I'm sticking with the conventional view--fewer undocumented/illegal immigrants = more legal immigrants = good for desis. I know there are subtleties that could be introduced here (e.g., illegal immigration from the Desh does not equal zero) but, even taking account of those subtleties the conventional view still trumps.

I'm sticking with the conventional view--fewer undocumented/illegal immigrants = more legal immigrants = good for desis

If intelligence were a necessary qualification to comment on SM then Rob you wouldn't be around to leave this asinine ' view '. But then if basic intelligence was required of all US residents, well then the loudest opponents of ' illegal 'immigrants would be among the first to be asked to leave this country.

I agree, but I am not sure that it is conventional wisdom -- I have meet a whole lot of ABDs whose hearts bleed for illegals, but who can't be bothered with cleaning up the bureaucratic nightmare that INS/ USCIS has become for legals.

Well, you and I at least agree that the latter (INS reform/streamlining) is more important than some sort of pro-undocumented workers move. I shouldn't, perhaps, call it the desi conventional wisdom, but it certainly lines up (1) my interest in the long-term strength of the US economy (i.e., skilled workers > unskilled workers) with (2) my "bleeding heart" for my (well-educated!) cousins back in the Desh.

3 · Immigrant If intelligence were a necessary qualification to comment on SM then Rob you wouldn't be around to leave this asinine ' view '. But then if basic intelligence was required of all US residents, well then the loudest opponents of ' illegal 'immigrants would be among the first to be asked to leave this country.

LOL! Be serious--the US is not going to have an "open immigration" policy anytime soon. So, then, the question becomes (1) how much immigration is politically feasible (i.e., more than 1 million per year, for sure, but less than 10 million per year, for sure) and (2) what should the composition of those immigrants be. You are hilarious in suggesting I'm unintelligent to pose the question this way, or to suggest that it is in the social welfare interest of the US to answer those two questions in a pro-US way.

I'm sticking with the conventional view--fewer undocumented/illegal immigrants = more legal immigrants = good for desis.

cleaning up the bureaucratic nightmare that INS/ USCIS has become for legals.

mixed emotions on cleaning up of INS. on one hand, i hope the mess is cleaned up as a few relatives / friends are still languishing. On the other hand, the longer the mess continues more and more desis will return to india or migrate to other 'white nations' - hopefully australia gains.

Well put, mate--that's the whole game these days--the competition for the (significant) "value-added" immigrants is getting tougher!!

4 · rob said

I agree, but I am not sure that it is conventional wisdom -- I have meet a whole lot of ABDs whose hearts bleed for illegals, but who can't be bothered with cleaning up the bureaucratic nightmare that INS/ USCIS has become for legals.

Well, you and I at least agree that the latter (INS reform/streamlining) is more important than some sort of pro-undocumented workers move. I shouldn't, perhaps, call it the desi conventional wisdom, but it certainly lines up (1) my interest in the long-term strength of the US economy (i.e., skilled workers > unskilled workers) with (2) my "bleeding heart" for my (well-educated!) cousins back in the Desh.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. There is no reason the US can't import skilled workers and unskilled workers. The US economy needs both to gorw, and unskilled workers are not really taking jobs away from skilled workers

There is no reason the US can't import skilled workers and unskilled workers. The US economy needs both to gorw,

That'a just not true, in our world, as opposed to an ideal one. In fact, the shortage (globally) is is skilled workers. So, the US should take as many skilled workers as we can get. Unskilled workers, no.

the longer the mess continues more and more desis will return to india or migrate to other 'white nations' - hopefully australia gains

Yeah, let's kind of hope that people continue to suffer so that Austrailia, with a history of anti-immigrant attitudes, can gain.

What an asinine comment.

Abhi: you said, "Unfortunately I don’t own a gaming system. I used to be an obsessive gamer as a kid so its best that I don’t go near one now that I have real responsibilities (like blogging). How about all those gaming system that are still in our basement? When you cleaned me up last winter while we were still in India, you carefully saved all your "stuff" begining with Atari, Applle IIGS, Sony,tons of expensive games I baught at "Egghead" like "King's Quest", "Queen's Quest" etc ? Hmmm ? Get real and play the "Real Life Games" now that you claim you have resposibilities :). You call blogging a real resposibility ? That's news to me. All humour aside, you should wait till they come up with a game whose object is say,"How to become a citizen of the United States of the World".

