California site for 'maternity tourists' shut down

[Viva_La_Revolution]

Source: AP

SAN GABRIEL, Calif. (AP) — For months, neighbors noticed a number of pregnant Asian women coming and going at all hours at an upscale townhouse development in suburban Los Angeles.

They finally found out the home was being used as a maternity center for Chinese mothers paying thousands of dollars to give birth in the United States so their children would automatically gain citizenship, city officials said.

The discovery of the center where women stayed before and after delivering their babies at local hospitals was unusual and a possible sign that birthright citizenship is being exploited as a lucrative business, an immigration activist said.



Read more: http://hosted2.ap.org/apdefault/c9d240e3e96e4b9a8bfb27e9b3a7063c/Article_2011-03-24-Maternity%20Tourists/id-a4cd183baca54c99aa9ffa2715ab5598

[Rage for Order]

1. Impossible! I was told by people right here on DU that this type of thing does not happen!

This story is obviously bullshit.

[hayu_lol]

4. This has gone on for ALL ethnic groups for a very long time...

sometimes religiously sponsored and sometimes not. The trickle has turned into a raging current in our times now however.

Helped make us a great nation over the years.

[marybourg]

8. Only for the relatively few members of "all" ethnic groups who

can afford to spend several weeks away from home and family in a foreign and very expensive country and pay for maternity care without insurance.

[lbrtbell]

9. That's not why these people give birth over here

The article (purposely?) fails to mention the real "advantage" of giving birth in the USA. They want American citizenship for their kids, so that the children won't have to perform the mandatory military service in their countries. They have no intentions of living here or contributing to the United States.

South Korean people do this a LOT, and it's really unfair...just because they have the money, they can have babies here and get their kids out of military service.

Sort of like Dick Cheney, minus the snarling. :rofl:

[jberryhill]

10. You need to learn a few things about math and statistics

Something that happens at a .00001 incidence doesn't happen.

What is your best estimate of:

1. The number of births in the US last year, and

2. The number of births that occur under these circumstances.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. indeed

[Dokkie]

11. you must be thinking about

anchor babies. Another mythological creature we all know doesn't exist "wink"

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Explain to me how this 'anchor baby' thing works.

I'm all ears.

[Dokkie]

15. you must be kidding right?

I know you are being facetious but if you really want to know, just reply back and I will explain. I am 1st generation immigrant and I know a lot about it :)

[Warren Stupidity]

20. yes please explain exactly how an anchor baby works

[sudopod]

13. It's completely legal.

Problem? :3

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. it's not a question of whether or not it exists, if it happens once it exists

its whether its existence is significant, esp when creating laws and policies.

as someone said up thread, a lesson in stats is very useful when discussing social science issues.

[Taverner]

68. Exactly nt

[LanternWaste]

21. I see a difference between a norm and an aberration....

I see a difference between a norm and an aberration. Many people do and will allow that qualifier to be implied.

Whether one is bright enough to make the inference is a much different story I imagine...

[Kali]

2. "an immigration activist "

sounds like bullshit propaganda - anchor babies! oh noes!!!11!

[Lasher]

3. There will be no horde to defend the practice because they are Asians.

[WatsonT]

16. Yeah to get away with this they need to go for broke

a few illegals from a population will get them condemned, but millions will get excuses made for them.

[No Elephants]

49. Odd. The only "condemning" type posts I see on this thread are by those who usually condemn on

threads about immigration.

[Holly_Hobby]

5. I know nothing about immigration, why is it so difficult to become

a US citizen? Is it the cost? Or? Thanks

[bertman]

6. I don't think it's the difficulty of becoming a citizen that is the problem.

It's the difficulty of being a citizen who has a job, can afford a home, food, healthcare, and the other luxuries of life.

[pnwmom]

7. There are so many millions who would choose to -- more than

we could easily handle if they all came. So we strict the numbers who are legally allowed in each year.

[truedelphi]

12. Many people do not understand the sheer numbers of what we are up against

There are now 1.1 billion people living south of the border.

When you live in an area where thousands of people show up each week of the year, and freely move in, and strive to become permanent, you start to, over the years, realize certain things.

One) As long as there is a totally open border, with no one wanting anyone sent back to the area of the world they came from, the labor pool in the area where the immigrants move begins to fall behind other areas of the nation in terms of salary rate. For years in the SF Bay area, the rate paid to fast food workers was minimum wage, while in Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago (and many other cities), college kids could make ten bucks an hour plus beneifts. In any city where fast food places paid well, immigration rate was about five percent.

