this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
52 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7328 readers
286 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I guess I can see the merit in both systems. Like obviously it's more humane to just let them stay, and government bureaucracy rarely works as it should. On the other hand, having a loosey goosey permissive policy seems like it would surely encourage more illegal immigration. But the whole argument against immigration made by the right is so two-faced. They're the ones hiring people without documentation so they can shave operating costs at the cost of human exploitation. I think a better system would be to severely punish employers who hire undocumented workers.
I mean, this is just the requirement path for spousal citizenship. Other visas have different requirements. Here, You have an established couple. One person can definitely, legally, gain employment and save money for the process. Yes, it may cost upwards of $10,000 for just the residency. If ones already here illegally, and you've saved up that much, you could probably save a bit more and find a place to stay in another country. If this was during covid, I think the odds of a spousal immigrant staying in a camp on the boarder, are lower than for the people applying for asylum.
Honestly, anyone I've met, with a spouse from another country, has had no problem doing it this way. They meet while the one immigrating still has permanent residence in their home country. They commute and have a long distance relationship. They feel the risk of losing their family is too great, so they do it the right way. It's fair, to think that idea should extend to employers, as well.