Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More than 80% of new greencards are given to family/refugee related applicants each year, while skill based are a small minority. In contrast, more than two thirds of new immigrants to Canada and Australia are skill based.
Since we take very few refugees, this can only mean 80% of US immigrants are family members of qualified applicants, while Canada and Australia are not taking family members. Do you have a link?
Canada has some 60 different immigration programs, and they do allow people to bring in family members. So, both Canada and US require one of the two:
1. Have a corporate sponsor (employer)
2. Have a citizen, or permanent resident sponsor
This being the case, the US and Canadian systems are actually very similar.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 11-02-2017 at 07:13 AM..
Why would anyone be opposed to a merit based immigration system, as opposed to the current system of chain immigration, which brings hundreds of thousands of unskilled, often elderly people into the country?
Every self-respecting Democrat voter should be against any merit based system (immigration or otherwise).
1. It's racist!
A merit based system would heavily favor the evil whites! Of course, the Asians too, but nobody gives a crap about the damn Asians. It would marginalize the blacks.
2. It's not good for the party.
Statistically, 75% of the Latinos vote for the Democrats. If we can't import more illegal aliens to broaden our base, how could the Democrats win any elections?
3. It's against the poor!
In a merit based system, only the rich people would be able to immigrate. This country needs more poor people so that they can vote for the Democrats and the Democrats will take the money from the rich to give to the poor. Without more poor people, this can't be done. We need as many poor people as possible, and as many welfare recipients as possible.
4. It's proposed by Trump!
Anything proposed by Trump is automatically homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, evil, Nazi and white supremacist.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 11-02-2017 at 07:28 AM..
Every self-respecting Democrat voter should be against any merit based system (immigration or otherwise).
1. It's racist!
A merit based system would heavily favor the evil whites! Of course, the Asians too, but nobody gives a crap about the damn Asians. It would marginalize the blacks.
2. It's not good for the party.
Statistically, 75% of the Latinos vote for the Democrats. If we can't import more illegal aliens to broaden our base, how could the Democrats win any elections?
3. It's against the poor!
In a merit based system, only the rich people would be able to immigrate. This country needs more poor people so that they can vote for the Democrats and the Democrats will take the money from the rich to give to the poor. Without more poor people, this can't be done. We need as many poor people as possible.
We have a merit based system now.
Do you have any idea how hard it is for someone from Latin America to immigrate to US unless they have a PhD, and significant work experience.
I am a legal immigrant myself. I went through the employment based immigration.
Yes, I know exactly what it takes, and I fully support the merit based system.
BTW, I was being sarcastic in my previous post.
If you know we have a merit based system now, why would you make posts suggesting the opposite. Some people have a habit of spreading fake news, and when they are called on it they say they were just joking, or being sarcastic.
Since we take very few refugees, this can only mean 80% of US immigrants are family members of qualified applicants, while Canada and Australia are not taking family members. Do you have a link?
Canada has some 60 different immigration programs, and they do allow people to bring in family members. So, both Canada and US require one of the two:
1. Have a corporate sponsor (employer)
2. Have a citizen, or permanent resident sponsor
This being the case, the US and Canadian systems are actually very similar.
What? the two systems are nothing alike.
I applied for Canadian PR when I was 26 years, when I was still in the US. I didn't have a sponsor, not a job, nor did I know anyone in Canada. All I needed to provide was my educational/professional background, language skills and other personal information. And within 18 months, I was approved. When I landed in Canada as a permanent resident, it was the first time my feet ever touched Canadian soil.
It is completely impossible in the US.
In Canada, once you immigrated, you can bring in your spouse, dependent children (under 18 years old) and possibly parents (which was even suspended briefly), and that is. You can't bring in your adult children, adult siblings, aunts, uncles and other extended family members. They have to apply on their own although having a family member will add a few points.
here is a link about the percentages where it says economic immigrants account for 14% in the US, versus 63% for Canada. Family immigration accounts for 65% for the US and 24% for Canada.
President Trump urged for tougher, merit based immigration measures. Do you support this idea?
I strongly support merit-based immigration, but I do not support "Tougher" immigration. I didn't vote in your poll because you conflated those two.
* Note : "Non-immigrant work visas" do not count as "immigration" in my book. New prospective citizens are good, but people being temporarily relocated by corporations for the purposes of offshoring American jobs are bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.