Two) Although the labor pool has a harder and harder time keeping their income as high as it was, the prices of food and of rent soar. The good old economic law of supply and demand rears its head, and the result is not pretty.

Three) Those who were born in the US become more and more at a disadvantage. Want ads demonstrate this. You pick up the newspaper and you read "Bilingual applicants welcomed." The people who have a harder time at things are people who are not prepared for the transition. People who have a Master's degree in education are not hired to teach, because Affirmative Action demands that the person who is hired as a non-white skin. Standards slip so that it is necessary for people to sue the school district in order to have their children taught in English.

Four) Age-ism is okay and is freely practiced. You won't see older people working in places where the immigration rate is sky high. Why have someone who might occasionally need a sick day, when there is an abundant supply of people who are young and strong? And should those in that group of the young and the strong miss a day of work, they are fired too. It is an employers' market, not a workers' market. So the competetive spirit is alive and well, jsut to retain a job that pays minimum wages!

In addition to the one point one billion people living south of the border, California hosts people from Pacific Rim countries, from Africa, from China. And on and on.

No other nation on earth takes in as many immigrants as the USA. Canada for instance, requires people applying for citizenship to hold a high school degree, have ample money to live on, and to speak English (with bonus points if you speak French,) while applying for citizenship and permanatent residency.

[WatsonT]

17. +1

Absolutely true. But you will be called a racist.

[Kali]

22. if it walks like a duck

or talks like a racist...

[pampango]

24. I suspect the label "nativist" is more likely than "racist" since I assume the poster fears all

immigrants, not just brown ones. Got to protect "us" (Americans) from "them" (foreigners), you know.

[WatsonT]

26. Immigrants =! illegal immigrants

Surely you can recognize this fact.

[pampango]

27. How do you know the poster was referring to illegal immigrants? Plenty of people want to reduce

or eliminate legal immigration as well. How do know the poster didn't want to reduce all immigration?

Besides, there are plenty of white "illegal immigrants" as well, mostly people who have stayed here after their legitimate visas expired. I assume the poster would fear those "illegal immigrants" as much as the brown ones, hence "nativist" would be more accurate than "racist", if either were applied.

[WatsonT]

28. This article was about illegal immigration

He or she was responding to that article. It's logical to assume he/she was referencing illegals. I could be mistaken here but that's the impression I got.

"Besides, there are plenty of white "illegal immigrants" as well, mostly people who have stayed here after their legitimate visas expired."

Indeed. And if anyone were to say it's ok for whites to come here illegally but not browns they'd be a racist.

Whether we acknowledge it or not illegal immigration is a major problem that needs to be addressed.

[pampango]

31. "illegal immigration is a major problem that needs to be addressed" - We agree.

Of course, most people agree with that. The disagreement comes with "how" we address it.

[WatsonT]

37. I meant addressed by reducing the numbers here illegally and get control of our borders

not by granting them all blanket amnesty.

And judging by policy decisions over the last 50 years or so I would have to disagree that most people really want to address this issue.

[Lasher]

42. No, the article is not about illegal immigration.

It is about foreign nationals gaming our benevolent birthright citizenship laws.

[WatsonT]

43. The people were here illegally

[iverglas]

47. ignorance on display

What is your basis for that assertion?

The word "tourists" in that article -- not normally associated with "here illegally".

Women from other countries have long traveled to the U.S. legally on tourist or student visas and given birth because U.S. law automatically entitles children born on U.S. soil to citizenship.

While some stay under the false assumption that they too can gain citizenship if their child is U.S.-born, many return to their home countries convinced a U.S. birth certificate will afford their child more opportunities in the future.

I again urge you to consult a dictionary and read up on "prejudice".

The root meaning is "pre-judgment". Judgment passed without first establishing a basis for it. You seem to be skilled in the art.

[No Elephants]

51. Nope. Here legally.

"Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not plan to investigate because the case did not involve fraudulently obtained visas, agency spokeswoman Virginia Kice said."

[No Elephants]

48. "This article was about illegal immigration" Article said at least twice all was legal.

The preganant women were not immigrants of any kind; and being born in the U.S. while mom is here as a tourist with a legally obtained visa is neither immigrating nor breaking any U.S. law.


