Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
34 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Immigration Reform / Changes / Limitations rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Kirk
United States
Commerce Twp.
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Regardless of the title, what would be some of the best arguments against the Trump proposal?

My understanding is that other countries (Canada and Australia come to mind first) already have similar policies.

If I read correctly, Trump wants to:

- Curb immigration by ~50%
(This seems like a decent idea to help stabilize our population)

- Grade potential immigrants on ability to speak English
(seems like a good idea to live and prosper here)

- Grade potential immigrants on having advanced degrees
(adding professionals and higher educated folks also seems like a good thing)

- Grade potential immigrants on ability to pay for oneself (salary and such)
(not being an initial burden to the system seems logical for admittance)

- Qualifications adding up to using Skills based qualifying instead of chain migration
(This just seems logical to our best interests)



I also understand that a lot of Republicans may be against this. I assume that is because it could cut into their cheap labor?

I am asking because many outlets are reporting this as "controversial" and I guess I am just not seeing it that way at all. Putting the fact that it is Trump and he has a lot of baggage, why isn't this a smart thing to do right now?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
¡dn ʇǝƃ ʇ,uɐɔ ı puɐ uǝllɐɟ ǝʌ,ı
Canada
Chestermere
Alberta
flag msg tools
Life lesson: Hamsters are NOT diswasher safe.
badge
There are 10 types of people-- those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm sure that it's more complicated and restrictive than I'm making it out to be, but Canada's immigration policy is pretty open.

If you are from a country where you're being persecuted (or escaping a war, in Syria, say), then welcome to Canada.

If you're from a country known to harbor terrorists, it's going to take some convincing but there's a good chance of making it.

If you're with sixty others, in a shipping container that floats in off of the coast of a big city, you're probably all fine as well.

If you're obviously trying to get in illegally, and get caught, well that's a no-no.

Once you've established a life, then you can bring over family members from the country that you left. They don't make that easy, though. You have to have been living pretty clean in the meantime.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Hague
United Kingdom
Bristol
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
RAWKET LAWNCHA!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
saturnkk wrote:

- Curb immigration by ~50%
(This seems like a decent idea to help stabilize our population)

What make you think that the US population requires 'stabilisation'?

Opinions seem to vary, but not too many people seem to think there is an overpopulation problem in the US:

Quote:
Thanks to the weak economy, Americans are having fewer babies than the British and the French — not enough to maintain the size of the U.S. population without immigration, according to the Economist.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/us-birth-rate_n_177...

Quote:
Most of the rich, developed countries in the world are facing an aging crisis, as their fertility rates fall to unprecedented lows. But analysts say the United States is better equipped to deal with the challenges of aging than almost any other developed country--thanks to its relatively high birth rates and immigration.
https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2005-03-08-voa24/394807.html

Quote:
An estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2014, according to a new Pew Research Center estimate based on government data. This population has remained essentially stable since 2009 after nearly two decades of changes.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/21/unauthorized...


7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk
United States
Commerce Twp.
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AdrianPHague wrote:
saturnkk wrote:

- Curb immigration by ~50%
(This seems like a decent idea to help stabilize our population)

What make you think that the US population requires 'stabilisation'?




I feel that the whole world is overpopulated, actually, and that is the cause of most of our environmental issues. But that is a different argument entirely. We keep taking away woodlands and forest, building areas and losing wild lands and life here in the USA. It is a subjective opinion at this level to be sure, but could certainly be better supported as an argument for those with the time and energy to do so.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind—Einstein
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
saturnkk wrote:
AdrianPHague wrote:
saturnkk wrote:

- Curb immigration by ~50%
(This seems like a decent idea to help stabilize our population)

What make you think that the US population requires 'stabilisation'?




I feel that the whole world is overpopulated, actually, and that is the cause of most of our environmental issues. But that is a different argument entirely. We keep taking away woodlands and forest, building areas and losing wild lands and life here in the USA. It is a subjective opinion at this level to be sure, but could certainly be better supported as an argument for those with the time and energy to do so.

Changing the U.S. immigration policy won't do anything to change world population levels. And the U.S. has a relatively low population density compared to most other countries, so if that's your concern why not let them come here?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Hague
United Kingdom
Bristol
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
RAWKET LAWNCHA!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How are you defining 'overpopulation'? Do you mean that there is not enough physical space, or that there is not enough food for the population in the US?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk
United States
Commerce Twp.
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Erik17 wrote:
saturnkk wrote:
AdrianPHague wrote:
saturnkk wrote:

- Curb immigration by ~50%
(This seems like a decent idea to help stabilize our population)

What make you think that the US population requires 'stabilisation'?




