immigration and Citizenship

[PDXTabs]

One of the bases where we lived was shared with the host nation's military.  They had barracks on the base and operated out of it just like the US military did. The guards were sometimes US military and sometimes host-nation military.   Is that "US soil"?  The US also has personnel stationed on foreign bases (we've had friends at Canadian and Australian bases as part of exchange programs, one of whom did have children during that tour, and we currently have a friend on orders to Oxford--so not a base at all, as a visiting scholar.  We also had friends living in Prague--again, no base--on orders to study at a Czech university. All of those were clearly foreign soil, yet they were military there on orders.) and NATO bases (have a friend headed to NATO in the Netherlands early next year, for example).

I am aware of some shared bases, I'm even willing to concede that some service members are not working on US soil, the same way that some state department employees who do not work out of embassies are not working on US soil. However, if the flag on the uniform of the person that shoots you for getting too close to the ordinance is a US flag then surely you were on US soil de facto if not de jure.

How about an US flagged aircraft carrier? Is that not good enough for you? I do not see it specifically called out in the memo, but it would seem that does not count for your 60 months in the USA as a US citizen.

[Villanelle]

One of the bases where we lived was shared with the host nation's military.  They had barracks on the base and operated out of it just like the US military did. The guards were sometimes US military and sometimes host-nation military.   Is that "US soil"?  The US also has personnel stationed on foreign bases (we've had friends at Canadian and Australian bases as part of exchange programs, one of whom did have children during that tour, and we currently have a friend on orders to Oxford--so not a base at all, as a visiting scholar.  We also had friends living in Prague--again, no base--on orders to study at a Czech university. All of those were clearly foreign soil, yet they were military there on orders.) and NATO bases (have a friend headed to NATO in the Netherlands early next year, for example).

I am aware of some shared bases, I'm even willing to concede that some service members are not working on US soil, the same way that some state department employees who do not work out of embassies are not working on US soil. However, if the flag on the uniform of the person that shoots you for getting too close to the ordinance is a US flag then surely you were on US soil de facto if not de jure.

How about an US flagged aircraft carrier? Is that not good enough for you? I do not see it specifically called out in the memo, but it would seem that does not count for your 60 months in the USA as a US citizen.

Of course in some cases overseas military service could easily count as US soil.  In some cases, the shooter is US-uniformed if that's your criteria.  But I listed multiple examples of where that shooter wouldn't be.  Where nothing about the base is US.  Or where there is no base at all.  My point is that there are many, many cases to which that doesn't apply.  It's not some unicorn of an occurrence.  So "US base=US soil" still leaves a lot of people out in the cold. 

I'm not even sure what your point about a carrier is, so I can't respond.  You seem to be giving examples of things that count as US soil, as though I claimed there were none, which I didn't.

And you speak as though de facto and de jur differentiations don't matter, but since we are dealing with immigration law, a de facto designation isn't going to be helpful when dealing with the "jur".

[PDXTabs]

I'm not even sure what your point about a carrier is, so I can't respond.

My point is that if you serve in the US Navy long enough to pull a pension you shouldn't be affected by this bullshit but you could be.

And you speak as though de facto and de jur differentiations don't matter, but since we are dealing with immigration law, a de facto designation isn't going to be helpful when dealing with the "jur".

And yet we are talking about no change in legislative language and no judicial ruling coupled with the fact that the previous executive interpretation was much more generous to our troops. Is there some problem that the current administration was trying to fix? Too many people enlisting who haven't lived on the main land long enough and then choosing to have kids, and if so what is the negative impact to the country? What is the problem that they are trying to fix?

[SpeedReader]

ContinentalOp, your thin attempt to make this about immigration (e.g. "All 7 billion people who don't presently live in this country, should have an absolute right to live here. Anyone who says otherwise is a xenophobic racist.") is entirely off-point.  This rule is only applicable to children residing abroad with their parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen, who are U.S. government employees or members of the U.S. armed forces stationed abroad. 

I am an Army brat, born overseas while Dad was stationed in Germany.  I find this rule change to be petty, noxious, and disgusting.  Yes, it impacts only a small portion of us military brats -- but it is incredibly insulting to the parents who have volunteered to serve our country.  All so DJT can indulge his petty racist fear-mongering and gin up his base some more on the "evils of immigrants". 

[Paul der Krake]

Throwing open immigration without any regard to how the immigrants will fit in is a recipe for immigrants not assimilating and causing problems all around.

