Should legal immigrationbe easier?

[JAHS]

From a Dan Jones poll:
Most Utahns believe legal immigration should be easier, a new UtahPolicy.com poll finds.
Immigration – legal and illegal – is just one of many important issues before voters in this year’s midterm elections.
Historically, partly because of the LDS Church’s missionary programs throughout the world, Utahns have been fairly forward thinking on immigration.
And this poll by Dan Jones & Associates reflects that.

Jones finds:

56 percent of Utahns say it should be easier to legally immigrate into the United States.
12 percent say it should be harder.
28 percent said it should stay the same.
And 4 percent don’t know.

For years, immigration advocates have maintained it is too hard to legally come into the U.S., especially to work for short periods of time before returning to your home country.
That is one reason, they claim, the U.S. has such an illegal immigration problem – for there is work here that most Americans don’t want to do, and which illegal immigrants will do.
In any case, Jones finds that across the demographic board, most – or a plurality – of Utahns want to see easier, legal immigration:
Young people, ages 18-24, want it – 76 percent for easier immigration.
Old folks don’t – only 36 percent for easier immigration, 40 percent want to keep it as is.
Republicans want easier immigration, 46 percent.
Democrats really want it, 71 percent for easier immigration.
Political independents – 65 percent want it easier to come here legally.
Those who say they are “very conservative” politically, 40 percent want immigration easier, 34 percent want it the same.
The “somewhat conservatives,” 55 percent want it easier.
The “moderates,” 67 percent favor it.
62 percent of the “somewhat” liberals among us favor easier immigration.
73 percent of the “very” liberals want it.
As noted above, the LDS Church favors legal immigration, for many of its converts – especially in South America – seek to come to the United States for a better life.
Jones finds that 54 percent of “very active” Mormons want easier legal immigration, 29 percent say leave it alone, and 13 actually want legal immigration to become harder

Poll: Most Utahns say legal immigration should be easier

Illegal immigrant church members often have a hard time answering the temple recommend question about being “honest in their dealings with their fellowmen" ad   “obey, honor and sustain the law;”
Making immigration easier might help resolve this issue for many otherwise law-abiding immigrants.
What say you?

[kllindley]

It's a ridiculous system at present. I was trying to explain to my kids last month what people were talking about when they said Trump wants to build a wall.  They were disgusted and had some brilliant solutions to the problem. Just another casualty of partisanship. 

[Storm Rider]

I know I don't have a clue what it takes to immigrate to the USA; yet, I know what it takes to become a legal resident in a few foreign countries. I wonder how many of the people that answered the poll actually know anything about the actual US process to immigrate here?  I suspect there is an extremely high percentage that is like me and is ignorant of the process. 

I think a renewable Visa for education should be relatively easy to obtain. I think a work Visa should also be awarded without too stringent of a process to endure. At the same time, I would like to see some of our citizenship rules change. Simply because a child is born on US soil does not entitle the child to US citizenship.  Citizenship should come from the citizenship of the parents and not where you are born. 

I would also expect that the number of temporary immigrants and permanent have some form of limitation to ensure the continuity of our culture remaining intact. I see no reason to destroy our culture in exchange for unlimited immigration.  

[The Nehor]

They need to bump up the numbers of those who get in. Outside of marrying a native it is very hard to get in and takes many years. My friend from Germany just recently finished the process. It was a huge difficulty and was pretty expensive and he married a native. Someone in Mexico asking to get on the waiting list will most likely be dead before they

I expect the powerful who are anti-immigrant now to change their tune when the boomers all retire and suddenly we have an employee shortage. Given the choice between having to pay living wages or letting in cheap labor what do you think the donors who contribute to politicians will demand?

And I have a pretty good idea what it involves. This is a little dated but is mostly still accurate:

 

It is a little disturbing how many people have strong opinions about immigration yet know nothing about it.

