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.
It seems to me that, as it is with healthcare, this is another issue that republicans have blithered about incessantly and now they have to deliver the goods, regardless of how shitty they realize the actual consequences may be. The republicans have been selling their voting base (not everyone of course) on the red meat idea that they America is under an invasion of brown and yellow people and that something must be done to preserve ‘their’ country. And now that they’ve got pretty much total control of the federal government, they’ve got to follow through.
The “welfare benefits” to “50%” statement by the White House is total bullshit – they’re counting free lunches to poor schools as “welfare benefits”. In terms of cash welfare, there’s no difference between immigrant and non-immigrant families, and even for food stamps, there’s virtually no difference. The free lunches in poor schools just tells us that immigrants tend to live in poorer neighborhoods, which is no suprirse whatsoever.
THe RAISE act really only has one virtue, and it’s a biggie: it’s in line with public opinion. It’s also in line with most nations’ immigration policies, for those who care about that sort of thing.
It’s not going to pass, because both Democrats and corporate Republicans want more low skill immigrants.
Depends. Did she try to “immigrate” before or after they were married? The proposed rules change the preference that family member get. You get preference only if you are the spouse or minor child of a US citizen, but not if you are the grandparent, grandchild, adult child or cousin…
If the women had no other close relatives here to sponsor them, then the rule change wouldn’t affect them unless we lacked models and unless they were fairly well off
Except once these foreigners come in under this program, they’re no longer foreigners but instead are either permanent residents or US citizens. And they’re free to show around for an employer willing to pay them what they’re worth. So they’re likely to be better paid than under the H1B visa program.
Do you have a cite that the specifics of this policy are in line with public opinion? Not something broad like “reducing immigration”, but these specific policies?
And just to clarify, free lunches to poor schools usually aren’t means-tested. Once a school qualifies, every student in the school qualifies, no matter how much their families make. This is actually a cost-saving measure: It costs more to go to the effort of verifying eligibility for all of the students than it does to just give food to everyone.
There’s a lesson to be learned there for a great many other government programs, too.
I think there is plenty of room for criticizing this plan in as much as it curtails the total number of immigrants. But as for shifting the focus from extended family members to skilled folks, that makes our immigration policy more like Canada’s, and I don’t see a lot of people criticizing Canada for doing much the same thing.
Nobody (well scratch that: very few people) cares about whether immigration takes place legally or illegally. They object to mass immigration in principle (that’s to say, people who are critical of mass immigration want less immigration in general, both legal or illegal).
Your argument amounts to saying “well people are going to smoke marijuana anyway, so let’s legalize it and then the number of drug offences will get a lot smaller!” That’s not really going to convince anyone who thinks that marijuana, or immigration, or any other victimless crime, is a bad thing in general.
This is a very good point, but the problem is there’s no way to actually achieve the goals of people who want to resist demographic and ethnic change except by actual national or racial quotas, and those would be politically impossible in America at the present time.
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 they had said it honestly, that there’s a difference in how many receive free school lunches, then it wouldn’t be total bullshit. But they called that “welfare benefits”, which are commonly understood as cash assistance and food stamps. It’s also pretty meaningless, since the only thing this tells us is that immigrants tend to live in poorer neighborhoods (and thus send their kids to schools with subsidy programs), which should be no surprise whatsoever.
The reason it’s not going to pass, anything like as is, is more complex I think. It’s lack of any consensus. In terms of general direction, yes, the most popular position in the US is towards less immigration not more. People on the left not only don’t feel that way themselves but don’t want to admit that’s the plurality view. But it’s true from all I can see, a big reason why a guy anywhere near as terrible as Trump could come anywhere near winning let alone pull it off, however narrowly. And that’s a lot more concrete evidence in my view than some ‘study’ or poll focusing more ‘scientifically’ on just immigration. Sure it’s only one issue among many for the remarkable fact that Trump was even competitive, but IMO an obvious one some people just don’t want to admit.
However you need a consensus what exactly to do to pass a bill, a supermajority in the Senate (I don’t think the filibuster gets axed altogether till a future Democratic Senate ). I don’t see it. In precincts where you often see complaint about immigration, the idea of prioritizing high skilled immigrants isn’t necessarily popular either. I’ve seen plenty of comments just today on news stories about this proposal of people saying they don’t mind low skilled immigrants as much as high skilled immigrants ‘with free college degrees from other countries’ displacing them.
The favorable compromise IMO would be more skills based immigration without reducing numbers as much. Viewing high skilled people as an overall negative is wrong ‘fixed pie’ economic thinking. OTOH there is a very real issue of trade off between welfare state costs and importing even full time working low skilled workers, and especially for legal family chain immigration of people who aren’t even going to join the workforce. Sure there’s a family values aspect, but that doesn’t necessarily override that cost. The other high immigration English speaking countries with more skills focus than the US has now are not crazy or ‘racist’ in doing so.
Why is your subjective interpretation of why Trump won more compelling evidence than actual social science on the subject of immigration?
I think what people “don’t want to admit” is precisely the point you try to deny–that anti-immigrant sentiment is mostly just racism and xenophobia, as it has always been.
You know who the biggest nativists were in the 19th century? Recent Protestant immigrants. People didn’t turn against immigration because of immigrants, but because they were the wrong kind: Catholic. And even then, we didn’t really start to shut things down until the Chinese started coming over in large numbers.
If you think Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon like this policy for the same reason Canada has skills-based immigration, I think you don’t know much about those two dudes and the Americans who support them.
Would you like me to? Because it’s what I think. I have no fear of saying it explicitly, if you like. I believe those two sentences are lies to support an unsupportable bill, which, of course, will only wash with Trump’s utterly gullible base. There. Clear enough for you?
“total bullshit” seems a good bit less accurate than the portion of Trump’s statement that I quoted. Your cite certainly doesn’t back up “total bullshit”. It says:
To recap, Purdue said:
You may not like their broad definition of welfare, but the National Academies study seems to support Perdue’s statement. Or am I missing something here?
Your claim about “commonly understood” seems to be at odds with the National Academies’ definition of “any welfare”.
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.
Do you agree or disagree that, based on these numbers, immigrants can reasonably be characterized as a significantly greater burden than non-immigrants on the social welfare system?
). I don’t see it. In precincts where you often see complaint about immigration, the idea of prioritizing high skilled immigrants isn’t necessarily popular either. I’ve seen plenty of comments just today on news stories about this proposal of people saying they don’t mind low skilled immigrants as much as high skilled immigrants ‘with free college degrees from other countries’ displacing them.