Open Border Tragedies Caused by Visa Lottery System

[Pennycat 880]

1 hour ago, Dianalorena said:

I think that, independently of what you're saying (I don't think you're wrong, but we're both entitled to our opinions and to perceive this in different ways) You also have to look at the context. 

Although it may have been a ''diplomacy/goodwill'' sort of thing as you mention, things do change, a country's requirements and how people see immigration as a whole, shifts from time to time. I don't even think it's all due to the current administration, but it has become a global issue where countries just don't seem to know how to please all people without facing scrutiny or facing trouble. 

 

The relationship between the United States and the countries that they are so diplomatically inviting, is also changing. It is understandable that people (U.S citizens and foreigners) will continue to politicize situations like what happened in New York, which rekindled the fire in this debate. There's significantly more pressure to ''do something'' about the lottery right now. Even if the people coming in are not ''taking jobs away from citizens'' (I don't subscribe to that idea) the perception that they are a threat (even if they're not) feeds people's fears. Fear is ultimately one of the main reasons why the U.S has the president they currently have, fear that immigrants are somewhat preferred or have certain benefits, over citizens. In this case, I can see why the idea of ending it can be so appealing to many people, whether I support it or not. 

 

 

 

And that's fine I'm not arguing the merit of the purpose of the program. I do think it's important for people to stop thinking that the purpose is to add ethnic diversity to the US population because it simply isn't and isn't even tied to the makeup of the US population at all. 

[Dianalorena 1,153]

3 minutes ago, CatherineA said:

And that's fine I'm not arguing the merit of the purpose of the program. I do think it's important for people to stop thinking that the purpose is to add ethnic diversity to the US population because it simply isn't and isn't even tied to the makeup of the US population at all. 

That's fine  it's just hard to separate the notion of it being a VISA to add diversity when it concentrates in bringing diversity by region, which is hard to separate from ethnicity in a lot of people's minds.

I'm sorry but, how is bringing 50,000 people annually not tied to the US population? I know it's a tiny fraction in comparison to the rest of all the VISAS, but I read that roughly 500,000 people have arrived since 2007, how can it not affect the population? I'm genuinely asking,  I really know very little about the subject. 

 

 

[Pennycat 880]

1 minute ago, Dianalorena said:

That's fine  it's just hard to separate the notion of it being a VISA to add diversity when it concentrates in bringing diversity by region, which is hard to separate from ethnicity in a lot of people's minds.

I'm sorry but, how is bringing 50,000 people annually not tied to the US population? I know it's a tiny fraction in comparison to the rest of all the VISAS, but I read that roughly 500,000 people have arrived since 2007, how can it not affect the population? I'm genuinely asking,  I really know very little about the subject. 

 

 

It's by country not region. Which is nationality not ethnicity. Hard for people to separate or not, those things are not the same thing. Clearly it's hard for some folks here to understand which is half the reason this thread is as long as it is. 

 

The eligibility is based on each country's previous 5 years, how many people from that country immigrated to the US. So, it is tied to the annual immigrant population, not the makeup of the US population as a whole. No kidding that the immigrant population eventually adds to the US population. But it doesn't change the fact that the measurement is based on the annual immigrant population. It's the difference between saying that 50,000 Salvadorans immigrated to the US in the last 5 years and so they aren't eligible for the DV and saying that Salvadorans are a small fraction of the existing US population so we should open it to them (or vice versa, almost no Salvadorans immigrated in the past 5 years but they are represented heavily in our existing population so we won't open DV to them).  If you can't  see how this is a fundamentally different thing, I don't know what to tell you. 

 

Also, that 500,000 over 10 years about one tenth of one percent of the present US population. Sure it adds, but at nowhere near the rate of population growth generally and all other forms of immigration. So tying eligibility to this narrow/small number really isn't going to swing the overall US population in any meaningful way.

[Dianalorena 1,153]

2 minutes ago, CatherineA said:

It's by country not region. Which is nationality not ethnicity. Hard for people to separate or not, those things are not the same thing. Clearly it's hard for some folks here to understand which is half the reason this thread is as long as it is. 

 

The eligibility is based on each country's previous 5 years, how many people from that country immigrated to the US. So, it is tied to the annual immigrant population, not the makeup of the US population as a whole. No kidding that the immigrant population eventually adds to the US population. But it doesn't change the fact that the measurement is based on the annual immigrant population. It's the difference between saying that 50,000 Salvadorans immigrated to the US in the last 5 years and so they aren't eligible for the DV and saying that Salvadorans are a small fraction of the existing US population so we should open it to them (or vice versa, almost no Salvadorans immigrated in the past 5 years but they are represented heavily in our existing population so we won't open DV to them).  If you can't  see how this is a fundamentally different thing, I don't know what to tell you. 

 

Also, that 500,000 over 10 years about one tenth of one percent of the present US population. Sure it adds, but at nowhere near the rate of population growth generally and all other forms of immigration. So tying eligibility to this narrow/small number really isn't going to swing the overall US population in any meaningful way.

