with the Reagan-era tax burden shift on to work.
And because we on the left don't deny that immigration is not a factor, but instead that immigration policy effects whether people who enter do it more to work and export the proceeds or to settle and participate and both sides of the ledger, and that present policy has been harmful in that regard. A particular way tl in which this is true is the production of multi-decade waiting lists for family-based immigration from Mexico, which both reduces attachment of lawful immigrants, drives remittances, and produces illegal immigration directly.
> Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies.
Xenophobia is probably historically the most central reason, but public resources and labor markets are the acceptable modern pretexts. But even when they are the genuine purposes, that doesn't mean policies are actually well adapted to them.
I do understand the impact of Reagan-era economic policies and don’t accept that America would be capable of thriving despite a lot of immigration.
But, I guess I don’t understand why this convo isn’t articulated. Supply-and-demand of the labor market is super simple and it seems pretty obvious that immigration would end up being a scapegoat. I just realized I don’t have anything to say that because, despite understanding numerous economic causes for the lower wages, I can only reason that immigration adds fuel to the fire.
But for some reason people on the left seem to act like this contention doesn’t exist. They just talk about how terrible the border and ICE is; both of which have been awful for many years. It’s nice that people care all of a sudden but name-calling doesn’t address these rational claims of the opposition. If you’re right and that’s the way it is, I wonder how we can actually solve this.
It sounds like if we can just actually take the economics seriously for once then it would eliminate any decent ground to defend the immigration enforcements. I mean, we have to do it some day. It seems to undermine everything we stand for.
Businesses in an area that was losing population can benefit from immigrants moving in. A shrinking community isn't good for business.
Seems like flawed theory to me.
Considering immigrants (as well as most low-wage Americans) primarily purchase cheap imported goods, the only jobs we appear to be creating by this method are extreme low-wage jobs, just like I said. Any other revenue goes to very wealthy who stash it or invest in capital or property, which makes it harder for most Americans to own a home.
Immigrants not only bring in labor supply, but also product demand. So even if they aren't investors looking to hire people, the proper question should be whether they bring in more supply than demand, or whether they don't.
I'd say that immigrants who send money abroad, tip the balance towards higher supply, while those who don't, are actually suply-demand neutral (they spend their money where they earn it). So removing citizenship from those born, raised and consuming, is just bullshit.
As for why low-end rates have gone down... check out income inequality, you might find that the top-end rates have gone up by the same amount. Either that, or the economy is tanking (but it isn't).
In my limited personal experience chatting with employees and hiring managers from a couple of big name US tech companies, what I've come to realize is that occasionally they hire talented foreigners simply because they're talented. Of course this doesn't apply to every foreign hire they do, but if they find someone that fits their culture and is above the average by a big margin, they'll be happy to create a job on the spot for that person. So while we try to think of the job market as fixed thing with N available places at any given moment, this certainly doesn't fully apply to creative/innovative workplaces.
This seems like the truly left position to me. I heard Clinton mention it once in the 3rd debate, but for some reason people focused on other stuff.
Average, inflation adjusted wage growth has been projected as low as 0.2% year on year in some cases, and this affects most forms of work not just the low end.
Its almost as if they don't want a vibrant middle class to spend, thereby dooming themselves in the long run with stagnation.
This only applies to low skilled, replaceable jobs and certainly not the high skilled ones. Because eventually there is a demand for better employees (which naturally comes with experience and skills) which leads to higher wages and wage growth. Look at what's happening in SV.
I don't have a complete answer but I would point out that some of these immigrants do bring work, eventually. There is a photograph of Sergey Brinn in the article, Steve Jobs is another example.
Also, economically, I am of the opinion that consumption is what drives the modern economy (for better or worse). The production is then typically figured out from that through capitalism. So the additional consumers in economy (immigrants) also add to demand, which acts against the downward pressure on wages.
I was unable to go to college without massive student loans and now I can’t afford to have children despite working obsessive hours.
> I am of the opinion that consumption is what drives the modern economy (for better or worse).
What about having a productive and efficient economy? I was looking at this recently:
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/labor-force-partic...
Our labor force participation rate is drastically lower than Europe’s. Not sure why but I remember a post on HN a few days ago where a homeless American programmer was asking for advice and more people than not recommended that he not take a minimum wage job because it would barely help and take all his time. True he had programming experience but this is a homeless person. If being homeless is not enough to justify a low-end job, it seems like a stretch to think this is an economy that can work. Again, what am a I missing? Are you not worried that you’re wrong? Economics is difficult stuff which is why i am asking.
> The production is then typically figured out from that.
Poor people consumer almost entirely cheap-labor made imports, often made in free-trade manufacturing zones (sweat shops) so this is not computing at all for me.
This is at least not the left I signed up for when I was in high school. We hated sweat shops.
If you provide unskilled services (e.g cleaning) then unskilled immigration is very bad for your income. I don't think any reasonable economist would object to that.
The "job pool" does expand over time to match the labor pool, but if immigrants don't have the same skill profile as "the natives", then some of the natives are gonna lose.
The article frustrates me, because it echoes a thought complex that seems almost willfully obtuse. It fails to address the actual reasons behind a desire for caution on immigration. This is somewhat forgivable because those with the most reason to want caution are the least likely to be able to explain why, or to have the confidence to do so. But it is somewhat unforgivable because presumably it is the job of those who write articles to tease that sort of thing out.
The article gives a litany of problems for which high-skilled immigrants are the solution: pensions, tax bases, shoring up the population of "declining regions." We are told that the "dark nativist rumblings of right-wing intellectuals like Anton, are doing the U.S. economy an enormous disservice."
This is Bloomberg, so that is the unpardonable sin, hurting the economy. But maybe there's more to life than the economy?