Also there is this, about immigration raids near schools in Berkeley and Oakland.

Read that as "responsibility". Too early on a Friday Morning!

You are setting up a false dichotomy. There is no reason the US can't import skilled workers and unskilled workers. The US economy needs both to gorw, and unskilled workers are not really taking jobs away from skilled workers

There are two issues here
The first:
That may or may not be true. Skills are not developed for free. It cost a lot for a country to develop skills in its populace, and importing skilled workers gives the country the same benfits for free.

It puts some pressure on people with the same skills, but these people has some capacity to absorb the imact. Also, by making the counrty highly competetive in indusrties requiring those skills the benefits to the country as a whole are tremendous (this often even ultimately out any adverse impacts on people with the same skills, since the industry itself grows at a much larger space).

Skilled workers' influx often get rid of bottlenecks. Ulimately the numbers of skilled workers coming in are low overall.

For unslikked workers It is known that unskilled workers put pressure on the poorest, (see chart).
It also provides a strong disincentive to invest more in other solutions , reducing the competiveness of the country in the long term. There are also adverse impacts given the co-relation of crime with income. They also put tremndous pressures on public services -- they do not pay most taxes (fake social Security contributions are an interesting exception), but take up services.

There are benefits to the country as well -- unskilled workers keep the cost of the basics (grocery, etc) low. They do spur growth, but at tremendous costs.

The second issue:
Whether unskilled workers ultimately contrbute to the country can be debated, and there are several good arguements on both sides
However I really take issue with coflating illegal with unskilled. Stop using unskilled when you mean illegal. This is just delibrately fudging the issue. (the middle east for instance has tons of unskilled workers who came in leagally. Even the US has visas for low skilled workers)

Unskilled immigration != illegal immigration

2 · DizzyDesi said

I agree, but I am not sure that it is conventional wisdom -- I have meet a whole lot of ABDs whose hearts bleed for illegals, but who can't be bothered with cleaning up the bureaucratic nightmare that INS/ USCIS has become for legals.

That's because most ABDs, like most of their co-citizens; do not have to face the immigration bureaucracy. Add in a (statistically speaking) dash of liberal attitude (American sense of the word) that big government = good for society; ergo, the result.

Me and my "illegal" cousin Juliana are sitting here reading these comments together, that I've translated on babelfish, drinking cafe con leches and laughing. I've been explaining how folks like to take a good post subject and turn it into a discussion about the merits of skilled labor rather than stopping the abuses in our jails and detention centers.

Do people just not want to talk about the real subject of the post? The subject being:

how unfair immigration laws deny due process and violate human rights. These laws affect all immigrants: legal residents, those fleeing persecution, students and undocumented people

It's a post about human rights being denied immigrants.Instead it's become the same old 'unskilled workers suck, skilled workers rule argument' that I can get on any other blog. It becomes a class argument, which only makes a greater division.

9 · rob said

That'a just not true, in our world, as opposed to an ideal one. In fact, the shortage (globally) is is skilled workers. So, the US should take as many skilled workers as we can get. Unskilled workers, no.

Realistically, do you really think a government bureacracy can figure out who a "skilled worker" is? Even private firms with real money on the line make bad calls. A government bureaucrat with no skin in the game will either deny everyone, or accept everyone; or, more likely, start building up more and more complicated "tests of skill". Wait, they already do that.

14 · DizzyDesi said

For unslikked workers It is known that unskilled workers put pressure on the poorest, (see chart).
It also provides a strong disincentive to invest more in other solutions , reducing the competiveness of the country in the long term. There are also adverse impacts given the co-relation of crime with income. They also put tremndous pressures on public services -- they do not pay most taxes (fake social Security contributions are an interesting exception), but take up services.
There are benefits to the country as well -- unskilled workers keep the cost of the basics (grocery, etc) low. They do spur growth, but at tremendous costs.
The second issue:
Whether unskilled workers ultimately contrbute to the country can be debated, and there are several good arguements on both sides
However I really take issue with coflating illegal with unskilled. Stop using unskilled when you mean illegal. This is just delibrately fudging the issue. (the middle east for instance has tons of unskilled workers who came in leagally. Even the US has visas for low skilled workers)

I sort of generally agree with what you are saying... but,

Unskilled immigrants do contribute to the economy. Yeh cheap fruits. More seriously unskilled illegal immigrants are non-sticky labour. They are far more economically rational and respond to price signals faster. (Helps that many don't have dependents on this side of the border and hence can move with the jobs). One example is the recent drastic slowdown in illegal border crossings in the US-Mexico border in recent times.