Edited September 25, 2018 by The Nehor

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't live in America (though I used to), but I'm an immigrant and newly naturalised citizen in the nation where I now reside. It took me almost 14 years and close to US$100,000 to finally qualify for permanent residency, and then another two years to qualify for citizenship. Every week, I speak to people who were born here who say something stupid like, 'Why doesn't your sister come work here too?' (She has a bachelors of science in mathematics, computer science and applied statistics and a postgraduate degree in mathematics, so people tend to think she'd be an asset.)

I point out to them that there is literally no legal pathway forward for that to happen. They don't get it. They don't understand why it took me so long to qualify to stay here. Ward members used to say to me, 'You've been here for more than a decade; why aren't you a citizen yet?', with the implication that I just didn't want to be. Whenever I tried to explain the process I was going through, half would get confused, and the other half would look at me like I didn't really know what I was talking about cos surely it couldn't be that complicated. Or expensive.

I'm assuming the situation in America is probably similar, but our migration program is the only reason we aren't already in population decline, but no one really gets that either. I'm glad to see that many of the Saints in Utah seem to have heeded the prophets on this topic ...

Edited September 25, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Quote

Outside of marrying a native it is very hard to get in

Not even that easy for those who do that from what I have read.  Have a niece and a couple of friends trying to get their spouses permanent residence.  Good chance some will get kicked out at least for awhile first.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't live in America (though I used to), but I'm an immigrant and newly naturalised citizen in the nation where I now reside. It took me almost 14 years and close to US$100,000 to finally qualify for permanent residency, and then another two years to qualify for citizenship. Every week, I speak to people who were born here who say something stupid like, 'Why doesn't your sister come work here too?' (She has a bachelors of science in mathematics, computer science and applied statistics and a postgraduate degree in mathematics, so people tend to think she'd be an asset.)

I point out to them that there is literally no legal pathway forward for that to happen. They don't get it. They don't understand why it took me so long to qualify to stay here. Ward members used to say to me, 'You've been here for more than a decade; why aren't you a citizen yet?', with the implication that I just didn't want to be. Whenever I tried to explain the process I was going through, half would get confused, and the other half would look at me like I didn't really know what I was talking about cos surely it couldn't be that complicated. Or expensive.

I'm assuming the situation in America is probably similar, but our migration program is the only reason we aren't already in population decline, but no one really gets that either. I'm glad to see that many of the Saints in Utah seem to have heeded the prophets on this topic ...

Boy I hope it's not too similar. Be good to hear from someone who actually did take the legal immigration path to America from Mexico. I know for an immediate family member it might only take  a couple years; if not it can be up to 10 years, and the length of time depends on the country you are coming from.

Edited September 25, 2018 by JAHS

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't live in America (though I used to), but I'm an immigrant and newly naturalised citizen in the nation where I now reside. It took me almost 14 years and close to US$100,000 to finally qualify for permanent residency, and then another two years to qualify for citizenship. Every week, I speak to people who were born here who say something stupid like, 'Why doesn't your sister come work here too?' (She has a bachelors of science in mathematics, computer science and applied statistics and a postgraduate degree in mathematics, so people tend to think she'd be an asset.)

I point out to them that there is literally no legal pathway forward for that to happen. They don't get it. They don't understand why it took me so long to qualify to stay here. Ward members used to say to me, 'You've been here for more than a decade; why aren't you a citizen yet?', with the implication that I just didn't want to be. Whenever I tried to explain the process I was going through, half would get confused, and the other half would look at me like I didn't really know what I was talking about cos surely it couldn't be that complicated. Or expensive.

I'm assuming the situation in America is probably similar, but our migration program is the only reason we aren't already in population decline, but no one really gets that either. I'm glad to see that many of the Saints in Utah seem to have heeded the prophets on this topic ...

Canada was ridiculous as well.  Took us 8 years just to get landed immigrancy.  They kept losing the papers, doctor's clearance sat on his desk for a year, stuff like that.  The university finally appealed to the local MP and we got walked through in 6 months and all that had to be done was to go down to the border and walk around the flag, so it didn't have to be done the hard way.

