Other forum participants, please accept my apology for hijacking this thread.phuqueue wrote: There is a very big difference between refugees going to where their sponsor organizations are, and refugees going to wherever the federal government tells them they have to go. Plenty of people (even citizens!) don't have a "choice," in any meaningful sense of the word, about where they live, for any number of reasons -- but none of those reasons are, "because the feds said so." You are welcome to post as many examples as you want of whatever you want, but unless any of them show the federal government saying "Bob must live in Rochester or leave the country," which is what you're proposing, I'm not sure how persuasive they'll be. And hey, if you do have such an example then maybe you'll prove me wrong in my doubts that the federal government can exercise this power, but still not about whether or not they ought to.
How are policies and proposals limiting immigration to those with STEM backgrounds not attempts to achieve national economic goals? And I'm not proposing that. I said earlier that we should accept unskilled immigrants too.
OMG, look at this. An immigration policy that is tied to national economic goals:
https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-s ... sificationUSCIS administers the EB-5 program, created by Congress in 1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors. Under a program initially enacted as a pilot in 1992, and regularly reauthorized since then, investors may also qualify for EB-5 classification by investing through regional centers designated by USCIS based on proposals for promoting economic growth. On March 23, 2018, the President signed Public Law 115-141 extending the Regional Center Program through Sep. 30, 2018.
How is extending visas to foreign-born doctors who serve in rural hospitals not attempting to achieve national goals? The same for Filipino nurses, who have at times in our history been given work visas to work in the US, not solving a national problem? They were allowed to come here to solve a need our country had.
Are you even aware that 25% of the physicians in this country are foreign-born and often here on work visas. They work in rural areas -- often places no American doctors want to be. They do this in exchange for the hope that someday they may be allowed to apply for citizenship. Their employers sponsor their work visas, and yes, if they accept the job, they have to live in a specific place as a condition of their work visa. They cannot accept a job working as a doctor in a hospital in Duluth, Minnesota, and then just decide they would rather settle in sunny Miami. Sure, they could do this, but they would be in violation of the temporary work visa, which could then be rescinded and they could face deportation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/us/d ... olicy.htmlH-1B recipients also include foreign physicians who practice in places shunned by American doctors for personal and professional reasons.
More than 25% of all physicians practicing or training in the United States are foreign, but in some inner cities and most rural areas, that share is significantly higher.
Over 20% of nurses and nurse aides in the USA are foreign-born.
https://www.vox.com/2017/2/1/14470746/t ... re-doctors
See what that quote says--meaning that they usually don't get to choose to live where they want. It's a condition of their work visa. They go where the job is offered.Compared with US-trained physicians, foreign doctors are also more likely to practice in areas where there are doctor shortages — in particular, in rural areas. (Many enter the US on visas that allowed them to stay if they work in an underserved area for three years after residency.) They’re also more likely to serve poor patients on Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found.
We already do make immigration choices to serve national goals. It is in no way "nasty" to suggest that we shouldn't. To suggest otherwise is naive.
Foreign-born doctors and nurses often accept specific conditions to get a temporary work visa before they are admitted to the USA. The work visa is conditional on them working in rural counties or hospitals. So in essence, the federal government is telling them where they will live and work. OMG, call the police!
https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/ ... -graduates
OMG, other countries also consider accomplishing economic goals through immigration policy!Many rural communities recruit foreign medical graduates with J-1 visa waivers to fill physician vacancies. The Conrad State 30 Program allows each state's health department to request J-1 Visa Waivers for up to 30 foreign physicians per year. The physicians must agree to work in a federally designated Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) or Medically Underserved Area (MUA).
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/p ... ooklet.pdf
How do I know these things? I've worked in health care administration and government. I worked with foreign-born medical personnel who were here on temporary work visas, and who told me that they didn't get to choose where they wanted to live. They went where the job was offered, and they had to fulfill the conditions of the visa to stay in the country. They were willing to do this to eventually become US citizens. OMG! What a concept!
You appear to be completely uninformed on this issue; yet completely willing to make me seem somehow inhumane for mentioning policies that our country has already be utilizing for years. Perhaps you should gather the names of all our elected leaders, who have endorsed these policies, and present them to the International Court in The Hague for prosecution.
Our country already has other ways for some immigrants to "earn" their citizenship: serving in our military. So we already have a precedent established that allows the federal government to grant citizenship--giving immigrants a choice to earn citizenship through a sacrifice of some type, or through service to our national goals. Oh, btw, these foreign nationals whom enter our military to earn citizenship DON"T GET TO DECIDE where they will live while they are in the military! Who knew!
How do I know this? I worked with foreign-born doctors who became citizens by joining our military, and working in military hospitals.
