Tech Companies To Lobby For Immigrant 'Dreamers' To Remain In US (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Nearly two dozen major companies in technology and other industries are planning to launch a coalition to demand legislation that would allow young, illegal immigrants a path to permanent residency, according to documents seen by Reuters. The Coalition for the American Dream intends to ask Congress to pass bipartisan legislation this year that would allow these immigrants, often referred to as "Dreamers," to continue working in the United States, the documents said. Alphabet Inc's Google, Microsoft Corp, Amazon.com Inc, Facebook Inc, Intel Corp, Uber Technologies Inc, IBM Corp, Marriott International Inc and other top U.S. companies are listed as members, one of the documents shows. The push for this legislation comes after President Donald Trump's September decision to allow the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to expire in March. That program, established by former President Barack Obama in 2012, allows approximately 900,000 illegal immigrants to obtain work permits. Some 800 companies signed a letter to Congressional leaders after Trump's decision, calling for legislation protecting Dreamers. That effort was spearheaded by a pro-immigration reform group Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg co-founded in 2013 called FWD.us.

Comments

Newspeak

[qbast]

âoeDreamersâ , what a stupid name. Deport their sorry asses and let them complain to their criminal parents for dragging them to US.

Re:Newspeak

[NettiWelho]

We stole this country from the people that lived here.

"Native Americans" were not the original population of americas and they genocided the previous occupants.

Re:Newspeak

[ChrisMaple]

In many cases, European settlers bought land from the natives. In my hometown of Stamford, Connecticut, the land was purchased three times from the Shippan Indians -- the 2nd and 3rd times, the natives conveniently "forgot" they had already sold it.

Consider Manhattan Island, a case of Indian duplicity. The Indians who sold the island weren't the actual residents/owners, that was another tribe.

Many Indian tribes were nomadic. How can you steal the land of someone with "no fixed abode?" By the way, one reason some tribes were nomadic is that they had no proper sanitation systems. If they stayed in one place too long the water became polluted with human waste and deadly to drink.

Many areas were actually unpopulated. The Indian civilization (such as it was) reached a population peak about 3000 BC, and had been in decline for 4500 years when Columbus arrived. (This is best estimate based on scanty evidence.) Filling an empty land is not theft.

There were many cases hideous behavior by the arriving Europeans, and many by the natives.

Re:Newspeak

[The Cynical Critic]

Using that logic, shouldn't almost every American get his sorry ass out of the country?

I think the difference between dreamers and most americans is that dreamers were born outside of the country and brought illegally into the country as children. Most americans on the other hand, which includes most immigrant kids, both those of legal and illegal parents, were born in the U.S so they've been legal since birth thanks to everyone born in the U.S being granted citizenship upon birth. This is actually something unique to the americas as everywhere else in the world at least one of the parents to be a citizen for a child born there to be granted citizenship.

Don't get me wrong, I'm most definitely not a fan of Trump or most of his followers, but this is one of those (few) cases where something he does actually makes at least some amount of sense. If congress can't pass a more permanent solution in time Trump killing the U.S Dream Act obviously runs a serious risk of causing a lot of people a lot of grief due to circumstances outside of their control. However there's also the rule of law question as the law was in some sense a form of immigration amnesty to people who broke the immigration laws.

Once again, don't get me wrong. I sympathise with dreamers, but at the same time I can understand why people want them deported in the first place. If I had to chose a solution to this problem, which has existed for decades and never been properly solved, I'd implement something similar to the Dream Act except with proper citizenship waiting for them at the end being on the straight and narrow for a few years.

Re:Newspeak

[JoshuaZ]

Right, that makes complete sense. Let's go ruin the lives of people who are active, productive members of society who have jobs, friends and communities because their parents did something when they were little children. Because that's a policy that's both practically justifiable and reasonably compassionate.

Re:Newspeak

[nomadic]

And yet most scientists are Democrats.

Re:Newspeak

[Plus1Entropy]

Who the fuck are you talking about? Humans left Africa and eventually migrated across the Bering Strait and then south over thousands of years to settle North and South America.

Who the hell was here before that?

Re:Newspeak

[Pinky's Brain]

Democracy will not work with open borders, people will stream in faster than the economy can adapt, vote themselves entitlement because they feel no allegiance to the working population whatsoever ... and then either fascism (lefty or righty, small difference) or civil war.