[Danzo]

I am aware of what it takes. Several members of my extended family have gone through the process. I worked for an immigration attorney a few years back and have many clients who are illegal (some pay six figures in income tax each year).

It is terrible.  I know many who get their green card just so they can move to Mexico. 

Getting legally married can cause your application to be rejected (most immigration attorneys recommend shacking up if you want to have a family).

If you have any family in the US, they will not give you a tourist visa to come and visit if you are from Mexico. (We had a client who had a wife in Mexico who was an attorney and had no interest in immigrating, they wouldn't let her visit until he suddenly passed away, then they let her come for the funeral, since she didn't have family here anymore)

I could go on and on. 

Those that support the current situation usually don't understand it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

The university finally appealed to the local MP and we got walked through in 6 months and all that had to be done was to go down to the border and walk around the flag, so it didn't have to be done the hard way.

It doesn't have to be hard here, either. It's all about the politics. Politicians on both sides know from the evidence that our migration program is the only thing stopping our slide into economic decline, but the Left can't come out and say that at all since they have to placate the trade unionists who form their base -- and who view every migrant as someone that is going to take a job away from a 'real' citizen. The Right does say it, but they have to keep sending out mixed messages in order to placate the hard Right, who see migrants like me as a real threat to dominant culture. (After all, most of us bring a 'foreign' religion with us, me included.)

So migration becomes long and difficult and expensive so that whichever side is currently in government can say that they're letting just enough migrants in but not too many. And it weeds out everyone but the most determined, skilled and resourced, which satisfies no one, really.

By the way, when I was working at the university, they weren't even willing to sponsor my visa because of the difficulty and cost, so I'm glad you got that at least.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rchorse]

As the husband of a German immigrant, I can tell you the process is ridiculous. We both have master's degrees and it was very difficult for us to figure out all the paperwork that was necessary for permanent residency and then later citizenship. The immigration officials that interviewed us were actually surprised we were able to do it correctly without hiring an attorney. Even without an attorney it cost us thousands of dollars and a lot of hours to get everything sorted out.

Now that we're living in Germany temporarily, I have a basis for comparison. The process for me to get permanent residency in Germany was incredibly easy. I filled out one form, paid 100 euros or so and had one interview. Then after 2 years I had one more interview. I need one more interview and about 100 euros more and then I can stay as long as I want with no restrictions.

In my opinion, the only restrictions on immigration should be a background check to keep criminals out and not allowing the use of welfare resources for the first X years to ensure someone doesn't just want to come and mooch off the system. 

[Rajah Manchou]

A friend from India told me about the hassle her parents just went through to try and visit relatives in the USA:

1. Schedule an appointment at the nearest consulate.
2. Take the train five hours to the appointment.
3. Complete ridiculous amounts of paper work, including proof that they already paid for plane and hotel bookings for their entire stay.
4. Pay an application fee.
5. Get rejected with no reason given.
6. Cancel plane and hotel booking at a loss of thousands of dollars.
7. Do not ask for a refund on application.
8. Apply again with new plane and hotel bookings and pay application fees.

This was a well-educated and affluent couple.
Americans, on the other hand, can get 10 year tourist visas to India without any hassle. 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Calm]

I wonder how much the US is losing from tourism.

[Rajah Manchou]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder how much the US is losing from tourism.

Loses are probably balanced out by all non-refundable rejected visa applications. Something like $160 a pop.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

A friend from India told me about the hassle her parents just went through to try and visit relatives in the USA:

1. Schedule an appointment at the nearest consulate.
2. Take the train five hours to the appointment.
3. Complete ridiculous amounts of paper work, including proof that they already paid for plane and hotel bookings for their entire stay.
4. Pay an application fee.
5. Get rejected with no reason given.
6. Cancel plane and hotel booking at a loss of thousands of dollars.
7. Do not ask for a refund on application.
8. Apply again with new plane and hotel bookings and pay application fees.

