Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible: US Legal Immigration Rules Explained

Role of Cato and Framing of the Issue

• Some see Cato’s pro‑immigration stance as consistent libertarianism; others dismiss it as Koch-style “free trade” serving capital owners.
• Critics say the paper asserts the US should admit many more people (up to tens or hundreds of millions) without adequately explaining why that scale benefits existing residents.
• Several comments accuse the “nearly impossible” framing of being exaggerated or propagandistic, given ~1M green cards/year plus other visas.

Economic Effects: Who Benefits, Who Loses?

• Pro‑immigration comments argue:
  • Immigration is GDP‑additive, expands markets and tax base, offsets low birth rates, and can reduce inflation in labor shortages.
  • Immigrants often create more jobs than they take; many successful companies have immigrant founders.
• Skeptics respond:
  • Gains flow mainly to governments, corporations, and high‑skill elites; ordinary workers face wage pressure and job competition, especially in low‑skill sectors like agriculture and construction.
  • “More jobs” is not enough; what matters is job quality and living wages.
• There is debate over whether labor “shortages” are real or simply reflect employers’ unwillingness to raise wages or train locals.

Population, Resources, and Sustainability

• One camp worries that more people (immigrants or births) reduce per‑capita access to land, water, and tranquility; they favor much smaller populations and see ecological collapse risk.
• Others call this “we’re full” thinking or “hysterical,” arguing that standards of living have risen with population and that policy and technology can address pollution and resource use.
• There is disagreement over whether declining birth rates signal positive transition, looming collapse, or both.

Legal vs Illegal Immigration and Policy Incentives

• A recurring claim: US policymakers tacitly favored illegal immigration because undocumented workers are cheap, hardworking, and largely excluded from major federal benefits and many labor protections.
• Counterpoint: the amount of welfare going to illegal immigrants is said to be overstated; they often pay into programs (e.g., payroll taxes) they cannot use.
• Some invoke Milton Friedman: illegal immigration can be economically beneficial because it’s illegal; making the same flows legal without changing welfare policy might change the calculus.

System Design: Difficulty, Selectivity, and Fairness

• Many agree the current legal system is slow, opaque, and arbitrary: long waits, complex forms, discretionary denials, and per‑country caps.
• People involved with H‑1Bs and green cards describe a Kafkaesque process that encourages fraud or “off‑the‑books” work.
• Others push back that millions manage it; “nearly impossible” is seen as invalid given many personal examples of legal migration.
• There’s some consensus that:
  • A skill‑based system makes sense, but current thresholds (e.g., O‑1, E‑1) are too restrictive and numerically tiny.
  • Low‑skill legal pathways are underprovided despite clear labor demand.

Sovereignty, Morality, and Birthplace Luck

• One side insists it is “by design” and legitimate that a country excludes most would‑be immigrants; border control is framed as analogous to deciding who can enter a private home.
• Opponents reject the house analogy as a logical fallacy and ask why people should be less free to move than capital.
• Several comments wrestle with moral luck: people aren’t responsible for where they’re born, but voters are incentivized to favor policies that benefit existing citizens even if it harms outsiders.
• Some advocate near‑open borders with fast documentation, arguing the US is uniquely good at integrating immigrants and already depends heavily on migrant labor.

Assimilation and Cultural Concerns

• One argument: earlier immigration was more diverse; recent flows are concentrated from one poor neighbor, allegedly leading to weaker integration and less English acquisition, which many locals resent.
• Others, especially from high‑immigration states, counter that Mexican and Latino communities do learn English and culturally integrate within one or two generations, similar to historical waves.

Practical Experiences and Incremental Reforms

• Stories include:
  • H‑1B workers and postdocs driven out by visa complications.
  • Grandparents and short‑term visitors struggling to get visas, including minors clearly intending to return home.
• Proposed “common sense” reforms from multiple sides include:
  • Simplifying and speeding up processing.
  • Creating clearer low‑skill work visas.
  • Redesigning H‑1B to prevent underpayment, employer lock‑in, and per‑country backlogs.
  • Longer‑term visit visas for relatives.
  • Some even suggest constitutional changes to narrow birthright citizenship for tourists.
• A sizable contingent argues that serious legal reform will only be politically feasible after the border is perceived as “secured” and existing laws are fully enforced.