The evidence shown from post #147 points at this proposal from Trump and the Republicans in congress to be based on emotions with a weak patina of “serious research”.
Really, basing a bill on the dictates of hate groups is not a convincing argument.
Appeal to humanity and decency? You haven’t established that your point of view satisfies any of that. Just typing compassion and decency accomplishes nothing.
“X is compassion incarnate!” is not really a compelling rational argument for X. Obviously, appealing to the reptile emotional brain does work. But please don’t confuse it for rational thought.
I’m really curious here: do you believe Canada’s immigration rules are “based on emotions with a weak patina of ‘serious research’”?
ETA: and why the hell do you believe the bill is ‘based on the dictates’ of CIS? Did CIS recommend a weighting system somewhere? Or did you misinterpret ‘used a couple of lines from one of their studies in a White House press release’ with ‘dictating the basis of the bill’?
As seen in the last 3 replies, some do not care indeed if the emotions used for the flawed research Trump and others are using to justify the change are coming from the worst angels of their nature of the current rulers of the Republican party.
I endeavor to be a reasonable man, and a rational man only so far as that is useful. Rationalism is a hammer to be employed where it fits, and set aside where it does not. I much admire a well-made hammer, I don’t sing about it.
I don’t believe, I know what was reported, we already do know that Trump relies on cranks for information (Alex Jones) and for a guy that does think that his genes made him rich and he and his family then are entitled to what they are getting what CIS and others reported is the beesnees.
Earlier you said “Really, basing a bill on the dictates of hate groups is not a convincing argument.” Setting aside, for the moment, the bullshit ‘hate group’ claim, what evidence is there that this bill, the RAISE Act proposed by Senator Cotton, was ‘[based] on the dictates’ of CIS? I don’t see any in the portion of the Daily Beast you quoted. Did I miss it, or is it not there?
It seems unlikely given that the RAISE Act was just recently introduced and your cite is from March, but I want to give you another chance to support your claim before I dismiss it as garbage, GIGO.
Again, you were the one claiming that there was o compelling argument from elucidator, trouble is that then one should see if your side, or Trump, really has a compelling one then. It was just mostly a bill based on emotions too, and of the most reprehensible kind.
IOW: less compelling emotional points to use as arguments in this discussion.
It is not garbage, it was not only The Daily Beast the ones that noted how the influence of groups like CIS (and one should note here that the basic point of CIS and Trump made about how much immigrants use welfare to be poppycock should had been enough to realize that you should stop supporting this particular effort).
And before you dismiss what I pointed out you should realize that I was not saying that this particular effort was coming from CIS, it was Lance Turbo the one that pointed that “The numbers from the press release appear to come from a a study from the Center for Immigration Studies.”
They could easily design a policy to take in a higher number of people that could “support themselves” but they just seem to want less immigrants, legal or otherwise. It just exposes the effing LIE so many conservatives liked to tell about them being in favor of LEGAL immigrants. That’s not ALL, they are for though, legal AND less common.
I don’t think importing Syria en masse to the US is a sensible solution. There is a large language barrier, skills gap, and culture gap. One of the reasons the Muslim population in the US does so well and tends to be more liberal than other western nations is because we were more selective and did not open the flood gates. At least our neighbors to the south largely share a religious cultural background.
Low skills, low English language knowledge, lower cultural compatibility equals a trifecta of failure, and the idea that we should just go full Merkel and open the flood gates to that is insane.
Don’t make me join Ditka, I hate aligning with conservatives on issues.
I don’t think it’s automatically a given either. I think that child nutrition being important, poor parenting being common, and food being vastly abundant utilization of the government to get food to those who need it and can’t really provide for themselves is a reasonable measure.
Ideally society would be structured where parents or other family would step up and meet their obligations. Until that point, I’d rather children not suffer from malnutrition.
With a limited resource (legal immigration) and significant demand (applicants to immigrate), the hammer must be employed.
Which is why this proposal is modeled after the highly-touted, points-based immigration systems of Canada and Australia.
That being said, English proficiency should be tuned down by about 2-3 points in its weighting and professional education should be tuned upwards about the same. But this proposal is not miles off of a very solid foundation to reforming the immigration system.
Nonsense. It’s a clear as day attempt to sneak “English as the national language” in by a back door.
Seriously. I’m still waiting for someone to even point to a PROBLEM with current legal immigration that needs fixing. This whole proposal is just GOP racism hiding in a mask of…well, not really anything. It’s pretty straightforward.