This was a well-educated and affluent couple.
Americans, on the other hand, can get 10 year tourist visas to India without any hassle. 

Sounds like what it takes for someone from India to visit Canada.  Both countries are afraid that people will pretend to just be visiting but then will try to stay.  I don't think that India has to worry about that with most of their tourists.

It's not very fair or convenient but I understand the idea behind it.  I'm thinking it could be done better though.

[poptart]

11 hours ago, rchorse said:

As the husband of a German immigrant, I can tell you the process is ridiculous. We both have master's degrees and it was very difficult for us to figure out all the paperwork that was necessary for permanent residency and then later citizenship. The immigration officials that interviewed us were actually surprised we were able to do it correctly without hiring an attorney. Even without an attorney it cost us thousands of dollars and a lot of hours to get everything sorted out.

Now that we're living in Germany temporarily, I have a basis for comparison. The process for me to get permanent residency in Germany was incredibly easy. I filled out one form, paid 100 euros or so and had one interview. Then after 2 years I had one more interview. I need one more interview and about 100 euros more and then I can stay as long as I want with no restrictions.

In my opinion, the only restrictions on immigration should be a background check to keep criminals out and not allowing the use of welfare resources for the first X years to ensure someone doesn't just want to come and mooch off the system. 

I've considered Germany or Finland for Education, I know that they have free tuition for international students and at one time my German wasn't half bad.  I am curious, how's the AfD doing these days?  Don't they have a few seats in the Reichstag now?

[rchorse]

1 hour ago, poptart said:

I've considered Germany or Finland for Education, I know that they have free tuition for international students and at one time my German wasn't half bad.  I am curious, how's the AfD doing these days?  Don't they have a few seats in the Reichstag now?

Free tuition is right. I don't really follow politics much, so I'm not sure about the AfD. Politics just drive me nuts, so i tend to avoid them.

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I know I don't have a clue what it takes to immigrate to the USA; yet, I know what it takes to become a legal resident in a few foreign countries. I wonder how many of the people that answered the poll actually know anything about the actual US process to immigrate here?  I suspect there is an extremely high percentage that is like me and is ignorant of the process. 

I think a renewable Visa for education should be relatively easy to obtain. I think a work Visa should also be awarded without too stringent of a process to endure. At the same time, I would like to see some of our citizenship rules change. Simply because a child is born on US soil does not entitle the child to US citizenship.  Citizenship should come from the citizenship of the parents and not where you are born. 

I would also expect that the number of temporary immigrants and permanent have some form of limitation to ensure the continuity of our culture remaining intact. I see no reason to destroy our culture in exchange for unlimited immigration.  

I gave you a like although perhaps you don't realize that in the U.S. the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." For us to change that would be almost impossible. That of course means workers who come here on Visas, and have children,  are going to have perhaps some advantage to gain citizenship themselves, and I don't see too much wrong with that. If they are working here for a period of years and staying out of trouble, it seems to me that is a good indicator for someone who would make good citizens. I also agree with you that we should not destroy our culture in exchange for unlimited immigration. I believe there are plenty of people who would like to come to the Americas who believe in its principles of liberty and justice without having to accept those who have beliefs fundamentally in opposition to our constitutional principles. Here, I find political Islam to be a major issue for example. I see the time coming soon enough when many will want to come to the United States to escape fighting and bloodshed, and we should have policies in place to be able to readily receive them, as these are the people the Lord will look to to build His Church.

[Storm Rider]

39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I gave you a like although perhaps you don't realize that in the U.S. the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." For us to change that would be almost impossible. That of course means workers who come here on Visas, and have children,  are going to have perhaps some advantage to gain citizenship themselves, and I don't see too much wrong with that. If they are working here for a period of years and staying out of trouble, it seems to me that is a good indicator for someone who would make good citizens. I also agree with you that we should not destroy our culture in exchange for unlimited immigration. I believe there are plenty of people who would like to come to the Americas who believe in its principles of liberty and justice without having to accept those who have beliefs fundamentally in opposition to our constitutional principles. Here, I find political Islam to be a major issue for example. I see the time coming soon enough when many will want to come to the United States to escape fighting and bloodshed, and we should have policies in place to be able to readily receive them, as these are the people the Lord will look to to build His Church.

