How Indonesian resort island Bali became a refuge for Ukrainians and Russians

[Nimbus]

You don't need to reside in the US or travel there frequently to be aware that individuals with a Hispanic background constitute the largest population of undocumented immigrants in the US. You don't even require statistical data to recognize this fact; common sense will suffice.

What is the significance of the ten thousand Indonesians living illegally in the US (assuming that figure is accurate) when compared to Mexico's 5.3 million? This consideration is even more pertinent when we account for percentages of the population. Considering that Mexico's population is roughly 127 million while Indonesia's population is 275 million, the comparison gains perspective.

I was talking about the behavioral change, from unproductive citizens to productive immigrants. I don’t need millions of data points to confirm that Indonesian immigrants generally have a different work ethics from Indonesians in Indonesia. My point is that Indonesians are not genetically lazy, it’s the environment and the culture creating the behavior.

As I mentioned earlier, if Indonesians' approach to illegal immigration were similar to that of individuals from Hispanic, South Asian (Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh), or African backgrounds, Australia would face significant challenges. In fact, other nationalities are using Indonesia as a transit route to Australia.

Profile of the Unauthorized Population - US

Learn about the estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States—where do they live? When did they arrive in the United States, and from which origin countries? What are their levels of education, top industries of employment, income, parental and marital status, health...

www.migrationpolicy.org

View attachment 3337

Indonesians are lucky that Indonesia is relatively safe and prosperous (compared to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras), so people feel less pressure to migrate elsewhere. Get a civil war going, and Australia will soon be dealing with Indonesian boat people.

I worked in Mexico for 6 months. My colleagues were mostly Mexicans of the upper classes, who lived comfortably in Mexico and had no desire to move to USA just to be permanently treated as second class citizens due to suspicion of illegal status. The ones who jump the border are from the lower rungs of society; desperate people who have little protection from government corruption and the narco cartels.

These higher up Mexicans even look noticeably different from the average guy who bus the tables or cook your restaurant meal in USA. How do I say it, they have more pronounced European features, and they even point that out to me.

 

[flavus]

The primary path for merit-based immigration to USA is the H-1 class visas. Before 1990 there was no quota, meaning anybody who qualified got it. Bush Senior put a quota of 65,000 in 1990, when US population was 250 million. Except for a short spike in 2001, 2002, and 2003, the quota remains at 65,000 today, when US population is 332 million. The only addition is 20,000 for master’s or doctoral degree graduates of US universities.

The fee started at $0, today it’s as high as $2000.

In the early 2000s everybody who applied for H-1B got it, as long as they applied early enough. Today the applications are 9 times the 1990 quota, so they hold a lottery once a year. Only 1 out of 9 workers are selected to continue.

I didn't realize it's that recent! And yeah, at the time I got one (2016) I think the ratio was 3 to 1, which was stressful enough. With a 9 to 1 ratio, even someone who graduates from a US graduate program (and thus can double-dip on the H-1B lottery - once for the advanced degree pool and once in the general pool) must be nervous - the more generous "Optional Practical Training" for STEM graduates only grant you three years before you must convert to H-1B or ship out.

 

[Bob]

You said you have no problem with adults sponsoring another adults. That’s how it works today.

Next you’re gonna say, I only approve for adults who earn their citizenship. Well, if you want citizenship by pure merit, what gives babies of citizens a right to citizenship? They sure haven’t earned it.

Chain migration is pure nepotism, it’s the perfect example of “who you know, not what you know” and the very opposite of meritocracy.

You can’t bring up meritocracy as an excuse to end birthright citizenship (which has been the law of the land since the founding of the republic, and has since been enshrined in the constitution) while excusing chain migration a.k.a. nepotism at the same time.

I have no illusions about the real reason some people call these citizens anchor babies, despite their inability to anchor anybody until they’re adults. I just find the mental gymnastics entertaining.