Democracy is a fragile institution which relies on a commonality and community which multiculturalism can't produce.

Re:Newspeak

[Plus1Entropy]

This is fascinating, however, there is no mention of 'genocide' anywhere.

The Clovis people were defined by culture. People did come across the Bering Strait into the Americas, they just weren't Clovis (yet) when they did. The Clovis culture developed after people had already settled and then spread. That's what the headline means by "Clovis People Not First Americans".

The people who settled the Americas still all have a common genetic heritage and came in a single migration. Here is an excerpt from the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M, who published the study referenced in that article:

Current data from molecular genetics do not support this model of Native American replacement of Paleoamericans. All major Native American mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups emerged in the same region of central Asia, and all share similar coalescent dates, indicating that a single ancient gene pool is ancestral to all Native American populations. Similarly, all sampled native New World populations (from Alaska to Brazil) share a unique allele at a specific microsatellite locus that is not found in any Old World populations (except Koryak and Chukchi of western Beringia), which implies that all modern Native Americans descended from a single founding population that was the result of a single migration. This is further supported by ancient DNA studies showing that Paleoamericans carried the same haplogroups (and even sub-haplogroups) as modern Native groups. Thus, although the Paleoamerican sample is still small, the craniometric differences between the early and late populations are likely the result of genetic drift and natural selection, not separate migrations from different sources in Asia.

I'd like to add that when they say "different sources", they clarify elsewhere on the page that sources can be separated spatially or temporally. Meaning that the last sentence also precludes 2 separate migrations that came from the same geographic source.

Re:Newspeak

[karmatic]

"We are all illegal. We stole this country from the people that lived here."

My family immigrated, legally, from conquerors, but that's neither here nor there. The native american population is a cautionary tale on what happens if you don't control immigration.

You get displaced.

Re:Newspeak

[liquid_schwartz]

And yet most scientists are Democrats.

Most engineers are Republicans.

I can summarize, scientists who live in ivory tower situations can be highly liberal but those of us in the real world less so. That sounds about right.

Illegals are illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal aliens are illegals, because they have broken the laws

Those who have broken the laws are criminals

We should not allow a group of criminals off the hook, just because they belong to a certain ethnicity

Because if we do that, it would be unfair to people of other ethnicities

Re:Illegals are illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

He's saying that people from south of the US border, which tend to be a specific ethnicity, get to play by a completely different set of rules than immigrants who come from the eastern, northern, and western borders.

The way the US handles illegal immigration today is very racist because it benefits Latinos while ignoring others, but most don't seem to complain when other leading countries (Germany, France, Japan, Belgium, Spain, Canada, etc..) follow their immigration & deportation laws.

If you call Trump's travel ban a "Muslim ban" because the countries targeted are mostly made up of that demographic, then the way illegal immigration is handled in this country is racist b/c of who it mostly benefits. 87% of the illegal immigrants in the US are latino/hispanic.

Re:Illegals are illegal

[Frank Burly]

People who break criminal laws are criminals. Dreamers, almost by definition, have not broken any criminal laws—which is how they were allowed to become Dreamers to begin with.

Your ethnic argument is telling, but not persuasive. In the first place, these are not criminal proceedings, in the second place, it is not their ethnicity that would allow them to stay, but rather that they came here at a young age, have obeyed the criminal laws of this country, and are not high school drop outs.

These people are culturally American, and there is nothing unfair to Americans in letting them stay.

Re:Illegals are illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even about ethnicity. That's just the card they pull so they can scream "racist" at anyone who challenges them.

It's about labor class. These companies want cheap workers. Someone in the country illegally will try to stay under the radar. That means working for less, not reporting unsafe or unfair working conditions, and falling victim to predatory employers who will abuse them. These companies will continue to squeeze people and push hard (ie. lobby/bribe/threaten) for any arbitrage advantage they can get, and to hell with the people.

For all the demands I hear regarding past slavery conditions, these same people are ignoring the actions of the multi-national companies TODAY.

Re:Illegals are illegal

[callahan2211]

I'm a dreamer. I dream of an America that cares about Americans

Re:Illegals are illegal

[hey!]

I explained my reasoning. You simply say "bullshit" because you've got nothing.

Re:Illegals are illegal

[sexconker]

The Democrat got 2.8 million more votes for President, but lost because of affirmative action for small states (aka the Electoral College).

