The vast majority of immigration to the US is based on luck (family, diversity etc.) or misery (asylum, refugee, etc.). That's about 90% immigration. The remaining 10% is employment. Where did you pull the $1M figure out of? Is the Mexican sibling paying $1M in taxes to immigrate here? Peak chud logic here to penalize the smallest and most productive slice of immigration.
I did go in details in another comment so I won't repeat myself because that comment is LONG.
But a nation couldn't ask more than a working age adult where you invested zero in education and health for 20 years and suddenly pay taxes with none of almost no benefits.
In the UK, which I raised numbers due to the discussion going on in there, visa workers generated yearly 12 to 20 Billions in direct taxes and fees and they use 4B in health (which technically they paid in fees a combined value of 6B upfront If my numbers are right)
But the real numbers lies on what other revenue they generate. It is estimated in my calculations that +50B-70B pounds are from immigrants on UK with a working visa.
That's no amount to shy considering about it is 8M people in that specific situation. And remember that none of them had to have their education covered by the government.
Someone in the other comment said that 8M British people would generate more taxes than that, but I did not find evidence of that. According to the public consultation documents UK gov released about immigration a couple of years ago, about 10% of the immigrants are responsible for more than 35% of the taxes collected. Hence the suggestion on curb immigration considering the salary range which might make sense or not depending on where you stand on the topic. I have no horses on this race and my impression as an outsider who just likes analysing data is that it seems as much of a claim as saying that EU took more money from UK than what it put in which turned out to be mostly incorrect.
He's speaking specifically about the green card process, at which point you've already been in the country for a long time and paid into U.S. taxes. Not people who might want to pay money to immigrate here (although for them, the EB-5 visa program exists).
I think the logic behind being anti-immigrant are "These people don't follow our culture" and "These people don't contribute to American society", then we should have objective criteria that addresses that. Time in U.S. is a proxy for acculturation; so measure that. And taxes paid is a direct financial measure of how much they have contributed to the American government. Both of these are extremely easy to ascertain from official records, so take the corruption and the human guesswork out of it and make clear and consistent rules that address the objectives you're trying to attain.
Cato did a study in 2017 that asked people if they supported immigration. Most people did. Then they asked people what they thought the level of immigration should be. The median answer was around 500,000 a year. The real level is 2-5 times higher than that. That’s why nobody will push for a real skilled immigration system. Once you open up the issue to public debate, a likely outcome will be a demand to drastically cut the level of legal immigration.
For example, right now, nobody is thinking of how many immigrants come to the U.S. through family unification for each H1B worker that eventually gets permanent residency. If you open up the issue now it’s going to become a firestorm when people realize that “65,000 skilled workers a year” actually results in millions of people every year, most of whom aren’t skilled workers.
I can't find the study in question, but I'd be interested in the polling process. The average person has zero understanding of what 500,000 immigrants per year means. For context, the average American is off by at least a factor of 2 about the population of the United States. If the questioning wasn't something along the lines of "of the people you personally know, what fraction should be immigrants" or something, I have no idea how you'd get anything resembling useful responses.
For those who aren't doing the math, there are now about 340M Americans, so 500K immigrants per year would be about 0.128% or roughly 1/780 of the population arriving as immigrants per year. If you figure the average immigrant stays for about 5 years (there's likely a long tail, where many people on temporary H1Bs go back to their home countries in 3-5 years while green card holders stay forever), you'd expect < 1% of the U.S. population to be immigrants under this system, and the average person would know maybe 1 or 2 immigrants.
FWIW, my community is 30% foreign-born and we don't really have any social cohesion problems. I think that length of time in the country actually matters more than the absolute number of immigrants; people who have been here since they were teens are very well acculturated. But if I were to put numbers on how many new people a group can absorb per year without radically changing its culture, I'd put it at about 10% (that's like having one new person on a 10 person team hired within the last year). If we extrapolated to the whole U.S. population and assumed they were all evenly distributed, this'd be 34M people/year.
Honestly, I think the bigger problem is that they're not evenly distributed. Some places in America never change, over generations, and remain very suspicious of outsiders. Other places become 80% immigrant over a span of 10-15 years, and then they never talk to anyone outside their ethnic background. In not very long, you end up with multiple different Americas that can't relate to each other. The parable of the polygons is very relevant here:
https://ncase.me/polygons/
How does 65000 workers translate to millions of unskilled relatives? Even green cards for relatives are a nontrivial process.
Indeed. That translates to 14 relatives brought in by every skilled worker. You really wonder about the IQ of the people who believe this propaganda.
Also case in point, both me and my wife went from F1 to green card. We never worked illegally and had fully funded gradute programs. Our parents refuse to settle in the US, they have assets and families in home countries and rather live there. We haven't tried to bring in any other relatives. 3 of our siblings have also went through the F1 route, all of them fully funded gradutes, one of them left the US after graduation, other two settled and got green card.
That's not that far out of line. Spouse, children, two sets of parents and two sets of siblings. You're right that it's probably not 14 on average but 5-10 easily
OP said 1 million unskilled relative per 65000 skilled worker.
In my case, spouses are siblings are all skilled workers, and we have not sponsored each other.
We have one kid, even he is advanced for his age in terms of reading/math.
Go to Little Bangladesh in Queens and tell me how all those people came here. It’s mathematically impossible unless they’re all illegal (which I don’t think is true) or it’s family reunification.
Each legal immigrant who becomes a citizen is the root of a tree that can continue indefinitely. If you come from anywhere other than India or China, it takes about 10 years to get citizenship from when you get your H1B. It took us less than 10. After that you can sponsor family for green cards directly. That person only needs about 6 years before they can get citizenship and start sponsoring their own family members. So it’s easy to see how we went from 10,000 Bangladeshis in the U.S. in 1990 to 300,000+ in just 35 years.
How am I responsible for what's happening in little Bangladesh in Queens? Did you go through my history to dig up where I'm from, so that you could tailor your racist reasonse?
Okay, but in other cases it's not like that. They bring spouses, siblings, and parents who can turn bring their own spouses, siblings, and parents. That is severely curtailed these days by country restrictions so I agree that it's not 14 but it's higher than 1.
> That translates to 14 relatives brought in by every skilled worker
That’s very easy within a few decades when you consider that the people who are sponsored will get citizenship and can then sponsor their own parents, siblings, etc. My dad sponsored six people, and he just has one brother. My mom has 12 siblings, but them and their families went to Australia following my uncle.
There are 300,000-600,000 Bangladeshis in the U.S., up from under 10,000 in 1990. Based on H1B petitions and natural growth, the population should be more like 15,000. People are bringing their entire extended families over.
Any changes to immigration require the legislature. Congress hasn't changed anything in over 30 years, so all this is moot. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. It's a bit silly to reason backwards about what the anti-immigrant types want. There is no grounding principle there.
This line of reasoning will shut down practically any interesting conversation that has to do with wanting to change the system. Extremely unproductive.
> Peak chud logic here to penalize the smallest and most productive slice of immigration.
I think the "chud" immigration logic is rather, take whatever win you can get in the general direction of restriction, because you've been losing every single battle for 5+ decades.
The argument at its core says wealthy immigrants are preferable, which is predictable bias on on a forum frequented by tech workers.
> Peak chud logic here to penalize the smallest and most productive slice of immigration.
Yup real chud. I'd play world's smallest violin in solidarity with these most productive people.
We are talking about Microsoft employees.