Original Liberty Immigration Plan - Happy 4'th USA

[waltmarkers]

So I'm going to call this the original liberty immigration plan.

We were founded as a country of immigrants. We're a country of the best and brightest. Let's return to that. /lead in So here's how I see it. Anyone not convicted of a felony who is not currently a fugitive in the US should be eligible for a 5 year residency in the US. This comes with a 5 year work permit. The catch is for the first five years that person is not eligible for any US funded social services (unemployment, medicare, discounted college). They are eligible for one benefit only, a return ticket to wherever they came from, but they would never be eligible for any visa to the US ever again. After five years if they haven't been convicted of a crime, they are eligible for permanent residency, and citizenship if they met all other citizenship requirements.

I want to see more immigrants come here again. We should be the city on the hill. The home of the international do'ers and thinkers, the country of the willing. WE ARE AMERICA. WE CAN DO BETTER. Who's with me?

[1714902645]

1714902645

[1714902645]

1714902645

[1714902645]

1714902645

[NghtRppr]

Who's with me?

Does it matter? Am I suddenly going to stop being taxed if I say no?

[waltmarkers]

Who's with me?

Does it matter? Am I suddenly going to stop being taxed if I say no?

Nope. But when the vocal majority of a people want something changed, it often happens. I believe the US can be the leader of the free world and the nation on ah hill again. I'm going to do my part. Will you do yours?

[Brunic]

I'm not American, but I think your plan has flaws in it.

Let's say that, on average, your unemployment rate is 10%. An immigrant coming in the US cannot influence by himself that rate, so it's possible that 10% of those immigrants are going to be unemployed. Not because they want to, simply because of the laws of the market. With the "second-class" status, and the fact that they are stranger, it could be harder for them to get a job, so the unemployment rate could be higher. But let's stay at 10%, in an ideal world.

So, those 10% don't have any social security, and don't have any jobs. They need a minimum of money for a living, but if they have no help and no job, what do you think they're going to do? You can be virtuous all you want, when you need to eat, it's hard to give a fuck about morals. Crime becomes suddenly attractive, because there's no entry barrier (criminals organisation always need fresh meat) and it can pay for your survival. And since the society doesn't really care about you (since you get no job or social security), you don't really care about the society either.

It's magic! 10% of your immigrants becomes criminals. And who's going to pay for the crimes? and the police? and the prison? and the judge? Your society who never tried to help that damn guy in the first place.

If your society can't give social security to its immigrants, just don't welcome them in your country.

[waltmarkers]

I'm not American, but I think your plan has flaws in it.

Let's say that, on average, your unemployment rate is 10%. An immigrant coming in the US cannot influence by himself that rate, so it's possible that 10% of those immigrants are going to be unemployed. Not because they want to, simply because of the laws of the market. With the "second-class" status, and the fact that they are stranger, it could be harder for them to get a job, so the unemployment rate could be higher. But let's stay at 10%, in an ideal world.

So, those 10% don't have any social security, and don't have any jobs. They need a minimum of money for a living, but if they have no help and no job, what do you think they're going to do? You can be virtuous all you want, when you need to eat, it's hard to give a fuck about morals. Crime becomes suddenly attractive, because there's no entry barrier (criminals organisation always need fresh meat) and it can pay for your survival. And since the society doesn't really care about you (since you get no job or social security), you don't really care about the society either.

It's magic! 10% of your immigrants becomes criminals. And who's going to pay for the crimes? and the police? and the prison? and the judge? Your society who never tried to help that damn guy in the first place.

If your society can't give social security to its immigrants, just don't welcome them in your country.

Ha, we already don't give assistance to our young and able bodied! Giving immigrants a ticket home is more than most of our citizens get now. However, decades ago with more open immigration, we had mutual benefit societies, where each nationality took care of their own (to varying degrees of success). We still have some of those groups.

The idea is this program will bring the best and brightest. But, just to be clear, any immigrant that commits a felony pays for their own incarceration or is deported to their original country, or is sentenced to some form of incarceration that is a net fiscal gain to the US.

[steelhouse]

The country is overpopulated and 51% of the land is used for crops.  We need to lock the borders and start shipping people overseas if they want to breed.  Illegal immigrants are special if the come over as kids they can have a permanent green card, but to keep them off welfare no citizenship.  As soon as they hopped the fence, the parents knew they were breaking the law.  However, if they were smart enough to avoid capture for 5 years, they should get a green card too as long as they spend 1 month in Mexico a year.

We are starving to death.

[Topazan]

The country is overpopulated and 51% of the land is used for crops.  We need to lock the borders and start shipping people overseas if they want to breed.  Illegal immigrants are special if the come over as kids they can have a permanent green card, but to keep them off welfare no citizenship.  As soon as they hopped the fence, the parents knew they were breaking the law.  However, if they were smart enough to avoid capture for 5 years, they should get a green card too as long as they spend 1 month in Mexico a year.

