It’s all pissin’ in the wind for the benefit of his base anyway. It’s not going to pass.
Agreed. I am inclined to distrust anything coming out of the WH, and, as I said earlier, I consider this to be Trump’s opening position. He’s proven himself to be NOT the great deal maker he claims to be, so I would not be surprised if nothing changes at all in the end.
I’ll try and restate my position:
Immigrant AAA is a foreign born cancer research M.D. from a prestigious foreign university. AAA speaks English decently but not fluently, and scores on the TOEFL a value that’s good enough to get into US universities, but is less than the 60 percentile.
Immigrant BBB is a foreign born layabout with no eduation and no skills, but is native-born in English and completely fluent, scoring in the highest percentile category.
According to the WH’s proposal, if I understand the point system correctly, BBB gets more points than AAA. To me, that’s crazy. Does anyone disagree?
treis’ post said “… universities in the US have a minimum score requirement of between 80 and 100.” I took that to mean that some universities require 80, others require 85, others still 90, and some others 100.
Also, I’m not sure where you guys got the 60% threshold. I believe it’s 51%. Here’s the text of the bill:
The “1ST DECILE” would be 1-10%, right?
And the “2ND DECILE” would be 11-20%, wouldn’t it?
“3RD DECILE” = 21-30%
“4TH DECILE” = 31%-40%
“5TH DECILE” = 41%-50% (and still no points)
“6TH DECILE” = 51%-60% (6 points)
“7TH DECILE” = 61%-70% (6 points)
“8TH DECILE” = 71%-80% (10 points)
“9TH DECILE” = 81%-90% (11 points)
“10TH DECILE” = 91%-100% (12 points)
Or am I completely mistaken about the meaning of “decile”?
Not in my experience. Two professionals in (often very) high-paying jobs aren’t living in an immigrant community, but in the better neighborhoods/suburbs.
When I was growing up, there was a nearby ritzy suburb that was known for its high number of residents who were Medical Doctors, and a great many of them were Indian and other Asians. This was way back in the 1970s.
That claim is not correct. You can look for yourself and see lots of universities with minimum scores all across the spectrum, though relatively few less than 40. [And, to be clear, that’s scaled score, not decile rank. As measured by decile, the minimum at most places is far below 50%]
No, I think you have it right.
I took that as meaning that one needed to score 80 to get into US universities.
I got the 60th percentile number from the CNN link: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/cotton-perdue-trump-bill-point-system-merit-based/index.html
If it’s incorrect, then I’ll modify the details of the hypothetical I suggested, but my point is the same – that this proposal puts far too much emphasis on English skills over education.
If you scored in the 44% percentile of TOEFL takers, your score is around 80. That’s sufficient for admission to all but the most selective programs for undergraduate study. But you wouldn’t get any credit for immigration under this bill.
It is totally nuts to get 12 points when going from fifth decile to ninth, but only get 2 points when going from artsy BA to STEM MA. I’m surprised anyone in this thread would try to defend that.
It rewards both English proficiency and education. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable stance for our immigration policy. It doesn’t seem terribly misaligned with, for example, Canadian immigration standards, does it?
ETA: does anyone know what the current immigration policy does with regards to education and English proficiency? IOW, how big of a change would this be from our current system?
The specifics reward perfect English more than a foreign M.D., and don’t give any points for moderately proficient English that would be sufficient to study at most US universities.
Do you agree with those specifics?
I kind of agree with that. Where I disagree is that I think a highly educated STEM person is almost certainly going to get the minimum 6 points for English. So very few are going to score lower than a British guy who is a HS dropout.
But let me ask this: Would you support this bill if we cut the English points to 2/3 the proposed value? How about if we cut them to 1/2 the proposed value?
iiandyiii: Also, the degree of proficiency to study at a US university is not a particularly good gauge of a person’s ability to participate in the US work force. I’m not sure why you are hanging you hat so much on that metric.
You are correct that there are some outliers, but from my googling the vast majority are between 80-100.
Canada assigns 8 points to the gap between moderate and high proficiency in English (or French!). By contrast, having arranged employment is worth 10. A master’s degree is worth 25.
It is the inverse of this bill, which gives 12 points for the language difference, and only 5 and 7 for the job and education, respectively.
I don’t know about that – based on the TOEFL tables/scores linked, it seems likely to me that plenty of foreign doctors and engineers might score around ~80 on the TOEFL, which would be a low enough percentile to earn zero points.
I don’t have a problem with a points system in principle, but there would need to be more changes than this for my support – lower levels of English proficiency should still earn points, IMO, and perfect fluency shouldn’t be nearly as valued as high-level degrees in STEM fields. And I think there are other aspects of the plan I would oppose on principle as well.
English skills are required for naturalization, but are only relevant to green cards to the extent they help you get a job or school admission.
It sounds like I’d be fine with a points system similar to Canada. I have no problem in principle with putting some value on English ability, I just think that lower proficiency levels should still receive some points, and valuable skills and degrees should be more valuable than perfect English.
I think there appears some debate about the exact level of English proficiency necessary to study at “most” US universities, but the standard here appears to be in that range at least.
I don’t particularly care. I’m certainly not ready to invest much of my time in defending them in a thread that has taken a drastic turn towards what I would call “quibbling over details”. If Congress looked at them and revised them so that the English proficiency points were only 2/3 of the current proposal’s value, I wouldn’t be terribly upset. If they revised them so that it was 4/3 of their current value, I likewise would not be terribly upset. It strikes me as a lot of hand-wringing over fairly trivial details. The message to would-be immigrants appears to be: improve your English language skills and education level to improve your chances of immigrating to America. By and large, I don’t think that’s a bad message to send. If the message were instead “Improve your education level and English language skills to improve your chances of immigrating to America”, I don’t really care either.
Thanks for the information. I’m learning all sorts of new things today.
Language can be really tough to learn, especially as adults. I’ve worked with folks with moderate English which never improved – they could still be great at their jobs (even on a submarine!). This policy could exclude some potentially great Americans just because their English, which might not ever improve, is just decent rather than fluent.
It seems really dumb to me to exclude a great research scientist because they might not ever improve their English beyond “decent but not great”.
The nature of a points system combined with a radical reduction in overall admissions is that the difference between coming here and not coming here will turn on a few points. So it is wrong to characterize the point assignment as mere details. The weights are what determines who will be able to immigrate and who won’t.
The current weights reflect priorities that are completely different from the priorities being espoused by people trying to defend the bill. The reason is that the bill is not trying to win support from people who value education. It is trying to win support from people who value xenophobia.