"It's logical to assume he/she was referencing illegals."

As I mentioned to you on another thread, you should really stop using "illegals." It a right wing misuse of an adjective as a noun for the purpose of stigmatizing and dehumanizing. A person can certainly be an undocumented alien or immigrant, but not "an illegal."

And, no, it's not simply about not complying with immigration law. We don't even refer to a murderer as "an illegal."

[truedelphi]

34. One of the many other nations that

does not allow for immigration for those south of its border is Mexico.

So are Mexicans "racist" on account of the provisions their nation holds for people from Guatemala?

Anyway thank you for your support. Like you say, it is not an easy thing to say (out loud, anyway.)

[christx30]

59. And if we had

the immigration laws that Mexico does, that country would have a fit.
Are they racist for having those laws?

[pampango]

23. Canada does take in t 2.5 times more immigrants than the US on a per capita basis.

They understand that immigrants are a net plus to society. Are there downsides to that many immigrants? Sure, but the upside is greater which is why a progressive country like Canada continues to welcome large numbers of immigrants while a more dog-eat-dog society like ours looks at immigrants with suspicion.

Canada does have high standards. Their system is more employment-based; ours more family-reunification based. They let in more professional and highly educated immigrants (doctors, scientists, engineers, programmers, etc.). The US could shift towards that if we wanted, but you might then get complaints from our doctors, scientists, engineers and programmers that these immigrant professionals were making life hard for Americans.

[WatsonT]

25. Can't really compare the two

the primary immigrants going to Canada are professionals, as you say. Those are undoubtedly a net benefit to society.

Whereas here it is primarily manual labor. A boon for a growing early 19th century industrial economy, but not so beneficial in our current economic climate.

If we were to implement policies as restrictive as Canada's we'd be condemned for only wanting the rich to move here.

Additionally illegal and legal immigration are very different beasts.

[ieoeja]

29. You keep saying which ignores the real argument: what should be legal?

Given that the people you are arguing against want to make it legal for people to immigrate here more easily, your "illegal is not legal" argument is a complete waste of time.

[pampango]

30. And if research showed that our immigrants are "a net benefit to society", would that change your

mind? Or would any study that showed that have to be flawed?

Surely you know that immigrants were resented by "real Americans" in the 19th century to the same extent (or more) than you see expressed here. They were looked at as competing for jobs, lowering wages, and being different with funny languages. We only look fondly on immigrants as a "boon" to the economy when they are a generation or two or more in the past. Few people do, or ever did, consider immigrants a "boon" in real time.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KH9FsPjy9V4/TAFwN3kmC5I/AAAAAAAAAGw/OUSTCfOpnc0/s1600/no+irish+need+apply.gif

[WatsonT]

38. You keep missing a key word here

and you do it often enough that I think it's intentional.

Say it with me now: I-L-L-E-G-A-L.

Until you are willing to acknowledge that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration I don't think we can move on with the discussion.

[iverglas]

36. please

the primary immigrants going to Canada are professionals, as you say. ... If we were to implement policies as restrictive as Canada's we'd be condemned for only wanting the rich to move here.

Offer SOMETHING to back up your insulting ethnocentric nonsense.

(I refer to your obvious ignorance of Canada and your interest in Canada only as Canada might be useful for scoring points regarding US domestic poicy, which interest obviously doesn't extend to getting your facts straight.)

[iverglas]

35. I still would like comparative statistics

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/annual-report2009/section2.asp#part2_1

See Table 2: New Permanent Residents in 2008, by Immigration Category (Canada)

It won't copy well here, but I'll give it a try.

Note that not all "skilled workers" are "professionals".


ECONOMIC CLASS
Federal Skilled Workers 76,964
Quebec-Selected Skilled Workers 26,772
Business Immigrants 12,407
Provincial and Territorial Nominees 22,418
Live-in Caregivers 10,511
Canadian Experience Class –
Total Economic Class (including Dependants) -- 149,072

FAMILY CLASS
Spouses, Partners, Children and Others 48,970
Parents and Grandparents 16,597
Total Family Class -- 65,567

PROTECTED PERSONS
Government-Assisted Refugees 7,295
Privately Sponsored Refugees 3,512
Protected Persons in Canada 6,994
Dependants Abroad 4,059
Total Protected Persons -- 21,860

OTHERS
Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds / Public Policy 10,627
(these will mainly be family members sponsored within Canada)
Permit Holders 115
Total Others -- 10,742

Category Not Stated – 2

TOTAL 247,243


So we're looking at (rounded)

140,000 skilled/business immigrants
10,000 live-in caregivers (eligible to apply for residence later)
65,000 family class
10,000 H&C (mainly family)
22,000 refugee and similar


And the U.S. comparables are?


Oh, and in 2008:
- 5,000+ of 61,000+ principal applicants in the economic immigrant class spoke neither English nor French
- 32,000 of their 88,000 dependants -- ditto
- 22,000 of 56,000 family class members -- ditto
- about half of the protected persons class -- ditto


By the way, we may all have heard of Europe, and maybe even the fact that they have immigrants there too ...

[WatsonT]

39. Would you say those numbers are for legal immigrants

or illegal immigrants?

[iverglas]

45. would you have a reason for that question

when I am the one who specifically said that you were the one confounding the two in the case of the US?

[WatsonT]

50. So there is a significant difference

between the immigration issues faced by the US and Canada?

[iverglas]

56. there is indeed

So I'll ask you in simple words: why are you the one dragging (your complete misrepresentation of) Canadian immigration policy into a discussion of US immigration policy?

[WatsonT]

64. You brought up Canada

and it's immigration policies.

[iverglas]

65. you need to improve your short-term memory

Check the post I first replied to, and who first brought up Canada.

I said I wasn't stupid. You really should believe me.

(Forgive me that it wasn't you who wrote the post I first replied to; you just decided to jump into this particular bit of the discussion. The person I first replied to hasn't bothered to defend their post.)

[truedelphi]

44. When you can show me a province in Canada wherein five out of every ten

Babies born isnside that province are the babies of non documented people, when you can show me that there is a province in Canada where gangs are pushing middle class kids into private schools that their parents cannot afford, when you can show me a hospital in Canada where the directions to the hospital cafeteria are printed in Vietnamese, Spanish, Tagolog, Chinese, Korean, and several other languages but NOT ENGLISH, when you can explain to me why I had to sue the County of Marin to recieve AFDC befcause my hispanic case worker felt it was within her purview to decide that I was not seriously ill (despite a ream of documents from a phsyician to the contrary) and she decided I could look for work, and not get benefits while the case worker across the aisle from me was granting AFDC to her cousin who had been in the USA for exactly five days, when you can explain why a black disabled man had to sue the Chinese run school district in Oakland Calif on account of the fact that his English speaking son could not do well in classes that were being taught in Oakland school system in Chinese, when all these things are within your purview to sort out, then we can have a discussion.

Also I very much need to point out that the stats on the immigration matter as collated inside the USA are very misleading. I doubt that at the height of the last immigration wave into the USA, that even half of the newly arrived were counted as being here.

[iverglas]

46. quite the rhetorical flight there

When you can show me a province in Canada wherein five out of every ten
Babies born isnside that province are the babies of non documented people

Which US state now?

when you can show me that there is a province in Canada where gangs are pushing middle class kids into private schools that their parents cannot afford

Ah. Gangs = illegal immigrants.

We have gangs here in Canada. Surprise.

We don't have much in the way of private schools, largely because we fund our public schools appropriately. (Your history of private schools in the US goes waaay back before gangs illegal immigrants, and has various roots.)

when you can show me a hospital in Canada where the directions to the hospital cafeteria are printed in Vietnamese, Spanish, Tagolog, Chinese, Korean, and several other languages but NOT ENGLISH

You really don't know anything about Canada, do you? Did you know that several years ago Toronto ranked behind only Miami for the largest percentage of foreign-born population? And not many in Toronto are from Cuba.

Come visit my community health clinic some day. Multiple languages, spoken by staff, used in published materials, etc. (And publicly funded.) Yes, I do occasionally get perturbed when a staff member doesn't communicate effectively with me because of imperfect English. I'd also be perturbed if my neighbours couldn't get health care for their kids because no one spoke their language. (If it weren't for my neighbours, who would work in the kitchens of the Chinese and Indian and Vietnamese and Somali restaurants that make people like me choose this neighbourhood?) Health care is fundamental, and health care in one's own language is part of that.

