Should there be a legal limit on the number of immigrants allowed into America?

[originalpckelly]

Is there a need for such a thing? Does that unfairly restrict the right of travel?

[XemaSab]

1. There are limits on legal immigration.

There is also a limit on illegal immigration: zero.

Somehow the illegal immigrants haven't gotten the memo though. :P

[Buzz Clik]

19. No kidding. I'd expect a poll like this in Freeperville, not here.

[Fresh_Start]

2. especially temporary workers

who have no intention of becoming US citizens and residing in the US.

[TahitiNut]

14. They shouldn't be called "immigrants" then.

Unfortunately, some people never seem to comprehend the language.

[Swamp Rat]

20. They count on those people to NEVER comprehend the language.

[Selatius]

3. I think people are calling for a yearly quota, not an absolute limit.

Also, I think people want the border secured.

If a country can't secure its own borders, it has no functioning immigration policy.

[treestar]

43. There is a yearly quota

THere has been one for more than sixty years.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. I find it vexing that this question even deserves asking. n/t

Should Canada regulate the number of people allowed to move there?

[Deja Q]

7. Or England, or France, or Russia, or India...

Why is President Bush so hot to trot on what has been known as a liberal policy in the past?

[treestar]

45. They do, but I think they do it more flexibly

We have a set number per year, even if the person has a labor certification, which in theory proved to the government it would not displace a U.S. worker, they have to leave that job on hold, unfilled, due to the quota.

Whereas the Canadians have an overall system to count whether the individual will fit in, both with family and employment factors, and it has the flexibility to change to include more people in years they need more people and cut it back when they don't.

Our system is inflexible. Some people can come in two ways or more. Other people who don't even care if they can come are allowed in.

There are many high skilled workers who don't want to stay forever, and some who fit right in but can't. The laws are from 1952, they reflect the world as it was in 1952, and they have never really been reformed, only tinkered with.

For example, spouses of non-immigrants cannot get work permits, because it is presumed that 1) they are female and the 2) that of course means they are staying home being housewives. True enough in 1952.

[napi21]

5. There already IS a limit on the number of visa'sgranted, and it's

a limit by worker catagory. H1B, H2B, etc.

The larger businesses, especially the tech ones, want that # increased! Well, I got fired from a job because I fought against hiring a programmer from India, BECAUSE the VP in charge of MIScame to me and said "You know we can hire a programmer from India and pay him 1/4 of what a US programmer will cost!" I told himthat was just exploiting the Indian worker, and I wouldn't do it!

I don't have a problem IF a company is looking for a worker and simply can't find any qualified ones here in the US, but to do it just to cut costs and exploit the immigrant is just WRONG!

[originalpckelly]

8. I said "should" not "is" for a reason.

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

17. News flash: Check the law on L-1 visas.

:shrug:

Note: H-1A, H-1B, L-1, etc. are NOT for 'immigration.'

[treestar]

42. This is true too; they are only here temporarily

Though most of them can qualify for a labor certification, a process by which the employer can get an immigrant alien, but only after proving that the alien will not displace an American worker.

Most arguments about legal aliens "taking jobs" are convincing only to those who don't know a thing about the immigration laws.

[ComerPerro]

6. There basically is already. And its completely corrupt

[treestar]

9. There IS a limit

And it is inflexible and insane.

The "limit" should be decided every year according to what is needed.

Right now, there are PROVEN TO BE NEEDED people who can't be here because of the limit. That is companies that don't expand, and that lack of expansion means no jobs for the Americans that would have been employed do to the company expansion caused by the presence of the alien, whose employer has already obtained a labor certification from the DOL, PROOF that the alien is not displacing a US worker (which is already in the law and has been for at least 60 years).

The limit on H-1bs is another category.

NO American gets a job as a result of these people not being here. Americans do not get jobs they are not qualified for and if they do they couldn't do the damn job.

Why that is so hard for people to see I will never understand. Classic shooting yourself in the foot because you don't understand guns.

