Immigration Bill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal Democrat who is the daughter of immigrants and I agree with Cotton, Perdue, et al. on this issue. We should severely curtail low-skilled immigration and reserve those spaces for the best and brightest immigrants (obviously without discriminating based on country of origin.) I think the current system, where people can sponsor their siblings and extended family, who then theoretically get priority over high-skilled immigrants, is nuts. The Canadian and Australian systems are great models. I fail to see what's un-American or racist about this, unless it discriminates based on race/ethnicity/country, which I don't believe it does.

Exactly. There is nothing un-American or racist or xenophobic about this, though there are some who *love* to pretend otherwise. They're like a broken record that I honestly tune out these days.

+1,000,000

nothing racist in wanting to keep your job.

I would rather hire my neighbors child than some child from Bangalore. Why is that racist in democrat's eyes??

Then you should absolutely hire your neighbors child. You are free to hire whomever you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On its face, I don't have a problem with moving towards a merit system and making family based entry more strict. The US needs workers in certain fields. However, most economists warn that limiting immigration, particularly cutting it in half, is bad for the economy. I'm not an economist, but I think Trump should listen to them.

Also, if we limit the entry of low skilled workers and magically stop illegal immigration with the wall, who is going to fill all the low wage jobs Americans are supposedly too good for? Are they betting on employers (including, hmmm, the Trump coorperation itself) substantially raising wages? Or start a "work-study" program for poor children?

There might be or might not be an economy hit. They won't really know until it happens. It's like the 2016 election, you can predict all you want, but people's actions may not conform to a poll or chart. If there was an economic hit, it would be short lived at best.

If employers were certain that man power would dry up, and at this point they are not, they would move to more automation. Lots of low skilled jobs can be replaced by automation but many companies are not moving that way yet because they can still hire people.

Exactly. Everyone is so afraid but what we are doing now is not working, it's time for action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal Democrat who is the daughter of immigrants and I agree with Cotton, Perdue, et al. on this issue. We should severely curtail low-skilled immigration and reserve those spaces for the best and brightest immigrants (obviously without discriminating based on country of origin.) I think the current system, where people can sponsor their siblings and extended family, who then theoretically get priority over high-skilled immigrants, is nuts. The Canadian and Australian systems are great models. I fail to see what's un-American or racist about this, unless it discriminates based on race/ethnicity/country, which I don't believe it does.

Exactly. There is nothing un-American or racist or xenophobic about this, though there are some who *love* to pretend otherwise. They're like a broken record that I honestly tune out these days.

+1,000,000

nothing racist in wanting to keep your job.

I would rather hire my neighbors child than some child from Bangalore. Why is that racist in democrat's eyes??

Then you should absolutely hire your neighbors child. You are free to hire whomever you want.

+1. And I hope you're not breaking any child labor laws in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing that we have a 1990 immigration bill that has been warped from it's original intentions, from bringing in high skilled labor, to boosting profits for MNC by importing cheap software testers, and yet when workers try to get it changed, business ERUPTS in proclamations that we have to continue bringing in low skilled labor.

They don't wanna pay more. It's sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is great. Shifts the competition from blue collar workers to white collar workers. Time for them to suffer like everyone else!

I'm for it also, but not because it's time for white collar workers "to suffer." (What's your problem?) I'm for it because we have room in this country for educated, self-supporting individuals. That is whom we should be admitting.

Translation- white collar workers were less likely to get on board with Trump than blue collar, so who cares if their are more immigrants to compete for THEIR jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an immigrant and I remember being shocked at what kind of people in the waiting room at the uS embassy were getttong green cards. Like the most backward looking. Meanwhile i was rejected for a tourist visa though I had no intention whatsoever of staying.

I happened to win a green card lottery so eventually I came in. But I never would have otherwise.

As a liberal, when you bring this up - the Latino groups hammer you.

They are fully against Australian/Canadian type systems.

We should be bringing in more Japanese, Koreans, Jews, high IQ northwest Europeans.

Not the dregs

You realize that there is far more variation in iQ within races than between them.

Wait of course you don't, which proves the point.

I am the immigrant above and this all happened within the same race. Basically poor probably illiterate villagers were getting green cards while educated people knew they had no chance. I was only looking for a tourist visa and still didn't get it. American embassies are so arrogant and stupid.

If you were intelligent, you would understand why we should not choose people based on countries you think are high iQ.

i am profoundly gifted thx. i didn't say the people should be chosen based on country of origin. and that's not in the bill either, as i understand it.

i am merely providing my perspective from the other side. every smart, educated person who wanted to immigrate (which i didn't) went to canada embassy. those who were rejected there went to australia and NZ. nobody even tried to get a green card for the US because that was impossible if you had no family connections (no matter how remote) in the US. some smart people still managed to stay in the US mostly by going to phd programs and then getting jobs/getting employer sponsorship. but basically there was no route to legally immigrate.