The reason that I would like that clause of the Constitution amended to exclude the word "born" is that I know several Arab women that repeatedly visited the United States when they are six months pregnant, birthed their child, and then returned to the Middle East. I worked for a company in the Middle East and all eight of her children were born here in the US and each of them has a US passport. I met many Arab families that did the same thing. I strongly expect that many people take advantage of this loophole. 

Having spent almost seven years in the Middle East, I met many individuals that wanted to live in the US as. I never met a single Muslim who wanted to be anything else besides a Muslim. The idea of converting to Christianity was the furthest thing from their minds. I see no evidence that conversions among the Islamic world will ever be a source for a high number or percentage of baptisms. I would like to be wrong and I believe that all things are possible through God, but it requires a willing people. I have seen no evidence that Muslims are a willing people when it comes to Jesus Christ. 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The reason that I would like that clause of the Constitution amended to exclude the word "born" is that I know several Arab women that repeatedly visited the United States when they are six months pregnant, birthed their child, and then returned to the Middle East. I worked for a company in the Middle East and all eight of her children were born here in the US and each of them has a US passport. I met many Arab families that did the same thing. I strongly expect that many people take advantage of this loophole. 

Having spent almost seven years in the Middle East, I met many individuals that wanted to live in the US as. I never met a single Muslim who wanted to be anything else besides a Muslim. The idea of converting to Christianity was the furthest thing from their minds. I see no evidence that conversions among the Islamic world will ever be a source for a high number or percentage of baptisms. I would like to be wrong and I believe that all things are possible through God, but it requires a willing people. I have seen no evidence that Muslims are a willing people when it comes to Jesus Christ. 

So you do not want them to come in because they seem reluctant to abandon their religion? Not sure that is a good or constitutional criteria for who should be allowed in.

Also, you do know Muslims venerate Jesus right?

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 

Having spent almost seven years in the Middle East, I met many individuals that wanted to live in the US as. I never met a single Muslim who wanted to be anything else besides a Muslim. The idea of converting to Christianity was the furthest thing from their minds. I see no evidence that conversions among the Islamic world will ever be a source for a high number or percentage of baptisms. I would like to be wrong and I believe that all things are possible through God, but it requires a willing people. I have seen no evidence that Muslims are a willing people when it comes to Jesus Christ. 

I have seen  Muslims convert to be members of the Church.

I remember growing up and having brother Hussein on the high counsel speak to us during the first Persian gulf war.

On my mission there were several Muslim converts.  (one guy  from north Africa, Algeria I think) came into the church after having a private conversion to Christianity. He then looked up the Church of Jesus Christ in the phone book.

I also remember a confirmation in Arabic where one of the Church Members baptized his friend.  Both were former Muslims. 

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The reason that I would like that clause of the Constitution amended to exclude the word "born" is that I know several Arab women that repeatedly visited the United States when they are six months pregnant, birthed their child, and then returned to the Middle East. I worked for a company in the Middle East and all eight of her children were born here in the US and each of them has a US passport. I met many Arab families that did the same thing. I strongly expect that many people take advantage of this loophole. 

Having spent almost seven years in the Middle East, I met many individuals that wanted to live in the US as. I never met a single Muslim who wanted to be anything else besides a Muslim. The idea of converting to Christianity was the furthest thing from their minds.

I wasn't implying that the constitution shouldn't be changed, but just that it would be almost impossible I think in the current environment. I agree with you that this amendment could be worded better. However, back in the day it was adopted, people couldn't fly over here in one day, and have a baby. BTW why do you think they are doing this? Is if because they just think American hospitals are better, or is it because there are some strong political and religious motivations and goals behind it? In other words are they hoping to just move here and fundamentally change the United States? 