[Vincardog]

10. Are you trying to Say that there is a well trained experienced programmer in India

that can do a job that neither I nor the 500,000 other displaced programmers is capable of doing? I call BS.

Why that is so hard for people to see I will never understand.

These companies want the H1Bs because

they drive down wages.

What warped circular logic
unless we hire aliens
no jobs for the Americans that would have been employed do to the company expansion caused by.

Excuse me? WTF does that mean? We can not create jobs for Americans because
Some company could not expand by hiring aliens? Again I call BS.

[TahitiNut]

23. It's insane that anyone would continue to deny the abuses of the H-1B visa.

As a long-time IT worker in Silicon Valley, it's irrefutable, IMHO. Even the IEEE agrees. Studies in IT show that the H-1B workers are paid about 30-40% less than equivalently-skilled American workers.

When you look at computer job titles by state, California has one of the biggest differentials between OES salaries and H-1B salaries. The average salary for a programmer in California is $73,960, according to the OES. The average salary paid to an H-1B visa worker for the same job is $53,387; a difference of $20,573.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/10/25/44OPreality_1.html

http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/

[Vincardog]

25. But but but facts will never change the minds of the Corporate apologists.

[TahitiNut]

27. It's funny. Even the folks who selectively condemn Enron, Exxon, Phillip Morris, or Wal*Mart ...

... seem to pretend that these are isolated exceptions when the truth is that corporatism itself is the corruption. Folks will pretend that the people who work in corporations don't usually act in ways that harm others and yet they'll easily see where the corporate 'culture' can get them to act in ways to harm themselves (e.g. Enron employees investing solely in Enron stock).

As a corporate droid for almost my entire career (GM, Xerox, AMD, IBM, etc.), I know what I'm talking about from first-hand experience.

[Vincardog]

28. I agree corporatism itself is the corruption. Why do we allow the amoral

soulless money motivated corporations to run our Government?

Or more correctly the uber-rich 1% who control and hide behind the mega-corporations?

[treestar]

47. Not all employers are big corporations

Too bad they can't grow and compete with the corporations. The fact the big corporations have no competition is what allows them to dictate.

Immigration regulation is one of those areas where the big corporation can keep mom and pop from competing. You can bet they are in favor of the regs. They can easily get their big shot CEOs into the U.S. one way or the other.

But have mom and pop want to hire some Mexican guy for minimum wage, and the law is all over them.

[treestar]

46. Look at the law in the U.S. Code

There are only 65,000 H-1bs per year, and they cannot be paid less or the employer is violating the law, and there are plenty of encouragements for reporting the employer.

There is a program for "H-1b dependent" employers, and they are not allowed to bring in more.

This is a great myth based on all sorts of misinformation. They cannot be paid less than the prevailing wage, or the employer is in all sorts of trouble, this is already in the law.

Maybe the federal government is not good at determing the "prevailing wage" and that could be the problem. But there is no way that the employers of these people can violate that or they are in big trouble.

Most of them end up qualifying for a labor certification, anyway, which is an exercise the employer has to go through to prove to the government they are not misplacing Americans. Which means their job is truly in shortage. Any American with those qualifications can get a job. They're just not telling you about other requirements they have for their employer.

If you want your kid to always have a job, encourage him/her to become a nurse. R.N.s are in persistant shortage in the U.S., and so foreigners with R.N.s invariably qualify to immigrate.

[TahitiNut]

49. Uh-huh. And the Easter Bunny delivers chicken eggs, too?

The 'law' also prohibits illegal aliens from working in the U.S. How's that one working out? Are you going to claim that the 12,000,000 estimated illegal aliens really aren't working?