And yet, this was exactly the policy in the US for the first century of its history. The first law restricting immigration wasn't passed until 1882, and even then it only applied to Chinese people. I know I had ancestors who came over during the time of open borders, and I have to say it seems to have worked out mostly all right. Native Americans might rightly have a different opinion on that though.

Countries' circumstances change. The US went from being a developing country to the world superpower. Barriers to movement have gone down quite a bit. Keeping a "all-welcome but felons" policy in place because it was the norm 5 generations ago is crazy.

Could the US, today, take in more? Maybe. The optimal number might be more, it might be less, I don't know.

[Villanelle]

I'm not even sure what your point about a carrier is, so I can't respond.

My point is that if you serve in the US Navy long enough to pull a pension you shouldn't be affected by this bullshit but you could be.

And you speak as though de facto and de jur differentiations don't matter, but since we are dealing with immigration law, a de facto designation isn't going to be helpful when dealing with the "jur".

Then I guess we are in agreement, though I don't understand what that has to do with an aircraft carrier. 

Those serving their country overseas should endure any additional burden to citizenship for their children (compared to those stationed stateside) just because their orders happened to be overseas. It's not acceptable, and even though this has been clarified that it will only affect a small number of families each year, it's no more acceptable. 



And yet we are talking about no change in legislative language and no judicial ruling coupled with the fact that the previous executive interpretation was much more generous to our troops. Is there some problem that the current administration was trying to fix? Too many people enlisting who haven't lived on the main land long enough and then choosing to have kids, and if so what is the negative impact to the country? What is the problem that they are trying to fix?

[seattlecyclone]

Throwing open immigration without any regard to how the immigrants will fit in is a recipe for immigrants not assimilating and causing problems all around.

And yet, this was exactly the policy in the US for the first century of its history. The first law restricting immigration wasn't passed until 1882, and even then it only applied to Chinese people. I know I had ancestors who came over during the time of open borders, and I have to say it seems to have worked out mostly all right. Native Americans might rightly have a different opinion on that though.

Countries' circumstances change. The US went from being a developing country to the world superpower. Barriers to movement have gone down quite a bit. Keeping a "all-welcome but felons" policy in place because it was the norm 5 generations ago is crazy.

Could the US, today, take in more? Maybe. The optimal number might be more, it might be less, I don't know.

My opinion is that borders are arbitrary, and restriction of the ability of people to cross them is mostly bullshit.

I can move 150 miles south to Portland with no questions asked. I can move 3,000 miles southeast to Miami with no questions asked. I can move to freaking Guam, no questions asked.

If I want to move 150 miles north to Vancouver, I have to submit a formal application, pay a bunch of fees, prove that I would make a worthy contribution to that community. I call that bullshit.

Why is this the current state of affairs? The US and British, more than five generations ago, agreed to draw a line between Seattle and Vancouver instead of between Seattle and Portland or north of Vancouver, or someplace else entirely. You might argue that returning to a 19th-century policy would be crazy. I argue that restricting my movement based on a 19th-century treaty is just as crazy.

[partgypsy]

You may call it bullshit but the idea of countries and borders and the enforcement of them, has been around for quite awhile. 

[ctuser1]

That said, I'm also well aware that the easiest way to shut down a rational discussion in this country is to state or otherwise imply that the person you're conversing with is a racist, so I'm not going to do that.

Somehow I doubt that being politically correct will lead to a fruitful discussion with a bullship spewing batshit crazy right-wing xenophobe...

Throwing open immigration without any regard to how the immigrants will fit in is a recipe for immigrants not assimilating and causing problems all around.

And yet, this was exactly the policy in the US for the first century of its history.

It was!!

My argument is simply that the policy selected should be for the economic benefit of the US.

You seem to have a different guidepost in mind. What? Why?

What is your objection to choosing economic benefit as the guidepost? Perhaps a moral one? If so - Asylum policy is a different thing driven by moral concerns. Why not drive "immigration" (as separate from "asylum") based on economic concerns?

[PDXTabs]

You may call it bullshit but the idea of countries and borders and the enforcement of them, has been around for quite awhile.

Not for the movement of people, not like this is hasn't. The modern immigration situation in the western world dates to ~1965. Before this point in time you could move relatively freely between Mexico, Canada, and the United States. You could also move relatively freely between many commonwealth countries.

