What the Waiting List for Legal Residency Actually Looks Like

I find it's pretty common in discussions on immigration for those taking a hard line to insist that they are not anti-immigrant, simply anti-illegal immigration. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think they simply don't realize how incredibly restrictive our legal immigration system is. In the hope of chipping away at that ignorance, here's an excerpt from an article at The Atlantic:

The United States has a cap for how many people can apply for a visa from each country. There are three factors that determine who gets approved: what category an individual falls under, how many others are in that category, and when an individual applies. Certain types of people have to wait decades to apply for an immigrant visa, while others take a much shorter amount of time. A U.S. permanent resident’s unmarried son or daughter, who is 21 years old or older, will have to wait roughly 21 years to file an application for an immigrant visa if they’re from Mexico, according to the State Department’s visa bulletin. The delay is a result of too much demand.

That last sentence is key -- "the delay is a result of too much demand." If this doesn't bother you; if in fact you think that perhaps we already allow too many people in as it is -- then please drop the whole "I'm not anti-immigrant" tack. It's dishonest. If, OTOH, you agree that it's ridiculous that people have to wait decades to immigrate legally, then I'd humbly suggest you spend less time freaking out over the number of "illegals" in the country and more on pushing our lawmakers to come up with solutions that allow for a sane, orderly immigration process that matches demand.

We shouldn't be scared and upset that people think our country is a good place to live. We should be honored, and welcoming those who want to come and help us in this project we call America.

I would rather see our nation's immigration policy revised than eliminate immigration controls all together. The whole geographic-based quota system is out of date and should be reworked or better yet eliminated. There are other factors far more important than what part of the world a person comes from in determining how to best structure a legal immigration program. 

Not to put too fine a point on this, Donald and Melania Trump like to profess that she came to the US legally and all other immigrants should too. But as referenced above, not all immigrants are treated equally. Melania came in on an HB-1 visa - which is a specialized worker visa. Her work? Modeling. Add that modeling agencies  push to have a certain number of those visas eat-marked for models and you see that she had a better chance than many. Add further that she's from Slovenia - a country with more slots and shorter waiting times, overall. 

Just saying...

Rather than having no controls at all the USA needs a sensible policy like Israel, Canada or Australia for example

A couple of posters have alluded to "no controls." Please note this in my post:

allow for a sane, orderly immigration process that matches demand

I know posters weren't necessarily referring directly to my OP, but for the record, I don't think a fair reading of my words suggests I favor "no controls." 

Controls related to background checking, etc. I have no problem with.

What other kinds of controls do people think are needed?

sac said:

Controls related to background checking, etc. I have no problem with.

What other kinds of controls do people think are needed?

I know for a fact that in one large non-first world country background checks are useless. You pay the local police and your record will show you to be a virgin.

I wonder how many other countries have that issue.

I think BG9 has made a relevant point. The U.S. Government has to double check some countries vetting more than others. This may be why, as a point of procedural pragmatism, some countries require a vetting that is more burdensome to our system than others, and the numbers are thusly limited.

I would imagine that this is what accounts for the different "quotas." Mexico, while a major source of potential immigrants, is also an unreliable country to accept exit vetting from, whereas, Slovenia, Milania's home country, might be considered a reliable source. Immigrants may be considered reliably vetted by their nation of egress.

It doesn't help that Trump has demonized third world countries' immigrants as individuals. The fact that their nation's exit vetting is unreliable probably pre-dates his vitriol, but the fact that it is consistent with immigration inequities makes the process easy to criticize in the context of an anti-immigration president.

It's often more complicated than a tweet.

Having said that, I feel our country has an obligation to vet and accept immigrants and refugees efficiently. I don't expect that to be prioritized by the current administration, but it should be a priority of any U.S. administration.

It's the one characteristic of the United States that makes us, and has always made us, great. And, I hope, under the right leadership, it will make us great again.

jersey_boy said:

I think BG9 has made a relevant point. The U.S. Government has to double check some countries vetting more than others. This may be why, as a point of procedural pragmatism, some countries require a vetting that is more burdensome to our system than others, and the numbers are thusly limited.

How good are we at vetting in unreliable countries considering that we can't even do a decent job of vetting here?

Consider that criminals here manage to get security clearances or who get jobs working with at risk people even though they should have been vetted.

Given that the quotas aren't based on security concerns, this talk about vetting is largely an academic exercise, isn't it?

A system that was focused more on security and less on setting arbitrary caps on the number of people we let in would meet my standards for "sane and orderly," but it's not the system we have nor, do I suspect, is it the system most people who are most worked up about immigration want. If security were the driving criterion, we'd be letting a lot more people in legally than we do now.

said:

I find it's pretty common in discussions on immigration for those taking a hard line to insist that they are not anti-immigrant, simply anti-illegal immigration.   This is my position!

Giving them the benefit of the doubt,  Oh my!!! how generous of you to give some leeway to those  poor misguided souls that have a different opinion

I think they simply don't realize how incredibly restrictive our legal immigration system is. In the hope of chipping away at that ignorance, I really object to being called ignorant because disagree with you.  How arrogant!!!
here's an excerpt from an article at The Atlantic:

The United States has a cap for how many people can apply for a visa from each country. There are three factors that determine who gets approved: what category an individual falls under, how many others are in that category, and when an individual applies. Certain types of people have to wait decades to apply for an immigrant visa, while others take a much shorter amount of time. A U.S. permanent resident’s unmarried son or daughter, who is 21 years old or older, will have to wait roughly 21 years to file an application for an immigrant visa if they’re from Mexico, according to the State Department’s visa bulletin. The delay is a result of too much demand.

That last sentence is key -- "the delay is a result of too much demand."
If this doesn't bother you;  No1. It doesn't bother me.  if in fact you think that perhaps we already allow too many people in I don't agree with that either.  I guess there's no middleground for you.  as it is -- then please drop the whole "I'm not anti-immigrant" tack.
It's dishonest. This really p*sses me.  How dare you call me "dishonest".
If, OTOH, you agree that it's ridiculous that people have to wait decades to immigrate legally, then

I'd humbly suggest There's nothing humble about you.  Your mock dissembling and condescending tone is tooooo arrogant!!!

you spend less time freaking out over the number of "illegals" in the country and more on pushing our lawmakers to come up with solutions that allow for a sane, orderly immigration process that matches demand.  This is the heart of the issue.  This whole argument rests on the idea the we, or other nations, are obliged to accommodate everyone's desires.  And that failing that we should condone illegal activity.  
We are NOT NOT NOT obliged to do so!!! 

We shouldn't be scared and upset that people think our country is a good place to live. We should be honored, and welcoming those who want to come LEGALLY!!! and help us in this project we call America.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/opinion/canada-immigration-policy-trump.html?mcubz=3

lord_pabulum said:

Rather than having no controls at all the USA needs a sensible policy like Israel, Canada or Australia for example