You quote the FY2004 ceiling, which was the lowest, and ignore the FY2002 ceiling of 195,000, the FY2001 ceiling of 195,000, the FY2000 ceiling of 145,000, the FY1999 ceiling of 137,000, and the fact that visa recipients stay for 6 years or more and many/most, despite the fact that the law says otherwise, apply for and obtain permanent residency. For a short time, I managed a technical support group where 3 of the 9 software engineers were holders of H-1B visas. For two years, I lived with (engaged to be engaged) a terrific Japanese gal who came to Silicon Valley on an L-1 visa, got another job and had her visa changed to an H-1B visa, then applied for and received permanent residency. (The LAW states that's not permitted. But it is. Gee. Go figure.) In the year 2001, 9 out of every 10 new job openings for computer/IT were taken by H-1Bs, and despite record unemployment the INS issued 312,000 visas in 2002 (because there are exemptions to the alleged limits!).

By the way, the so-called maximum number of allowed H-1B visas doesn't include "exempt organizations" such as universities and nonprofits. Interestingly, many of those visa-holders seem to "magically" find themselves working in private industry after being exempt from the maximums.

Insofar as the so-called 'laws', the law also restricts the DOL's approval process from doing more than checkeing LCAs for "completeness and obvious inaccuracies". In FY 2005, only about 800 LCAs were rejected out of over 300,000 submitted.

The point is this: the laws can say a lot of things and then trun around and actually prevent those lwas from being enforced by prohibiting agencies from doing what's necessary to enforce the law. A law with prohibitions on enforcement is one of the favorite tricks in Washington these days.

Besides H-1B visas, there are also L-1 visas, TN-1 visas, E-3 visas, and H-1B1 visas.


After living for 15 years in Silicon Valley (and I LOVE the diversity there!!), it's laughable to me that anyone would claim that IT jobs weren't being filled at lower salaries by foreign workers.

Gads! :eyes:

[treestar]

41. There is a job out there for your somewhere

In the vastness that is the U.S.

There are only 65,000 H-1bs per year.

They are a shortage occupation, like R.N.s If you have that skill and are American you are employable much cheaper than an alien.

I call bullshit, there are some jobs you won't take for certain reasons you are not telling us about. Or some reason you can't keep or get a job that you aren't telling us about.

That extra 65,000 per year can't even be enough to affect the competition all that much. You may as well start arguing the universtities should not be allowed to graduate Americans in your field, so you won't have to compete at all.

This is statistical truth, and you personally are only one person. There's some reason you can't or won't take the job. The rest of the world does not have to conduct itself for your convenience only.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. The limit should be decided each year at a rate that our economy can support.

Since 1999, the labor force participation rate has dropped from 67% to 63%. In other words, 6% of the population who were working in 2000 no longer work, and those who continue to be employed have seen their wages eroded by inflation. Jobs have not been created which would keep up with our birthrate.

Companies don't expand because they have workers, they expand because they have customers.

To paraphrase your point as I understand it, 'there is a widespread problem with companies that aren't growing because no americans posess the single critical skill that would enable that company to thrive. Thus, if immigration were expanded, those companies would hire americans despite their absence of skills.'

The term pretzel logic comes to mind.

[EFerrari]

32. "Squatting"?

There are people who have been migrating in yearly patterns in the South West since time immemorial. Even before we stole it from the Mexican government. :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Freedom of movement is a human right.

[WinkyDink]

13. Says who? Nations can make their own laws about residency.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Sure. And, they can make their own laws legalizing slavery. So?

I still consider freedom of movement a human right. A fundamental human right. Unless you enjoy being imprisoned.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Does this freedom of movement include your kitchen?

It's easy to volunteer someone else's well-being for ideology.

Freedom of movement = travel visa. Unregulated immigration is freedom of squatting, not movement. Everyone should be encouraged to visit. The people to whom this country belongs should not be compelled to invite everyone to stay.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. So, you're antecedents had visas, and applied for citizenship?

Mine didn't.

"The people to whom this country belongs.."

Who would that be? We're we issued a deed to this country? Do I own part of Montana, Iowa, Hawaii? Do you?

