They are proposing to cut immigration in half. They’d need to offset with a 2x productivity increase in the new immigrant population. Good luck with that.
Why is no more a burden than non-immigrants the standard? Why shouldn’t we shoot to allow only those that can support themselves to immigrate?
I don’t see anything wrong with this. I’d prefer to see slots given to those likely to be successful here over those who happen to be related to people likely to be successful.
I don’t think the school lunch numbers are particularly relevant, but it is a form of public assistance (apparently one that we means-test at the school district level instead of the individual household level - learned that today), and I wouldn’t call it “total bullshit” for someone to include it in a discussion about welfare. It’s a form of welfare.
I would understand your complaint more if free school lunches was some sort of an outlier that significantly distorted the numbers being cited, but that doesn’t appear to be the case either (51% > 30% vs 46% > 28%).
Given that excluding school lunches doesn’t appear to make ‘significant’ differences to the underlying claim, I hardly think it’s unfair or a “lie” or “total bullshit” for the White House to cite the ‘top line’ numbers from the study (51% > 30%).
I’m not sure about the accuracy of the study the White House cited either, except that at a quick glance it appears to be at least plausible, and based on a reasonable data set.
Your point about legal vs illegal immigrants is one worth noting, and if you’ve got some information that the welfare use is significantly different among those two subsets, I’d love to hear it, and think it would be valuable context to wrap around my understanding about immigrants and welfare.
Given all of this, do you still think your opening post (quoted below for reference) - and particularly the “total bullshit” line - is fair / accurate / having an adult conversation? From where I sit, this is one time that Trump’s claim seems to be on at least pretty-decent ground, and your (and several other Dopers’) reflexive disbelief in anything and everything Trump says did not serve you well. Your thoughts?
It seems to me that there are many cities, like Detroit, with declining populations. Meanwhile, there are thousands of refugees from places like Syria who are desperate to improve their situation. I think these refugees should be permitted to settle (in large numbers), if they move to these underpopulated cities. It would go a long way to revitalizing decaying parts of the country. At the beginning they will require some assistance, but I think they will be a net positive ultimately.
Huh Im poking around BLS and didn’t realize foreign born have a higher labor force participation rate than native-born. 65% vs 62%. I wonder if age difference factors in.
Given this line from Johnny Ace’s cite from above, I suspect that’s the case:
Definitely.
In what ways do you think they’d be a “net positive”? If we could conduct an experiment and measure whether they were a “net positive” or a “net negative”, which criteria or metrics would you propose we use?
I’ve seen more studies with opposite results, which I’ll link to when I get a chance – studies that show immigrants (illegal or legal) pay more into the social welfare system then they receive in benefits, and start more businesses, and generally work harder and are more productive than non-immigrants. I’m inherently skeptical of studies from the CIS, which has been extremely shady (and borderline white supremacist) in my understanding. Those numbers appear to directly contradict the other study linked earlier – the one with the same percentage between immigrants/non-immigrants for cash welfare, and very close 27/25 for food benefits.
Further, that the actual proposal (as Richard Parker noted) prioritizes great English way, way above great education, even when someone has decent English skills. To me, that’s “total bullshit”, especially when the justification is about how much they’ll pay their way and contribute. It’s “total bullshit” to assert that uneducated native English speakers will contribute more to the economy, on average, than highly educated moderate ESL-speakers would. I don’t know if that’s attributable to incompetence or bigotry, but it’s total bullshit either way.
Of course they do. They know business needs under the table workers to get stuff done after they have enacted laws which disincentivize legal labor.
No, it doesn’t:
This supports my claim. Someone with no education but perfect English would get significantly more “points” than someone with a foreign STEM Master’s degree and 59% proficient English (this uneducated fluent English-speaker would also get 2 more points than a foreign M.D. with 59% English proficiency!). That’s pretty much exactly what I said.
Just to be clear, the max points you get for English Proficieny is 11 points (90th percentile on the test); the max points you get for education is 13 points (STEM PhD from US school).
If you think 11 >> 13, we will need to revoke your physics degree and kick you out of the country. 
12 is way way above 7?
Not for foreign degrees – a foreign Doctor with 59% English gets fewer points than a fluent English-speaker with no degree. That’s nuts, IMO, if the goal is about productivity and potential burdens.
12 is significantly higher than 7, in my judgment. Almost double, in fact. I’m not sure if your “way, way” matches my “way, way” – but an in depth discussion of such phrases might be a hijack.
It’s better if you go to the link and post the actual categories and points you are talking about. You said “great English” and “great Education”, and you said the former was “way, way above” the latter. It sounds now like you are trying to move the goal posts, so best if you give us the exact coordinates of the goal posts instead of saying “they are over there, somewhere”.
Fluent English, no degree = 12 points. (11 points if no HS degree)
Foreign Doctor = 10 points. How many points for 59% English?
Oh come on. Can you look at those points and reasonably characterize it as valuing great education over great English? That’s the goalposts – that this point system very clearly prioritizes English ability over education, for the vast majority of potential immigrants, when IMO that’s totally nuts if the goal is to minimize the potential burden of future immigrants.
I deeply and humbly apologize if you found anything I said earlier confusing. I’m far from a perfect human and, as always, I will strive to be a better person and a better poster.
Do you have an opinion on this issue, and this point system? I’m interested in that, if you have one.
By the way, the max points you can get for English is 12, not 11. But that’s okay – that you got that wrong is no big deal and doesn’t detract from this discussion in any significant way.
It’s not a hijack. It’s you making an incorrect statement and then choosing to make a ridiculous argument instead of simply admitting your error.
Huh? 12 is significantly higher than 7. What’s my error?