I feel that the whole world is overpopulated, actually, and that is the cause of most of our environmental issues. But that is a different argument entirely. We keep taking away woodlands and forest, building areas and losing wild lands and life here in the USA. It is a subjective opinion at this level to be sure, but could certainly be better supported as an argument for those with the time and energy to do so.

Changing the U.S. immigration policy won't do anything to change world population levels. And the U.S. has a relatively low population density compared to most other countries, so if that's your concern why not let them come here?


Fair enough, if that is the only basis to control immigration then. I think that many of my own subjective fears of over-growth in states and areas that I have lived or frequented have contributed to this view I hold. I remember when...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Baird
United States
Pflugerville
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
saturnkk wrote:

(not being an initial burden to the system seems logical for admittance)


Most immigrants to the US aren't allowed to draw on federal programs for 5 years. It's part of getting a visa + green card, after a 1996 law.

For financial aid on a state level, it varies - about half allow some or all qualified/non-qualified immigrants to use SNAP/CHIP/Medicaid to some degree, I believe.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Although it "appears" the policy is sound, it in no way equates to any policy the U.S. has followed since people emigrated to this country. Jim Acost from CNN nailed it, when he pointed to the Statue of Liberty plaque, "Give me your poor...."

This policy might be viewed by many (including Repbulicans) as being restrictive (in a discriminatory fashion) against non-english speaking, poor, uneducated people. Most immigrants that came to this country in the past have been just that. Some might argue that they are the least desirable of immigrants, amongst the entire pool, but the reality is, they have their place in this country as well. That is debatable, but they do provide some level of economic uplift to this country, and not all (as conservatives might like to portray) are criminals, or a drag on the system economically.

This country was built on the backs of poor, non-english speaking, uneducated immigrants, who came here looking for opportunity. Depriving them of that now, represents a polar reversal, from the core of what this country is, a diverse melting pot, where rich, poor, educated and not, have been given the opportunity to thrive.

And let me add - many of you reading this, would not be here today, if it weren't for the fact that one of your poor, non-educated, non-English speaking relatives, did not take the step to come here, to enjoy a better life.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
Although it "appears" the policy is sound,
It does?
Quote:
it in no way equates to any policy the U.S. has followed since people emigrated to this country.
No, the US history of immigration policy is nothing to be proud of. Racism runs through hat history like sluice in a sewer.
Quote:
Jim Acost from CNN nailed it, when he pointed to the Statue of Liberty plaque, "Give me your poor...."…
exactly
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk
United States
Commerce Twp.
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
Although it "appears" the policy is sound, it in no way equates to any policy the U.S. has followed since people emigrated to this country. Jim Acost from CNN nailed it, when he pointed to the Statue of Liberty plaque, "Give me your poor...."



Fair enough.

But times change, do they not? Poor, non-English speakers were needed at the turn of the century (20th that is) for industrial labor. English speakers and education were not a crteria for these jobs needed to grow the economy then. Far less so today.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Although it "appears" the policy is sound,
It does?
Quote:
it in no way equates to any policy the U.S. has followed since people emigrated to this country.
No, the US history of immigration policy is nothing to be proud of. Racism runs through hat history like sluice in a sewer.
Quote:
Jim Acost from CNN nailed it, when he pointed to the Statue of Liberty plaque, "Give me your poor...."…
exactly


Many people in this country, especially those on the conservative side, would argue that there is nothing wrong with receiving a more educated, english speaking population, in fact, it would be desirable. I don't necessarily agree with that position, but there are people that hold it. How they achieve this is in question.

Maybe you are referring to slavery (forced immigration) when you speak of racism, otherwise, I am not sure what has made their policy racist in the past, I am not sure there was any population that was ever thrown away en masse, because of what country they came from, or what their wealth status was. Yes individuals were not let in, I am sure, but as a whole, the policy was fairly inclusive. Ellis Island is proof of that. It processed 12 million immigrants before shutting down.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar the Woebringer
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
mb
Despite all the talk about automation (which is valid), I've read we already have a shortage of people willing to do many low-level jobs. These are the jobs that unskilled immigrants (legal and some illegal) do. Americans have shown that they can't or won't do those. It'll be interesting if this affects those businesses.

The idea of the richest country in the world doing even less for refugees is pitiful. Especially since we are hardly blameless for some of these situations that are causing the refugees in the first place.

