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

I’m not excusing fraud.

At the same time I’m fed up with a certain segment of American society claiming they’re not against immigrants, they’re only against illegal ones, yet they continuously vote for politicians who make legal immigration harder and harder. When legal immigration is extremely hard, people go the other way.

View attachment 3336
Is legal immigration more difficult than it was 10 years ago? I haven't seen anything to indicate it is, but I may have missed it. Weren't Trump's restrictions rescinded?
I also haven't seen that Congress has done anything, other than squabble, about immigration in forever. I'd like to see them do their job there and in other areas but maybe that's too much to ask.
 
One of the craziest immigation laws in the US is that anyone born on US soil is automtically a citizen. This law was orginally passed to give citizenship rights to slaves but now sets up the posilbility of anchor babies. Have a kid in the US, they are citizen, now you, your spouse and the rest of the family can apply for citizenship to take care of your American baby.
No, that is patently false. In the Americas citizenship has always been granted to people born there, and that’s not unique to the United States. The exception was for African slaves, in the infamous Dredd Scott decision by the Supreme Court. The Civil War was fought over it, and that side lost.


During the debate on the 14th amendment, the senators unanimously agreed that everybody born within the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen, it’s just declaring a law of the land. What they contested was the prospect of Chinese, Gypsies, and Indians becoming citizens. Apparently white people were ok, and the war was fought over black slaves.

In the end they decided that the Chinese and Gypsies were too small to be a problem, and the Indians were sovereign, so technically they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States.


By law you can only sponsor your parents when you’re 21. In the mean time nothing stops the parent from getting deported.

I don't know a single person (and I know a lot of conservatives) who are against legal immigration. The problem is too much illegal immigration and no pusnishment for those that are caught. They may catch the same person 10 times.
I believe you. It’s entirely possible that you have never heard anybody say it openly, just like you’ve never seen people of color being discriminated at work, leading you to believe that more white people are being discriminated against.

An advice I like to give people is “Forget what they say, watch what they do.”

I’m intimately familiar with America’s immigration law and policies. I also follow the policies enacted by every administration since Bush. Whatever being said is just hot air, but written laws, executive orders, and regulations are real, as real as the politicians who passed them, as real the people who voted for those politicians.
 
No, that is patently false. In the Americas citizenship has always been granted to people born there, and that’s not unique to the United States. The exception was for African slaves, in the infamous Dredd Scott decision by the Supreme Court. The Civil War was fought over it, and that side lost.
If it's patently false, then how are people doing it on a daily basis? Many pregnat women gunning for their baby to be born in the US. Doesn't matter if they are legal or not.
 
Is legal immigration more difficult than it was 10 years ago? I haven't seen anything to indicate it is, but I may have missed it. Weren't Trump's restrictions rescinded?
I also haven't seen that Congress has done anything, other than squabble, about immigration in forever. I'd like to see them do their job there and in other areas but maybe that's too much to ask.
Because Trump set them up as executive orders, they have been rescinded by Biden. It doesn’t change the fact that he enacted them, with full support from his constituents, who are supposedly not against legal immigrants.

In the current climate I don’t think any comprehensive immigration reform can happen. It’s a complex topic that require cooperation and compromise.

Progressive Democrats support immigration because they support diversity in general. Moderate Democrats don’t want to rock the boat. Union Democrats don’t want to show that they’re against immigrants, but they are worried about influx of cheap labor that erodes their wages and bargaining power. Greens are wary about the impact of more people to the environment.

On the other side, Corporate Republicans support the influx of cheap labor. Libertarians (capitalists) are generally the same, free flow of capital, goods, and labor. Hardcore religious Republicans who send missionaries across the globe are not against it, they know that the average non-European immigrant is more religious and more conservative than the average American. The deplorables are against it, of course, and they’ll keep voting for the most xenophobic candidates.

Nothing is happening until one side has enough majority to just ram it through.
 
