I don’t consider Trump et al to be even average at crafting policy-- in fact, they seem to be about in the 2nd decile, to borrow a metric from the plan. But I don’t think they are trying to encourage a bunch of English fluent, HS dropouts to move to the US. Rebalancing the point system to be more in favor of education seems like something they should be open to, if this ever gets to the point of negotiations with Congress.
To me, these details could really hurt the country, in preventing some potentially great Americans from immigrating. I see these details as the core of the policy, not trivial – it shows what this policy values.
Based on both rhetoric and the history of the bill’s advocates, I think it’s reasonable to consider the possibility that bigotry and xenophobia are involved in the way the bill prioritizes various skills.
Not really. Virtually everyone agrees that our immigration system is broken. The one Trump proposes is far better. Even if it is not perfect.
It’s possible. I just don’t see the value in throwing those terms around. They get thrown around all too easily these days. We can debate the merits without debating the unverifiable motive of the folks proposing it.
The discussion about language vs education is missing that there is also a category for employment. A super talented foreigner with marginal English can get up to 13 points for having a well paid job offer. It would look like this:
Drop out:
Education - 0 points
English - 12 points
Job Offer - 0 points
Foreign Doctor:
Education - 10 points
English - 0 points
Job Offer - 13 points
So it’s actually 23 to 12.
I just wanted to say, I don’t think means testing for school lunches is by district across the country. I’m almost certain that it’s by household where I am. I think it’s an option that districts can choose to alleviate the administrative burden of collecting applications.
Work environment is also crucial when talking about English proficiency. Which is why the “obstetrician” was not such a good example. High English proficiency is much more of an issue for that job than “research scientist at a major university” or even “project engineer at a Silicon Valley company”. Having worked in Silicon Valley for many years, I can attest to being in many a meeting where I was the only person who actually spoke good English. In fact, I often found myself translating between Indian English and Chinese English. 
When you’re with a bunch of highly educated people, you make due with what language ability there is. When you’re treating a patient, you need to be able to speak to that patient effectively.
nm
No, 27% of 1.4 million immigrants per year is not greater than 25% of 4 million births per year. Nor is 27% of 43 million immigrants who live here more than 25% of the 278 million natural born citizens in the country. Your “little mathematical equation” is misleading and incorrect.
Anyway, Trump’s claim was that 50% of immigrants are on welfare versus 30% of non-immigrants. That claim is 100% wrong. But “27% of immigrants are on SNAP versus 25% of non-immigrants” wouldn’t have manipulated his supporters quite as well, so he lied. No reason to mince words. Trump’s claim is a lie. Anyone else’s claim that more immigrants use welfare than citizens is also a lie. You have to make it per capita to even see a slight difference, and just ignore the fact that it’s a rounding error in our budget, and nowhere near a significant cost. Hell, it’s not a cost at all if you count the 73% who are paying taxes to cover the food stamps used by the 27%. Everyone is ignoring the fact that these people are net contributors.
And so far as I’ve seen, any argument put forth in this thread to support restricting immigration would apply even more to restricting reproduction. And I’ll just go ahead and say it: Outlawing human migration is just as morally wrong as outlawing reproduction. If you wouldn’t force a woman to abort because her kid would be a drain on the government, you shouldn’t force a struggling family from another country to stay in their current shitty environment for the same reason.
I get it. Some people use welfare. Some people get jobs and contribute to society. That applies to everyone, no matter where they were born. Also, cutting legal immigration is a great way to encourage more illegal immigration. Which goes to show that “I don’t hate immigrants, I just hate illegal immigrants” mantra is a bunch of hogwash. These people are anti-immigration, period.
Personally, I don’t care what the stats are on immigrants on welfare and in which neighborhoods they live by income all that shit. This whole rigmarole reminds me of the arguments we used to have on these very boards regarding gay couples adopting children. Oh, can’t have that. Must make rules against that because it’s not the ideal situation. Oh can’t have immigrants coming who won’t contribute immediately to what the government wants them to contribute to. Got to have rules against that because the alternative is not the ideal situation.
Well, who gives a shit about the ideal situation. Just like gay couples should have every opportunity to fuck up their children just like we straights do, every immigrant should be afforded the same opportunity here in the great US of A. Fuck sakes, I thought Republicans were all about freedom. So what’s the score? Do you want people to have the freedom to come to America and pursue their dreams (even if, gasp, they may not achieve them) or do you want them to have to adhere to what a presidential administration dictates.
I wonder what the opinion on the right would be if it were a Democratic administration doing the dictating.
Did you continue reading the thread? Because you didn’t offer any evidence for your rebuttal of Trump’s claim, but there is some evidence to support it. Given that reality, I think it’s rather obvious which side we should believe.
I don’t think anyone has mentioned it yet but I may have missed it. The numbers from the press release appear to come from a a study from the Center for Immigration Studies. They were founded by an advocate of eugenics in the 80’s and have a less than stellar reputation to this day.
I quoted you quoting the actual rates. 25%, 27%. School lunch is not welfare, any more than desks and chalkboards are.
Here is what I think is pretty solid criticism of the study in question…
CIS Exaggerates the Cost of Immigrant Welfare Use
This is notable because it was written by Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato institute as opposed to a more liberal source.
I provided a link to the study in post #57. I made no comment about their reputation or history because I was unaware of either.
“free school lunch” appears to be included in the National Academies’ study’s definition of “any welfare”, at least that’s what I got out of the AP fact check. Your position is apparently that the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have used an incorrect definition of “any welfare”? Am I understanding that correctly? Would you now like to offer any evidence to support your assertion? Or are you going to leave it dangling out there as unsupported as your last one?
From the link on page 1 which you quoted, so I know you’ve read:
I could also see SNAP being considered welfare, even though it doesn’t fall under the traditional definition.
And yes, they are wrong about school lunch being welfare, just as wrong as if they said chalkboards and soccer balls for gym class were welfare. That’s not what any reasonable person would call welfare. It’s what someone like Trump would call welfare in order to manipulate other unreasonable people into thinking immigrants were taking their money, which they aren’t. I thought I made that pretty clear in my first post.
Since open borders shouldn’t be the norm, some filters need to be chosen.
Well, Trump is one person that would call it welfare, but on this particular point he seems to be in good company with the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, the NYT (“… school lunch provisions of the welfare bill …”), the Nation (“The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) started out as a welfare program”), the Congressional Research Service (PDF source), etc. Your unsupported definition seems to be the outlier, at least from my perspective.
-
‘Social science’ is inherently subjective. Polls about anything but ‘the election (referendum etc) is next month which way you are going to vote’ are subjective. There’s room for disagreement about what extent the immigration issue boosted Trump, but in general it’s an elephant in the room some people don’t like, IMO.
-
But here you change course to the usual moralizing about other people’s opinions on immigration, rather than in any way showing my statement wasn’t true.
-
I didn’t say anything about particular Trump adviser’s motives. I said the policy itself, skills focus in legal immigration, is a good idea IMO, and that I didn’t think it was motivated by ‘racism’ in case of the countries which have adopted it. Your response is really pretty much off point all around.