calliope

We could also move on if you admit that you have a parent or spouse born in a state that is eligible for DV visa?

On the other, rather silly point you make, America takes the biggest intake of immigrants in the world. It is the classic "new world" country that takes immigrants and there are dozens of pathways to US permanent residence ranging from family connections to specialist occupations to marriage. Literally millions of people choose to do exactly what you say is impossible every single year. I myself turned down an opportunity to work in America.

I can't speak for Canada, but I know that Australia is not somewhere just anyone can walk into, even though this seems to be an article of faith among certain people who think American permanent residence is the height of achievement. I wonder if it is because like until 1965 in the US, for a long time Australia took mainly working-class trades, and snobs think that counts as "just anyone" (the people that built America)? Australia now desires mainly white collar workers, and has changed its system to allow for this, and entry to Australia requires a lot of patience and time and money now, and specialist skills of course. I presume Canada is the same? I don't know. But with America in steep decline and Australia and Canada in ascension we will see increased demand for the latter two, for sure, if not lowering demand for the former.

My original point was to correct the assumption that gaining entry to Canada and Australia is much like walking into a supermarket because it is misguided. Australia (and I am sure Canada too) has what it wants now and decides who it will take after much discrimination. It has a small, manageable population, with low illegal immigration, significantly higher per capita GDP than America, second highest standard of living if not the highest, universal healthcare, massive resources, etc., and takes who it needs from a long queue of people including an increasing number of Americans because of the economy. There are calls to restrict the intake in Australia but I am opposed to this and think it should continue to grow - and I think the same debate is happening in Canada??

fatbrit

I have made no denial. You're the one who's carrying on blundering after your knowledge of US visa procedures has been shown to be rather less than your silly bluster.

Until very recently if you were sitting in Blighty dreaming of a life abroad and you were an average guy or guyess with an average job, you could immigrate to Canada/OZ/NZ. Go look at all the British brickies in Perth, British social workers in NZ, and Britsh truckers in Canada who post on this very forum to verify this fact. None of these jobs by themselves would have secured you residency in the US in the last 30 or more years. This is not snobbery, it's just the facts of immigration -- a subject on which you are woefully misinformed.

calliope

[QUOTE=fatbrit;10141289] Well, you sought to demonstrate that you got the DV visa while being born in Britain, but neglect to show that your eligibility for the DV visa was granted to you because of someone else and claiming chargeability to them, which is of little use to a British person without the same circumstances. You know full-well that a normal British person with a British family is not eligible for this visa, so I'm not sure what using yourself as an example shows.

Again, the US only changed this in 1965, yet I sense a kind or weird thrill you get out of America having a family-based immigration system rather than a points-based one. Now, being several decades behind the US in terms of population saturation, these other countries are refining their intake, including not taking any more brick layers in Australia, for example. The fact that there was a big debate in America about converting to a points system that was only brought down because of the growing power of the Hispanic caucus shows that the system is respected by many in DC. Furthermore, I still think it is ridiculous to argue that citizenship is irrelevant as you put it as citizenship can be used to prove nativity in some cases, so you used the wring word. You meant citizenship is not required or central, but it is not irrelevant as it can be used as supporting evidence with a birth certificate, for example.

Sadly, your demonstrably weak grasp of the broad sweep of history and economics suggests to me any pride you derive from your residency in America is going to be diminished in ever increasing gradients as the US continues on its sad journey into post-imperial decline.

christmasoompa

Nope. There are various options to get in to Canada without specialist skills etc, and time isn't an issue now that PR processing is a year or less. Money is needed of course, there's no cheap way to emigrate unless an employer pays for it all.

As an aside, I work in Canadian immigration, and an astounding number of our clients or people that we meet at exhibitions are looking at Canada as a 'Plan B' after discovering that they can't get in to the US. US - small minority eligible for visas, vast majority are not v Canada - the other way round.

calliope

I never saw the appeal in America to be honest. It just doesn't do it for me at all, so I am surprised that so many people choose it over Canada. But it has such a big PR machine in Hollywood I think a lot of people are influenced that way. I would rather live in Canada no doubt at all!

I don't think America's dysfunctional immigration system is doing it any favours though. I know why they can't get a points system and it must very frustrating for them. 65% of green cards are given for family connections, which is absurd when you think about it.