How cute. You think this is a democracy.
This nation is INTENTIONALLY designed to keep member states mostly sovereign and to prevent mass idiocy in populous states from tanking the whole union.

Yes they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's where I get into arguments with my Berkeley, CA family members.

To work in companies, the illegals use other people's Social Security numbers, they will then files taxes to get their refunds, Child Tax credit, Earned Income Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit, and education credits, and what have you.

The poor bastard whose Social Security they used gets a letter stating that "they have already filed taxes" and we get that mess.

But wait! There's more!

See, since the illegal alien is running around with that person's SSN - even if they DON'T get credit - there are many other businesses that use it for background checks, governments who use it, and so forth.

So, when the American goes for a mortgage or student loan or whatever, their identity is flagged. Uh, you're here in Virginia but there's all this activity in California. This doesn't look right. DECLINED.

And it's up to the American to sort it out - including all the costs.

Solution? Immigration reform.

Re:Yes they are.

[nomadic]

"To work in companies, the illegals use other people's Social Security numbers, they will then files taxes to get their refunds, Child Tax credit, Earned Income Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit, and education credits, and what have you."

Not true; Dreamers are (well, were) eligible for social security numbers.

"To work in companies, the illegals use other people's Social Security numbers, they will then files taxes to get their refunds,"

Or, they just get Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) that let them file tax returns.

Re:Yes they are.

[Chas]

Immigration reform is NOT "open borders".
That's uncontrolled immigration. And that's what's being fought right now.

People point to 100+ years ago. Forgetting that "free country" also meant you were FREE TO STARVE.
Nowadays, there's a massive, EXPENSIVE social infrastructure. And that infrastructure simply CANNOT withstand uncontrolled immigration.

The US does NOT owe the rest of the world a living, or even a better lifestyle.

If people want to immigrate here, DO IT THE RIGHT WAY OR STAY HOME!

Re:Yes they are.

[epyT-R]

Yeah, so we can become like Malmo, Sweden and adopt the crazy policies in Germany? I'll pass.

Borders and sane immigration policy help keep the peace between cultures with conflicting value systems. When there's mass immigration because one of those systems is markedly inferior, the migrating culture ends up bringing those same problems to the new host country.

Re:Yes they are.

[epyT-R]

..or they can just immigrate legally instead. What a novel concept!

Re:Yes they are.

[thegarbz]

Yeah, so we can become like Malmo, Sweden

It would be a major step up for many American cities.

Re:Yes they are.

[ChatHuant]

Very, very difficult in the US. The process takes years, and acceptance is unlikely even then. That's why there are illegal immigrants.

I don't think that is relevant or should be brought in this discussion. It just confuses the issue.

If the law doesn't allow something, or makes it difficult, it's because that's how the people of the land have decided things should be. Of course, some laws may be unreasonable or should be changed (and, FWIW, I do believe immigration law is really in need of an overhaul), but that's another discussion - there are mechanisms in place to change laws people don't like. They may be slow, but that's also intentional - and a good thing, IMO.
 
In the meantime, the law is what it is, and whether it's inconvenient, or whether somebody really really doesn't want/doesn't feel like following the law doesn't make breaking the law acceptable. Yes, illegal immigrants really really want to stay in the USA. Yes, getting a visa legally is difficult, and probably many of them wouldn't qualify anyway. Neither of those things should matter; and I think somebody who has already demonstrated disregard for American law shouldn't get an easy path to citizenship.

Many people advocate breaking laws, with the best of intentions. For example, all the cities declaring themselves sanctuaries; that's driven by an admirable sentiment, but is in my opinion deeply flawed. Even though we all have seen exceptions, and complain about this daily, respect of laws in America is still much more prevalent than in places like Mexico. People who just go and break laws they consider unacceptable, or obsolete, or even unjust, instead of working to change those laws via existing constitutional mechanisms undermine this respect; that, I believe, creates a very dangerous precedent.

Re:Yes they are.

[liquid_schwartz]

Good thing we already have laws again that. Illegal immigrants don't get welfare and

Legal permanent residents (LPRs) must pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems for approximately 10 years before they are eligible to receive benefits when they retire. In most cases, LPRs can not receive SSI, which is available only to U.S. citizens, and are not eligible for means-tested public benefits until 5 years after receiving their green cards.