Even Donald Trump's wife had an anchor baby
Not the same. His child would have citizenship rights becuase he is a citizen. Neither of the parents are US citizens in the true case of anchor babies. They just get inside of the US by any method to give birth on US soil.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bob
Not the same. His child would have citizenship rights becuase he is a citizen. Neither of the parents are US citizens in the true case of anchor babies. They just get inside of the US by any method to give birth on US soil.
She had the kid so herself and her parents could get green cards.
She entered illegally remember. She was working as a model on a tourist visa
 
She had the kid so herself and her parents could get green cards.
She entered illegally remember. She was working as a model on a tourist visa
I didn't know the details but just goes to prove the point. US Immigation is messed up. I know legitmate married couples that can't get tourist visa for their spouse. Immigration basically told them that she could apply if she inteded to immigrate as his wife but no to a tourist visa. Several of those cases I have seen in the past few years. However just pop up in the US illegally and they will not have a problem, she can stay in country while the paperwork is processed. Just claim that you are in danger in your home country.
 
If it's patently false, then how are people doing it on a daily basis? Many pregnat women gunning for their baby to be born in the US. Doesn't matter if they are legal or not.
I’m talking about the myth that birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment started as a way to give citizenship to former African slaves. Birthright citizenship has always been the norm in the continent where almost everybody came from elsewhere in the world. The 14th amendment was necessary because the Supreme Court decided African slaves were an exception.

If you want to stop chain immigration, it’s much simpler to outlaw automatic sponsorship for family members. It doesn’t even need a constitutional amendment. Just require each intending immigrant to qualify on his own merit.
 
Because Trump set them up as executive orders, they have been rescinded by Biden. It doesn’t change the fact that he enacted them, with full support from his constituents, who are supposedly not against legal immigrants.

In the current climate I don’t think any comprehensive immigration reform can happen. It’s a complex topic that require cooperation and compromise.

Progressive Democrats support immigration because they support diversity in general. Moderate Democrats don’t want to rock the boat. Union Democrats don’t want to show that they’re against immigrants, but they are worried about influx of cheap labor that erodes their wages and bargaining power. Greens are wary about the impact of more people to the environment.

On the other side, Corporate Republicans support the influx of cheap labor. Libertarians (capitalists) are generally the same, free flow of capital, goods, and labor. Hardcore religious Republicans who send missionaries across the globe are not against it, they know that the average non-European immigrant is more religious and more conservative than the average American. The deplorables are against it, of course, and they’ll keep voting for the most xenophobic candidates.

Nothing is happening until one side has enough majority to just ram it through.
So how is legal immigration more difficult now than before?
I think you'll find that Republicans supported the diversity measures in current immigration laws. It's been a long time since they were enacted and the Republicans weren't always so backwards.
On illegals, Democrat politicians want future voters and Republican politicians want cheap labor so nobody in Congress does anything other than lip service and the US public pays the price.
 
Last edited:
Per month is 3240 euro per person. No tax. This is on average their income
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.
 
If you want to stop chain immigration, it’s much simpler to outlaw automatic sponsorship for family members. It doesn’t even need a constitutional amendment. Just require each intending immigrant to qualify on his own merit.
People who complain about chain immigrations often haven't looked at how long it now takes. Sponsoring a spouse or parents takes about two years, a child (below 18) longer, siblings take decades.

So in practice it's already heavily curtailed - the rhetoric by politicians does not really match reality.

And yeah jus soli citizenship is quite common in the Western hemisphere, it's not a US only thing. Some people in the Americas are often surprised it's not standard elsewhere, while many Europeans and Asians conversely assume it's a US only thing.
 
People who complain about chain immigrations often haven't looked at how long it now takes. Sponsoring a spouse or parents takes about two years, a child (below 18) longer, siblings take decades.

So in practice it's already heavily curtailed - the rhetoric by politicians does not really match reality.

And yeah jus soli citizenship is quite common in the Western hemisphere, it's not a US only thing. Some people in the Americas are often surprised it's not standard elsewhere, while many Europeans and Asians conversely assume it's a US only thing.
I think the complaint is about anchor babies. Chain immigration is expected.
 
I think the complaint is about anchor babies. Chain immigration is expected.
They’re derisively called “anchor babies” because they’re the anchor to the chain. Without the anchor the chain doesn’t connect.

