Should America adopt the UAE's immigration and citizenship policy?

[u/SwordofFuheis]

My understanding is that the UAE has a relatively open immigration policy alongside tight citizenship rules, and laws which favor locals over expatriates. Economists report that the GCC by permitting such high levels of immigration does substantially more to reduce global inequality then the "fortress welfare states" of Western Europe and North America. Economists also report that benefits from global free immigration would be in the trillions. So the reason there is less immigration is political not economic.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2509305&fbclid=IwAR3WFQp-FzZe5fwRyFka6sHaoW-P6D6vAC8e8sCNPGQ6wWVze2QZXsg2Nsc

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/01/immigration-wall-open-borders-trillion-dollar-idea/

So, do we think America should adopt the UAE immigration and citizenship policy?

[u/AutoModerator]

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/blyzo]

Considering how UAEs policies are often likened to modern slavery I don't see them as a model America should try emulate. Especially with our history.

[u/prinzplagueorange]

No. Instead of supporting slavery, we should be supporting debt amnesty and social democracy for poor countries so that people are able to live decent lives in the place where they were born.

[u/Gazdalkodok]

Sounds like the good ol' ancient Athens policy where the metics and their children and their children pretty much never acquired citizenship but nobody really had any issue with it and their population still prospered in harmony with the citizens (well, and the slave caste). Certainly beats throwing out citizenships at everyone like a candy and politically disenfranchising the nation that gave the state its legitimacy in the first place to which the reaction is the "fortress". The fortress cannot really succeed because of the legal framework so you get schizophrenic policies like today's Europe where we still ostensibly pretend asylum is a human right but are turning the boats back at the same time.

[u/ClaireBear1123]

To a certain extent, this is already our de facto immigration and citizenship policy. I don't think it could ever be codified though, even if it might be beneficial to all involved.

Tons of tension points stand in the way. You'd have to repeal birthright citizenship, for one. Then there's the whole idea that America stands for equality for all, so some might find the literal creation of an underclass to be repellent. Anyone who tried to justify the protection of American Citizenship would be called a white nat or worse. And one party (probably the Dems) would consistently be pushing for the whole system to be thrown out and the immigrants to be given citizenship status so that they could reap the electoral benefit.

It could only ever work in a society that knows what itself is and should be. America's self image is schizophrenic at best. Pity.

[u/NardCarp]

Wages are finally rising and everyone is screaming to let in immigrants.

WTF....what is going on now is what we want.

[u/movingtobay2019]

It is not America's job to reduce global inequality. And second, the article does nothing to substantiate the trillion dollar claim. So I would revisit your assumptions.

[u/L1b3rtarian]

Given the horribly poor stewardship our government has shown us in the last 30 years.

My opinion on "should government" questions is... NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[u/sl600rt]

Citizenship and immigration status should be by proven birth parents. Citizens are born from citizens.

Violating immigration laws should bar someone from citizenship forever. Yet still allow them to eventually be permit resident aliens. While the offenders can never get citizenship. Their children could eventually naturlaize and become citizens.

If an immigrant in good standing naturalizes and has dependent children under 18. Then those children should get citizenship as well. As long as they're also in good standing. Dependents 18 and over would have to do the process themselves with no special considerations.

[u/link3945]

So long as employment and other legal protections (including minimum wage, OSHA, full constitutional rights, etc;), gatekeeping various forms of welfare behind citizenship or other work requirements would be acceptable. The US would benefit from a more open and honest immigration system, and immigrants of course benefit from living and working in the US.

The gains of open immigration aren't small. I've seen estimates that mostly open borders globally would triple global GDP. We should be trying to move towards a world with free movement.

[u/elsydeon666]

There are four things we can do to eliminate immigration abuse.

1. Invoke the 13th amendment and make lifetime enslavement the punishment for illegal entry. Put that on signs in multiple languages on the border.
2. Declare sanctuary cities and states as unwilling to protect their residents' rights and invoke the Posse Comitatus Act's relevant section to allow the military to enforce the law.
3. Allow welfare only for citizens (born and naturalized) and refugees/asylees.
4. Ban refugees from applying if they have traveled through another nation, such as the caravans from South America that came through the (very large) federation of Mexico to submit unsubstantiated refugee applications. They should be applying Mexico, not America, but are coming here specifically for our welfare programs.

[u/Veyron2000 → u/elsydeon666]

So, a few reasons why this is silly:

1. Slavery is generally regarded as bad these days. Pushing for more slavery, especially of a overwhelmingly non-white underclass, seems rather immoral. Would this include the ability to arbitrarily kill or whip the slaves, as in chattel slavery?

2. If you do this then I guess the military can come for “gun sanctuary” counties and states as well.

3. Currently only US citizens can get welfare already.

4. Refugees are not coming to America for the “welfare programs” (see above) they are coming because they believe it is safer, because it has more economic opportunity, and because of existing immigrant communities. Also what, exactly, is the problem with refugees legally applying for asylum?

[u/elsydeon666 → u/Veyron2000]

1. Actually, it is intended to be such an disproportionate punishment that nobody would dare invoke it by crossing the border. We already have an effective slavery program. It's called "community service".

2. I don't get how maintaining the 2A right infringes on the rights of citizens.

3. There are a number of non-citizens who can get welfare. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility/citizen/non-citizen-policy

4. They are coming for welfare, as refugees are explicitly eligible for SNAP, which means they get a number of other welfare programs as well. They are not legally applying for asylum because they are not being persecuted. "Economic opportunity" (aka welfare, as they have no marketable skills) is not a valid reason for asylum.

[u/Dialup1991 → u/elsydeon666]

regards to point 1, why not go after the people who employ the illlegal immigrants though. Too often I dont even see that mentioned at all. If there are no employment opportunities for them I think the scale of illegal immigration will taper off , instead of instituting slavery which runs a risk of a crazy government expanding it to even minor citizen offenders.

[u/elsydeon666 → u/Dialup1991]

I agree, we should go after people who knowingly employ illegals, but that is actually rather hard compared to getting the illegals to simply not show up.

Making a law and slapping some signs up on the border is pretty easy. Getting a warrant to search an employer is pretty hard since you have to establish probably cause.

[u/Hartastic → u/elsydeon666]

I agree, we should go after people who knowingly employ illegals, but that is actually rather hard compared to getting the illegals to simply not show up.

It doesn't have to be. What's more, it actually solves the problem instead of being political theatre as border control is.

The problem is that a permanent underclass of illegal immigrants who work for low wages with no rights or ability to go to law enforcement if abused isn't a bug in American immigration policy, it's a feature. It's literally the whole goal. If a majority of Congress actually wanted to solve the problem by putting the employers in prison and followed through, the problem would be solved in a year.