People have been moving and "squatting" since Adam & Eve got evicted from Eden. Passing laws and requiring papers isn't going to stop it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. Own a piece of the country? Yes, in fact I do.

Citizens of this country own (in a very real sense) the infrastructure which supports our society. One day, I will bequeath it to my grandchildren. I must be a conscientious steward of it until then.

Passing laws and requiring papers may not stop immigration any more than it stops tax evasion, nevertheless, it is in the citizens interest to minimize both.

The state of immigration process in the 1800's and before is irrelevant. Immigration has never been so ill-regulated since before the depression.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Can you sell your piece of the infrastructure you own?

Perhaps to China? Cuba? Or, perhaps, to an "illegal" immigrant?

My grandmother, and my mother, got here in 1919 and "squatted". Just like most of the non-native Americans. More than likely, like your forebears did.

"..it is in the citizens interest" I'm a citizen, explain to me how it's in my "interest" to prevent poor, desperate, people from entering "my" country seeking work.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. I lack the right to sell it. Likewise, you lack the right to give it away.

It is in your interest because it is not in your interest to have to compete with poor and desperate people for your job.

Unless you are above such mundane concerns.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. I worked for 40 years and competed with all kinds of people for jobs.

If you lack the right to sell it, or give it away, you don't own it.

Rich, poor, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, smart, ignorant, "legal" and "illegal", good, bad, you name it. I had to compete with rich white kids whose daddy put them through college, people who were buddies of the bosses, people who were relatives of the bosses, all kinds of people.

And, if I'd had a choice in the matter I'd rather have lost a job to some poor, desperate, person, than some insider with connections.

[EFerrari]

34. Crazy Horse would probably disagree with you. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. The Ainu and Anasazi from whom he took it might too.

If you think the United States is an illegitimate institution, you are entitled to your opinion.

Good luck with that.

[EFerrari]

37. My opinions tend not to change history at all.

:)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. When you talk limits,

I think back to 1620, 1629.1630, 1750, 1820, 1846, 1854, and 1872 and remember if there were limits during any of those years it is very likely I wouldn't be here today.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Last century and before, immigration served an important public purpose.

... they were brought here to subjugate the wilderness and displace the inconvenient people already living here.

It is no more in our interest to promote unregulated immigration than it was in the interest of native americans to promote unregulated immigration 200 years ago.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. And let's not forget

during part of this same time frame (19th Century), Chinese were brought to the US, exploited as workers, and many deported. Sorry, but I see immigration quotas as historically and yet now a form of racism. Besides, as our nation becomes less free and more like the third world, I see immigration going way down.

[Vincardog]

26. Maybe you wouldn't be here today but there would be a lot more Native Americans here today.

Why not give them a vote?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

38. I agree

In fact, one of the most repugnant things I ever read was from some 19th century politician, who said his aim was to "rid the prairies of the savages and replace them with good German farmers."

[ScreamingMeemie]

44. Thank you.

:applause:

[Esra Star]

30. The limit should be the absorbtion rate, whatever that is.

I don't know if it calculable.

[EFerrari]

33. Should there be a legal limit on how many elections we steal

in Latin America for our coporations?

Hands?

[varun]

39. There is already a limit on green cards and H-1B visas

There a yearlong backlogs in some of these categories. Imagine being separated from your spouse for 4-5 years because your application is pending in some INS hellhole.

Some posters here have the attitude that immigrants have it "Easy" here.

[Karenina]

40. Hmmm...

Actually it would be GREAT if a virtual fence surrounded Amurikkka that would keep EVERYONE out (providing that any and all who want out before the fence was activated were accommodated) and only allow her military and any citizen who wished to return back in (offer good for a limited time only). But once IN they would NOT be ALLOWED back out. All your corporate creeps, ignorant tourist types, political pests and military menaces would be strictly confined within your borders. Then you could deal with yourselves and the world would have a window of opportunity to deal with the issues that threaten our existence on this planet. :rofl: