I understand the argument you're making. From the perspective of the United States, they don't need to care unless it adversely affects the United States. As such, the US can make whatever immigration it wants and it writes its own destiny and people can take it or leave it much like many offerings we see in life from companies, other people, etc. If a company is putting onerous conditions on its product, we'll switch. If a government is being a jerk about immigration, they'll lose out on great people.
However, I think a difference is that with a product or service, we generally all start from the same place. One day you don't have a cell phone, then you evaluate different services and choose one. Great. With citizenship, most are born with one. I'm lucky enough to be born with three and entitled to a fourth. Am I a better person than you? Why should I get out of this nonsense? (I know this isn't a great metaphor, but hopefully it makes some sense).
Now, these states have determined that I'm a member. However, I didn't really do much to merit membership. I just lucked into it. Basically, on this planet, I have more rights than most people - and that doesn't seem right to me. If I want T-Mobile service, I generally have the same rights as everyone else. Maybe there are discounts for people with certain employers, but it's more equal than unequal. With citizenship, I get a step ahead. While one can argue the merits of citizenship, I think a bit of respect in the process is warranted given that millions are allowed in by no merit of their own.
In this case, US policy is denying someone respect/dignity in accessing something they want: a job, a location, etc. Ok, so you can avoid that by giving something up (the job, location, etc.). What if the US decided that your state was "harbouring terrorists"? Well, you could give up that place as well and avoid the perils of living in a place being invaded/liberated. There is a slight distinction between something you already have and something you want to gain, but when you have a green card, it's kind of something you already have.
I guess my point is that libertarian ideals work great when there's lots of competition, a lack of strong power dynamics, and clear metrics. Here we see a situation with minimal competition (few "elite" economies), a clear disparity in the balance of power, and the cause and effect between treatment of individuals like you and macroeconomic policy is murky at best.
In this case, I think it's fair to call out the problem. Maybe American people don't know that they're losing out on awesome people like you. They should know that. People should know that you would be a great person to have and that US policy is making it so that you won't even consider the US. People (including leaders) can be oblivious to problems. Shining a light on problems like this can lead to change.
From a pragmatic point of view, there's the world-as-it-is and we need to choose between our options as you did. However, I think it's also important to try making things better. Should we not complain when Gmail makes a change we dislike? Google doesn't owe us anything and there are alternatives, but we care about it and want it to be better. We care about Google. We care about our friends who also use the service. Google is important and so it's natural to care about it and for Google to be the best it can be. Similarly, many of us care about the US. It's important; its policies affect hundreds of millions around the world (if not billions); many of us are American or are friends with Americans. I think it's natural to want the US to be better. It's nice when things can just take care of themselves, but sometimes that isn't the case.
If you feel like levelling the playing field a bit with respect to your accidents of birth then I'm quite sure that those countries would be happy to strike you from their registers if you asked nicely.
On the other hand, since you were given this for free and it wasn't your fault you might as well enjoy the privilege. Personally I think all immigration controls should be abolished. The world will be hell for about a decade, after that we'll all be much better off. Good luck finding a politician that will sign off on that.
I've have thought about these lines before. Free movement of people is the final freedom. First they freed up the movement of goods (once upon a time you couldn't just order a product freely from another country). Then they freed up the movement of capital (likewise once upon a time you couldn't freely invest your money in a foreign country). If they freed the movement of people then you'd have a sort of anarchistic democracy. People would vote against war by leaving (most do already, but just end up in refugee camps on the borders), vote against poor economic policy by leaving, and vote for free enterprise by emigrating.
But over time I've come to see that these are the reasons this final freedom WONT be allowed any time soon. There is great power and profit in the hands of the state when you restrict the free movement of people. For instance, do you think Assad would be all for an open border around Syria at this point in time? Would that strengthen or weaken his power base? Likewise for all countries. Opening movement across borders is good for all free citizens of the world. But very bad for politicians and their cronies.
On top of this politicians in democracies have at their disposal an amazing vote winning tactic. They can at any time exploit the in-group/out-group evolutionary bias, invoke a terrible, external threat, and most of the fearful masses will fall for it and vote for them and their get-tough-on-the-immigrants platform. And so, although I share your vision of a more free world, it just isn't going to happen any time soon.
