I'll try to be brief for Ruserious et al's sake
. Ideally the mods can move this discussion to its own thread.
I'm well aware of what a merit system in immigration means. A 'merit system with a strong component of humanitarianism' to me means we accept immigrants based on how their capabilities fit our needs, and genuine refugees, and immediate family members if there's no great risk that they'll go on the dole.
You’re criticizing BLM for playing around with their word definition, and now you’re doing it yourself.
Accepting family members doesn’t qualify as ‘humanitarian reason’, not if they’re able parents. These countries you wish to emulate don’t consider parents worthy of immigrant visa for humanitarian reasons.
You may want to double check that. It's not automatic. I know a guy whose wife couldn't join him because of his finances. Luckily a local synagogue helped out, even though he wasn't a member.
I don’t need to double check. The financial requirement applies to every immigrant, only refugees are exempted. It’s not a big deal, you only need to show that you earn above the federal poverty standard, which is a little above federal minimum wage. A family of 2 (husband and wife) must show income at 125% of federal poverty standard, which is $24,860 in 2023. That’s about $12/hour wage. Even McDonald’s pays more than that today, the local Aldi in Indiana starts at $14/ hour.
The same with requirements related to health, criminal record, membership in terroristic organizations, etc. You can be a spouse to a citizen and still be denied entry if you have committed certain crimes, or currently suffering a communicable disease, etc. It’s called “ground of inadmissibility” that applies to every immigrant visa. The gov’t wants to make sure that you’re at least not poor, not sick, and not a criminal. That’s the bare minimum.
Anyway it's fine and normal that immediate family members can immigrate if they follow the process.
According to your personal standard it is. Foreign parents of Singaporeans, Australians and New Zealanders can’t just immigrate by applying for it, the requirements go much more beyond the basics. If you want to go by their standard, you gotta take the bad with the good.
You're really twisting words there. I pointed out that three notable immigrant countries do not grant birthright citizenship, in response to an assertion that jus sanguinis is an inherent characteristic of immigrant countries. I also posted earlier that our immigration laws need improvement.
And I have addressed that, it’s ridiculous that you cherry pick three countries on the other side of the world with 35 million people combined, while ignoring 30+ neighboring countries in the Americas with birthright citizenship, representing more than 1 billion people.
Birthright citizenship is the standard over here, for centuries, not an exception like the recent anti immigrant Trumpers like to say.
George III is dead. Vive le roi.
Yes we can change it. My point is that we should change it
There's that, and we can also remove jus soli citizenship.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if you think immigration should maintain the current racial composition. Thankfully that opinion doesn’t carry legal weight.
Just to summarize all this long winded thread: You’re against anchor babies. When I said we can remove their ability to anchor easily, you don’t want that because you still want parents of citizens to be able to immigrate. That means your problem is with babies of foreign parents, supposedly because the babies haven’t earned their citizenship. However, you don’t mind immediate relatives immigrating even though they don’t earn their citizenship either.
I go by the constitution, you go by something else.