I was just asking an honest question. 

The fact is, 500,000 people more is, 500,000 people more, even if it is a tiny number compared to the US population overall, or using the annual immigrant population as reference. It's still 500,000 + people that lived somewhere else and now live in the U.S, correct?

I personally have the perception that every one of us has a small impact on the world (think carbon footprint) Many of these people will have kids, and the kids have their own kids, so that number will be significantly bigger and will continue to grow. Again: I'm not against it, but saying to me, it makes a difference. 

 

Choosing a specific country is choosing a nationality, which indirectly might seem like choosing ethnicity, whether that's the intention or not. Sure, the ethnic variety in a specific country is going to be diverse thanks to their own immigration and I perfectly understand where you're coming from. These people moving there are not being ''cherry picked'' for being a specific ''race'' and I got that, since the beginning. I'm just opening to discussion and learning from people's points of views. 

I can see why it might be a confusing system to some, especially in the current political climate. That's basically it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boiler 46,164]

2 hours ago, CatherineA said:

Was being the operative word and tense. Is not now.

Those from Ireland North or South still qualify.

[Pennycat 880]

8 minutes ago, Dianalorena said:

I was just asking an honest question. 

The fact is, 500,000 people more is, 500,000 people more, even if it is a tiny number compared to the US population overall, or using the annual immigrant population as reference. It's still 500,000 + people that lived somewhere else and now live in the U.S, correct?

I personally have the perception that every one of us has a small impact on the world (think carbon footprint) Many of these people will have kids, and the kids have their own kids, so that number will be significantly bigger and will continue to grow. Again: I'm not against it, but saying to me, it makes a difference. 

 

Choosing a specific country is choosing a nationality, which indirectly might seem like choosing ethnicity, whether that's the intention or not. Sure, the ethnic variety in a specific country is going to be diverse thanks to their own immigration and I perfectly understand where you're coming from. These people moving there are not being ''cherry picked'' for being a specific ''race'' and I got that, since the beginning. I'm just opening to discussion and learning from people's points of views. 

I can see why it might be a confusing system to some, especially in the current political climate. That's basically it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes that adds people. You were previously talking about those people changing the demographic makeup of the US population as a whole, not sheer numbers and carbon footprints as you are now.

 

So yes clearly 500,000 additional  people is 500,000 additional people. Still not enough to meaningfully shift the demographics of the US population,  which is growing through births and other forms of immigration much quicker than the DV lottery immigrants could possibly make statistical impact on.

[Dianalorena 1,153]

8 minutes ago, CatherineA said:

Yes that adds people. You were previously talking about those people changing the demographic makeup of the US population as a whole, not sheer numbers and carbon footprints as you are now.

 

So yes clearly 500,000 additional  people is 500,000 additional people. Still not enough to meaningfully shift the demographics of the US population,  which is growing through births and other forms of immigration much quicker than the DV lottery immigrants could possibly make statistical impact on.

I've always thought of people's impact individually, I never made it about race. sorry if I didn't make it clearer before. 

I also never mentioned I think it would shift the demographics of the US population. I don't. but I guess it does, to some people?

 

 

 

 

[Pennycat 880]

21 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Those from Ireland North or South still qualify.

Yes but because they meet the eligibility criteria,  not because an Irish American congressman is pulling strings. Why Northern Ireland is split out on its own probably has a bit more to do with the US's overall foreign policy than ethnic preference, but I will give you that that is a strange choice.

[Pennycat 880]

4 minutes ago, Dianalorena said:

I've always thought of people's impact individually, I never made it about race. sorry if I didn't make it clearer before. 

I also never mentioned I think it would shift the demographics of the US population. I don't. but I guess it does, to some people?

 

 

 

 

Whether you intended to or not, you kind of did, or it seemed that you did. When I said that the program is to add diversity to the annual immigrant population, not the US population as a whole and you asked how the one won't effect the other it came across that you were thinking that the demographic makeup of the DV immigrants would have meaningful impact on the demographic makeup of the US population. It just can't, not meaningfully,  in those small of numbers in comparison to the existing size and growth of the US population. 

[Dianalorena 1,153]

5 minutes ago, CatherineA said:

Whether you intended to or not, you kind of did, or it seemed that you did. When I said that the program is to add diversity to the annual immigrant population, not the US population as a whole and you asked how the one won't effect the other it came across that you were thinking that the demographic makeup of the DV immigrants would have meaningful impact on the demographic makeup of the US population. It just can't, not meaningfully,  in those small of numbers in comparison to the existing size and growth of the US population. 

I know that's what you perceived, but it wasn't what I meant at all. 

Adding diversity to the annual immigrant population is adding population. In no moment I meant that I thought they would substitute/surpass U.S citizens in any way.

I just wanted to understand the reasons behind the diversity lottery, since I don't know much about it. That was pretty much it.