Now, you seem to be conflating unskilled labour in this country with the poor. There is a significant overlap; but they are not identical. One set has better future prospects than the other, no matter what happens to the immigration debate. Now I don't particularly understand why it is OK to protect the unskilled in this country from competition; but not the skilled. Because that's what "skilled immigrant ok, unskilled no" position means. Is there any reason to assume that there is an optimal skill level below which market forces cease to operate?

Realistically, do you really think a government bureacracy can figure out who a "skilled worker" is? Even private firms with real money on the line make bad calls. A government bureaucrat with no skin in the game will either deny everyone, or accept everyone; or, more likely, start building up more and more complicated "tests of skill". Wait, they already do that.

OK, that's a good start but what about the implied snobbery in the need to figure out who a "skilled worker" is? Last I checked, some people have parents that may not have gone to college or have mad skills in the corporate world but managed to contribute some fine upstanding citizens to this country. Child care, house and hotel cleaning, food service...are they skilled labor or not? Who works those jobs? Anybody here? And if not, who will? Anyway, snobbery, I mean class bias shows whenever this debate comes up...

Anyway, I think the reason so many people don't want to know what abuses and human rights violations go on in detention centers is that there is a certain presumption of guilt there. It's fed by the class divide, the need to feel separate from and superior to "those people", the ones who get in trouble, who are daring enough to sneak into a place and 'gasp!', defy laws they see as unfair.

I am obviously living in a different country than the one I was born into......As a child, I learned that "being an American" meant that one did their best to be fair to all peoples, regardless of race, creed, religion, national Origin, Ethnicity, etc. I was taught that Americans were "leaders" in the world and it was our responsibility to insure those without a voice could have one.

As an adult, I find myself in a vicious, cruel country...one in which many people choose to regard outsiders as some sort of animals...complaining about them "stealing jobs" that Americans will not even take themselves....

I find it fascinating when I hear stories of farmers not planting crops out of fear of who will harvest them...all the while, I continue to see a **plethora** of unemployed, homeless white folks standing on every corner with their hands out for change....

I say make the homeless work...if they don't want the jobs....deport THEM and let the immigrants come to work....at least they want to .

The whole idea of "skilled labor" is a myth.....you have to look at the individual.....there are many, many people with only a High School diploma that beat the pants of "college grads" in the business world. The fact of the matter is, no matter what "courses" these "skilled laborers" may have taken...many cannot even figure out how to change a light bulb...how skilled can you even be at life, when such a simple task requires you to call for help?

I think the game isn't limited to protesting human rights violations or abuses. With a name like "I Can End Deportation", it goes far beyond.

What is wrong with deportation, if fairly and properly administered?

I have nothin to add on to the great game theorists of today. but i will say that if the woman is wearing that hideous striped smock, she's best off deported. it may be too many long evenings in clubs, but that dress haunts me - especially in its incarnation as the bared shoulder vest/baniyaan. anyone who wears that needs to be grabbed by ridiculous faux belt/tuft that flows out in the back and be shipped off the continent.

we shall be back with a rant on glitter.

Is there an immigration lawyer in the house to explain immigration laws?? The attitude of some commenting here astonishes me. Do you guys know that it is next to impossible to immigrate to the U.S. unless (a) one has immediate family (and not cousins etc.), members of whom are citizens of the US, (b) one has immediate family who are permanent residents (but this process takes eons), (c) one has a shitload of money to invest in the US, (d)Through an h1b (but I don't need to remind people posting here how shitty and long that process can be), or in the so-called "einstein category" or "special talents category" (you need to at least have a phd, scientist colleagues who would write letters for you, or "special talents"), and finally (e)if you are a refugee and can effectively demonstrate your case (and trust me, this process is hellish too; I used to volunteer for refugees).

Now notice that the very "legality" of the process is defined by existing (in my opinion, idiotic)laws, and you are an "illegal" in the eyes of law if you are here as an immigrant (and not a "non-resident") and do not fall in any of the above categories. It is the law that defines "illegals" and therefore there is no separation that a lot of commentators are implying between problems in "legal process" and "illegal immigrants". One tends to feed on the other. One last point (for those "law and order" types who want to incessantly assert that immigrants have "broken the law" and that is all one needs to know): laws are not inherently "right" or "just" by virtue of being "laws"; i do not need to remind people that non-white immigration was restricted until quite recently (not to speak of the "Chinese exclusion act" of the late nineteenth century), and Jim Crow laws were also "laws". Standards of morality and justice tends to sometimes change over time.

Immigrants who are "illegal" generally know about all this; that is why coach diesel and her cousin were having a good laugh (you should try to live a day in the shoes of a so-called "illegal"; remember some of your anxieties as an hib? multiply that by about 500, and you will get an idea).

Is there an immigration lawyer in the house to explain immigration laws?? The attitude of some commenting here astonishes me. Do you guys know that it is next to impossible to immigrate to the U.S. unless (a) one has immediate family (and not cousins etc.), members of whom are citizens of the US, (b) one has immediate family who are permanent residents (but this process takes eons), (c) one has a shitload of money to invest in the US, (d)Through an h1b (but I don't need to remind people posting here how shitty and long that process can be), or in the so-called "einstein category" or "special talents category" (you need to at least have a phd, scientist colleagues who would write letters for you, or "special talents"), and finally (e)if you are a refugee and can effectively demonstrate your case (and trust me, this process is hellish too; I used to volunteer for refugees).

Now notice that the very "legality" of the process is defined by existing (in my opinion, idiotic)laws, and you are an "illegal" in the eyes of law if you are here as an immigrant (and not a "non-resident") and do not fall in any of the above categories. It is the law that defines "illegals" and therefore there is no separation that a lot of commentators are implying between problems in "legal process" and "illegal immigrants". One tends to feed on the other. One last point (for those "law and order" types who want to incessantly assert that immigrants have "broken the law" and that is all one needs to know): laws are not inherently "right" or "just" by virtue of being "laws"; i do not need to remind people that non-white immigration was restricted until quite recently (not to speak of the "Chinese exclusion act" of the late nineteenth century), and Jim Crow laws were also "laws". Standards of morality and justice tends to sometimes change over time.

Immigrants who are "illegal" generally know about all this; that is why coach diesel and her cousin were having a good laugh (you should try to live a day in the shoes of a so-called "illegal"; remember some of your anxieties as an hib? multiply that by about 500, and you will get an idea).

Duplicate posting, I apologize; someone pleas delete the first duplicate post.

23 · SkepMod said

What is wrong with deportation, if fairly and properly administered?

Indeed. While we are at it, could someone also explain what is wrong with slavery, if both sides enter into it as a voluntary contract.

About time someone made this game. The kids have to be aware of their rights and what better way than a GTA look alike! There have been raids in San Fran and Oakland schools, I think immig agents come to arrest illegals waiting to pick up kids from school? Last week there was panic and several parents pulled kids from school when a rumor spread about imminent raids.

Also the malice towards undoc workers is amazing. Anxious applicants stuck for years were worried that their turn in the line was in jeopardy if under the Bush proposal the illegals got a chance to apply for greencards. The paperwork that would overwhelm the agency meant a delay for everyone .

The number of illegal desis is also on the rise at least here in the bay area according to the SJMN. Some desis are intentionally overstaying after visas expire, but small bureaucratic changes/errors can push a perfectly legal person into lawbreaking territory. Change in job title, lost mail etc can cause huge problems in some cases. So if adults cannot understand the complex laws, kids don't even stand a chance.

Indeed. While we are at it, could someone also explain what is wrong with slavery, if both sides enter into it as a voluntary contract.

I bet you went away thinking you were really smart for writing that statement. It is idiotic. Explain to me why deportation is in itself an issue? Believe me, I know from personal experience, that the system of laws is screwy, and that even that system can be further abused. I get all that. I will even concede the issue if you told me that deportation, in practice, becomes unjust. But to compare the concept of deportation to slavery??

Now notice that the very "legality" of the process is defined by existing (in my opinion, idiotic)laws, and you are an "illegal" in the eyes of law if you are here as an immigrant (and not a "non-resident") and do not fall in any of the above categories. It is the law that defines "illegals" and therefore there is no separation that a lot of commentators are implying between problems in "legal process" and "illegal immigrants".

Oh! and you forgot F1 (student) category. The categories F1/H1/B1/J1 define status of a non-resident alien – a visa is granted (for entry in USA) on the basis of an application towards one of these categories. A non-resident alien is obliged to maintain a legal status through out the stay in USA.

The law recognizes those people as "resident alien" (or immigrants) who have acquired permanent residency (green card), rest are "non-resident aliens" (or non-immigrants). One becomes eligible to apply for an American Citizenship after keeping the “resident alien” status for a duration (which varies for different categories like civilian v/s military). Of course you have to have a spanking clean record all through your stay in USA.

The journey from being a non-immigrant to citizenship is long but not impossible. A lot of it depends upon how badly one wants to become an American and what he/she is willing to sacrifice for it.

Also, this all also depends a lot on how fortunate one is – e.g. after losing employment an H1B status holder is effectively out-of status (hence illegal). I know personally quite a few who had to leave the country because they would rather leave than break the law by staying in USA without legal status.

I have been an occasional reader of SM for years. Few years ago a ton of loathing was heaped on the H1Bs and new immigrants from Desh on these forums. When a new DBD (i.e. FOB to most on this forum) whined about the crappy (then) INS regulations the standard response was on the lines of ‘if you can’t take the heat leave the kitchen’ or ‘go back to your country’. I am guessing now winds have changed.

Oh! And interestingly BTW, quite a few intellectual types who are all up in arms about rights of illegal-immigrants in USA are still bitching about:

1. How Biharis & Marwaris have ruined our Kolkata.
2. How non-Marathis have ruined our Mumbai.
3. How north Indians have ruined our Banglore.
4. How Indians from X part have ruined our Y city.

I know for sure this video game is not representative of every city, especially New York.
BTW is there still a quota system in place? I know once upon a time Europeans were preferred and Chinese immigration was limited. Can anyone shed light?

32 · NYC Chaatwala said

I know for sure this video game is not representative of every city, especially New York.
BTW is there still a quota system in place? I know once upon a time Europeans were preferred and Chinese immigration was limited. Can anyone shed light?

The immigration reforms of 1965 facially removed racial restrictions and limitations on immigration. Instead, each country is given the same cap on immigrants. So India or China is granted the same number of visas per year as Luxembourg. The result has been that four countries - China, Mexico, India, and the Philippines - lag behind all other countries in wait times for immigrant visas, in some cases as much as a thirteen year longer wait.

corporate serf Now I don't particularly understand why it is OK to protect the unskilled in this country from competition; but not the skilled.

I agree that skilled labor deserves protection too. the protection helps in the development of a professional class. This in turn offers much to society including self regulation, ethical / moral codes of conducts.

If there is a glut of labor with a particular skill set, the external influx should be (and often has been) curtailed to encourage a safe long term supply of that skill set.

That said, the benefit / cost of skilled bringing in skilled workers vs unskilled ones is overwhelmingly in favor of skilled ones, for a variety of reasons

Also I feel that the skilled can usually fall back on something, while the unskilled have little to fall back on. The impact of this can be calamitous to society. So I feel the unskilled need more protection than the skilled.

I’ve been trying my hand at a game

Abhi, pretty soon you will be migrating to playing with the mind instead of hands

Control video games with your mind

Hands cramping up from too many video games? How about controlling games with your thoughts instead? Later this year, Emotiv Systems plans to start selling the $299 EPOC neuroheadset to let you do just that

30 · SkepMod said

Explain to me why deportation is in itself an issue? Believe me, I know from personal experience, that the system of laws is screwy, and that even that system can be further abused.