Quote

I see no evidence that conversions among the Islamic world will ever be a source for a high number or percentage of baptisms. I would like to be wrong and I believe that all things are possible through God, but it requires a willing people. I have seen no evidence that Muslims are a willing people when it comes to Jesus Christ. 

Isaiah 60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

4 Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

5 Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.

6 The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the Lord.

7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.

The Islamic religion will fall. However, it will take sacrifice since they are so steeped in the ways of anti-Christ. Many of the 10 tribes are locked in the Muslim world. They will lead their Muslim brethren out of Islam and lead them in the way of the Lord. Muslim people on the whole are very earnest. The issue is just helping them see they have been misled, and then they will be earnest for the Lord I think to the same or greater degree than they were to Allah. And to a certain degree they have a point. The freedoms in the western world have led to a lot of unholy and corrupt practices in the last several decades. Nevertheless, it is our God YHWH who will change this and not them, as they seem to think of themselves as Allah's bringers of change.

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you do not want them to come in because they seem reluctant to abandon their religion? Not sure that is a good or constitutional criteria for who should be allowed in.

SR might have different viewpoints, but I have no problem with Muslims coming here who fully intend to live under the constitution and laws of the United States. However, I see many aspects of Sharia law which are fundamentally at odds with the constitution. Freedom of religion does not mean one gets to avoid all the constitutional rights of others. Many Muslims who have come here in the past have done so to avoid persecution. Persecution from whom? And do we want those same persecutors to be able to freely come here now? A good constitutional criterion for coming to the United States is that those seeking citizenship will follow the constitution over their own religious beliefs such as killing those who choose to leave their religion. We have already seen cases of this in the United States.

Quote

Also, you do know Muslims venerate Jesus right?

Only as an under-prophet to Muhammed who they view as the way. In other words Yeshua is not the way - Muhammed is. Further, their view of Yeshua is one as taught in spurious and gnostic texts. They believe that the Jesus of the Bible is the highest sinner possible in that He equated Himself to God, which is committing the sin of shirk.  There were lots of other Yeshuas in His day. It was a common name. Theirs could have been any of the others and may as well have been...

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I have seen  Muslims convert to be members of the Church.

The most recent convert in our ward was a Muslim. She's the sister to one of my good mates, and they're both migrants from the Middle East. When she told him that she was thinking about investigating Christianity, he told her she really needed to go to church with me. I took her the first time in February. I wasn't sure she'd come a second time, but she did. Soon, her semi-regular attendance became regular, and then she told me that she was ready for the lessons (which I had offered from the beginning). That took awhile, and she was finally baptised six weeks ago.

I pick her up for church each Sunday. I love watching the happiness and peace in her grow from week to week. Last week, she was posting video clips on Facebook of LDS prophets speaking. She still really struggles with Relief Society and doesn't attend most weeks, but she'll get there eventually, I hope. She has an engineering degree and will be a real asset to the Church here.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[halconero]

Yes. I'm one of the few people out there who'd probably be comfortable with open borders and common hemispheric markets.

I understand though that that's politically unfeasible, so I'll settle for much easier access to work permits, and a reasonably short and easy path towards permanent residency. Politically, immigrants also need to be visibly paying into the system (they already do, but not everybody gets this), so I'd be fine with an inclusion fund based on a modest tax on immigrant wealth and/or income. Funds from this would go to projects where immigrants make up a disproportionate part of the population. I'm also fine with values tests prior to citizenship, with greater benefits accruing to citizens than permanent residents. The gains made by moving are still so astronomically high (between $15,000-$20,000/year for a low-skilled immigrant to the United States) that garnering support for immigration via the distribution of gains to immigrants would be fine for me.

The first sentence/paragraph is my ideal. The second paragraph is my pragmatic idea for immigration reform.

Edited September 26, 2018 by halconero