The right don't like points systems because they say it gives too much say to government, and the Latinos don't like it because it would mean an end to the current system that they do very well out of. America is a real outlier in this regard. There is a growing demand for a serious immigration system for America but the Hispanic caucus is powerful now and will fight it every inch of the way. There is also talk of scrapping birthright citizenship as well which is also a bit silly, frankly.

FlyingDutchman6666

The venerable Economist also has something to say on the matter.

http://www.economist.com/node/21556579

calliope

Interesting. America rests on its laurels a bit here I feel, from when it really was the best country in the world to move to, but as the 21st century progresses it will be abundantly obvious that this is not the case and it will have to work much harder to attract skilled immigrants, competing not only with Australia and Canada but also fast-developing places like Chile, etc.

FlyingDutchman6666

Here in Canada we can only dream of that. The technology industry here is minuscule compared to our larger neighbour's. And we're not catching up - on the contrary. Some people blame the high Canadian dollar, which is in turn caused by the 'resource curse'. As a result many Canadians in the tech industry seem to work in the US. About 90% of the contract offers I get in my area (software development) are physically located in the States, which I have to politely decline.

Canada undoubtedly has a great future, with an amazing quality of life. Much of it will rest on extracting and selling resources. Will it one day be a technology and innovation leader? I hope so, but doubt it.

fatbrit

I used the evidence of my journey to the USA to demonstrate that your statement was wrong. No more, no less. And your statement still remains wrong, no matter how much you write on the subject or try to twist what others say.

Again, your citizenship is irrelevant to your eligibility for the diversity visa.

MarylandNed

Not quite. Even if you were born in an ineligible country, you can still be eligible through your spouse or your parents under certain circumstances.

http://travel.state.gov/pdf/DV_2013_instructions.pdf

Native of a qualifying country: In most cases, this means the country in which you were born. However, there are two other ways you may be able to qualify. First, if you were born in a country whose natives are ineligible but your spouse was born in a country whose natives are eligible, you can claim your spouse’s country of birth—provided that both you and your spouse are on the selected entry, are issued visas, and enter the United States simultaneously. Second, if you were born in a country whose natives are ineligible, but neither of your parents was born there or resided there at the time of your birth, you may claim nativity in one of your parents’ countries of birth if it is a country whose natives qualify for the DV-2013 program.

MarylandNed

Yes and CNN had something recently on the same topic:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....igration-work/

The US immigration system is geared too much towards family reunification. In other countries (e.g. Canada) it's the complete opposite - visas for skills are more common than visas for family members. The CNN program highlighted the example of foreign students who attend US universities but then can't get visas to stay after they graduate. Canada welcomes them with open arms.

I really don't see any major changes in US immigration policy any time soon simply because it's a large, complex, contentious topic. There are too many issues (e.g. illegal immigrants) and too many people with too many different agendas.

calliope

To be honest fatbrit, I'm happy to concede that there is a difference between nativity and citizenship, but you are wrong to say that citizenship is irrelevant because it is one of the ways to demonstrate nativity, so as it has some utility in the process, it is not irrelevant, You used the wrong word, you meant that it was irrelevant to selection criteria, not the process.

My original point was that the US discriminates on this and this remains the case, because they allow some people born in one part of a certain state access to the visa, and others they do not. If they were to arbitrarily decide that tomorrow everyone born in Britain could apply except those born in Nottingham, this is more clearly discriminatory. Yes they can do it, but it is still discrimination based on birth location, which was my original point.

calliope

It's not just Canada that suffers from this though -because of the wages offered to specialists in the US it acts as a magnet and sucks the talent out of other states, but this will change over this century as the US declines in power and global reach, just as it happened to Britain through the 20th century. It is then places like Canada have to seize the day because they will be in competition with fast-developing nations in South America and Asia.

fatbrit

Cry me a river! Immigration policy is indeed discriminatory.

calliope

No it won't change because it exists to reinforce itself like a vicious circle. Because of family migration started in 65, the demographics changed massively, and it expedited America's journey towards becoming a majority Hispanic state. As a result the Hispanic caucus has huge sway and stopped the McCain/Kennedy points system in its tracks because a points system means fewer Hispanics getting in through family and more Europeans getting in on skills.