We are starving to death.

In what sense are we overpopulated and/or starving to death, and what does it matter how much land is used for agriculture?  Most overpopulated countries I know of are more concerned about land for housing, industry, and commercial purposes.

I know this has its flaws (feel free to point them out), but I would like it if there was no such thing as citizenship.  The only tax would be a land tax, and anyone regardless of national origin could be a landowner.  People would be free to come and go as they please, to work, visit, or live.  Of course, this means that social programs that couldn't be redesigned to adapt would have to be abolished.

As it is, I don't like the idea that I, like the serfs of yore, belong to a certain piece of land.

[myrkul]

I would like it if there was no such thing as citizenship. 

There isn't.

cit·i·zen
noun
1.a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

[Topazan]

I would like it if there was no such thing as citizenship.

There isn't.

cit·i·zen
noun
1.a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

Ok, I guess we need a new term for the system wherein the legal privileges of an individual are increased or decreased on the basis of the spatial position of one's mother when she gave birth to said individual.  

Maybe "serfdom" is the word for it after all.

[Hawker]

I would like it if there was no such thing as citizenship.

There isn't.

cit·i·zen
noun
1.a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

Ok, I guess we need a new term for the system wherein the legal privileges of an individual are increased or decreased on the basis of the spatial position of one's mother when she gave birth to said individual.  

Maybe "serfdom" is the word for it after all.

If you are going to take away the rights of citizens, what other rights are safe?

[vampire]

I would like it if there was no such thing as citizenship. 

There isn't.

cit·i·zen
noun
1.a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

Police are only there to enforce the law. National guard are supposed to protect you.

[Topazan]

I would like it if there was no such thing as citizenship.

There isn't.

cit·i·zen
noun
1.a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

Ok, I guess we need a new term for the system wherein the legal privileges of an individual are increased or decreased on the basis of the spatial position of one's mother when she gave birth to said individual.  

Maybe "serfdom" is the word for it after all.

If you are going to take away the rights of citizens, what other rights are safe?

You mean the right to enter and seek employment in a given country?  I'm not talking about taking away those rights, I'm talking about extending them to everyone.

[Hawker]

...snip...

If you are going to take away the rights of citizens, what other rights are safe?

You mean the right to enter and seek employment in a given country?  I'm not talking about taking away those rights, I'm talking about extending them to everyone.

I know and its obviously a nice idea.  But citizenship includes the right to vote for people who make decisions on who can enter and who can work in a given country.  

That's a valuable right - you can't just take it away.

[Topazan]

...snip...

If you are going to take away the rights of citizens, what other rights are safe?

You mean the right to enter and seek employment in a given country?  I'm not talking about taking away those rights, I'm talking about extending them to everyone.

I know and its obviously a nice idea.  But citizenship includes the right to vote for people who make decisions on who can enter and who can work in a given country.  

That's a valuable right - you can't just take it away.

The right to vote could in theory be decided by something other than geography.  Service to the country, for example.

I know there's a danger that those who gain the right to vote could give themselves power over and oppress those who haven't, but isn't that what happens now?

Hm, I guess this would be a form of citizenship, actually.

[Hawker]

...snip...

If you are going to take away the rights of citizens, what other rights are safe?

You mean the right to enter and seek employment in a given country?  I'm not talking about taking away those rights, I'm talking about extending them to everyone.

I know and its obviously a nice idea.  But citizenship includes the right to vote for people who make decisions on who can enter and who can work in a given country.  

That's a valuable right - you can't just take it away.

The right to vote could in theory be decided by something other than geography.  Service to the country, for example.

I know there's a danger that those who gain the right to vote could give themselves power over and oppress those who haven't, but isn't that what happens now?

Hm, I guess this would be a form of citizenship, actually.

I agree but you have to get the consent of the people who have this right before making changes like that.

[myrkul]

I would like it if there was no such thing as citizenship. 

There isn't.

cit·i·zen
noun
1.a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

Police are only there to enforce the law. National guard are supposed to protect you.

So, next time I'm getting mugged, I'll yell "Call the national guard!"? And doesn't the side of those police cars say "To serve and protect"? To serve and protect whom, I wonder?

[benjamindees]

So your plan is based on the assumption that "non-felons" == "the best and brightest" ?

[waltmarkers]

So your plan is based on the assumption that "non-felons" == "the best and brightest" ?

Nope... I believe  that those who come here and make it for five years on their own deserve to stany, and that on the whole they will be a positive addition.

[Blaztoize]

So your plan is based on the assumption that "non-felons" == "the best and brightest" ?

It sounds bad, but yes. I've realized this time and time again-- You will eventually have to lower your initial expectations when dealing with people en masse. This is just assuming that process somewhat correctly.