All that's in earlier posts. Chain migration is through legal means in the spirit of the law while anchor baby citizenship is a cheat. Some legal immigrants arrive on merit and others through family connections, among other ways. I'm fine with those who follow the law, which should be improved. I'm not at all fine with those who jump line.

 

[Samoerai]

How does public pension work in the Netherlands? Curious. In the US, it's based on contribution (but capped, up to $160k or so right now) so those who live it up in the informal sector often regrets it when they reach retirement age.

That being said maybe they plan to return to Indonesia when they're older.

Public pensiun in The Netherlands is called AOW. Every legal citizen living in The Netherlands, having worked or not, will get AOW (€ 1.378,98 per month) starting at age 67 years. Used to be 65 years. But there are plans to increase the age of 67 (and already implemented), because the government can not afford this AOW-system anymore. Too many old people and not enough young people working. The AOW-system is payed by the working class.
However, only citizens who have lived in The Netherlands for 50 years (from age 16 - 66 years) will get a full AOW. So, for me, not at an age of 67 yet, and now living in Indonesia, for every year 3% is subtracted from the full AOW.

Btw I know some undocumented Indonesians who lived in The Netherlands more than 30 years, there children are born in The Netherlands. Others with children in Indonesia let them come over to take care of them.

 

[Nimbus]

All that's in earlier posts. Chain migration is through legal means in the spirit of the law while anchor baby citizenship is a cheat. Some legal immigrants arrive on merit and others through family connections, among other ways. I'm fine with those who follow the law, which should be improved. I'm not at all fine with those who jump line.

Which part of the law cheated by anchor babies? Birthright citizenship has been the law since the 18th century. It’s not a defect, it’s a built-in feature of this republic.

This is a non-issue of such a small proportion that’s getting blown up by the right wing entertainment media complex.

Mexicans who got kids here have not been denied deportation despite having citizen children. Once deported they can’t return legally until the citizen children turn 21. Most people can’t put their life on hold for decades while waiting for sponsorship.

Rich Chinese who fly here specifically to have a baby are mostly billionaires in their own country. When they grow up, they’ll go to college here spending literally millions of dollars. As they inherit their wealthy parents’ fortune, it becomes taxable to Uncle Sam because they are citizens. USA is one of the few countries taxing worldwide income. We should give rich billionaires free airplane tickets to have their kids born here and increase the tax base.

But as a guy from a historical ethnostate, who can trace his lineage to a 17th century king, I understand the unspoken reason for the outrage. I don’t support it, but I understand it.

 

[Nimbus]

I didn't realize it's that recent! And yeah, at the time I got one (2016) I think the ratio was 3 to 1, which was stressful enough. With a 9 to 1 ratio, even someone who graduates from a US graduate program (and thus can double-dip on the H-1B lottery - once for the advanced degree pool and once in the general pool) must be nervous - the more generous "Optional Practical Training" for STEM graduates only grant you three years before you must convert to H-1B or ship out.

A big part of the problem is large Indian consulting companies, known informally as “body shops”. They spam the system with literally tens of thousands of applications from their huge employee pool. Whoever wins the lottery get sent to USA, those who don’t stay to work in India. The federal government recently discovered that some of them increase the odds even further by submitting 2 or more applications for slightly different jobs in different companies, per applicant.

What’s not deniable is the demand. Baby boomers are retiring in droves, starting with Covid when many of them didn’t make it. There are simply not enough Americans to replace them today.

America is entering a Forever Labor Shortage

The coming surge in boomer retirement will transform the job market for decades to come — and that's great news for everyone.

www.businessinsider.com

Meanwhile MAGA people continue to complain about illegals from “shithole countries” (Trump quote). Just about every restaurant here is short on labor, yet it doesn’t matter. They can’t have “those people” here.

 

[Bob]

Which part of the law cheated by anchor babies? Birthright citizenship has been the law since the 18th century. It’s not a defect, it’s a built-in feature of this republic.

