I don't know how this has anything to do with angles.
What I mean is, if a child applied for permanent residency now in India, they might not actually ever get to the front of the waiting list. The only perspective from which that might be considered "reasonable" is one which is against that person getting residency.
Is this hyperbole? Why do I doubt this isn't the case.
140,000 green cards per year, maximum 7% from any country of origin, so about 10,000 of them could get a green card per year, and again that's not withstanding other people from Mexico trying to get residency. 6,000,000/10,000 = 600.
Even if it was extremely hard and difficult. Say I wanted to live in Japan. Please for the sake of the discussion, bare with me her. Morally speaking, And Japan didn't want me or if Japan had rules in which to obtain a way to live there, and they took 20 years. Would I have the right to just barge my way in and decide I get to be there?
I don't really care, because I was specifically talking about why I think saying "conservatives aren't against immigration" is unreasonable. I don't think it'd be helpful to suddenly start talking about immigration policy in general.
I don't see how it's ridiculous. I literally went through the process. I did it. Why can I not tell others to do that?
Which country are you from, and what economic situation were you in when you applied? Because like, again, the waiting list for a green card in India (which is where the vast majority of US green card applicants are from) is multiple decades, and almost 2 centuries for people working lower valued jobs, and I get a feeling you didn't have to go through that. Maybe it's easy for people working higher valued jobs in Western countries with lower numbers of applicants, but who cares? It's not really representative of the process for most people.
The US doesn't have money. It takes money from American tax payers. American tax payers aren't obligated to just give money away to people outside the US. Do you think it just grows on trees? Where do you think it comes from lol. This is funny because I speak with a lot of liberals and I'm not even saying you're liberal but it reminds me that some actually think money is some sort of infinite magically resource that evil republicans are just hording for themselves-- LIKE A DRAGON! It's like dude. The government doesn't actually provide a service and profit off of anything. It just takes money from it's citizens. People fail to realize this haha. Plus the idea of just "throwing money at a problem" magically solves it super ignorant. That's doesn't fix anything.
Well, it doesn't really change my point though, does it. The immigration system is (as you said) resource intensive, and you couldn't care less about giving it resources to effectively deal with the number of people that would like to immigrate. If the US spent less than it currently did, you wouldn't be advocating for raising that spending to its current levels, would you?
This is completely untrue. The fact is, if everyone wanting to immigrant to the US, was for the US, and wanted to uphold it's values of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, and individualism, which many many immigrants don't actually want to do because it completely goes against their way of life (which the rest of the world is conservative to where they grow up), it wouldn't be an issue whatsoever. Sadly, the fact is, immigrants flock to the US to get on benefits because instead of fixing their own country, the opportunity of just leaping to a better country is a lot easier. Little do they know and realize that in order for the US to become what it was, it didn't have communist values, or islamic values, or collective values.
Right, so, again, you don't actually support legal immigration for most people, just people that already in good socioeconomic positions and support the US economic establishment. Because, this is kinda what I'm trying to get at - you can't say "actually we DO support immigration" if there's a "just not for the people that the conversation is focused on" tagged on afterwards.