[Uncle_Brumpus]

I had never vacationed abroad in my whole life, then last year I traveled separately to Amsterdam (with 2 nights in Groningen) and Paris. Both trips ended up being cheaper than similar domestic trips. Both times I was extremely sad to return home.

I would love to emigrate to Europe. One of the nights in Amsterdam, I couldn't sleep and spent the night frantically researching how to legally emigrate.

[CalRobert]

It’s getting insanely popular but the Dutch American friendship treaty is worth a look.

[xhkkffbf]

That's a bit ironic.

If all of the undocumented people in the US spent this much time trying to emigrate legally, the US wouldn't need ICE and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[yibg]

There are 2 separate topics that seem to get bundled together a lot.

1. Should we deport illegal immigrants? While there are some debate here (sanctuary cities, immigration reform etc), it's not the primary cause of the current ICE repulsion.

2. How deportations are done currently. Mass round ups, targeting everyone, including those with no criminal record, the violence involved. This is what most people are against.

[_DeadFred_]

Our immigration system is broken. Reagan realized this in the 1980s and gave amnesty to millions and Republicans were going to reform it. But businesses being able to abuse an unprotected 'undocumented class' won out instead.

[justin66]

> If all of the undocumented people in the US spent this much time trying to emigrate legally

Many of the "undocumented people" (what an Orwellian phrase) that have been rounded up by ICE are picked up during court hearings or immigration interviews. An easy way for agents to meet their quota without doing any actual investigative work. Say what you will about them but there's no denying those people were by definition "trying to emigrate legally." This has been widely reported.

[rapnie]

> Many of the "undocumented people" (what an Orwellian phrase)

Yeah. Also "Illegal aliens" used often by US government officials is even more Orwellian.

[xhkkffbf]

No. If you're "trying to X legally", that means you don't just do X anyway no matter what the legal system says. Next you'll claim that robbers are trying to earn a living legally".

[justin66]

> no matter what the legal system says

I appreciate the way you phrased that, "what the legal system says" rather than "the laws," since it's important to keep in mind a lot of what we're talking about is mercurial executive branch policy rather than statutory law. (which is why US immigration has been such a shitshow for such a long time)

On the other hand, you're apparently ignorant of what's actually happening, and it's making you write stupid things. The Trump administration's policy changes when he took office immediately made a lot of people, not my choice of words, "illegal" immigrants instead of "legal" immigrants. Maybe you support that, that's your business, but to claim those people were not "trying to emigrate legally" because the new administration changed the rules is simply dishonest.

[mothballed]

Most illegal immigrants could spend the rest of their lives trying to immigrate legally and never make it, so that doesn't seem rational. Being undocumented is their best bet, as long as they don't break the criminal law once they're past the border and they make it 100 miles past the border their odds of being caught are next to nil. ICE is mostly catching people that either turn up in the legal system or are documented somewhere where they can be found.

[xhkkffbf]

Uh. Most of us will spend our whole lives trying to earn money but never make it to being billionaires. So are you saying it's rational to disregard the legal system and steal?

The irony is rich here. Country X is bad for enforcing its immigration laws. So let's run off to country Y and dutifully follow its immigration laws.

[mothballed]

That depends if it's more practical to steal a billion or earn it legally. I suspect the most practical way to get to a billion is to legally steal it, perhaps with some form of regulatory capture or a government franchise granting a monopoly. Whether you think this is right or wrong is immaterial to what the practical approach is.

It is definitely easier to immigrate illegally for a large portion of the world population, and probably most illegal immigrants. Rational actor then would immigrate illegally.

I think this also very much depends on the country. Only a total idiot would try to "legally" immigrate to Argentina as their constitution essentially grants citizenship just for surviving for two years, and meanwhile there is essentially no immigration enforcement and fairly onerous visa process to do it "legally." On the other hand, you'd have to be an idiot to illegally immigrate to China in anything but the most dire circumstances, as they have an Orwellian surveillance apparatus and getting a legal business visa is fairly straightforward particularly in some special economic zones. On the Argentina<->China scale I would rate America as further towards the Argentina side, albeit with no path to regularization of status for most illegal immigrants.

Having a dogmatic adherance to the law leads to irrational actions. But also having a dogmatic disdain for the law also leads to irrational actions. Everything has to be considered in context. In the context of the USA you mostly have to be an idiot to try and immigrate legally if you are low skilled poor person from a 3rd world country with no connections. In the context of an educated American going to Europe, the rational choice is probably to immigrate legally.

From this lenses I don't really see any logical inconsistency in the fact the same person might pick illegal on one path and legal for another. Although yes if they are leaving the US because they hate immigration controls and dogmatically following immigration controls overseas in someplace like Argentina where it doesn't even make sense to do so, then they are definitely hypocrites.

[FireBeyond]

As someone who immigrated here, legally, from a low-risk country, I can tell you it cost the best part of $35,000 going through the process, and byzantine weirdnesses and requirements that included things like my mother-in-law signing surety on my usage of Social Security and Medicare and other financial commitments because US immigration is in some ways so broken that it cannot at all comprehend a world where the immigrant might be the breadwinner, and not the USC (I was working as an experienced senior IT person while my US partner was back in college).

Ultimately, it would have been quicker, easier, and cheaper (and in the end, just as legal as my immigration) to come here on a tourist visa or the VWP, marry her in spite of the prohibition thereon, and ask for forgiveness and apply to be able to stay anyway.

When it's those three things versus "legal immigration", and other factors, I rather empathize with many of those people.

And as for your comment, it's more and more apparent that Trump intends for ICE to be his cudgel for all manner of opposition, not just immigration issues (witness the attempts to extort Minnesota into handing over state voter rolls, "We will move ICE enforcement out of the state if you do") so no, we'd still be having it.

[UncleMeat]

ICE has been regularly picking people up at their asylum hearings and deporting them. That is precisely people trying to emigrate legally.