Before WWI you could have walked across Europe and booked travel to the USA without a passport or a birth certificate. It is possible the here and there you may have technically violated some regulations, but in practical terms no one would have stopped you. In fact, immigrants didn't need a visa to enter the USA until 1924 although a handful of criminal background type checks were nominally enacted in 1917 and origin quotas started in 1921.

Furthermore, I'm a capitalist. I believe in the free movement of capital, goods, and labor.

[BicycleB]

^Last point above is a big one.

By income, labor is a much bigger piece of the economy than capital. Yet we have an international system based on free movement of capital plus restricted movement of labor. This particular configuration has existed for decades, not an eternity.

How is it economically efficient to restrict the biggest force in the global economy?

[ctuser1]

^Last point above is a big one.
....
How is it economically efficient to restrict the biggest force in the global economy?

Only in a roundabout, secondary way...

Completely free movement of people usually leads to "nativist" resentments. The xenophobic outpouring you see in today's America is fueled - rightly or wrongly - by scenarios like this article describes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/07/30/feature/majority-minority-white-workers-at-this-pennsylvania-chicken-plant-now-struggle-to-fit-in/...

This is why my personal opinion is it is good to be judicious in allowing people in, and follow some objective criteria that can not be questioned.

"We need more workers to support the aging population" is one such criteria!! "We have an economic boom, need more workers", and "we have a recession, need to slow down" are other such criteria.

Strictly speaking, in putting up borders, the US government is "rent seeking" in economic terms. It would be difficult, however, to argue that "rent seeking" in favor of the current population of a given country (thereby reducing the net economic efficiency of the whole world, but accruing positive utility for the current population in question) is objectionable.

As far as I know/understand, similar concerns apply to the concept of a welfare state. It is more economically efficient
to simply let the poor people die (like it happens in many poor countries). However, in practice, the economies of welfare states in the rich countries are a lot more efficient.

[PDXTabs]

As far as I know/understand, similar concerns apply to the concept of a welfare state. It is more economically efficient to simply let the poor people die (like it happens in many poor countries). However, in practice, the economies of welfare states in the rich countries are a lot more efficient.

Long term or short term? Carl Benedikt Frey makes a pretty good argument in The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation that the welfare state encourages innovation. Who wants to try anything new if the odds or failure are 3:4 and failure means starving to death? But we might be getting off track.

I don't support rent seeking, even when my government does it. Our retirement accounts would be bigger (by a factor of 2~3x) if we* allowed for the free movement of labour. 

EDITed to add: * - we in this context means every government on the face of the planet

[ctuser1]

I don't support rent seeking, even when my government does it. Our retirement accounts would be bigger (by a factor of 2~3x) if we* allowed for the free movement of labour. 

EDITed to add: * - we in this context means every government on the face of the planet

Yes, overall economy would be bigger.

Since you/I/other-successful-professionals-we-know-in-the-coasts have better than even odds of thriving in any such efficient economic growth, it would even be in our selfish interest to have such a no-rent-seeking-allowed economic policy worldwide. Our 401k accounts will be bigger. Our professional salaries might adjust a bit downward (US professional salaries are higher in general), but the purchasing power will likely only increase. 

But efficient (and bigger) economics often has brutal ways to pick out the losers. If you read the Washington Post article I linked, you would see it talks about a couple of people who have been handed pretty slim odds as low skill workers. Their living standards are kept artificially high by the said rent seeking done by the US government.

In any "no rent seeking allowed" scenario, they (and their communities) will likely not be able to compete with an impoverished low-skill worker from India/China.

Can any democracy allow that? Should it?

My opinion is no, on both counts!

Long term or short term? Carl Benedikt Frey makes a pretty good argument in The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation that the welfare state encourages innovation. Who wants to try anything new if they odds or failure are 3:4 and failure means starving to death? But we might be getting off track.

I haven't read that book. Need to grab it.
Thx.

[PDXTabs]

In any "no rent seeking allowed" scenario, they (and their communities) will likely not be able to compete with an impoverished low-skill worker from India/China.

How many dollars does it take to move from China or India to the USA? Because the median income in India is $1670/yr, where are they going to get the money to move? The vast majority of impoverished Indian workers are going to stay in India where their support network is.

Meanwhile, I literally earn twice as much as the people in New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, or the UK do for exactly the same job. That benefits me greatly, but it seems like bad economic policy. Think of all those developers who should be able to take some of my salary but can't because of US government bureaucracy that exists so that I can seek rents, meanwhile my boss has to pay twice as much for the same value and our shareholders have to take it in the teeth.