This is a non-issue of such a small proportion that’s getting blown up by the right wing entertainment media complex.

Mexicans who got kids here have not been denied deportation despite having citizen children. Once deported they can’t return legally until the citizen children turn 21. Most people can’t put their life on hold for decades while waiting for sponsorship.

Rich Chinese who fly here specifically to have a baby are mostly billionaires in their own country. When they grow up, they’ll go to college here spending literally millions of dollars. As they inherit their wealthy parents’ fortune, it becomes taxable to Uncle Sam because they are citizens. USA is one of the few countries taxing worldwide income. We should give rich billionaires free airplane tickets to have their kids born here and increase the tax base.

But as a guy from a historical ethnostate, who can trace his lineage to a 17th century king, I understand the unspoken reason for the outrage. I don’t support it, but I understand it.

It's been stated clearly a couple of times at least, anchor baby parents cut line and game the system. They do no favors to those who follow the process. It's not a matter of national survival but it would be fair to close the loophole.
That illegals get deported is to be expected, no?
Millons of dollars for college? Maybe after this bout of inflation runs its course.
Those very rich Chinese, or very rich anyone, don't need to play the anchor baby game. They'll get a green card or citizenship if they want it.
How does your lineage affect the issue?
I don't see any expression of outrage in this thread. Opinions or preferences yes but no outrage.

 

[Nimbus]

It's been stated clearly a couple of times at least, anchor baby parents cut line and game the system. They do no favors to those who follow the process. It's not a matter of national survival but it would be fair to close the loophole.

You have stated the opinion that anchor baby parents “cut the line” and “game the system”. The very system that creates this line comes much, much later than birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship was here before the CIS, before the INS, before the first immigration law, before passports. It was here when all you needed to be considered a citizen was being a free white man.

Birthright citizenship is part of being a country of immigrants, which is all the countries in the Americas, because the vast majority of people came from elsewhere in the world. It’s not a loophole, it’s the foundational baseline of the system.

It reminds me of people who buy land close to the airport and build houses because it’s cheaper, then later complain that the noise from the airport is too much for a residential area. People institute ever more restrictive immigration policies, and when they run into a constitutionally protected right that predates the policy, they call the right “a loophole”.

It’s never about the anchor babies and their parents. It’s never about fairness. It’s about the same concerns voiced by the 19th century senators that ratified the 14th amendment. The difference is that they didn’t mind saying it.

That illegals get deported is to be expected, no?

People are against anchor babies because they supposedly protect the parents from deportation; they don’t.

Millons of dollars for college? Maybe after this bout of inflation runs its course.

Get a medical degree here and it can reach a million dollars. That doesn’t include living cost.

Those very rich Chinese, or very rich anyone, don't need to play the anchor baby game. They'll get a green card or citizenship if they want it.

Investor visa costs 1.8 million dollars in investment, $900K in targeted areas. It used to be an even million, but it has been increased to account for inflation. The annual quota for the visa, however, is not adjusted for inflation.

To get this visa they have to come and live here, and eventually get a green card, then citizenship five years later.

Compare that with a $1K return airplane ticket and $15K for hospital birth. The parents don’t even need to live here.

How does your lineage affect the issue?

I’m saying it to illustrate that I understand ethnocentrism, known as racism in America. My ancestors have lived in Indonesia from prehistoric times, so birthright citizenship doesn’t make sense in this context. Citizenship is by blood.

In America citizenship by blood only makes sense for Native Americans.

I don't see any expression of outrage in this thread. Opinions or preferences yes but no outrage.

Not in this thread specifically, but people have to be outraged to advocate for a repeal of a constitutionally protected right.

 

[Hawk256]

Then by your definition there is no such thing as anchor babies. By law you can’t sponsor relatives until you’re at least 21 years old.

