Also, IME, the point about genuine refugees is that they are usually fairly attached to their homes, and tend to want to get back there asap.

That kind of assumes there are homes to return to. A lot of people will, rightly, never feel safe in former-Yugoslavia or Rwanda or ... again.

Of course people want to get out of their countries for hosts of different reasons. There can be short-term things -- war, famine, natural disaster, oppressive regime -- and they want to go home again straight after. Of course the war, famine, natural disaster or crappy regime, may also be long term things with no end in sight. So you'd probably be thinking long term or forever. Then there's just the poor and downtrodden -- the poor seething masses who got out of Europe in the 19th century and populated places like the States because there was space and freedom and opportunity they could never have at home.

And of course they were wanted at the receiving end as cheap labour or as bodies to settle great open empty spaces.And even if they were exploited, they had the hope that their children would have a better life and an education and generally they did. Some wanted to do some exploiting themselves if they had the chance.

Also, IME, the point about genuine refugees is that they are usually fairly attached to their homes, and tend to want to get back there asap.

That kind of assumes there are homes to return to.

Yes, sorry. I should have said "homelands".

Kassto - exactly. That's what I mean - there are thousands if not millions of reasons why people become immigrants, short or long-term. Yet the discussion around immigration is hopelessly reductive.

For a while, we had a cleaning lady who was from Croatia. She was terribly sentimental about the place, tears would spring to her eyes whenever she talked about it. But when she had to go back (and I do mean had to - once the war was over, she no longer had the right to stay in Germany), she didn't want to go. It's complicated.

America's population is holding steady; the difference is immigration, both legal and illegal.

Without discounting your statement, the US also has an unusually high birth rate for a developed nation.

But it is certainly true that most developed nations need immigration just to keep their populations steady (and to help mitigate the aging population crisis that's building as the Boomers start to retire). However, if that were the only way they proposed to address the issue, the immigration levels they would actually need are far in excess of current policies.

On the high end, special visa programs such as the U.S. uses for many foreign tech workers holds wages down by tying them to one employer. If they quit that employer they are deported, which lets the U.S. employer pay substantially less than U.S. market.

Incidentally, I'm in the US on such a visa. Though I don't believe I'm being paid less than market rates, it's a somewhat different circumstance.

And in totally unrelated news, I've come across Aussie Rules football on Channel 98. This may be my new favorite sport, mostly because the uniforms are skimpy and the athletes are hot. Also, the referees wear funny hats.

My favourite Aussie Rules moment came a couple of years ago, when an umpire forgot his position and took a mark himself. Then sent himself off.

If they quit that employer they are deported, which lets the U.S. employer pay substantially less than U.S. market.

Some of the employers who do this are former immigrants who know the system, I read in today's paper. Also, more of the visa holders this happens to are successfully suing for back wages.

Are you on an H1, Billytea? Because they changed the rules on those so you can switch employers.

Now, speaking as the great-great-great-great grandchild of a good-for-nothing, albatross-shooting, Scottish remittance man who emigrated to New Zealand on the good ship the William Shakespear (sic)....

I'd just like to say that Buffy the movie was so awful that I only watched a third of it three days ago and haven't been able to stomach finishing it. The acting was awful, the cast was awful, it had no... resonance whatsoever. The only two things I liked were the menstrual cramps thing (which, as Joss has said, wouldn't have worked on the series because Buffy would have known straight away what Angel was), and the fact that Kirsty Swanson had a bit of amazon muscle, unlike our delicate SMG who looks like a puff of wind would blow her away.

Compare that to the series, when, after 10 minutes of Welcome to the Hellmouth, you know you're on to something special.

On the high end, special visa programs such as the U.S. uses for many foreign tech workers holds wages down by tying them to one employer. If they quit that employer they are deported, which lets the U.S. employer pay substantially less than U.S. market.

And another group that gets caught up in this is the wives of these workers, whose only choice is deportation if they or their children are being abused and they want to get out of the relationship.

Not to upset the nice serious discussion, but wheeeeeee! Why did I not hear more people squealing about The Magic Bullet when it aired in the US? Damn but I love this episode--I'd call it my favourite of the season but I just finished watching it ten minutes ago so I have no perspective at all. Jasmine is so fucking creepy, she made my skin literally crawl--Gina Torres did an amazing job and I'm so glad they got a good actor for the role because Jasmine could have been such a ridiculous character with the wrong person playing her *cough*Glory*cough*. Amy Acker also blew me away, and usually I'm only so-so on her acting skills.

Does Jeff Bell have a shrine? Because I'm feeling the urge for ritual sacrifice and worship.

Eta because I'm a suffering a little post-episode brain deficiency and was using the wrong ep title.

Are you on an H1, Billytea? Because they changed the rules on those so you can switch employers.

I'm on an L1. Not that I actually wish to change employers at the moment, you understand. Just countries.