Chinese Immigration Law Vs. American Immigration Law

I find that US immigration law is extremely liberal compared to China. For example, to use high speed rails, rent an apartment, fly on an airplane or stay at any hotel, Chinese citizens need their ID Card (equivalent of Social Security Card) and foreigners like me need a Passport with current Visa. If my Visa is expired I'm fined roughly $100 per day that I've overstayed, and then I'm deported until I get a current Visa. 

Beijing laws are even more strict. Today a friend told me that when he was in Beijing he had a hard time finding a hotel simply because he's a foreigner. He and his colleagues went to 5 or 6 hotels before one accepted them. I Googled it to find out why and read this: "Every foreigner in Beijing checking into a hotel must present a passport and current Visa. That information is then hand-written on multi-part, carbon-paper forms forwarded daily to the PSB, public security bureau, to verify paperwork of foreigners." Apparently many hotels in Beijing hate dealing with the PSB, so they don't allow foreigners.

I've been in China for over two years now and haven't seen or heard of one "undocumented immigrant" yet. Maybe they're here, but from what I've seen, they simply aren't allowed. Sure, having proper documentation is a hassle. But as a guest in China, I've never felt victimized that China enforces their immigration laws.

Reagan's Amnesty vs. Obama's Amnesty

In 1986, Ronald Reagan passed a sweeping Congressional amnesty bill. Rather than being an Act of Congress, Obama's amnesty mandate completely bypassed congress, and was therefore not legal. Personally, I'm pro amnesty for good families who abide by the law. But amnesty should be, and has always been, an act of congress. 

One argument that is often made by Democrats to justify Obama's use of executive action here is that Bush and Reagan used executive action to pass their own amnesty. Yet there are major flaws in this argument. As one article points out, "These Reagan and Bush 41 executive actions were obviously different than what Obama is doing now. They were trying to implement a complicated amnesty that Congress had already passed. Congress’ action was a form of immigration relief that obviously fit within our constitutional system. Moreover, Congress left a gap when it came to immediate family members, including minor children, of individuals who qualified for the amnesty. Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 forbore from deporting people in that select group."

Gridlock isn't unique to Obama. Every president has to deal with being blocked, some more than others. Actually, many of Obama's bills have been passed, especially in his first two years when Democrats controlled the house and senate. Checks and balances are actually a strength of our system - not a weakness, as Obama seems to suggest. 

When I went to China, I had to pay a lot of money for a Visa and go through customs. I've seen friends fined and even deported for not following specific customs regulations in China  This isn't unique to America, and we shouldn't be so quick to assume that all immigration law is based in racism. 

What are your thoughts?

The Ethics of Border Laws

I'm interested in making legal immigration easier in America. America is built on immigration, diversity and welcoming ethical people into our country. But I also see the value of enforcing our borders. Every civilized country has border laws. For example, when I went to China, I paid a lot of money for a work visa and passport. I also had to go through background and medical checks. I didn't complain about this process, but understood that it is standard procedure to keep a country safe.

What are your thoughts? Are these standards necessary?