The baby can't "legally" sponsor them but the parents do get extra "care or credit" from within the system and they don't always deport them, especially if they claim asylum. It certianly doesn't hurt them and does nothing but help their claims. It will definitely move them up the list compared to a couple without a US born child. If you don't see that as somewhat dishonest, then I don't know what to say but there are people taking advantage of it all the time.

 

[Nimbus]

The baby can't "legally" sponsor them but the parents do get extra "care or credit" from within the system and they don't always deport them, especially if they claim asylum. It certianly doesn't hurt them and does nothing but help their claims. It will definitely move them up the list compared to a couple without a US born child. If you don't see that as somewhat dishonest, then I don't know what to say but there are people taking advantage of it all the time.

The benefit they get is for the child, who is a citizen. In any case a child (anywhere in the world) is blameless and deserve food and health care, that’s why we have the WIC (women, infants, and children) program. They know that in order for children to get enough food, the parents need enough food too. It is the richest country in the world with a military budget bigger than the next 10 countries combined. The military spending for a single year ($877 billion) is enough to feed all the poor women, infants, and children in America ($6 billion) for the next 146 years, and you protest it because some parents without a piece of paper may eat from it?

Call me ‘dishonest’ if you like, but I’m happy if my tax dollar is used to buy milk for a child and his mom anywhere in the world, rather than another aircraft carrier.

The parents are not always deported, with or without children. Anybody can claim asylum, with or without children. The children may make a difference to a particularly sympathetic judge, but there is nothing that stops deportation just because of a citizen child. It’s no different from the regular criminal justice system that doesn’t stop anybody from getting jailed just because he has children. Children get sent to the foster system all the time when their parents are taken, whether to immigration detention or to jail. America is more interested in “delivering justice” than caring for children. There’s a reason that America has the largest prison population in the world (2 million inmates).

 

[Hawk256]

The benefit they get is for the child, who is a citizen. In any case a child (anywhere in the world) is blameless and deserve food and health care, that’s why we have the WIC (women, infants, and children) program. They know that in order for children to get enough food, the parents need enough food too. It is the richest country in the world with a military budget bigger than the next 10 countries combined. The military spending for a single year ($877 billion) is enough to feed all the poor women, infants, and children in America ($6 billion) for the next 146 years, and you protest it because some parents without a piece of paper may eat from it?

And that is exactly why they do it and it does help them. The budget is a different discussion altogher. You either enforce the rules you have or you don't. Change the things you can. Not every problem can be solved, no system is perfect and there will almost always be negatives for every positive or vice versa. My opinion is that the parents put the child in those difficult situations knowingly because of the sympathy it buys them. What about the rest of the people that want to do it the right way, without any extra circumstances? Even the ones that get deported are back in a week. They have the money to pay coyotes and smugglers but no money for food. Doesn't add up to me.

 

[Nimbus]

And that is exactly why they do it and it does help them. The budget is a different discussion altogher. You either enforce the rules you have or you don't. Change the things you can. Not every problem can be solved, no system is perfect and there will almost always be negatives for every positive or vice versa. My opinion is that the parents put the child in those difficult situations knowingly because of the sympathy it buys them. What about the rest of the people that want to do it the right way, without any extra circumstances? Even the ones that get deported are back in a week. They have the money to pay coyotes and smugglers but no money for food. Doesn't add up to me.

You keep arguing that these children are giving their parents a leg up, even though the facts say otherwise. Point me to a legal statute that protects parents simply because they have citizen children. American citizens don’t get protection from jail for having citizen children, what makes you think it works differently for foreigner parents?

People who flout the law by crossing the border without inspection do it with or without children, yet somehow the children having papers is problem enough that a constitutional amendment is warranted?

You’re not asking for enforcement of the law, that one I don’t generally have a problem with. You’re asking for a law change, a constitutional change, to stop birthright citizenship.

 

[Bob]

You have stated the opinion that anchor baby parents “cut the line” and “game the system”. The very system that creates this line comes much, much later than birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship was here before the CIS, before the INS, before the first immigration law, before passports. It was here when all you needed to be considered a citizen was being a free white man.