You might be interested in the battles the French-speaking population outside of Quebec has waged in recent decades to get control of their own educational and health care institutions, for precisely these reasons.

And I'll believe that about NOT ENGLISH when I see it ...

when you can explain to me why I had to sue the County of Marin to recieve AFDC befcause my hispanic case worker felt it was within her purview to decide that I was not seriously ill (despite a ream of documents from a phsyician to the contrary) and she decided I could look for work, and not get benefits while the case worker across the aisle from me was granting AFDC to her cousin who had been in the USA for exactly five days

Ah yes. And have we looked up "prejudice" in a dictionary lately?

You might find it instructive.

when you can explain why a black disabled man had to sue the Chinese run school district in Oakland Calif on account of the fact that his English speaking son could not do well in classes that were being taught in Oakland school system in Chinese, when all these things are within your purview to sort out, then we can have a discussion.

Well, maybe so, if you can first give me some sort of reference for that tale.


I have never claimed that the immigration situation in Canada and the US is comparable. In fact, I have repeatedly said in posts on this site that it is not.

If the British had genuinely subjugated the French population after 1789 -- instead of allowing that population to retain its language, culture and legal system, as it did, for the first time in the history of conquered peoples -- and if French North America had not subsequently become an integral part of what became Canada, and had instead remained apart and continued in its agrarian, anti-modern, priest-ridden ways, ignored by the European mother country that could no longer afford it ... well, then, we might have a situation similar to the US-Mexico situation.

One reaps what one sows. We chose partnership up here.


In any event.

You may notice that I made no attempt to tell you what to do in any respect, nor did I even evince a desire to discuss anything with you.

I suggested that you stop using false portrayals of Canada and Canadian policy to bolster your position on US domestic policy.

I'll suggest that again.

[Kali]

52. I've heard this exact same shit

out of every single racist, redneck, bigot I have ever talked to (and I live in rural, southern AZ so I have plenty of experience). Personal anecdotes of reverse racism from some victimized, put-upon Anglo (yes I am presuming - based on all your non-white examples).

TRY to understand that there is another group of powerful, wealthy assholes that are sitting back toasting your bigotry. You are the classic "divided and conquered" member of the lower classes.

[truedelphi]

53. Hmm, What would Martin Luther King Jr say?

I really don't think he would agree with you. I simply cannot imagine him saying that discrimination by people of one ethnic background against people of another ethnic background is okay, as long as those dong the discriminating are not white.

Here is how he might see it:

If a person is part of the systemizing of overall discriminating policies, the skin color doesn't matter. it doesn't matter if you are white, or yellow or black or red.

In other words, the Chinese teachers in Oakland, who were agreeing amongst themselves not to speak English at all inside the Classroom, they' re just as bigoted, and just as racist as any of the white power brokers.


Injustice doesn't wear a skin color. It goes back to the Golden Rule of "Doing Onto others As You Would Want Them To Do TO You." on edit: When the Golden Rule is forgotten, the skin color of those who are not following it, should not be considered part of the mix.

[Kali]

55. ...

:rofl:


pitiful when racists try to use MLK to justify their racism

[iverglas]

33. I get tired of this

"No other nation on earth takes in as many immigrants as the USA. Canada for instance, requires people applying for citizenship to hold a high school degree, have ample money to live on, and to speak English (with bonus points if you speak French,) while applying for citizenship and permanatent residency."

Find yourself some of those stats.

Relative to population (i.e. to the various infrastructures - physical, economic and social - required by that population), Canada admits far more immigrants than the US each year.

Your immigration system has essentially the same requirements as ours for permanent residence. Oh, except we don't have a quota system based on national origin; do you still?

You fail to distinguish between immigration in accordance with the applicable rules and migration outside those rules: comparing Canada and the U.S. based on Canada's requirements and figures for the former and the U.S.'s situation for both combined is a case of disingenuous apples and oranges.

U.S. immigration law actually doesn't provide for the admission of any illiterate, impoverished non-speaker of the national language any more than Canadian immigration law does.

If you have an argument to make, is there a reason you can't make it without misrepresenting?

[WatsonT]

40. We tacitly accept hundreds of thousands of unskilled

illiterate or semi-literate immigrants every year. They come here illegally but as we do little to enforce the borders were are basically welcoming them in.

In that regard there is no comparing the US to Canada.