Not allowing families to stay together, that sounds like American Way (tm).

This seems mostly to be just more boogeyman stuff that appeals to people looking for an easy villain to take the blame for all our problems. I don't mind reform of anything, but I question the timing and the motives of this administration (as I do with the affirmative action deal, and all the headlong frenzy to eliminate regulation).
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Baird
United States
Pflugerville
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
abadolato01 wrote:

Maybe you are referring to slavery (forced immigration) when you speak of racism, otherwise, I am not sure what has made their policy racist in the past, I am not sure there was any population that was ever thrown away en masse, because of what country they came from, or what their wealth status was. Yes individuals were not let in, I am sure, but as a whole, the policy was fairly inclusive. Ellis Island is proof of that. It processed 12 million immigrants before shutting down.


???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%27s_Agreement_of_190...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:

Maybe you are referring to slavery (forced immigration) when you speak of racism, otherwise, I am not sure what has made their policy racist in the past,…

Start with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/jewish-...
http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/racismimmigra...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:

Maybe you are referring to slavery (forced immigration) when you speak of racism, otherwise, I am not sure what has made their policy racist in the past,…

Start with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/jewish-...
http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/racismimmigra...


I stand corrected, i see both the posts after mine which demonstrate exclusion. Shame on us. It's exactly what we have to guard against, in my opinion, and it is clear from the proposed policy that it would tend to discriminate, not necessaily against one race, but against one socioeconomic class.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk
United States
Commerce Twp.
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for those who responded! I don't think that I am personally compelled enough by the reasoning thus far to change my view but I do appreciate the input...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
America should be different. We claim to be, so it's put up or shut up (another thing we claim to value) provided you choose to accept the death of American exceptionalism and the failure of the American exoeriment then sure, we can consider this good policy and just blandly sidle our way into the history books as one western nation among many.

If you've still got any desire to *not* see that haplen then you need to oppose policy like this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk
United States
Commerce Twp.
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
America should be different. We claim to be, so it's put up or shut up (another thing we claim to value) provided you choose to accept the death of American exceptionalism and the failure of the American exoeriment then sure, we can consider this good policy and just blandly sidle our way into the history books as one western nation among many.

If you've still got any desire to *not* see that haplen then you need to oppose policy like this.


Thanks Josh, I understand and respect this perspective. But... I still feel that the Trump policy is in all of our collective best interest at this time. Things can and do change so I may reevaluate from time to time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
saturnkk wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
America should be different. We claim to be, so it's put up or shut up (another thing we claim to value) provided you choose to accept the death of American exceptionalism and the failure of the American exoeriment then sure, we can consider this good policy and just blandly sidle our way into the history books as one western nation among many.

If you've still got any desire to *not* see that haplen then you need to oppose policy like this.


Thanks Josh, I understand and respect this perspective. But... I still feel that the Trump policy is in all of our collective best interest at this time. Things can and do change so I may reevaluate from time to time.


Then you've surrendered exceptionalism to expedience. To quote JFK 'We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard;'

Sure we aren't going to the moon, we're just keeping the door open to our fellow man.

If we can't do that, turn the light out.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Knauer
United States
Heathrow
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ignorant-immigr...

Quote:
This week the Republican senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia introduced a bill that they said would cut legal immigration to the United States by 50 percent. They are right about that, but nearly everything else that they have said about their bill is false or misleading.

The senators, whose bill is endorsed by President Trump, argue that America is experiencing abnormally high immigration; that these immigrants are hurting American wages; and that their bill would prioritize skilled immigrants, the way Canada does, thus making the United States more competitive internationally. These talking points are pure fiction.

They have justified this drastic cut in immigration by stating that the bill will, as they put it in February when announcing an earlier version, bring “legal immigration levels” back down to “their historical norms.” But the senators fail to consider the impact of population growth. A million immigrants to the United States in 2017 isn’t equivalent to the same number in 1900, when there were a quarter as many Americans.

Controlling for population, today’s immigration rate is nearly 30 percent below its historical average. If their bill becomes law, the rate would fall to about 60 percent below average. With few exceptions, the only years with such a low immigration rate were during the world wars and the Great Depression. Surely, these are not the “norms” to which the senators seek to return.

Senator Cotton is trying to connect a slow increase in the immigration rate in recent decades to declining wages for Americans without a college degree, implying that low-skilled workers are facing more competition for jobs than in earlier years. But this correlation is spurious, because it ignores the size of the overall labor pool.