Consider Sen. Elizabeth Warren's The Two-Income Trap [0]. She posits that much of the income a family gains from working women goes to positional goods, like housing or (credentialed) education---but since other women are working as well, the net gain is much, much lower than what the simple income numbers would suggest. Perhaps a simpler example is simply housing in SF. Sure, you get paid a lot, but if your rent is correspondingly high, well...hmm. And that's assuming that you are being paid a lot.
Money is an abstraction. Sometimes it's a leaky abstraction. What price air? What price true love? How much do loving, still-together parents cost? How much to block all ads on the Internet, forever? Just because you can't buy these things doesn't mean they're not wealth, in the pg "wealth is what people want" sense.
If you held Google stock, and they doubled the amount of ads you see, Bloomberg would say you were up. But, well, now the internet sucks for you.
So...how much is your vote worth? How much is it worth to live somewhere where the opinions of most of the electorate match up with yours?
How much would you pay for your child to attend a school where you're comfortable with the racial mix of the other students? This is taboo---even my villanous throwaway persona cringes writing it---but in practice people go to a lot of trouble. [2][3]
How much is social cohesion worth? [4] How much is a monolingual environment---and more specifically, the security of the implied cultural hegemony---worth?[5]
To really drive home the ridiculousness of the article, let's flip the scenario: imagine new research came out that demonstrated unequivocally that "immigrants are Bad for the Economy," and mirror-universe Evil Bloomberg wrote an op-ed citing such. Might you take issue with that, holding that they bring benefits not measured in GNP, and that this was a case of looking for keys under the streetlight?
I'm not arguing for any specific policies, which is good for all of us because I know jack shit about such. Rather, I'm arguing for the basic legitimacy of the nativist impulse. Humans of any origin like living in safe countries that they control.
"But though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy" - http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
[0]http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-inc...
[1]https://www.newsweek.com/why-schools-still-cant-put-segregat...
[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/housi...
[3]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128026...
[4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/08/resea...
Trump understands something that technology elites don't; the wealth pie is limited and you have to be deliberate in how you slice it and who you give those slices to.
Take a look at the UK and Brexit, they're having problems hiring enough health care professionals precisely because of their desired post-EU immigration policies. This before they even apply any new rules!
The argument is clearly stated in the article. And your assertion about opportunities does not really align with our understanding of immigration policies.
I'm not fan of Trump, but he wants to institute a 'points based' system, along the lines of what Canada or Australia has.
Immigrants to Canada tend to be fairly educated, more so than those coming to the us partly due to this policy, partly due to the irregular migrants coming to the US.
The article's title and opening argument are basically inconsistent with reality: a points-based immigration system would likely mean more qualified migrants, not fewer.
https://qz.com/1195155/trumps-merit-based-immigration-propos...
I think that article is incorrect. Try the points here yourself:- http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/crs-tool.asp
QMAS gives you a few extra points (5) if you are applying alongside a degree-level-educated spouse, and a few more if you're bringing children (5 or 10 for 1 or 2 children). Given that the 'pass mark' is 80 - which doesn't guarantee a visa, just allows you to apply - it's neither a trivial amount nor a particularly significant one.
Also, Canada has exactly the same birthright citizenship policy as the US, though it's merely in Canada's statutory law, not also in its constitution.
(Edited to replace "those people" with "those affected" - I just meant a neutral reference, not a phrase that racists often give a derogatory meaning.)
How is the birthright changing that? (argument that every baby could be the next Einstein is not sufficient)
2. The US definitely needs more highly qualified skilled workers, and pretty much anyone to just keep the population where it is as a birth rate of 1.84 children per couple is below replenishment rate.
As for birthright citizenship, I agree, it's not a necessary part of a fair and reasonable immigration system. It's really only a new-world concept and it's declining in the new world too. Australia had and then rolled it back. I'm neutral on this. Obviously I don't think it should be taken away from anyone who already has it, that's a dangerous line to tow, but I wouldn't be opposed to birthright permanent residency with a path to citizenship should the individual choose to immigrate on their own, or of course if they'd otherwise be left stateless.
Hong Kong for instance doesn't afford citizenship to anyone not ethnically Chinese meaning HKIDs are the end of the road for anyone not Chinese.
Birthright citizenship is one of the defining reasons for America's continued economic and cultural dominance. The American dream as we know it does not exist without it.
They are actively pushing away legal immigrants who contribute to society.
I don't see the following people wanting to live in a racist, anti immigrant, anti intellectual country:
- Nobel Laureates (budding geniuses especially)?
- Top scientists?
- Good engineers?
- Medical practitioners?
- Researchers?
- People who are family oriented?
Can anyone imagine a well-to-do, well-educated immigrant from a good country ever wanting to deal with US immigration nonsense? Especially, if they can be kicked out or denaturalized? I certainly can't.
In fact, the only people who would come to the US (now that the curtain on American racism is up) are the exact people their politicians over emphasize on aka gang members, asylum seekers, fleeing shitty conditions back home, have nothing else going on.
Such a paradox!
Please stop with this non-sense. You can be for or against the H-1B program, i don't care, but there is zero doubt that US citizens would be collecting way higher paychecks if the H-1B program did not exist. Thats simply supply and demand on the (tech-)labour market.
Also, the Masters degree I pursued (in mechanical engineering - Dynamics/Vibrations/Acoustics) had barely a couple of American kids vs ~8 foreign kids.
People on H1B can't even change their location without filing another such application. So, no, H1B immigration does not lead to lower wages for citizens.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Condition_Application#At...
But if that were the case then no one would bother with spending the insane amounts of money it costs to get qualified foreign labor.
Talent is global and the difference a skilled individual adds to a company has a multiplicative effect.