Didn't you answer your own question here? WSJ had a coverage of the deportation of an illegal Polish immigrant (the background being automatic searches of USCIS databases by locan police in traffic stops and the like even when there is no probable cause or anything. Incidentally, this is the law in many municipalities now) who had been a productive member of the community. It is hugely disruptive of family life. I have no doubt that this practice will be looked at with the same horror which you get now when visiting the museum of slavery in New Orleans (which depicts how families were torn apart in auctions). I have no doubt that "enlightened" thought of the day regarded those as unfortunate, but morally justifiable.

I have no doubt that "enlightened" thought of the day regarded those as unfortunate, but morally justifiable.

For folks who bash Australia, there was a two year waiting period to become a citizen (now it is four). The gap between becoming eligible to be a citizen and actual citizenship ceremony was 120 days. Yes four months...
This with a test, local council holding the ceremony etc etc. Time lapsed to become a Permanent Resident from application (14 months). I doubt if the INS can work at this speed.

Yeah, let's kind of hope that people continue to suffer so that Australia, with a history of anti-immigrant attitudes, can gain. hat an asinine comment.

33 · immigration lawyer

The immigration reforms of 1965 facially removed racial restrictions and limitations on immigration. Instead, each country is given the same cap on immigrants. So India or China is granted the same number of visas per year as Luxembourg. The result has been that four countries - China, Mexico, India, and the Philippines - lag behind all other countries in wait times for immigrant visas, in some cases as much as a thirteen year longer wait.

Yes, and--(I'm not justifying it)--what is the reason for this per-country cap?

I.C.E.D better than GTA-IV

Oh.Hell.To.The.Naw. This Drrrty DJ spent 39 out of the past 48 hours playing GTA, 6 sleeping, and 3 seeing Atmosphere tear it up at the GAMH last night. Way more boss than trying to get Suki to sign up for an elective.

I don't see how the undocumented/documented argument is related to the larger concerns represented by this game -- 1) that remaining in compliance is difficult to navigate and easy to abrogate, and 2) that detention centers violate all standards of humane and conscionable treatment. I'm with coach diesel, could we please talk about the post, especially given the fact that we now have widespread public documentation of the horrific abuses that happen through ICE's insane practices? Could we maybe talk about how Congress has also delegated to the Sec. of Homeland Security a broad level of authority to completely waive or ignore laws that impose with whatever totalitarian "border security" issues he decides to pursue?

38 · rob said

33 · immigration lawyer

The immigration reforms of 1965 facially removed racial restrictions and limitations on immigration. Instead, each country is given the same cap on immigrants. So India or China is granted the same number of visas per year as Luxembourg. The result has been that four countries - China, Mexico, India, and the Philippines - lag behind all other countries in wait times for immigrant visas, in some cases as much as a thirteen year longer wait.

Yes, and--(I'm not justifying it)--what is the reason for this per-country cap?

The answer to this question is a little murky. One could say that it is to preserve diversity of immigration to the United States. Others would translate this as preventing the brown hordes of India and Mexico from overrunning the country. A couple of things are interesting about the caps.

First is a program called the diversity visa lottery. The lottery allows anyone from underrepresented countries (people from Norway qualify but not India) to apply for a lottery ticket once a year. The stated purpose of the diversity visa was to assist those countries "adversely impacted" by the 1965 reform. Now, the 1965 reform lifted the bar on Asian immigration. Helping those hurt by the removal of a racist bar in the name of diversity? Although many diversity visa applicants are from Africa.

Second, there is a curious method of determining which country an individual is from. If the goal was to allow for cultural or nationality diversity among our immigrants, the country of citizenship or the country where one spent most of their life would be the logical method of determining one's country. However, the country of birth is used. For example, an individual is born in India but moves to England as a young child and grows up there and becomes an English citizen. An immigrant visa is filed for the person. The person is considered Indian and is subject to the longer wait time of India rather than England. This seems to indicate a desire to discretely classify people by race rather than nationality as is stated.

Thanks for #41, Immigration Lawyer.

Its still not better than GTAIV.

could we please talk about the post, especially given the fact that we now have widespread public documentation of the horrific abuses that happen through ICE's insane practices?