I think this brings up a really good point: why are we allowing immigration via family connections? It's pretty absurd to let a person and his entire family immigrate simply because they already have one sibling in the United States who sponsors them. It's a completely illogical way of running an immigration system.

I'm on board with moving to a point system for individuals with good educations, technical skills, or badly needed language abilities. I'm also totally open to allowing more refugees or those facing persecution (religious, gender, LBGT, etc).

But the family-based system is nuts. No way in hell is one brother already in the US able to support all his siblings, their kids, and parents.

Frisco TX and Ashburn VA, have turned into Bangalore with family immigration.

And their economies are thriving! Winning!

No kidding. Unemployment in Loudoun County is 3.0 percent. Apparently the rust belt could use a little more Bangalore.

https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/news-release/unemployment_washingtondc.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's nice to know that America will have a policy similar to the one that turned away 900 Jews who fled Nazi Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, #MAGA

so for how many millennia do we need to accept every single person because we turned them way? btw, weren't they highly educated or something? or are we supposed to give preference to those who have uncle's uncle in the US, the way we do now?

Do not talk what you have no clue about. That tells badly about your intelligence and maybe you deserve to be deported replaced by some smart immigrant.

The immigration policy provides options for parents and siblings of US permanent residents or citizens to immigrate not uncle or uncle's uncle. You need to be permanent resident or citizen to even apply for them NOT just a mere visa holder.

Riiight. Except that a person brings a sibling who brings a spouse who brings a sibling so pretty quickly we have uncles uncle.

Except the waiting period even to get a sibling runs into decades. So your theory of chain migration letting people into this country to the tune of millions is possible if humans live for 200 years.

that is not true. it says in the documents/website it will take 20 years to bring ina sibling on reality it moves faster. not sure why, or maybe those people bring sibling illegally and merely start the paperwork.

You need to be a US citizen to apply for your siblings. You also need to wait 5 years to get citizenship after green card. Uncle's uncle is not coming in 50 years.

uncle's uncle will be here immediately and file his paperwork. my nanny brought half of her village to DC.

You can't file paperwork immediately as a green card holder other than your spouse or minor children. And the wait time is long.

right. but they can come here illegally and then become legal over time.

That's a totally different issue.

I have no idea why Steve Bannon/Miller picked LEGAL immigration issue as the first immigration bill to bring up.

because it's important and most people support merit system.

We already have merit system for people don't have family connections here. I thought ILLEGAL immigration was the most pressing problem. I guess not.

So cut the quota in half is going to magically attract the best and brightest to this country?

illegal immigration is a separate problem. you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.

foreigners and even americans have no clue what current immigration levels are. 500k or a million means nothing to them.

having a point system will attract some number of best and brightest to this country. but it is true, best and brightest as not gonna be coming to the US in great numbers. that has nothing to do with immigration law but with globalization. life at other places with good human capital is not bad anymore, in fact sometimes it's better than in the US with its insane real estate and childcare prices. that's all the more reason to strongly prioritize talented and educated. otherwise only people from the worlds' worst places will be coming.

Illegal immigration is part of the same problem! If you make it impossible for people to come legally, guess what, they have nothing to lose and come illegally.

We have a merit based system that already exists and works in parallel with the family-based system. And guess what? The employment based system is far less subscribed than the family-based system. The visa waiting time for skilled and professional workers is non-existent or far less than the family wait times, depending on category.

We have more Spanish speakers in the US than they have in Spain, so Spanish should get points too, just like French does in Canada.

This announcement was just a political stunt to distract by the White House. This bill has been getting zero traction in the Senate.

1) employer based system is not a merit based system

2) that we have so many spanish speakers is a problem, not a virtue. people who speak spanish only should be getting negate points

3) the bill is not making it impossible to come to the country legally. even even if it did, illegal immigration should be zero. that's a matter of enforcement, not laws.

I was in a small store this weekend, and a woman there spoke only Spanish and was livid that the shop had no Spanish-speaking staff. She stormed out in a huff. I've never gone to a foreign country and insisted that the staff know English!

Your Spanish must be pretty good if you understood all that.

Yes, maybe PP could have helped out by translating for her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an immigrant and I remember being shocked at what kind of people in the waiting room at the uS embassy were getttong green cards. Like the most backward looking. Meanwhile i was rejected for a tourist visa though I had no intention whatsoever of staying.

