Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An unregulated immigration system simply provides entry to anybody who has the opportunity or resources to cross the border, regardless of what they can contribute, whether they are the best person to do that, and their likelihood of being able to integrate.

A regulated immigration system should (ideally) identify those people who can best contribute to a country. It should identify skill gaps and ways to assess the best people to fill these. It should also screen for any medical conditions or health issues.

For example, ideally you want anybody immigrating to a country to be a healthcare worker to have verifiable qualifications and to be screened for TB, HIV, maybe syphilis, etc.

Healthcare workers are not routinely screened for HIV for hiring - only if they had an accident resulting in their own exposure to a patient's blood/bodily fluid.

Syphilis? Hahaha no we are not screened for that. TB, yes. Measles/MMR, varicella, sure, we are screened for immunity/prior vaccination.

I think you misunderstood. I’m saying a healthcare worker applying to immigrate to the US should be screened, not that healthcare workers already here are screened. Is that not the case?

Anonymous wrote:Let's say all the undocumented immigrants and asylees and refugees were suddenly, magically removed from the country and replaced by citizens. What would be different? I'm going to assume that these citizens would be employed in the same jobs as this group of people currently is, so I'm not talking about shortages of landscape workers, slaughterhouse workers, ag workers, disaster cleanup workers, and so forth. According to statistics we would have a somewhat higher crime rate. Probably a somewhat higher rate of illegal drug use (migrants are less likely to use drugs). I'm assuming we need the population numbers, including to support the social security retirement program. We might have a larger burden on assistance programs if pay rates for the people who replaced them did not change, but we wouldn't be able to blame immigrants for that. Seriously, I wonder what the actual threat to borders has been. While supposedly Biden opened the borders we didn't have terrorist attacks from people who had slipped through as far as I know.

If in this thought experiment these people were not replaced magically, we would certainly have shortages of healthcare aides, maintenance workers, ag workers, meat processors, roofers, and disaster cleanup workers. Not only would there be fewer people to care for elderly people who need to be cared for, there'd be fewer people paying into Social Security to pay for their retirement income (which, in long term care, usually goes to the LTC facility).

I also wonder about the issue with assimilation. What exactly does that mean? Learning English? Most people who are able to do so to learn English one way or another, but if not, so what? It seems to me most people who complain about lack of assimilation are complaining about language and clothing as the most visible attributes of a population that is not assimilation.

Is it the slippery slope theory? That if a significant number of people manage to cross the border illegally every year and to stay for an extended period of time it will become an uncontrolled avalanche? Would it have been a bad thing if immigration laws had been changed to make immigration much, much more accessible legally and reduce the burden on the systems set up to deal with illegal immigration?

I'm truly trying to consider a blank slate take on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An unregulated immigration system simply provides entry to anybody who has the opportunity or resources to cross the border, regardless of what they can contribute, whether they are the best person to do that, and their likelihood of being able to integrate.

A regulated immigration system should (ideally) identify those people who can best contribute to a country. It should identify skill gaps and ways to assess the best people to fill these. It should also screen for any medical conditions or health issues.

For example, ideally you want anybody immigrating to a country to be a healthcare worker to have verifiable qualifications and to be screened for TB, HIV, maybe syphilis, etc.

Healthcare workers are not routinely screened for HIV for hiring - only if they had an accident resulting in their own exposure to a patient's blood/bodily fluid.

Syphilis? Hahaha no we are not screened for that. TB, yes. Measles/MMR, varicella, sure, we are screened for immunity/prior vaccination.

Anonymous wrote:An unregulated immigration system simply provides entry to anybody who has the opportunity or resources to cross the border, regardless of what they can contribute, whether they are the best person to do that, and their likelihood of being able to integrate.

A regulated immigration system should (ideally) identify those people who can best contribute to a country. It should identify skill gaps and ways to assess the best people to fill these. It should also screen for any medical conditions or health issues.

For example, ideally you want anybody immigrating to a country to be a healthcare worker to have verifiable qualifications and to be screened for TB, HIV, maybe syphilis, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is significant cost to school systems for the extra seats, plus extra ESL and other services.

This. That's why they prefer immigrants from countries where the dominant culture values education. You would be surprised how many Latin American illegals are illiterate in Spanish. How are they going to learn English when they can't even read in their own language? Sad but true. They may be nice and hardworking but they are unfortunately a drain on limited resources.

Anonymous wrote:Frumpy middle-aged wallflowers would simply find another cause for their fake outrage.

Anonymous wrote:Whether legal or illegal, it isn’t good for us to just open the floodgates and let whoever wants to gush in. It needs to be a measured flow, and sadly that means not everyone will be able to come.

Levels must be controlled in order not to strain resources. Too many new workers at once put downward pressure on wages and standards.

Also, I do not want us to become like London.
We are a diverse control but we do share culture and values and it’s not good to have people coming in who have no interest in assimilating.

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn’t have illegal immigration because it’s illegal. Our country is based on the rule of law. Don’t do illegal stuff. This goes for Trump as well. I’m opposed to law-breaking. It’s unfair to everyone else and causes disorder and chaos.

I’m fine with lots of high-quality immigrants who are smart and hard-working and can support themselves and their family and love America, as long as it’s through legal channels.

Anonymous wrote:There is significant cost to school systems for the extra seats, plus extra ESL and other services.