If the problem is chain migration, then it’s already curtailed heavily, and it can be cut completely. If the problem is with the babies for having foreign parents, who are considered citizens in virtually all countries in the Americas, then it’s xenophobia. People born in USA have always been considered citizens except for slaves and ex slaves. The 14th amendment fixed that permanently. This issue with birthright citizenship is recent. Like, Trump recent.
 
So how is legal immigration more difficult now than before?
I think you'll find that Republicans supported the diversity measures in current immigration laws. It's been a long time since they were enacted and the Republicans weren't always so backwards.
On illegals, Democrat politicians want future voters and Republican politicians want cheap labor so nobody in Congress does anything other than lip service and the US public pays the price.
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.
 
They’re derisively called “anchor babies” because they’re the anchor to the chain. Without the anchor the chain doesn’t connect.

If the problem is chain migration, then it’s already curtailed heavily, and it can be cut completely. If the problem is with the babies for having foreign parents, who are considered citizens in virtually all countries in the Americas, then it’s xenophobia. People born in USA have always been considered citizens except for slaves and ex slaves. The 14th amendment fixed that permanently. This issue with birthright citizenship is recent. Like, Trump recent.
I take chain immigration to be an adult gaining citizenship and then sponsoring relatives. That's fine with me and I believe for most US people.
Anchor babies are a different matter. That practice circumvents our shoddy system and amounts to legalized immigration fraud.
The problem is with illegal immigration and those who enable it.
 
I take chain immigration to be an adult gaining citizenship and then sponsoring relatives. That's fine with me and I believe for most US people.
Anchor babies are a different matter. That practice circumvents our shoddy system and amounts to legalized immigration fraud.
The problem is with illegal immigration and those who enable it.
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.
 
As governments tighten their immigration procedure, undocumented immigration becomes harder, especially for people from origin countries not sharing a border with the destination countries. It’s true that there aren’t a lot of undocumented Indonesians in USA and Europe, but the number is not negligible. I think they’re in the tens of thousands. It’s enough to confirm the behavioral change.

I really don’t think most Indonesian undocumented immigrants in USA are former students. People who can afford to enroll into outrageously expensive American universities, even for a semester, very rarely stay to be a manual laborer in America. Instead of waiting tables in America, they can go home and be a manager in Indonesia. Of all the people I know, only one was a former student. Most of the people overstaying their visa are tourists or ship crews.


In America that’s true, not because they don’t ask for it, but because they generally don’t qualify for it. Any benefit they get is usually linked to their American-born children, who are American citizens by law. America is a lot more stingy in benefits than Europe, to the point where legal immigrants (green card holders) aren’t eligible for most federal benefits they paid taxes into, until 5 years after they gained the status.


What’s so tough about immigration policy is that both extremes are wrong. A xenophobic closed border doesn’t work, and an open border doesn’t work either. It’s a nuanced topic, and popular politics aren’t great with nuances.

The sin of this bogus asylum seekers is being born in the wrong country. Everybody in the world wants to give his kids a better future. If you eke a living in a third world country day by day, not knowing whether you’re gonna eat next week or tomorrow, you’d jump at the opportunity to move into America or Europe too. I would.

On the flip side America and Europe can’t just accept everybody who applies for asylum. They can’t afford it.

All I’m saying is that I don’t buy into this “lazy immigrants” narrative, because it’s the oldest stereotype in the book. The reality is never that simple.

By the way, a lot (if not the majority) of undocumented Indonesian immigrants get legalized through asylum. I’m fairly certain that the majority of cases are bogus. They invent stories of persecution in Indonesia to shore up their case, and I’m not fully comfortable with that. Still, they gotta do what they gotta do.
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.

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


Capture123.JPG
 
Last edited:
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.
There's nothing in my post to in indicate that. Anchor babies are US citizens. They grow up.
 
There's nothing in my post to in indicate that. Anchor babies are US citizens. They grow up.
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.
 

Follow Us

Latest Expat Indo Articles

Latest Tweets by Expat Indo

Latest Activity

New posts Latest threads

Online Now

Newest Members

Forum Statistics

Threads
6,676
Messages
112,891
Members
3,976
Latest member
Gregbodoh007
Back
Top Bottom