You're ignoring a lot of details. The anchor babies do qualify for benefits immediately as well as the mother and they have no issue paying those benefits to illegal mothers. The US hates fathers so they are out. The anchor babies can eventually also sponsor their parents, siblings, and other family members. The majority of immigration over the past 50+ years has been family members that all start from a single anchor. The anchor babies also get free schooling and a variety of other benefits. It's really not hard, if you want the US to look like a 3rd world country, and it does more every year, then just allow a majority of 3rd world people in and you'll have it.

Re: Yes they are.

[Grishnakh]

Not our problem that no predominately non-white nation outside of Japan is considered a first world industrial nation.

You forgot South Korea, and probably China too. There's a lot more industry in China now that probably any other country in the world. Your smartphone was most likely made there, and there's pretty much no technology more cutting-edge than that.

Compare the age of these white established nations to the ages of those in Africa or Asia or the Middle East. It wasn't privilege that advanced them as fast as it did, it was hard work and ingenuity.

You need to read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. There's good reasons Africa is so far behind. As for the Middle East, personally I'd lay the blame for that entirely on religion. The Muslim cultures used to lead the world in math and science, until one day they decided that anything that wasn't in the Qu'ran was crap, and it's been downhill since then. That should be a good lesson to the religionists here in the US and other western nations, but they're not learning it. Back in the times the Muslims were in the lead, the white Europeans were living in mud huts as serfs, and had no education and were largely illiterate. It wasn't until the Renaissance much later that Europe really turned things around (and simultaneously, the Muslims had abandoned all progress in the name of religion). In short, if the Muslims hadn't turned fundamentalist back then, things would be very, very different now. The Europeans "won" because the Muslims turned stupid. Also, during much of that time, China, while having a large and old civilization, intentionally turned inwards and didn't interact much with the outside world. It's not that hard to come out ahead when your biggest competitors intentionally shoot themselves in the foot.

Finally, I wouldn't really call the success of Europeans the result of just "hard work". People in other cultures were working hard too. The Europeans just did several things right for a change, which led to some great successes, though they also did some awful things to take advantage of others. The things they did right were adopting rule of law rather than theocracy, adopting rational thought (science), and adopting an economic system that allowed greater prosperity across the population (instead of feudalism where a few lords had all the money and resources and everyone else had squat; you're not going to get much innovation when everyone's dirt poor). The awful things they did were colonizing the "new world", and brutally subjugating the people there (the Spanish were the ones most guilty of this brutality, and Spain still celebrates this today by having military parades on Columbus Day to honor his brutality toward the natives; the English weren't nearly as bad, and generally tried to use treaties to take land from people who didn't have a concept of land ownership). This paid off hugely for the Europeans, but at the expense of the Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, and various indigenous tribes. I wouldn't call stealing from people and murdering them to be "just rewards for hard work".

We want your dreams to come true...

[zifn4b]

Translation: We want labor savings and couldn't care less about your dreams

Re:We want your dreams to come true...

[squiggleslash]

If the Dreamers just get the same rights as citizens, then the tech industry will be no better or worse off than anyone else. This isn't like H1-Bs.

A Distraction from H1-B

[PeteJanda]

My cynicism meter went to 11 when I saw a headline about large tech companies banding together ostensibly for the benefit of illeg... errr, "Dreamers".

My first reaction was, "How do they benefit financially with the status quo?" But then I realized this question is of secondary significance. The primary question is, "How does this help distract from the importing of illegal labor via H1-B's?" And then pieces fell into place.

Re:A Distraction from H1-B

[liquid_schwartz]

H1B could be solved in an afternoon by auctioning off the permits instead of a lottery. Those companies that *really* wanted a particular person could bid higher get their key person while the issue of paying below market wages issue would be dealt with immediately. As a bonus it would reduce the deficit since the revenue from the program would be higher.

Re:If they are illegal, they need to go

[JoshuaZ]

What does them not being children at this point have to do with anything whatsoever? They've known their entire lives here, they are students and coworkers, productive people who have done nothing wrong and are being punished and having their lives disrupted for the sins of others. Instead of kicking them out which benefits no one at all, why not normalize their status and make it easier for them to legally find work and everything else so they can continue to be loyal, productive members of the society they grew up in.