If you go read ALL of my posts on refugees and immigration, I think it's fair to say I'm hardly nasty. I am advocating we increase immigration, and accept more refugees.
OMG, here is an example of natural-born US citizens accepting certain conditions for the benefit of our national goals: students getting free tuition for medical school if they serve in the military. This often means they don't get decide where they live for several years. Oh, the humanity! Let's get the United Nations human rights division looking into this.
Here's another one!The university's medical school doesn't charge tuition; rather, its students are commissioned officers in the U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army or U.S. Navy, and they earn an annual salary. According to the school's website, its students earn more than $60,000 per year during their four years of medical school, and in return, they commit to at least seven years of active-duty service after graduation.
https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/ ... -repaymentTypes of Health Education Financial Aid
Scholarships, loans, and loan forgiveness programs are all potential options for health professions students to pay for their education. Scholarships offer money without a requirement to repay and loans supply funding that students repay after completion of a degree program; loan forgiveness programs are a hybrid of the two.
Loan forgiveness programs provide loans to health professions students for education-related expenses. In exchange for forgiveness of the debts, students sign a service contract to practice at a facility located in a rural or underserved area upon completion of a degree.
Loan repayment programs are offered to healthcare professionals who have already completed their education. In exchange for money to reduce or eliminate educational debt, healthcare professionals must meet the conditions of the program, which typically include working in a facility located in a rural or underserved area.
Can you imagine how shocking it is to learn the the government would make conditions about where a US citizen might live in exchange for free tuition, or loan forgiveness?
My best childhood friend served in S. Korea for several years because the government told him he had to. He joined the Army so that he would get college loan forgiveness. How horrible The government didn't even let him live in the United States. He had to live in S. Korea!
As far as government making decrees goes, the federal government decrees, and makes requirements, of all or certain US citizens. Under certain circumstances, US citizens can also have their movement limited; convicted felons can have movement limited after release from prison while on probation. They can't leave the state, and thus are being told where they can live. Even citizens accused of crimes, but not proven guilty yet, and held on bond, can be ordered by a judge not to leave the city, state, or country, and can--while on bond--be required to wear a ankle-monitor as a condition of bail. The government can make defendants surrender their passport. Again, they have not been proven guilty yet. Depending on the length of the trial, this condition can last for months or even several years.
All male citizens are required (compelled) to register for Selective Service when they reach age 18, and are subject to draft during wartime, should the government suspend the all-voluntary military. In the late 60s/early 70s, two of my brothers were told to live in then West Germany for almost two years.
All citizens serving the military are told where to live. They accept these conditions when they join the military. In fact, their non-military family members also often have no say in where they live while their parent/spouse is in service. Active-duty personnel have to have permission to leave their assigned base, or overseas assignment, and can be prosecuted for if they go absent-without-leave.
The federal government decrees, by law, that all citizens earning a certain level of income file income tax forms, and pay taxes.
The federal government decrees, by law, that all residents who earn wages pay into Social Security and Medicare, and decrees that employers directly deduct part of their wages for this purpose.
The federal government decrees that non-citizens cannot legally work in this country without permission (temporary work visa or green card). In fact, it's illegal for US citizens/companies to hire a non-citizen without a some type of work visa. The federal government sure are meanies.
The federal government can decree that you are not allowed to fly on a commercial airline by placing you on the no-fly list.
State governments can decree that you cannot vote if you are convicted of a felony.
Government--through the court system--can restrict where a citizen, convicted of a sex crime, can live.
The federal government, by decree under law via national security protocols, can force you to undergo searches of your body, and luggage, before boarding an airplane--without a warrant. You can refuse, but you won't be allowed to board.
The federal government has decreed that by 2020 you soon will not be able to board an airplane, or cross national borders, without a passport, or federally-approved state ID card. When I lived in Arizona in the 1980s/90s, you could still go to Mexico without a passport. A driver's license was enough.
There are vast areas in the United States where the federal government will not allow you to live. So in essence, the government is telling you to some extent where you can and cannot live.
US citizens are not allowed to move onto Native American reservations without the consent of the tribes. So here is an example of where federal and tribal decrees limit the movement of US citizens and prevent them from living where they want.
US citizens cannot build homes, or permanently settle, on federal park land or in federal forests. Here is another example where even US citizens cannot just decide to live wherever they want. In some states, federal lands occupy large percentages of that state's land area.
There are many things that are mandated of US citizens by the federal government. Yet, I am called nasty, and inhumane, because I advocate that people--who are not yet US citizens--be required to accept some limitations, or conditions, to live in this country. To achieve national goals. Hey, it's already happening.