I completely agree with you. That's exactly what would happen, people would vote with their feet against dictators and abuse.
Borders are either to stop people from leaving or to stop people from arriving. In the first case it is dictators creating a captive audience they can fleece and manipulate. In the second it's the haves that desperately want to avoid being confronted with haves-not.
Take away the borders and you'll reach a natural state of equilibrium in a very short time. A lot of holy apple-carts will be upset by such a move.
How we could make it so that there could be the free movement of people? What would we need to do?
In my own personal experience I've crossed the US-Canada border many times, and I remember several times when the wait at the border was hours long. On top of that, I'm very frustrated with the immigration process to get into the US; it's something I think a lot about and I don't think this is for the better for anyone.
How could we make the free movement of people happen?
I'm going to think about this today and see what I come up with.
I'm somewhat of the feeling of the second paragraph. However, in some ways it is happening in the EU. As the EU enlarges, it generally creates a larger area of free travel/work/residence. Heck, if the US and Canada opened up immigration 100%, there wouldn't be hell because the countries are pretty similar. Some might prefer Canada or the US, but it would likely be generally equivalent. In those cases, I guess I don't see the reason why controls are still strict. I think that's what the EU mitigates: as it expands to include countries as they attain a close enough level of development and other goals, movement/work/residence freedom doesn't mean mass chaos. If the EU, Aus, NZ, US, Can, Japan, and a few others offered open immigration between them, I don't think there would be a lot of chaos. So, it's genuinely possible to make significant progress from our current situation without the hell stage that complete abolition would involve.
Since I have the option to ask, I'm wondering if you see criticizing immigration policies as different from criticizing about anything else?
I've yet to see a border that made sense to me. It looks like there are people on the one side, and people on the other. And then there are people that would like to be on the one side or the other that are being stopped from going where they want to by people in the middle.
By what right those people in the middle are obstructing the people that want to move is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Let's just say that borders have a special place in my heart and that immigration policies by extension do as well.
I'm curious as to how much longer the Schengen space will subsist. As EU-skeptic parties rise in opinion polls again, it will not be long till all conceivable social issues are blamed on immigrants.
Several generations ago it was normal that Europeans had a major war once a generation. Every village in Germany, France, Britain has a monument in it with long lists of names of men who died. Today we can all move freely, work together, share ideas, in many cases even share the same currency, etc. That sometimes causes friction, people like to complain, and newspapers run the occasional sensationalist headline to sell copies. The reality is literally millions of EU citizens now travel in, do business with, interact with, study in, and (in the case of EU elections) even vote in each other's countries. We've come a very, very long way. It has become so normal it almost isn't mentioned any more. Does that mean everything is perfect when different cultures meet? No, of course not. But at least we're not killing each other anymore.
I hope next year when we reach the 100th anniversary of WWI (the sheer scale of the carnage is difficult for us to even fathom today) more is made of how far we've come. And if you think that this progress was all inevitable, consider as a counter example that in our lifetimes there was still ethnic cleansing happening in Europe in Yugoslavia. Peace is hard work, we should all be very thankful.
I totally agree with your view. As an european that sae the EEC become EU and (most) national currencies being replaced by the Euro, I am myself a supporter of tighter european integration and increasingly closer relations between neighboring countries. And I am sure that most of my fellow europeans will not like it if they ever have to start using their passports again just to go next door.
I believe the problem right now is that most european politicians fail to understand your last paragraph. They simply do not remember (as I do not, but I make an effort to imagine) what it was to be at war and the damage that this caused to Europe and the World in general.
When german leaders are quoted as calling southern europeans "lazy" and greek politicians evoke the Nazis as a defense thesis... you feel that something went really wrong. It's old wounds opening again and each one looking for the best way to put the blame on their neighbor.
Thank you for mentioning this. I was asked once in an interview (for a scholarship to business school) "do you think the EU is a success?" the answer of course is a resounding 'yes' for the reasons you mention. The primary goal of the EU is European peace and that is has delivered wonderfully. Politicians can fight over fiscal this and fiscal that, but so long as they fight with words not guns we can live in peace. We owe the founders of the EU a great debt of thanks.