I happened to win a green card lottery so eventually I came in. But I never would have otherwise.

As a liberal, when you bring this up - the Latino groups hammer you.

They are fully against Australian/Canadian type systems.

We should be bringing in more Japanese, Koreans, Jews, high IQ northwest Europeans.

Not the dregs

You realize that there is far more variation in iQ within races than between them.

Wait of course you don't, which proves the point.

I am the immigrant above and this all happened within the same race. Basically poor probably illiterate villagers were getting green cards while educated people knew they had no chance. I was only looking for a tourist visa and still didn't get it. American embassies are so arrogant and stupid.

If you were intelligent, you would understand why we should not choose people based on countries you think are high iQ.

i am profoundly gifted thx. i didn't say the people should be chosen based on country of origin. and that's not in the bill either, as i understand it.

i am merely providing my perspective from the other side. every smart, educated person who wanted to immigrate (which i didn't) went to canada embassy. those who were rejected there went to australia and NZ. nobody even tried to get a green card for the US because that was impossible if you had no family connections (no matter how remote) in the US. some smart people still managed to stay in the US mostly by going to phd programs and then getting jobs/getting employer sponsorship. but basically there was no route to legally immigrate.

I think this brings up a really good point: why are we allowing immigration via family connections? It's pretty absurd to let a person and his entire family immigrate simply because they already have one sibling in the United States who sponsors them. It's a completely illogical way of running an immigration system.

I'm on board with moving to a point system for individuals with good educations, technical skills, or badly needed language abilities. I'm also totally open to allowing more refugees or those facing persecution (religious, gender, LBGT, etc).

But the family-based system is nuts. No way in hell is one brother already in the US able to support all his siblings, their kids, and parents.

Frisco TX and Ashburn VA, have turned into Bangalore with family immigration.

What, they aren't American enough for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an immigrant and I remember being shocked at what kind of people in the waiting room at the uS embassy were getttong green cards. Like the most backward looking. Meanwhile i was rejected for a tourist visa though I had no intention whatsoever of staying.

I happened to win a green card lottery so eventually I came in. But I never would have otherwise.

As a liberal, when you bring this up - the Latino groups hammer you.

They are fully against Australian/Canadian type systems.

We should be bringing in more Japanese, Koreans, Jews, high IQ northwest Europeans.

Not the dregs

You realize that there is far more variation in iQ within races than between them.

Wait of course you don't, which proves the point.

I am the immigrant above and this all happened within the same race. Basically poor probably illiterate villagers were getting green cards while educated people knew they had no chance. I was only looking for a tourist visa and still didn't get it. American embassies are so arrogant and stupid.

If you were intelligent, you would understand why we should not choose people based on countries you think are high iQ.

i am profoundly gifted thx. i didn't say the people should be chosen based on country of origin. and that's not in the bill either, as i understand it.

i am merely providing my perspective from the other side. every smart, educated person who wanted to immigrate (which i didn't) went to canada embassy. those who were rejected there went to australia and NZ. nobody even tried to get a green card for the US because that was impossible if you had no family connections (no matter how remote) in the US. some smart people still managed to stay in the US mostly by going to phd programs and then getting jobs/getting employer sponsorship. but basically there was no route to legally immigrate.

I think this brings up a really good point: why are we allowing immigration via family connections? It's pretty absurd to let a person and his entire family immigrate simply because they already have one sibling in the United States who sponsors them. It's a completely illogical way of running an immigration system.

I'm on board with moving to a point system for individuals with good educations, technical skills, or badly needed language abilities. I'm also totally open to allowing more refugees or those facing persecution (religious, gender, LBGT, etc).

But the family-based system is nuts. No way in hell is one brother already in the US able to support all his siblings, their kids, and parents.

Frisco TX and Ashburn VA, have turned into Bangalore with family immigration.

And their economies are thriving! Winning!

And they would have been thriving even if Infosys did not hire cheap workers, but they would have been thiving with local US citizens. Just like it worked in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's before the plague of H1B/H4/F1/OPT/L1 affected the IT world in US economy.

win win for eveyone. US gets to have more low skilled workers working. India gets to keep their college graduates to build their own economy.

I'm sure conservatives' efforts to destroy labor unions and slash tax rates for the wealthy, the widespread push to deregulate, technological developments, and the seachange in corporate management that has led to earnings accruing only to shareholders and executives, not to rank-and-file employees, has had nothing to do with the bottom dropping out of the working class in America. #winning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is great. Shifts the competition from blue collar workers to white collar workers. Time for them to suffer like everyone else!

I'm for it also, but not because it's time for white collar workers "to suffer." (What's your problem?) I'm for it because we have room in this country for educated, self-supporting individuals. That is whom we should be admitting.