Looking at all new job seekers — born here and abroad — actually reveals a significant decline in new workers competing for American jobs.

During the postwar period from 1948 to 1980, as incomes rose for all workers, the labor force grew by 76 percent, driven largely by baby boomers and women entering the labor force for the first time. Since then, declining birthrates have led to about half as many new competitors entering the labor force each year, despite many more immigrants.

Less-educated Americans also faced less competition. The ranks of on-college educated workers swelled 50 percent in the postwar period, compared with just 16 percent in recent decades. During both periods, high school dropouts saw a near continuous decline in labor market competition — from workers born here or elsewhere. In contrast, college graduates actually dealt with more competition than they had before.

All this suggests that the stagnation of wages has other origins, such as new technology and the increasing burden of regulations, not more job seekers — immigrant or otherwise.

The senators’ analysis suffers from similar confusion when they say that their bill would create a system modeled after Canada and Australia. Controlling for population, these countries accept two to three times as many legal immigrants as America.

A related fiction is that the bill would “prioritize” skilled immigrants. In fact, it contains no more visas for skilled workers than our current law does. All the bill would do is cut the number of visas for the family members of United States citizens. Canada and Australia prioritize skilled workers by allowing far more of them to come — while also accepting more family members than we do.

Canada and Australia aren’t the only ones surpassing us in terms of welcoming immigrants; 17 developed countries accept more legal immigrants as a share of their population than does the United States. This places the United States at an economic disadvantage in the global race for talent. For years, Canada has attracted skilled immigrants from America, and Microsoft even opened an office there specifically to take advantage of its system.

In other contexts, Senators Perdue and Cotton have often discussed how America’s tax and regulatory policies send jobs overseas. But micromanaging labor markets from Washington has the same damaging effect, pushing businesses away from the United States and hurting those that remain.

Rather than cutting immigration, Congress should raise the employment-based quotas, which it has not adjusted since 1990 — when the United States had some 77 million fewer people and the economy was half the size it is now. A smart reform would double green cards and peg future work visas to economic growth, responding to market forces rather than political whims.

Smart reforms, however, require that Congress first understand the basic facts: America has not seen a deluge of immigration. Low-skilled American-born workers have not faced more competition for jobs. Other countries accept more immigrants per capita. Until these facts penetrate the halls of the Capitol, the immigration debate will continue to be mired in ignorant proposals like this.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
saturnkk wrote:

I am asking because many outlets are reporting this as "controversial" and I guess I am just not seeing it that way at all. Putting the fact that it is Trump and he has a lot of baggage, why isn't this a smart thing to do right now?


If I hated the united states, and wanted it to decline economically without starting wars, I'd do something not unlike that bill (which doesn't have a prayer of going anywhere BTW: It needs 60 in the senate, and I'd be surprised if it got 50)

You talk about thinking the world is overpopulated. You know what's the best way to lower the world's population? More immigration into richer countries: Without immigrants, the entire western world would have negative population growth.

Second, the whole thing about testing for English speaking is just fear that is absolutely not evidence based. If anything, the US of old had more people speaking other languages, they just happened to be German and Italian. Looking at the immigrants alone, today, and thinking that their language skills make a long term difference is just dumb. What happens with the second generation? What about the third? Immigrant communities assimilate. Immigrants commit fewer crimes, especially if they can get jobs. On average, they work harder, because it takes a whole lot of discipline and a gigantic pair of balls to move countries, especially if you don't come for a very similar culture!

Increasing skill based immigration quotas, which haven't grown one iota in decades, is a wonderful idea, but tying it to less family visas and cutting refugees is just dumb. Let's look at my family's situation. I came in with a work visa: The fact that quotas were so small, and wait times so long, depressed my salary for a decade: I doubled it in 3 years, and I've more than tripled it in 5 after the immigration system let me change jobs freely. My wife, with a degree in aerospace engineering and two masters on top? She got in though a family visa anyway, because the US system is just fucking dumb.

Without the stupid xenophobia, we could have sensible reform that didn't touch family and refugee visas at all, and reformed skill based visas. Then you'd have Cato clapping, and democrats would vote for it. But let's be real here: Stephen Miller and Tom Cotton don't give a flying fuck about more skill based immigration: It's just a fig leaf to just lower immigration altogether. Other republicans would vote the same way not because they necessarily hate brown people, but because their constituencies do, even though without said brown people, this country would follow the same economic growth trends as Japan.

Closing borders is as stupid as protectionism: You can delay the inevitable for a little while, but everything you do in that direction is just making the final shock bigger.

