That said, I cannot understand the tumult over trying to make our immigration system more like Canada and Australia
The tumult is caused by distortions, and misrepresentations of the current system in the debate.
Accepting the Canadian system, which also has three components would mean:
1) Economic immigrants. This used to be about 2/3 of immigrants in Canada. Less now because refugee acceptance has increased...
2) Family Unification, About 25%
3) refugees. The rest.But increasing due to private sponsorship.
The first category is like the US lottery system that Trump derides without really understanding it. Individuals submit applications in both systems. Only there is a limitation in the US. Then the two systems vett the applicants. Canada uses a point system that ensures those best able to adapt or contribute quickly are the first to be approved. 12 months is a common wait period for acceptance or denial.
The US takes two years to vett for security reasons only. And applicants can still be waiting after a dozen years.
The US also has preferred applicants who are sponsored by corporations due to a shortage of labor types in the US. Canada's system simply provides more points to people who have these qualifications. Corporations can help applicants apply when they offer employment. These people are often fairly quickly approved (A few months) as a job waiting for them is almost enough points all by itself .
The second category is what the US calls Chain immigration. Again in Canada family reunification is pretty much automatic but limited by quotas.For immediate family its usually less than 2 years. In the US so called family reunifications takes from 3 to 12 years, or even longer. Some chain.
The third category is refugees. These are prioritized by the greatest need, and other than security clearance people are generally accepted only for humanitarian reasons. This category starts with a number who are sponsored by the Canadian government. Then private citizens or community groups can sponsor a number usually 4 times larger. (My parents sponsored a Vietnamese boat family in the late 70s. It took 3 years for the whole family to be reunited,as mother and baby had to be sponsored out of Vietnam and not a refugee centre. )
Refugees need the most assistance in assimilating. The theory is that if the appetite exists for this sponsorship, the government should accept any privately sponsored that pass security vetting. Because the private sponsor ships are both an expression of public will, and a commitment to the required support.
In the last two years 48.,000 Syrian refugees came in. About 36,000 were privately sponsored. That would be like the US accepting 480,000 or so.Its a pretty big number and required a lot of private sponsorship for these, usually poorly qualified persons.
In order to move to a system like Canada, there has to be a common view point in society that immigration is generally a good thing, that we require certain kinds of immigrants to fuel our industries labor needs, that it doesn't matter where someone comes from if they have the right qualifications.(In order immigration in 2015 came from: Phillipines, India, China, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and the USA. Shit hole countries?)
It also means that there must be room for compassion both for family reunification and for refugees.
The problem in the US is that, although there is generally compassion there is also distortion and misrepresentation due to the political debate having moved to polar opposites. Trump and right wing racists are one large part of this...When you lie about the nature of the system, and the nature of the current undocumented populace ... You can't deal with the problem rationally. It becomes only emotional. And, like Trump, uninformed.
A vast 86 percent of Americans support a right to residency for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children, with support crossing the political spectrum. Two-thirds back a deal to enact such legislation in tandem with higher funding for border contro
.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/american ... d=50032985
I think this position makes sense. The problem is that Trump has made a border wall a symbol of immigration control. However the wall would be a largely worthless investment, and a symbol of racism at the same time, (made racist by Trumps pronouncements on the quality of Mexican immigrants). And that is the problem. Its hard to invest many billions in an ineffective wall when there are genuine infrastructure needs that are unaddressed.
Perhaps Republicans and Democrats could coalesce around expenditures on actually effective immigration control. (With employers). But as Fate has pointed out, many corporations fight those initiatives... and that's who really controls the government.
Trump, being an idiot and not a four dimensional chess player, gave the Democrats an issue that they could use in the funding debate. DACA. He didn't have to end the DACA waiver and set a deadline. But he did. Without a plan. Or even a concept.(I'm sure Kelly will tells us, one day, that Trump was uninformed on this too.)
Now, because 86% of Americans appreciate that these DACA persons should be welcomed .... Democrats can safely plant a flag and make a stand. Trump can't back down because if he does his racist base will feel betrayed. And the rest of the republicans are left adrift with no direction. McConnell, particularly looks silly complaining about obstructionist Democrats ...