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.
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?
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.
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.
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 …”
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.
It’s OK, I’m satisfied that I’ve adequately debunked your post with this little mathematical equation: 27% > 25%
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.)
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.
The bill 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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the link (and the translation from the legalese of the bill).
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.
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.
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 (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.
And to debunk even further:
Yes, I realize it’s 20 years old, but I’d expect the general principles delineated there to still hold true.
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?
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.