Birthright citizenship is part of being a country of immigrants, which is all the countries in the Americas, because the vast majority of people came from elsewhere in the world. It’s not a loophole, it’s the foundational baseline of the system.

It reminds me of people who buy land close to the airport and build houses because it’s cheaper, then later complain that the noise from the airport is too much for a residential area. People institute ever more restrictive immigration policies, and when they run into a constitutionally protected right that predates the policy, they call the right “a loophole”.

It’s never about the anchor babies and their parents. It’s never about fairness. It’s about the same concerns voiced by the 19th century senators that ratified the 14th amendment. The difference is that they didn’t mind saying it.


People are against anchor babies because they supposedly protect the parents from deportation; they don’t.


Get a medical degree here and it can reach a million dollars. That doesn’t include living cost.


Investor visa costs 1.8 million dollars in investment, $900K in targeted areas. It used to be an even million, but it has been increased to account for inflation. The annual quota for the visa, however, is not adjusted for inflation.

To get this visa they have to come and live here, and eventually get a green card, then citizenship five years later.

Compare that with a $1K return airplane ticket and $15K for hospital birth. The parents don’t even need to live here.


I’m saying it to illustrate that I understand ethnocentrism, known as racism in America. My ancestors have lived in Indonesia from prehistoric times, so birthright citizenship doesn’t make sense in this context. Citizenship is by blood.

In America citizenship by blood only makes sense for Native Americans.


Not in this thread specifically, but people have to be outraged to advocate for a repeal of a constitutionally protected right.

Yes, birthright citizenship was in place in the US long before INS or Mayorkas. Also long before automobiles and aeroplanes. It's much easier to pop over and deliver than it was even mid-20th century, so now it's easier to game the system.
There's no intrinsic link between jus soli citizenship and being a country of immigrants. Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore are jus sanguinis. A smart country of immigrants picks and chooses who gets to enter.
A million dollars for medical school? Be real.
I think we all understand ethnocentrism. Some have a realistic view of it as it exists today, others deny it, and others wrongly attribute things they don't like to it.

 

[Nimbus]

Yes, birthright citizenship was in place in the US long before INS or Mayorkas. Also long before automobiles and aeroplanes.

Long before the 14th amendment, long before California joining the union, long before the Louisiana purchase. In fact the idea is used in article 2 of the original constitution adopted in 1788, as “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

The 14th amendment simply declares that birthright citizenship applies to everyone, not just white male land owners, over which the civil war was fought. The very same section contains the famous clause of the same spirit: “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It's much easier to pop over and deliver than it was even mid-20th century, so now it's easier to game the system.

Back then freedom of the press meant freedom to use the very expensive and slow printing press, so only publishers and rich people can afford it. The same principle still applies today when any idiot with a phone and internet can broadcast to the entire world in less than a second.

The risk of delivery is less due to better medical technology, but it still takes 9 months to make a baby. In any case the principle remains the same.

There's no intrinsic link between jus soli citizenship and being a country of immigrants. Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore are jus sanguinis. A smart country of immigrants picks and chooses who gets to enter.

Sure pick examples from literally across the world. Forget the rest of the continent.

This country does pick and choose who enters. It also picks and chooses who the citizens are. Are you saying the constitution was imposed on Americans under gunpoint?

A million dollars for medical school? Be real.
I think we all understand ethnocentrism. Some have a realistic view of it as it exists today, others deny it, and others wrongly attribute things they don't like to it.

Wrongly attribute things they don’t like to it? Like calling fellow citizens “anchor babies”?

It’s clear to me now why you want meritocracy when it comes to babies of foreign parents, but nepotism for those already a citizen.