Translation- white collar workers were less likely to get on board with Trump than blue collar, so who cares if their are more immigrants to compete for THEIR jobs.

The irony is, blue collar workers aren't that interested in picking fruit, mowing lawns, mopping floors, or wiping asses. They'd prefer the jobs they used to have, that provided benefits and living wage. Severely curtailing immigration is not going to bring those jobs back.

What we need are regulations and tax policy that encourage firms to plow profits back into their businesses (via expansion--hiring more workers--or increased pay/benefits for rank & file employees) rather than funneling them directly to shareholders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is great. Shifts the competition from blue collar workers to white collar workers. Time for them to suffer like everyone else!

How much better off we would all be if instead blue collar workers looked to white collar workers and said, "I want what they have!" and voted for politicians and policies who could help make that happen.

Instead we are pursuing policies designed to spread the misery around. Meanwhile, the rich get richer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is great. Shifts the competition from blue collar workers to white collar workers. Time for them to suffer like everyone else!

I'm for it also, but not because it's time for white collar workers "to suffer." (What's your problem?) I'm for it because we have room in this country for educated, self-supporting individuals. That is whom we should be admitting.

Translation- white collar workers were less likely to get on board with Trump than blue collar, so who cares if their are more immigrants to compete for THEIR jobs.

The irony is, blue collar workers aren't that interested in picking fruit, mowing lawns, mopping floors, or wiping asses. They'd prefer the jobs they used to have, that provided benefits and living wage. Severely curtailing immigration is not going to bring those jobs back.

What we need are regulations and tax policy that encourage firms to plow profits back into their businesses (via expansion--hiring more workers--or increased pay/benefits for rank & file employees) rather than funneling them directly to shareholders.

do you think immigrats are interested in wiping asses? or are they just desperate?

pay more and you can have Harvard PhDs wipe your ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is great. Shifts the competition from blue collar workers to white collar workers. Time for them to suffer like everyone else!

I'm for it also, but not because it's time for white collar workers "to suffer." (What's your problem?) I'm for it because we have room in this country for educated, self-supporting individuals. That is whom we should be admitting.

Translation- white collar workers were less likely to get on board with Trump than blue collar, so who cares if their are more immigrants to compete for THEIR jobs.

The irony is, blue collar workers aren't that interested in picking fruit, mowing lawns, mopping floors, or wiping asses. They'd prefer the jobs they used to have, that provided benefits and living wage. Severely curtailing immigration is not going to bring those jobs back.

What we need are regulations and tax policy that encourage firms to plow profits back into their businesses (via expansion--hiring more workers--or increased pay/benefits for rank & file employees) rather than funneling them directly to shareholders.

do you think immigrats are interested in wiping asses? or are they just desperate?

pay more and you can have Harvard PhDs wipe your ass.

Isn't that what PP was saying? These jobs don't pay enough to make it worthwhile for anyone that has a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is great. Shifts the competition from blue collar workers to white collar workers. Time for them to suffer like everyone else!

I'm for it also, but not because it's time for white collar workers "to suffer." (What's your problem?) I'm for it because we have room in this country for educated, self-supporting individuals. That is whom we should be admitting.

Translation- white collar workers were less likely to get on board with Trump than blue collar, so who cares if their are more immigrants to compete for THEIR jobs.

The irony is, blue collar workers aren't that interested in picking fruit, mowing lawns, mopping floors, or wiping asses. They'd prefer the jobs they used to have, that provided benefits and living wage. Severely curtailing immigration is not going to bring those jobs back.

What we need are regulations and tax policy that encourage firms to plow profits back into their businesses (via expansion--hiring more workers--or increased pay/benefits for rank & file employees) rather than funneling them directly to shareholders.

do you think immigrats are interested in wiping asses? or are they just desperate?

pay more and you can have Harvard PhDs wipe your ass.

Isn't that what PP was saying? These jobs don't pay enough to make it worthwhile for anyone that has a choice.

no, that was not what she was saying. nowhere she said that one should pay more for "wiping asses" - her idea is that other business would create back those good old jobs, but we still need immigrants to wipe asses.

[Anonymous]

This discussion is ...the fact is the USA has a mammoth problem with illegals. We provide good esl and public schools . Budgets have skyrocketed in Montco and FX and PG for the illegals and anchors.

Far different than a century ago when huge groups from Eastern Europe immigrated legally. Kids learned English asap in school. My parent was amazed at the time given for esl for an easier language like Spanish.

Should my taxes support granny or should all support including healthcare premiums [no reduction] come from their sponsers?