Re:Gosh, the cockroaches really are out in full fo

[Anonymous Coward]

You call people scum just because they want to uphold the law?

>> some day, good, decent, caring human beings will have had enough of you...where cockroaches like you belong

Newsflash: Good, decent caring human beings neither condone breaking the law or personally insult others just for their opinions.

Your attitude of encouraging people to become illegals, to repeatedly and systematically break the law as a lifestyle, then expect to be rewarded for it is wrong and bad for society on multiple levels, as is your whole "self-appointed moral highground" tactic.

Supply and demand

[Anonymous Coward]

Off the top of my head tech companies have supported H1B's, illegal immigrants, mass migration, code camps, public education training and significant efforts to inspire girls to become women who code for decades.

These efforts have nothing to do with altruism, in fact they are driven entirely by self centered greed. The more they can increase the labor supply the lower the cost for their primary expense - labor. These companies should start being called out for their charades and their greedy ways exposed for what they are.

Wages in tech have been stagnant or declining for many years due to these efforts. It's time to tie H1B visas to sustained wage increases. If there truly is a shortage of workers than wages will rise accordingly. Keep it simple, in order for an H1B visa to be issued for a job in a region, that region must show an increase in wages of at least 10% over the course of a year.

Posted anonymously so I don't get blacklisted in the industry

Re:Sure

[Type44Q]

Humor me: name a country that I, as an American citizen, would be allowed to remain in if my parents had dragged me there illegally as a child?

Amnesty? What about people in the pipeline now?

[mveloso]

As a note, why should these people hop in front of all the other people that are legally trying to get into the US? Are we going to penalize those who followed the laws?

Re:Amnesty? What about people in the pipeline now?

[MorePower]

There isn't really a "pipeline" now. Most would-be immigrants flat out don't qualify to legally immigrate. They don't illegally immigrate to skip the line, they illegally immigrate because there is no line for them to get into. If you create more legal ways to enter the US, then these potential immigrants would be paying the processing fees (same as legally-applying immigrants today) so the government could hire more employees to process the increased workload, so the "line" should stay about the same length.

Re:Amnesty? What about people in the pipeline now?

[squiggleslash]

As a note, why should these people hop in front of all the other people that are legally trying to get into the US?

Because they're here already, have already made lives for themselves, are already integrated into society, and have done nothing wrong, and because sending them back to a country they barely know if at all would be horrifically cruel.

Also there's no line. Letting 100,000 Dreamers stay here does not prevent others from coming in or delay their entrance. Quite the reverse actually: if the authorities are tied up deporting people, they have fewer resources to manage normal immigration.

BTW I am a legal immigrant.

USA has an employer problem not immigration

[FeelGood314]

90% of the illegals crossing into the USA are doing so because it is so easy to get a job in the USA. In the Bay area, every morning at 4am you will see school buses (likely the same ones that take your kids to school 2 hours later), busing in workers to do yard work, cleaning and other manual labor. They aren't getting paid minimum wage, they all seem to look a bit Latino and aren't speaking English. hmm. The USA's laws about illegal migrants are not about keeping them out, it is about keeping their wages down and making sure they don't use any government services. If the USA wanted to end 90% of the illegal migrants they could just grant the migrants the right to a $30/hr wage and then enforce it by going after the employers. It would solve the illegal migrant problem over night. It would be total chaos for months as businesses that relied on $2/hr wages collapsed but most of those companies are total leaches anyway (I'm talking about the high water usage farming in the California in particular).

Re:USA has an employer problem not immigration

[Solandri]

As an employer who tried not to hire illegal aliens, but got a lot of illegals as job applicants, it's nothing like you characterize. It is already a crime to hire an illegal alien. The penalty ranges from a few thousand dollars for the first offense, up to tens of thousands of dollars and jail time for multiple offenses.

The problem is the government requires some sort of government ID and a social security number before you can hire someone. But it doesn't give employers any way to authenticate that the documents they receive are legit. I spoke to multiple employment attorneys about this, and the best you can do is make copies of the ID presented to you and keep them on file. This is your due diligence - proof that you attempted to comply with the law to the best of your ability should the employee's legal status come into question.