No doubt that the EU is a success. I'm just saying that there's a (high) risk that it will degenerate if political discourse doesn't change. Words may lead to hate and hate may lead to war.
I hope human progress will keep this from happening, but these are probably the most critical times for the EU since its beginnings as ECSC.
Bah. Immigrants always have been blamed for everything bad, in Europe as everywhere else in the world - but the Schengen Accords work both ways, and Germany and France want those markets. They'll never go away.
"Some might prefer Canada or the US, but it would likely be generally equivalent. In those cases, I guess I don't see the reason why controls are still strict"
Well, are they? Border control at US/Canada seems to be more for everybody else rather than Canadians/Americans.
Most people are 'waved' through. Except for the need of a work permit, I'd say it's pretty non existent.
Depends on the side... when crossing into the US (as a Canadian) everyone in my car was taken separately into a tiny room and grilled by an agent, and our car was searched extensively. The whole process took about 3-4 hours, all of us had clean criminal records and were just passing into the US for a day to be tourists in Maine. On our way back the Canadian agent waved us through.
I've been through many airports' passport control and customs. I haven't had a major issue. With the Canadian/US border in NY. Thats another story. I've had to park to the side and go to a different area while the car got searched and they grilled me about everything I did during the weekend [US side]. The Canadian side was worried I'd steal all of their jobs during the weekend. This was all for a quick weekend trip to toronto.
I think the problem is that some (most?) people are born with a disadvantage, not that the he has some advantages. I don't see how giving anything up is going to do any good.
Things like this seem to come up often on HN. Why can't we speak out against a system while participating in it for lack of a better alternative currently?
You certainly can; that's what the OP is doing; but the parent says you shouldn't. I'm just pointing out that he's not really living by his word, contrary to what he says.
Actually, United States citizenship doesn't necessarily solve the problem. I have a dual citizenship, so I can compare entry procedures. I was always baffled when US immigration asks me questions about what work I do or where I'm headed when I'm entering the country. I couldn't see how it was any of their business.
In most (if not all) of the EU, an immigration officer being presented a native passport has exactly two choices: a) let the person in, b) get the police to arrest him on the spot. In both cases the person is under the local jurisdiction.
It seems the United States has a legal gray area around its borders, and a very black area outside of its borders (think Guantanamo). There are reported cases of people being detained or harassed. So being a US citizen doesn't let you travel worry-free either.
I also get this as US Citizen and there is nothing stopping you from entering the US except your patience. You could refuse to answer and then be detained for further interrogation. but eventually they'll have to let you go. Most people, myself included, have an event to attend or plane to catch so we answer to get it over with, quickly.
One time I was going to a wedding and I didn't know where it was because my family sent a cab to take me to the hotel. Border guard told me to go to the payphone (hadn't used one in years) and get the address. I complied then asked her what was preventing me from walking out the airport. She told me absolutely nothing. Although I imagine some information would probably be enterred in the USCIS database.
If this is indeed the case (I heard otherwise, scary stories about the legal immigration gray area, but don't have the time to hunt down relevant URLs at the moment), then why do people put up with this sort of harrassment?
I mean, the land of the free, and all that — and border guards tell you to go to a payphone to get the address of the place you're going to? This just doesn't make sense.
Like I said, timing. Most citizens clearing immigration know they have a legal right to return. They don't know how long CBP can detain them. I think the rules say a "reasonable amount of time" without actually assigning a hard value.
I'm a non-resident Australian citizen (ie, i've lived overseas in a variety of places for 15+ years). When I go to Australia I fill out the visitor card (because i'm non-resident) and use the Australian Citizen line at immigration.
The last few times i've been they essentially ignore the visitor card, (literally) say "Welcome home" and let me in within 30 seconds.
Hearing that after being away for years (for me) and arriving jetlagged after a long flight is pretty emotional. The immigration officers probably just have a game amongst themselves to see how many people they can get to burst in to happy tears.
Yes. Every time I enter the United States, I'm asked very specific questions about why I lived a year in Canada. I have never lived in Canada, but my very unique name (Michael Roberts - just try Googling me) obviously leads to considerable suspicion.
And they don't ask it like, "Oh, you lived in Canada, what was that all about." They very specifically are questioning my loyalty. Their attitude says if they were legally allowed to deny me entry, they'd love to.