Some municipalities and states require public employees to live within the jurisdiction as a condition of employment. The Supreme Court has upheld this.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 4/645.html
I don't remember saying the government should force someone to live in a specific city. I just cited examples of how they might redistribute immigration. The government might give the option from a list of cities or states. This certainly could be achieved using incentives like reducing the time it takes to become a citizen: Ten years if you move to Los Angeles; five years if you move to Detroit.
However, as stated above, the federal government already is telling immigrants where they can live when they approve certain types of work visas. They are offered a specific job in a specific place. They can't just come be a traveling physician who lives in van moving about the country providing health care. However, they do retain free movement to travel anywhere they want on days off, and on vacations.
That said, I think the law makes it too difficult for immigrants to get work visas, and citizenship, and that is why so many come here illegally.
You have to recognize that there are plenty of polls that indicate that a sizeable number of US citizens want immigration reduced. I am not one of them.
Not all immigrants are coming because they are fleeing unstable countries. I don't even think statistics support that a majority are. You have to have some assets to afford to move, and it's not cheap to reside in this country while you apply to become a citizen. This is true especially if you are moving to one of the more popular and expensive US cities--which the majority of immigrants do. Sixty percent of immigrants settle in six states. California gets almost 25 percent of all immigration.,... and yes they can revitalize down and out communities, but more important than these characteristics is the fact that they are human beings, in many cases fleeing violent, untenable situations in their home countries. They have their own reasons for settling where they choose to settle, which can include linking up with family or friends or other members of their community who have arrived before them, that I don't believe should be overridden by federal fiat in order to rejuvenate Akron. And as I mentioned before, plenty of immigrants are already choosing, on their own, to move to those kinds of communities without having to be forced there.
I have friends and family who live in these highly-popular destination cities. I used to live in one myself. Many are very liberal people, and even they are saying that there is too much immigration to their cities. Now, they are not complaining that there is too much immigration to the country--just their city. This is not because they hate immigrants. It's because the immigration is driving prices so high that they can no longer afford their housing. It's because when they are priced out of their current apartment, they cannot find an affordable replacement. In addition, the cities are already stressed because of traffic, overwhelmed mass transit systems, or water scarcity during drought. Some have had to leave those cities because of housing. Their jobs didn't pay them enough to keep up.
Their resentment comes because they were settled there first. Now they had to unsettle themselves, and perhaps move somewhere they don't want to live. See, here's the thing. Even liberal open-minded people will become resentful at a certain point, and become anti-immigration if they feel their needs aren't being balanced with those of newcomers.
So in your arguments about free movement of new immigrants, where is your compassion for native-born US citizens who face these problems? Why can't I turn the tables on both you and MissingKC, and call you nasty and inhumane for not considering their rights? Why should they have to accommodate even more and more immigrants that their cities have trouble absorbing? Why is it unreasonable for the federal government to make conditions that immigrants consider settling in less-stressed cities?
In New York City, my friends are always complaining that they are priced out of their apartments, which are converted to condos and sold to foreign nationals who don't even live in them. There are things called "ghost buildings" which sit dark at night because most of the apartments are empty. They are often wealthy non-resident foreign nationals who buy property to park money outside their country, and try to gain citizenship, maybe only staying in their apartments a few weeks of the year. The same problem is happening in London.
I find it interesting that you would make a judgment that I don't recognize their humanity. I live among of the highest population of immigrants and refugees in KCMO--on a block with families who have come from Mexico, Honduras, Somalia, Sudan, and Vietnam. The neighbors on both the north and south sides of my house are immigrant. I grow a garden, and have supplemented food for three families--two of which are immigrant? Do you? I don't think they see me as nasty. I donate every month to Harvesters, which many immigrants and refugees depend upon for supplemental food. I've done this for 10 years now.Your attitude toward immigrants was described by missingkc as "nasty," and you asked how. To me, you seem to be talking about immigrants in really dehumanizing terms, treating them as little more than tools to achieve your policy goals. Yes, immigrants are good for the economy (contrary to GOP fears), and yes they can revitalize down and out communities, but more important than these characteristics is the fact that they are human beings,
I have also lived in two large cities with large immigrant populations--Phoenix and New York City. I have worked with immigrants since I was 22-years-old (I'm 56 now). I have some experience with immigrants.
I have known nurses and doctors who were foreign-born who got working visas on the condition that they live and work in certain cities or rural areas of states. They didn't appear to have a problem with it. Many of them lived far from their families for a certain period of time. They didn't complain about this fact.
So to say I dehumanize immigrants makes me laugh out loud. The fact that you don't realize that US immigration policy is already based on achieving economic goals makes me laugh louder.