Our legal immigration policies may be similar but just due to simple Geography our actual immigration statistics are far different. You share a border with the US, a firs world nation. We share one with Mexico, a third world nation that is rapidly collapsing in to anarchy.

To think that our situations regarding immigration will be at all similar is absurd.

[Lasher]

54. The US accepts more new legal permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.

The Immigration and Naturalization Services Act of 1965 abolished national-origin quotas fixed in the 1920s and opened the nation's shores to new immigrants. Today, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than the rest of the world combined.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/17/content_5215770.htm

Canada had between 240,000 and 265,000 new legal permanent residents in 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration#Canada

The US had 1,130,818 new legal permanent residents in 2009.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2009.pdf

[iverglas]

57. your point?

Perhaps you were talking to someone else, and not the person (me) who said (in the post you have replied to) -- here, let me help you out --

Relative to population (i.e. to the various infrastructures - physical, economic and social - required by that population), Canada admits far more immigrants than the US each year.

?

Canada has, as a fairly close rough figure, 1/9 the population of the US.

Let's say 250,000 permanent residents admitted to Canada in 2010, vs. 1,130,000 to the US.

That's 1/4.5.

Canada admitted TWICE AS MANY permanent residents -- relative to population -- as the US did.

There are all kinds of factors in play here. The figures themselves say nothing. What they do say is that claims that US immigration policy is great and generous when compared to Canada are bullshit. And that was what I said.


http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp190-e.htm

Between 2001 and 2006, Canada’s population increased by 5.4%. This growth, which was greater than that of any other member of the G8, was mainly due to immigration.

Evidently, Canada has the highest immigration RATE in the world.

The US has the third largest population of any country in the world (behind China and India). Small wonder that it has the highest absolute number of immigrants. Do I look stupid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration (citations omitted)

The EU, in 2005, had an overall net gain from international migration of +1.8 million people. This accounts for almost 85% of Europe's total population growth in 2005. In 2004, total 140,033 people immigrated to France. Of them, 90,250 were from Africa and 13,710 from Europe. In 2005, immigration fell slightly to 135,890.

France has a total population of about 62 million.

1.8 million, population 501 million, is a rate of .003593814 for the EU.
1.13 million, population 308 million, is a rate of .003668831 for the US.
Hurray! You win! by .000076017 ... slightly out, of course, because of rounding of all figures used.


The European Union has a population of 501 million in about 4.4 million square kilometres.
The United States has a population of about 308 million in about 9.8 million square kilometres.
Less than 2/3 the population in just about exactly twice the land area.

Why not compare yourself to someone your own size?
(Remembering, while we're there, that most of Canada's land mass is uninhabitable.)


Your claim that national-origin quotas were abolished decades ago in the US contradicts my personal experience. As an immigration and refugee lawyer in Canada, I once had clients who were Canadian citizens and parents of a US citizen and waiting for their visas as sponsored family members. I spoke with a US Embassy representative about therir case, to enquire about what seemed to me to be an exceedingly long wait. I was informed that they were being processed within the quota for Philippine nationals. I pointed out that my clients were Canadian citizens. I was informed that this was irrelevant; for the purposes of the quota, they were Filipino.

The 1980s, this was ... and since then there have been how many green card lotteries because they US has not filled its QUOTAS for immigrants from particular (white, European, mainly) countries? Perhaps things have changed ... slightly ... (forgive my secondary source, but I don't have all day, and I'll take it over whatever you were referencing on a Chinese news agency site):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_residence_%28United_States%29 (emphasis added, citations omitted)

Immigrant Visa Availability – in the second step, unless the applicant is an "immediate relative", an immigrant visa number through the National Visa Center (NVC) of the United States Department of State (DOS) must be available. A visa number might not be immediately available even if the USCIS approves the petition, because the amount of immigrant visa numbers is limited every year by quotas set in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). There are also certain additional limitations by country of birth. Thus, most immigrants will be placed on lengthy waiting lists. Those immigrants who are immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen (spouses and children under 21 years of age, and parents of a US citizen who is 21 years of age or older) are not subject to these quotas and may proceed to the next step immediately (since they qualify for the IR immigrant category).

[Lasher]

60. My point is, the US has a very generous immigration policy.

OK let's review:

truedelphi: No other nation on earth takes in as many immigrants as the USA.

