What evidence do you have that the US is an attractive place at all, relative to other advanced or semi-advanced nations? More applicants than places does not prove that much in a world of scarce jobs.
People are dying, literally drowning in the Mediterranean, to get into Europe. As I know, people still apply to work in Qatar even as they engage in work practices that well be "nothing less than murder"in the process of constructing their World Cup stadiums.
About 13% of the world's adults -- or about 630 million people -- say they would like to leave their country and move somewhere else permanently. For roughly 138 million people, that somewhere else would be the U.S. -- the No. 1 desired destination for potential migrants. The U.K., Canada, and France also rank among the top choices for potential migrants.
>What evidence do you have that the US is an attractive place at all
You don't have to look very hard to see that the US is still very attractive for migration: about 1 million people, legal, permanent, per year for almost 3 decades[1] (and 1.5MM "temporary"). For comparison, Germany had about 800k in 2011, France 150k, UK 500k.
This document is hugely important to understand. Thank you for posting.
I always found Table 6 to be the most interesting, particularly in debates about immigration — I have a green card as a 9 year long EB3 process (Employment Based, 3rd class - the CIS doesn't value Philosophy degrees as highly as engineering degrees!)
To take the last year for which data are published, 2011
A partial breakdown of new Permanent Resident status issued—informally “green card”
Family sponsored 206,585
Immediate relatives of citizens 209,984
Employment based 14,955
In round numbers for every green card issued on basis of employment, 28 are issued to family members of citizens. This is pretty much the inverse of popular understanding of immigration.
> In round numbers for every green card issued on basis of employment, 28 are issued to family members of citizens. This is pretty much the inverse of popular understanding of immigration.
There are people that don't understand that the US immigration system is primarily family-based? I think lots of people think the motivation for immigration is largely economic (and that's also true, even for the family-based visas), but I don't recall encountering many people that had any mental model of the immigration system that didn't know that being allowed to immigrate legally was largely through family-based classes. Certainly, much of the public political drama centers around that fact (e.g., the whole "anchor babies" thing.)
(Although "Family sponsored" is not, as you present it, necessarily family-of-citizen -- the family-sponsored grouping includes visa classes for family members of Permanent Residents as well.)
People may realize that familial relations can significantly shape immigration process, but they tend to greatly under-estimate the extent.
Immigration is almost always discussed in terms of fairness and, usually, "the line." But the metaphor is a bad one; instead of "the line," it might be better to think of the system as multiple, separate lines that are of varying distances from the destination. And honestly, some of those lines have some nasty obstacles laid out in front of them.
> People may realize that familial relations can significantly shape immigration process, but they tend to greatly under-estimate the extent.
I don't see any real evidence that's true, but, maybe it is.
> Immigration is almost always discussed in terms of fairness and, usually, "the line." But the metaphor is a bad one;
It's not really a metaphor at all, its a fairly literal description of the family-sponsored visa system which dominates immigration. At least as it pertains to the countries where immigration demand exceeds per-country quota, where qualified immigrants are literally on a wait list (in some cases one that will take a decade or more to reach them).
And I suspect it dominates the discussion specifically because the family-based part of the immigration system is the one most people know the most about.
> it might be better to think of the system as multiple, separate lines that are of varying distances from the destination.
Well, that would be even a more literal description of the family-sponsored system, since each category of visa has its own quota and queue.
Most of the rest of the immigration system doesn't really consist of lines...
You're quite correct, “Family sponsored” also contains ‘Second: Spouses, children, and unmarried
sons/daughters of alien resident’ which accounts for 96,633 immigrants in 2011, which is nearly half of this category, much larger than I had realized.
That's a great point to mention. US immigration policy is heavily biased towards family reunification. If you become a US citizen, you can sponsor your parents and children (if they are under 18) immediately, there is no quota.
We're discussing high-skilled immigrants. People trying to reach the southern European countries (especially Italy and Greece) or wanting to work in Qatar are a different kind of immigrants.
A pretty solid evidence is the consistently high number of people coming / trying to come to the US each year...
Seriously, you wouldn't put up with all that immigration crap if it was not attractive.
> People are dying, literally drowning in the Mediterranean, to get into Europe.
Right. Don't you think that's an indication of proximity rather than attractiveness? (some) People from Africa might be poor and are dying to go some place else, but they're not stupid. They understand crossing the Mediterranean is easier than crossing the Atlantic...
People are dying, literally drowning in the Mediterranean, to get into Europe. As I know, people still apply to work in Qatar even as they engage in work practices that well be "nothing less than murder"in the process of constructing their World Cup stadiums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup#Migrant_wor...