In other words, the government doesn't make any effort to block illegal immigrants from working. If it wanted to, it's be trivial to implement an electronic system which could verify an applicant's ID as legit. Social security cards are trivial to fake, and they don't even need a real SSN if they don't plan to work past the end of the year (at year's end, employment taxes are submitted and SSNs which don't match the person's name and address on file get flagged by the IRS). Just a simple system which allows you to submit a name and SSN, and it spits back valid/invalid would block about 75% of the illegal applicants we got (based on flagging by the IRS). Likewise, government ID could be confirmed the same way, possibly adding a unique code onto each ID to make forging impossible without access to the original source documents.

But the government doesn't do it. They're not serious about stopping illegal immigrants from working. My hunch is conservative politicians want to keep cheap illegal labor readily available. And liberal politicians want to encourage people to enter the country illegally to skew Congressional reapportionment (House representatives are allocated based on total population - legal and illegal - so every 743,000 illegal immigrants is approximately an extra House seat), and on the outside chance they'll be legalized and become voters (they're disproportionately low income with liberal politics).

Re:Jail for you in Mexico

[MorePower]

All of my great-grandparents entered the US legally too. The immigration rules at the time were:
1) Show up at the US border
2) You're white? Welcome to America.

The rules for a Mexican today?
Go the the US embassy with a lawyer and prove you fall into one of these categories:
1) You have a couple million dollars to invest in the US (buying yourself a mansion counts as "investing in real estate")
2) You are a model/actor/singer/pro-athlete/celebrity of some sort.
3) You have at least a bachelor's degree in technology/hard science and an employer sponsoring you for H1b
3) You have parents/children/siblings/a spouse (or fiancee) already legally in the US (this is a much harder and takes much longer than the visas that are about money)

Don't fall into those categories?* Then you can't come to the US, at all, period, no mater how long you wait or how much paperwork you fill out.

*OK there are a couple other ways to legally immigrate, but they are pretty unlikely for your average Jose from Mexico.

Re:Jail for you in Mexico

[thegarbz]

My great grandfather came to this country from Canada via Germany LEGALLY!

My great grandfather bought Heroin from the corner drug store to help treat his grandma's headache LEGALLY! It's amazing how the laws have changed over the years, especially immigration law which at the time of your grandfather would have required ... errr.... just coming in. Referencing the past as some comparison to the present only serves to show how little you understand of the world.

Re:Jail for you in Mexico

[radarskiy]

"It's a CRIME!"

a) It's a civil offense.

b) Those that receive DACA deferrals were minors when brought to the United States.

c) Those that receive DACA deferrals are not given normalized immigration status. They are given low priority for deportation as long as they can prove that they are not committing any crimes, etc.. In exchange they have provided the Federal government with their whereabouts so that if they become reprioritized they can be quickly rounded up.

d) Those receiving DACA deferrals cannot naturalize. They have to leave the US and reenter to provide a clean immigration record, and since they were knowingly in the US out of status there is an automatic 10 year exclusion.

e) Those that receive DACA deferrals are ineligible for any federal benefits.

Re:Jail for you in Mexico

[karmatic]

" but they are pretty unlikely for your average Jose from Mexico."

That's the point.

Immigration is supposed to be beneficial for the country - it's not their job to be beneficial for you.

I'm a Mexican. I'm an immigrant. A legal immigrant. It took me about 10 years to qualify to immigrate to Canada, and I had to get a lot of things in order. There are only so many slots to immigrate, and it fell to me to figure out how to qualify. My family did, and here we are.

It's a good thing that Canada tried to pick the best immigrants - the ones that would be an asset (prior to the current PM). Unlike the time of my great-grandparents, Canada has socialized healthcare, and a welfare system - people need to pay their own way, or the system eventually collapses. That means being able to earn a decent wage, and having the education and language skills to do so.

Re:If they are illegal, they need to go

[JustNiz]

>> Consider how it works in a more civilised country, like the UK

Yes let's, since I am actually English but a LEGAL immigrant to the US. Secondly after seeing both, I would no way agree that the UK is any more civilised than the US. In fact in the last say 20 years especially I would say its become very noticeably significantly less.

>> After staying long enough in the UK, you receive "permanent residence status", which means you have the right to live and work in the UK,

NOT even close. You absolutely can't just illegally enter the UK and then be allowed to stay. In fact you've got far more chance of successfully doing that in the US (especially in Californistan and any other sanctuary cities) than the UK.

Yes you can enter legally and get those things, just like you can in the US. I know because I did it myself, and If I can do it anyone can.