I look at the anti-immigration Americans that surround me in the midwest, and I see lazy, entitled people complaining about competition, complaining that all their problems are caused by immigrants and people with different skin color. Then I look at my office, and see a workforce that is over 30% immigrants from all kinds of backgrounds. The only parts of the US economy that are actually doing well? Full of immigrants and people that aren't exactly conservative. I imagine a world where this people don't want to be in the US, and move somewhere else: It's a world that the Chinese leadership dreams about.

I'm never going to convince you, but you are fortunate that your opinion is not the majority here, as the US has some kind of a future precisely because of this. The Trump plan is the equivalent of putting the business end of a shotgun inside of America's mouth and pulling the trigger.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
saturnkk wrote:
I am asking because many outlets are reporting this as "controversial" and I guess I am just not seeing it that way at all. Putting the fact that it is Trump and he has a lot of baggage, why isn't this a smart thing to do right now?


It's controversial because:

1) It dramatically reduces immigration, which has long been a source of fresh blood and ideas for the USA.

2) It does so for reasons that don't make much sense.
2a) Why require speaking English for immigrants? This requirement makes little sense and dramatically restricts who might be able to get in.
2b) Why provide age-based point systems? Someone who's 55 would be less acceptable than someone who's 25 for what particular reason?
2c) Why focus on job skills? Lots of people want to enter to get a better education and improve their skills or those of their children. Shouldn't they get that chance?

3) The President's past statements on immigration and the stated beliefs of some key advisers cause people to reasonably doubt his motivation for this particular plan.

4) It still doesn't do anything about the illegal immigrants and their status, which is the truly pressing issue.

As has been pointed out the US has long had immigration policies that were either outright racist or so favored Europeans as to be effectively so. The plan proposed would cut off access to lots of people who would benefit from entering the country, who generally contribute far more than they consume (take a look at stats on immigrants for yourself - they're a net positive), and who aren't any particularly special threat that deserves handling like this.

It's a nearly farcical attempt to enact anti-globalist policies that are part and parcel of the alt-right's particular agenda. It's bad policy without any foundation, particularly when you consider that the US admits among the smallest percentage of immigrants to our country already.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott O'Brien
United States
Connellsville
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
edgarthewoebringer wrote:
Despite all the talk about automation (which is valid), I've read we already have a shortage of people willing to do many low-level jobs. These are the jobs that unskilled immigrants (legal and some illegal) do. Americans have shown that they can't or won't do those. It'll be interesting if this affects those businesses.

The idea of the richest country in the world doing even less for refugees is pitiful. Especially since we are hardly blameless for some of these situations that are causing the refugees in the first place.

Not allowing families to stay together, that sounds like American Way (tm).

This seems mostly to be just more boogeyman stuff that appeals to people looking for an easy villain to take the blame for all our problems. I don't mind reform of anything, but I question the timing and the motives of this administration (as I do with the affirmative action deal, and all the headlong frenzy to eliminate regulation).



Bolded the lie being repeated until people finally believe it...
Americans wont do those jobs at the wages offered.

Our economy dictates that if those jobs are in demand, then wages should rise until someone is willing to do them... bringing in cheap labor isnt the answer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
saturnkk wrote:
Regardless of the title, what would be some of the best arguments against the Trump proposal?

My understanding is that other countries (Canada and Australia come to mind first) already have similar policies.

If I read correctly, Trump wants to:

- Curb immigration by ~50%
(This seems like a decent idea to help stabilize our population)

- Grade potential immigrants on ability to speak English
(seems like a good idea to live and prosper here)

- Grade potential immigrants on having advanced degrees
(adding professionals and higher educated folks also seems like a good thing)

- Grade potential immigrants on ability to pay for oneself (salary and such)
(not being an initial burden to the system seems logical for admittance)

- Qualifications adding up to using Skills based qualifying instead of chain migration
(This just seems logical to our best interests)



I also understand that a lot of Republicans may be against this. I assume that is because it could cut into their cheap labor?

I am asking because many outlets are reporting this as "controversial" and I guess I am just not seeing it that way at all. Putting the fact that it is Trump and he has a lot of baggage, why isn't this a smart thing to do right now?



Not that I completely understand it, but I listened to a program where economists said cutting immigration by 50% would basically cut our GDP growth by half from 2.6% to 1.3%.

Also, Senator Graham (R.) said it would kill business in his state.

So.. it may be another one of those "complicated" things.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.