Comment by andsoitis

Comment by andsoitis 2 days ago

> Nobody is saying it should be as easy to immigrate to the US as it is to immigrate to The Netherlands, they are saying that immigrating to the US should be easier than this administration is making it.

Ah, we're not talking about the same thing.

I drew the comparison to The Netherlands' list of reasons for why they would revoke or deny your VISA (which is what the article is about w.r.t. the US), and it is not dissimilar.

I wasn't contrasting ease of immigration between the two countries. It is a mixed bag, but for educated immigrants the it is generally easier to immigrate to The Netherlands than the US (if you are doing so outside the law, I'm going to guess it is much easier "to make it work" in the US than in The Netherlands - both in terms of getting in but also to make a living). There are some notable barriers like you cannot have dual citizenship (the US allows). On the other hand, demand for immigration to the US is much higher, which, together with more arcane and byzantine regulations result in other structural barriers.

boston_clone 2 days ago

It sounds like you're moving goalposts. You started by saying:

> Nothing really to see here. Normal course of business [...]

And now you're shifting your position by saying "well, its more difficult elsewhere so this must be fine".

You shouldn't worry, though - as long as the visa holders support the KKK and not a free Palestine, they can stay.

Reply View 7 replies

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2 days ago

> Nothing really to see here. Normal course of business [...]
> well, its more difficult elsewhere so this must be fine
I don't see a difference between these. The "more difficult elsewhere" in the supposedly shifted goalposts is the "normal course of business" in the first comment.

Reply View | 6 replies
- boston_clone 2 days ago
  
  How can you not?
  Changing our policies to make the process more chaotic is not our normal course of business, nor is it “nothing to see” as it will directly affect people.
  I feel that both of those are plainly evident.
  
  Reply View | 5 replies
  
  lcnPylGDnU4H9OF a day ago
  
  Yeah, you're right; I did not understand the context. This is obviously a motte and bailey.
  "Nothing to see here" (even referring to the title alone) is the hard to defend position and when that's called out as ridiculous they say that they were just talking about the actually normal things that countries do for immigration, which nobody is going to argue with.
  The end goal being for the "nothing to see here" that everybody is looking at to become normal.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  andsoitis 2 days ago
  
  > Changing our policies
  FWIW, part of my engagement is to try to understand the real risk vs. alarmism (i.e. as reported).
  My understanding is that the material change is that there is somewhat more leeway for the government to interpret what it means to be "to be of good moral character".
  You should know that when you apply for citizenship, for example, they have for many years asked you about traffic violations, which, theoretically have always been allowable as input in deciding "of good moral character".
  Another is whether you have ever supported the Communist Party or been involved in prostitution, and a whole host of other things. Check out page 14 ("General Eligibility and Inadmissability Grounds") on the form: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4...
  I have not read the actual policy change, so I don't know whether it has actually changed or whether it is just being more rigorously applied AND/OR targeted (biased) more.
  If you can articulate it precisely, that would be nice for all of us here since the article is not sufficiently objective or illuminating.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies