Trump Pushes Bill to Cut Number of Green Cards Issued by Half
wsj.com
wsj.com
Don't a lot of other countries implement a merit-based immigration policy? I say that but also knowing that a lot of other countries also prioritize refugees (Canada) in addition to merit-based immigration. The system I would prefer would be : prioritize refugees, merit-based skills & financial stability for employment and allow spouses and children to come along (preferably allowing spouse to live and work as well). Some countries, like Switzerland, prioritize EU citizens first for employment for instance before considering employment for immigrants from non-EU states. France, another one, is pushing forward with a tech visa program that is a bit enticing since your spouse can also live and work in the country. Overall, this proposal seems to fall closer in line with how other countries are doing things (not exactly the same) but somewhat closer.
I would be curious to know the numbers in terms of population growth percentages to what other countries capped immigration numbers are; also taking into account people migrating out of the country or in the case of the EU, to and from a given country that works with the EU (i.e. Switzerland).
It turns out, that the legal immigration rate into the US hovers around 1-2 million people a year.
The Illegal immigration rate hovers around 10 million people a year.
Over the course of the 1990s, ~10 million people immigrated legally, and 100 million illegally.
So my immediate reaction is that this bill is Trump half-assing again. Dealing with illegal immigration is a difficult issue. But dealing with legal immigration, is far, far easier. After all, these are the law abiding people. So to me, this looks like, just like the Muslim ban, Trump going after something that looks like easy points to put on the board, regardless of policy.
Illegal immigration is much harder to deal with. There are so many people here already, that you're stuck with either the status quo, deportation, or mass amnesty, none of which are great options. On top of that, the Democratic party likes to turn a blind eye to the issue, as the demographic trends this enables works in their favor long term. Similarly, there is strong economic lobbying pressure, usually to the Republican party, by businesses not to crack down on illegal immigration, by businesses who exploit these people as workers without any rights or protection. Historically, while Republican presidencies have been willing to deport people found with illegal immigration status, they genuinely undermine or completely stop enforcement against businesses that hire illegal immigrants, which in turn results in higher illegal immigration during Republican presidencies. Credit due where credit is due, I've seen a few articles mention that that isn't the case for Trump's administration, but I haven't found anything conclusive yet.
So, I welcome with someone with more knowledge than a few google searches, but this seems like a bullshit bill that hurts good people, to give Trump an "easy win".
Reminder that people who couldn't work or speak english were sent back at Ellis Island. People who came here knew they were going to have to work and wouldn't be getting handouts. The idea that we just took in whoever wanted to come here is revisionary history used to push agendas.
Which is why the questions were translated into 39 languages? http://www.essortment.com/requirements-immigrants-ellis-isla... There's nothing in the manifest documentation to suggest this either: http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/EllisIsland/1905-02-HowI...
Admittedly, this is the result of 10 seconds of Googling, but I'd like to see some counter-evidence for your claim.
This was the immigration law at the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882
Assuming an "American first" policy, this is ironically in a way very much the opposite since only refugees are being cut. People coming for work is going to be the same under this.
In fact this bill would probably not hit the senate floor at all [1]. It has too much opposition from Republicans whose states would collapse under the bill and Republicans that want an actual decrease in immigration. Democrat opposition is a given as well.
(1)https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/02/trump_...
The reason america is #1 is because in the past we brain drained other countries, the Manhattan project was run by Hungarian jews hitler ran out, NASA rockets were built by Nazi scientists. Now for some reason we want to do the opposite, might explain why we are on the decline.
Its why I specifically mentioned the bill not actually decreasing immigration. Under this logic the last thing you'd want is to shift the immigrants to take the even better jobs. Most people that believe there isn't a shortage of uneducated workers don't believe educated workers are in short-supply either.
I say this as the software engineer son of an immigrant housekeeper.
Probably; the nonskill categories in US immigration are mostly family-unification categories. The people it brings over have stronger US roots than economic migrants without close family tied here, plus bringing them in reduced outbound remittances and increases domestic velocity of money, spurring demand and creating jobs.
Bringing in additional competition for US workers in high paying jobs keeps wages down and increases returns on capital, which certainly benefits capitalists and the immigrant in question, but less so the country.
If Trump wanted to “make Mexico pay” for the wall (or, better, actual useful US government services), he'd increase the quotas for legal, family-based immigration from Mexico, keeping money that would otherwise flows out into Mexico in remittances in the US domestic economy through more (taxed) exchanges.
Cutting the overall amount of immigration but raising the quality is a win, especially compared to importing H1-B slaves which actually does lower wages for high skill jobs.
Doesn't really matter to the point; non-skilled (or even skilled, but not elite)) immigrants qualified for family-based immigration are quite often supported by their US-based (citizen or permanent resident) family via remittances now; bringing them to the US keeps more money in the domestic economy even if they aren't working, driving domestic demand and creating domestic jobs.
> Cutting the overall amount of immigration but raising the quality is a win
Sure, it's just a question of whether “utility to capitalists” or “ties to the US and contribution to retaining economic activity in the domestic economy” is your benchmark for quality. Clearly, you favor the former, though I can't see why.
> importing H1-B slaves which actually does lower wages for high skill jobs.
H-1B workers aren't slaves, and increasing supply of high-skilled labor decreases market clearing cost independent of whether the visa used to import the labor is an immigrant visa or a non-immigrant visa like the H-1B. I'd abolish the H-1B outright, without any additional skill-based visa quota in other categories, but also allow supernumerary (unrestricted by categorical caps) entrance with work permission and a path to permanent residency of individuals not otherwise excluded from immigration, subject to both annual fees and supplemental income taxes.
HN is intended for gratifying intellectual curiosity, and the two things are pretty much incompatible, because political and ideological flamewar burns up everything else.
You must be confused. There is no left in this country. The Dems are a center right party shifting rightward over the last few decades in line with the general rightward shift in most national officeholders.
For all this deriding of "the left" I hear from my righty friends I cannot name very many authentically leftist officeholders or party leadership. Instead, that party just offers what used to be considered Republican plans (like Gingrich or Romney's views on health care, or the Reagan/Bush tax policy)
That's not entirely true; the Democratic rightward shift pretty much stopped around 2008, plus or minus a little bit. It's dominated by a center-right faction, but it has a substantial (and resurgent over the past ~decade, after having been in retreat since the late 1980s) faction that is somewhere between center-left and left (but not hard left.)
And in the US, the Obama years were tempered from day 1 by the crowd that wanted to moderate a perceived left counter-push which never materialized in legislation. Witness Obamacare is not and never was seriously proposed to be single payer, it has always been a 1990s GOP alternative to single payer.