# Trump backs plan that would curb legal immigration **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651 "2017-08-02T20:58:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Tatterdemalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/43a26b/32.png) [@Tatterdemalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatterdemalion)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/41 "2017-08-03T15:53:07Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > The proposed seems misaligned with his goal to increase GDP at ludicrous speed. Productivity growth is ho-hum, so we’ll need people. There’s a little wiggle room wrt workforce participation, but teenagers and grannies only go so far. I thought you wrote wrote GOP instead of GDP at first. I think this proposal is very well aligned with the goal to increase the GOP. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/42 "2017-08-03T15:55:19Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Free school lunches don’t have anything to do with whether immigrants are a burden on the welfare system (rather, all it says is something about where they live – poorer neighborhoods). SNAPP and cash welfare might, but those statistics show that immigrants are no more of a burden than non-immigrants. > > That’s a reasonable summation of the facts of immigration and social welfare. Thus the WH’s attempt at justification from these numbers is total bullshit. Let’s aside aside the school lunches portion for a second. You seem to have a desire to drift away into hyperbole today. Thinking through the fact that 27% \> 25%, and reviewing your sentence from above that includes the phrase “no more of a burden”, is there anything you’d like to retract or clarify? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/43 "2017-08-03T15:55:57Z")
Furthermore, I don’t see how, even if the numbers were correct, this should come as any surprise anyway. There are greater welfare percentages for people coming into a completely new culture and for whom there will be barriers not encountered by native citizens? Knock me over with a feather. Using that as a reason for eliminating them from consideration for entry? What were the terms I was searching for? Oh yeah, bigoted, disingenuous, and anti-American. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/44 "2017-08-03T15:58:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Let’s aside aside the school lunches portion for a second. No thanks. If you want to address my points, and then you have questions later, then I’ll answer them then. I’m more interested in adult conversation than nitpicking. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/45 "2017-08-03T15:58:58Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Furthermore, I don’t see how, even if the numbers were correct, this should come as any surprise anyway. … This seems like a big step backwards (or maybe it’s forwards with you) from your earlier position of “I believe those two sentences are lies …” ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/46 "2017-08-03T15:59:22Z")
Under this bill, a 30-year-old fluent in English with a bachelor’s degree in Art History is more likely to be admitted than a 36-year-old with a Master’s degree in computer science and 10 years of experience in the industry who speaks limited English. What exactly is the defense of that extreme weight on English ability from a policy perspective? I don’t think it has anything to do with the economy. It has everything to do with guys like Stephen Miller’s perception about what that will mean for who comes and what effect they have on American culture once they get here. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/47 "2017-08-03T16:00:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No thanks. If you want to address my points, and then you have questions later, then I’ll answer them then. It’s OK, I’m satisfied that I’ve adequately debunked your post with this little mathematical equation: 27% \> 25% ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/48 "2017-08-03T16:02:01Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Under this bill, a 30-year-old fluent in English with a bachelor’s degree in Art History is more likely to be admitted than a 36-year-old with a Master’s degree in computer science and 10 years of experience in the industry who speaks limited English. Cite? (BTW, this isn’t an I-think-you’re-wrong cite request, it’s a genuine request for where’d-you-learn-that because I hadn’t seen any specifics about how heavily the English language requirement would be weighted.) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/49 "2017-08-03T16:04:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It’s OK, I’m satisfied that I’ve adequately debunked your post with this little mathematical equation: 27% \> 25% That’s a shame. I thought you might be interested in adult conversation, and be as annoyed as I am that the WH is using bullshit (as in “irrelevant”) numbers about school lunches to disparage immigrants (which the numbers show aren’t anything close to a significant burden on our social welfare systems compared to non-immigrants). If you just want to score points, carry on. But I’ll be here if you want some actual exchange of ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/50 "2017-08-03T16:07:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Cite? (BTW, this isn’t an I-think-you’re-wrong cite request, it’s a genuine request for where’d-you-learn-that because I hadn’t seen any specifics about how heavily the English language requirement would be weighted.) The [bill](https://www.cotton.senate.gov/files/documents/170802_New_RAISE_Act_Bill_Text.pdf) lays out the point system. You get 12 points for being in the top decile for English language testing, and no points for being at the median. By contrast, holding a Master’s Degree in a STEM field is only worth 2 points more than a BA in any field. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/51 "2017-08-03T16:07:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s a shame. I thought you might be interested in adult conversation, and be as annoyed as I am that the WH is using bullshit numbers about school lunches to disparage immigrants (which the numbers show aren’t anything close to a significant burden on our social welfare systems compared to non-immigrants). > > If you just want to score points, carry on. But I’ll be here if you want some actual exchange of ideas. I was trying to have an adult conversation, which is why I politely asked that we set aside the “school lunches” issue for a second and clarify the specifics of the programs you had called ‘commonly understood as welfare benefits’. In other words, I was trying to drive our conversation towards the portion of the point that _you_ seemed to think was more significant. You snapped back with post #44. Fuck that noise. If that’s the thanks I get for trying to focus the conversation on the portion of the statement you yourself seemed to think was important, then IDGAF anymore. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/52 "2017-08-03T16:08:30Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > The proposed seems misaligned with his goal to increase GDP at ludicrous speed. Productivity growth is ho-hum, so we’ll need people. There’s a little wiggle room wrt workforce participation, but teenagers and grannies only go so far. If enacted this reform would increase GDP. Educated people are more productive than uneducated people so this would increase GDP. Educated people are also less likely to use government assistance so that would increase GDP. Educated people are also less likely to commit crime than uneducated people so that would increase GDP. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/53 "2017-08-03T16:11:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I was trying to have an adult conversation, which is why I politely asked that we set aside the “school lunches” issue for a second and clarify the specifics of the programs you had called ‘commonly understood as welfare benefits’. In other words, I was trying to drive our conversation towards the portion of the point that _you_ seemed to think was more significant. You snapped back with post #44. Fuck that noise. If that’s the thanks I get for trying to focus the conversation on the portion of the statement you yourself seemed to think was important, then IDGAF anymore. I apologize if leaving out “significant” before the word “burden” caused you such problems. I wish I had put it in in the first place, but I figured that you could figure out what I meant, and that your “let’s leave aside the school lunches…” was a dodge because you didn’t want to talk about the bullshit use of the school lunch numbers. I said “no thanks” in #44. Then I said I’d answer your questions later. That shouldn’t piss you off so much. It’s not such a big deal. So here’s your chance to have an adult conversation about the irrelevant use of the school lunch numbers. Are you okay with the WH using irrelevant numbers to disparage immigrants? You shouldn’t be, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/54 "2017-08-03T16:14:21Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The [bill](https://www.cotton.senate.gov/files/documents/170802_New_RAISE_Act_Bill_Text.pdf) lays out the point system. > > You get 12 points for being in the top decile for English language testing, and no points for being at the median. By contrast, holding a Master’s Degree in a STEM field is only worth 2 points more than a BA in any field. Thanks for the link (and the translation from the legalese of the bill). ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/55 "2017-08-03T16:21:22Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > If enacted this reform would increase GDP. Educated people are more productive than uneducated people so this would increase GDP. Educated people are also less likely to use government assistance so that would increase GDP. Educated people are also less likely to commit crime than uneducated people so that would increase GDP. Based on **Richard Parker’s** link, the proposal values moderately educated people with great English skills far, far more than very highly educated people with moderate English skills. That seems contrary to the goals you suggest. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/56 "2017-08-03T16:22:27Z")
It’s even more extreme than my first comparison, really. You could have a Master’s Degree in a STEM field, median English skills, _and a job offer_, and get passed over for someone with no educational degree, no job offer, and fluent English. So the idea that this is privileging education, or privileging people who will be productive, seems quite contradicted by where they are actually putting the emphasis. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/57 "2017-08-03T16:26:50Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So here’s your chance to have an adult conversation about the irrelevant use of the school lunch numbers. Are you okay with the WH using irrelevant numbers to disparage immigrants? You shouldn’t be, IMO. I don’t consider the use of free school lunch numbers “irrelevant”, but I also don’t think they’re terribly central to the administration’s claim here. [This study](https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households) (which, I believe, is the source of the claim in the original White House press release) says: > [@](#): > > This study is the first in recent years to examine immigrant (legal and illegal) and native welfare use using the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). While its complexity makes it difficult to use, the survey is widely regarded as providing the most accurate picture of welfare participation. The SIPP shows immigrant households use welfare at significantly higher rates than native households, even higher than indicated by other Census surveys. > > In 2012, **51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households.** Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs. > > Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare. > > No single program explains immigrants’ higher overall welfare use. For example, **not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives.** Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives. > > … Do you think the White House’s point would be significantly weakened by excluding school lunches and using 46% \> 28% instead of 51% \> 30%? I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/58 "2017-08-03T16:27:02Z")
And to debunk even further: [https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/errors-about-immigrants-government-spends-much-more-native-born](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/errors-about-immigrants-government-spends-much-more-native-born) > [@](#): > > But last month the National Research Council released a study concluding that > > immigrants put more into the public coffers than they take out. How does this > > square with Smith’s and Shaw’s assertions? > > … > > · Totals. Adding together all the above transfer payments plus schooling > > costs-is the appropriate measure of government expenditures for an assessment > > of the costs and benefits of immigration. Total expenditures on natives per > > capita are much greater than the expenditures on immigrants per capita, > > roughly $3,800 versus $2,200. > > It is quite astonishing that the estimates for natives are so much higher > > than those for immigrants. The gap derives mainly from the costs for the > > elderly. These data are rough because of the age composition of the immigrant > > population—more of whom came in recent years—and other uncertainties in the > > estimates. But two conclusions are sure: > > (1) The slightly greater expenditures for immigrants on the narrowly defined > > welfare programs are more than offset by other categories—indeed, dwarfed by > > them. Therefore, the welfare programs alone deserve no attention. > > (2) Overall expenditures for immigrants are not greater than for natives. > > Rather, expenditures for immigrants are much less those for natives. Yes, I realize it’s 20 years old, but I’d expect the general principles delineated there to still hold true. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/59 "2017-08-03T16:30:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t consider the use of free school lunch numbers “irrelevant”, but I also don’t think they’re terribly central to the administration’s claim here. [This study](https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households) (which, I believe, is the source of the claim in the original White House press release) says: > > Do you think the White House’s point would be significantly weakened by excluding school lunches and using 46% \> 28% instead of 51% \> 30%? I don’t. I think if they had used an argument with numbers that actually supported their argument (I’m not sure about the accuracy of the study you cite, but at least those numbers would actually be relevant to their argument) then it would have been much stronger. Although the fact that this study doesn’t differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants weakens it when relating to the proposal about limiting legal immigration. But why do you think the school lunch numbers are relevant at all? The only thing they tell us is that immigrant children tend to go to poorer public schools. Why would that be relevant to relative burdens? ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651/60 "2017-08-03T16:33:54Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > They already do a pretty broad investigation into immigrants’ financial affairs. Of course there’s always the possibility of fraud, but that’s why it’s called fraud. Oh man, you got that right. My wife’s (and my) finances were gone over with a fine-toothed comb. I really don’t see how it could be any more thorough that it already is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-backs-plan-that-would-curb-legal-immigration/792651.md?page=4)