You: I get tired of this...Find yourself some of those stats. Relative to population (i.e. to the various infrastructures - physical, economic and social - required by that population), Canada admits far more immigrants than the US each year.

Lest we reach a fallacious conclusion that Canada's immigration policy is benevolent while that of the US is not, I offered just what you asked for - some of those facts:

Me:The Immigration and Naturalization Services Act of 1965 abolished national-origin quotas fixed in the 1920s and opened the nation's shores to new immigrants. Today, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than the rest of the world combined.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/17/content_5215770.htm

Since you objected to my source, here is a link to a Wikipedia article that says pretty much the same thing, citing the same Chinese news agency article that you questioned. If you think Wikipedia is a questionable source, then I’ll expect you to explain why you just linked to it twice.

You: Your claim that national-origin quotas were abolished decades ago in the US contradicts my personal experience.

I didn’t say national-origin quotas were abolished. The ones fixed in the 1920s were abolished. The US has national-origin quotas today to promote diversity.

You: Why not compare yourself to someone your own size? (Remembering, while we're there, that most of Canada's land mass is uninhabitable.)

I compared the US to the rest of the entire world. I can’t broaden my scope beyond that. You are being inconsistent with this complaint, in a thread about US immigration where you have mentioned ‘Canada’ or ‘Canadian’ a total of 35 times. And if you don’t want the US compared to Canada based on land mass (because you know the two countries are about equal in this respect), you shouldn’t have compared the US to European countries based on the very same thing.

You (to truedelphi): You fail to distinguish between immigration in accordance with the applicable rules and migration outside those rules: comparing Canada and the U.S. based on Canada's requirements and figures for the former and the U.S.'s situation for both combined is a case of disingenuous apples and oranges.

A legitimate point. Now that we have established the numbers of new legal permanent residents per year (apples), let’s discuss those oranges.

The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

1,330,000 unauthorized immigrants entered the US during 2004 and 2005, an annual rate of 665,000 per year.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ill_pe_2006.pdf

There is no credible information available on illegal immigration in Canada. Estimates of illegal immigrants range between 35,000 and 120,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada#Illegal_immigration_in_Canada

If the Canadian entry rate is the same as that in the US (about 1/20th of the resident population), that would mean a maximum of 6,000 unauthorized immigrants enter Canada each year.

[truedelphi]

61. I have decided that for the next six months or so I will not discuss this issue on

DU.

It falls right in with the other two issues that I no longer discuss on DU.

That means there are now three issues I will not discuss because most of those who are in the same camp I am in on the other two issues have been TS'ed.

I like many things about DU and don't wish to lose my ability to post here.

[iverglas]

63. truedelphi speaks!

... and say nothing.

[iverglas]

62. yeah, let's review

You're playing disingenuous games, I won't play, so you win!

Quite the distinction.

Just so we all do remember who dragged Canada into this, here is truedelphi's statement that I first replied to; if you don't want me discussing Canadian immigration policy, have a word with that person:


No other nation on earth takes in as many immigrants as the USA. Canada for instance, requires people applying for citizenship to hold a high school degree, have ample money to live on, and to speak English (with bonus points if you speak French,) while applying for citizenship and permanatent residency.

(a) disingenuous
(b) false

[Lasher]

66. OK I have a simple question for you.

Do you think the following statement is true of false?

No other nation on earth takes in as many immigrants as the USA.

[iverglas]

67. You have a simple something all right.

[Tansy_Gold]

41. Re your claims regarding age-ism

Obviously you've never been in some of the lower-income areas of Arizona. We have very high immigration, much of it undocumented from Mexico and other points south, and we also have a lot of older workers who are struggling to supplement inadequate social security, diminished pensions, higher medical costs, etc.

You might want to rethink some of your points.



TG in AJ

[davidinalameda]

32. if they're mainland Chinese

this may be a way to get around the one child policy

no matter what it is, people are going to find ways to bend the law to their benefit

[DeadEyeDyck]

58. While I was dating a girl that worked in a dress botique,

the owner (a philippino lady) approached me and asked if I would be interested in marrying a Philipino girl for $1000. Being thoroughly confused, she explain that if I agreed to marry a girl, she would qualify for a special visa and could come to the US. I would have to remain married for so may months and then we could divorce and I could do it again!!

I told my Mom and she freaked. She wanted me to break-up with my girlfriend (LOL). So I am not that shocked by this story.