 

[Bob]

Long before the 14th amendment, long before California joining the union, long before the Louisiana purchase. In fact the idea is used in article 2 of the original constitution adopted in 1788, as “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

The 14th amendment simply declares that birthright citizenship applies to everyone, not just white male land owners, over which the civil war was fought. The very same section contains the famous clause of the same spirit: “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


Back then freedom of the press meant freedom to use the very expensive and slow printing press, so only publishers and rich people can afford it. The same principle still applies today when any idiot with a phone and internet can broadcast to the entire world in less than a second.

The risk of delivery is less due to better medical technology, but it still takes 9 months to make a baby. In any case the principle remains the same.


Sure pick examples from literally across the world. Forget the rest of the continent.

This country does pick and choose who enters. It also picks and chooses who the citizens are. Are you saying the constitution was imposed on Americans under gunpoint?


Wrongly attribute things they don’t like to it? Like calling fellow citizens “anchor babies”?

It’s clear to me now why you want meritocracy when it comes to babies of foreign parents, but nepotism for those already a citizen.

Yes I prefer a merit system for immigration, and a strong component of humanitarianism.
Nepotism for those already a citizen in what way?
Imposed at gunpoint? That's way out there.

 

[Ruserious]

This thread is now a very long way from Russians and Ukrainians in Bali.
How come so much of the internet ends up talking only about USA issues? Its exhausting.

 

[Bob]

This thread is now a very long way from Russians and Ukrainians in Bali.
How come so much of the internet ends up talking only about USA issues? Its exhausting.

So write something about Russians and Ukrainians in Bali. It's an interesting topic.

 

[Hawk256]

This thread is now a very long way from Russians and Ukrainians in Bali.
How come so much of the internet ends up talking only about USA issues? Its exhausting.

I'm guilty. I get sucked into the bleeding heart stories and have to point out the rational side. Not like it does any good though.

 

[Nimbus]

I'm

Yes I prefer a merit system for immigration, and a strong component of humanitarianism.

You said you prefer a merit system, but I’m sorry to say that I don’t believe you, at least I don’t believe you understand what a merit system in immigration means.

A true merit system means each immigrant is admitted based on what he/she does or has.

Conservatives dislike birthright citizenship supposedly because the babies haven’t earned it. Well, if you want to be consistent, then the same standard should be applied to everybody. This means being an immediate relative to an American citizen doesn’t give you any immigration privilege, you have to show that you qualify based on skill, experience, wealth, etc.

Nepotism for those already a citizen in what way?

Today parents, children, and spouse of American citizens automatically qualifies for a green card, and eventually citizenship. These people get immigration benefits not because they have particular skill or wealth, they get it simply because they’re related to a citizen. That’s a textbook definition of nepotism.

Imposed at gunpoint? That's way out there.

You claimed that people in Singapore, NZ, and Australia “picks and chooses who gets to enter”, implying that Americans don’t have the same freedom. That’s patently wrong, because America’s government is (still) freely elected, so America’s constitution and immigration law reflect the picks and choices of Americans.

Birthright citizenship is not forced upon you by King George at gunpoint, you chose it on your own accord.

By the way, these countries prevent chain migration by imposing strict criteria on parents of citizens wanting to immigrate. America can do the same by removing the automatic sponsorship eligibility for parents, so the babies can’t ‘anchor’ anymore when they turn 21. No constitutional amendment necessary.

 

[flavus]

There's no intrinsic link between jus soli citizenship and being a country of immigrants. Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore are jus sanguinis. A smart country of immigrants picks and chooses who gets to enter.

In these cases it seems likely that they simply adopt more British practices than the US did -- since after all their independences were achieved less acrimoniously than the US'.

FWIW - as a recent immigrant in the US, I sort of agree with both sides here. A nation gets to choose what kind of immigrants they want, and in the US it's /much harder/ to immigrate as a skilled worker compared to in Europe, while at the same time there's a big problem with undocumented migrants.

Given the politics involved and the position of both major parties - I don't see how it can get better before first getting worse