I love entering my home country, NL. I hand my passport over, the agent looks at it for 5 seconds, hands it back to me with a smile and welcomes me home.
No fingerprinting, no taking pictures, no questions as to what I am doing or where I am going or how long I plan on staying, or what work I do. Nothing. A smile and a welcome home.
They ask these questions to me all the time and I'm a (non-dual) citizen. The EU and especially the UK is more intrusive about their questions. Switzerland is/was the least intrusive. China never asks me any questions, but Thailand and Japan might.
My experience in the EU is that, even for EU citizens, the UK and (a somewhat distance second) Spain can be quite intrusive. For the rest of the EU and Switzerland, they almost never ask anything.
But I definitely agree that China seems to be the "easiest" in this sense. No questions at all. :)
When I crossed over from Kazakhstan into China I got the most thorough luggage search I've ever had (never been to the US). Everything taken apart and went through; I was carrying the card game Citadels and had to struggle a little to explain what it was (my fault - I speak neither Kazakh or Russian nor Chinese, he spoke a little English). It was all very professional and courteous, and actually over quite quickly, but it was thorough, and having soldiers in uniform going through your stuff while you stand there in your pyjamas is always going to be a bit intimidating.
I've only ever had my luggage searched at customs in the states...multiple times, very thorough. I think they were looking for pirated DVDs or something.
It was only afterwards that I realised I'd been reading the hunger games on my kindle at the time (which they did get as far as turning on); pretty sure that's illegal. Oh well.
I have never been asked a single question at Swiss immigration (at Geneva airport), but its been 5 years since I lived there. It was just wait in the foreigner line for about 5 minutes, get through.
This isn't unique to the US. In the 5 years I had my green card, I received the best service from the USCIS and the worst from Canadian customs (despite being a citizen).
However, I think a difference is that with a product or service, we generally all start from the same place. One day you don't have a cell phone, then you evaluate different services and choose one. Great. With citizenship, most are born with one. I'm lucky enough to be born with three and entitled to a fourth. Am I a better person than you? Why should I get out of this nonsense? (I know this isn't a great metaphor, but hopefully it makes some sense).
Now, these states have determined that I'm a member. However, I didn't really do much to merit membership. I just lucked into it. Basically, on this planet, I have more rights than most people - and that doesn't seem right to me. If I want T-Mobile service, I generally have the same rights as everyone else. Maybe there are discounts for people with certain employers, but it's more equal than unequal. With citizenship, I get a step ahead. While one can argue the merits of citizenship, I think a bit of respect in the process is warranted given that millions are allowed in by no merit of their own.
In this case, US policy is denying someone respect/dignity in accessing something they want: a job, a location, etc. Ok, so you can avoid that by giving something up (the job, location, etc.). What if the US decided that your state was "harbouring terrorists"? Well, you could give up that place as well and avoid the perils of living in a place being invaded/liberated. There is a slight distinction between something you already have and something you want to gain, but when you have a green card, it's kind of something you already have.
I guess my point is that libertarian ideals work great when there's lots of competition, a lack of strong power dynamics, and clear metrics. Here we see a situation with minimal competition (few "elite" economies), a clear disparity in the balance of power, and the cause and effect between treatment of individuals like you and macroeconomic policy is murky at best.
In this case, I think it's fair to call out the problem. Maybe American people don't know that they're losing out on awesome people like you. They should know that. People should know that you would be a great person to have and that US policy is making it so that you won't even consider the US. People (including leaders) can be oblivious to problems. Shining a light on problems like this can lead to change.
From a pragmatic point of view, there's the world-as-it-is and we need to choose between our options as you did. However, I think it's also important to try making things better. Should we not complain when Gmail makes a change we dislike? Google doesn't owe us anything and there are alternatives, but we care about it and want it to be better. We care about Google. We care about our friends who also use the service. Google is important and so it's natural to care about it and for Google to be the best it can be. Similarly, many of us care about the US. It's important; its policies affect hundreds of millions around the world (if not billions); many of us are American or are friends with Americans. I think it's natural to want the US to be better. It's nice when things can just take care of themselves, but sometimes that isn't the case.