Trump Pushes Bill to Cut Number of Green Cards Issued by Half(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Trump Pushes Bill to Cut Number of Green Cards Issued by Half
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pushes-senate-bill-to-curb-legal-immigration-1501694221?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54924931&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8Z4MXe7cQlqVGEKEiSka62B_e8b7DYD4CufaMTOxcjZVTDMN5egAMxszvMnA4QctubMjab8UOl7cf_6S6I-EXC7QLJ8Q&_hsmi=54924931
33 comments
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological arguments. That's not a legit use of the site, so we ban accounts that do it, so would you please stop?
HN is intended for gratifying intellectual curiosity, and the two things are pretty much incompatible, because political and ideological flamewar burns up everything else.
HN is intended for gratifying intellectual curiosity, and the two things are pretty much incompatible, because political and ideological flamewar burns up everything else.
I've given obviously contrarian opinions on subjects posted to HN, but none of it was off-topic to the posted subject. If you don't want these topics being discussed just delete the thread, what's the point if contrarian opinion is going to be banned?
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
> I don't see how anyone can be against this. Should we really take an unskilled immigrant who can't speak english over an AI researcher?
Probably; the nonskill categories in US immigration are mostly family-unification categories. The people it brings over have stronger US roots than economic migrants without close family tied here, plus bringing them in reduced outbound remittances and increases domestic velocity of money, spurring demand and creating jobs.
Bringing in additional competition for US workers in high paying jobs keeps wages down and increases returns on capital, which certainly benefits capitalists and the immigrant in question, but less so the country.
If Trump wanted to “make Mexico pay” for the wall (or, better, actual useful US government services), he'd increase the quotas for legal, family-based immigration from Mexico, keeping money that would otherwise flows out into Mexico in remittances in the US domestic economy through more (taxed) exchanges.
Probably; the nonskill categories in US immigration are mostly family-unification categories. The people it brings over have stronger US roots than economic migrants without close family tied here, plus bringing them in reduced outbound remittances and increases domestic velocity of money, spurring demand and creating jobs.
Bringing in additional competition for US workers in high paying jobs keeps wages down and increases returns on capital, which certainly benefits capitalists and the immigrant in question, but less so the country.
If Trump wanted to “make Mexico pay” for the wall (or, better, actual useful US government services), he'd increase the quotas for legal, family-based immigration from Mexico, keeping money that would otherwise flows out into Mexico in remittances in the US domestic economy through more (taxed) exchanges.
Those non-skill jobs are going to disappear soon, then we just have millions on government benefits, to go along with the 47 million currently on food stamps. We don't need more unskilled labor, get those 47 million to work instead
Cutting the overall amount of immigration but raising the quality is a win, especially compared to importing H1-B slaves which actually does lower wages for high skill jobs.
Cutting the overall amount of immigration but raising the quality is a win, especially compared to importing H1-B slaves which actually does lower wages for high skill jobs.
> Those non-skill jobs are going to disappear soon
Doesn't really matter to the point; non-skilled (or even skilled, but not elite)) immigrants qualified for family-based immigration are quite often supported by their US-based (citizen or permanent resident) family via remittances now; bringing them to the US keeps more money in the domestic economy even if they aren't working, driving domestic demand and creating domestic jobs.
> Cutting the overall amount of immigration but raising the quality is a win
Sure, it's just a question of whether “utility to capitalists” or “ties to the US and contribution to retaining economic activity in the domestic economy” is your benchmark for quality. Clearly, you favor the former, though I can't see why.
> importing H1-B slaves which actually does lower wages for high skill jobs.
H-1B workers aren't slaves, and increasing supply of high-skilled labor decreases market clearing cost independent of whether the visa used to import the labor is an immigrant visa or a non-immigrant visa like the H-1B. I'd abolish the H-1B outright, without any additional skill-based visa quota in other categories, but also allow supernumerary (unrestricted by categorical caps) entrance with work permission and a path to permanent residency of individuals not otherwise excluded from immigration, subject to both annual fees and supplemental income taxes.
Doesn't really matter to the point; non-skilled (or even skilled, but not elite)) immigrants qualified for family-based immigration are quite often supported by their US-based (citizen or permanent resident) family via remittances now; bringing them to the US keeps more money in the domestic economy even if they aren't working, driving domestic demand and creating domestic jobs.
> Cutting the overall amount of immigration but raising the quality is a win
Sure, it's just a question of whether “utility to capitalists” or “ties to the US and contribution to retaining economic activity in the domestic economy” is your benchmark for quality. Clearly, you favor the former, though I can't see why.
> importing H1-B slaves which actually does lower wages for high skill jobs.
H-1B workers aren't slaves, and increasing supply of high-skilled labor decreases market clearing cost independent of whether the visa used to import the labor is an immigrant visa or a non-immigrant visa like the H-1B. I'd abolish the H-1B outright, without any additional skill-based visa quota in other categories, but also allow supernumerary (unrestricted by categorical caps) entrance with work permission and a path to permanent residency of individuals not otherwise excluded from immigration, subject to both annual fees and supplemental income taxes.
[deleted]
>Reminder that people who couldn't work or speak english were sent back at Ellis Island.
Which is why the questions were translated into 39 languages? http://www.essortment.com/requirements-immigrants-ellis-isla... There's nothing in the manifest documentation to suggest this either: http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/EllisIsland/1905-02-HowI...
Admittedly, this is the result of 10 seconds of Googling, but I'd like to see some counter-evidence for your claim.
Which is why the questions were translated into 39 languages? http://www.essortment.com/requirements-immigrants-ellis-isla... There's nothing in the manifest documentation to suggest this either: http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/EllisIsland/1905-02-HowI...
Admittedly, this is the result of 10 seconds of Googling, but I'd like to see some counter-evidence for your claim.
I was wrong on english but people were still required to be able to work and not be reliant on government. This included pregnant women and children if they didn't have a husband or father
This was the immigration law at the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882
This was the immigration law at the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882
I'm pretty sure it's very easy to be against this. An immigration policy should ideally be either uneducated immigrants that take jobs Americans don't want and entrepreneurs to support more jobs. Preferring highly skilled immigrants that take the jobs Americans do want is the worst case.
Assuming an "American first" policy, this is ironically in a way very much the opposite since only refugees are being cut. People coming for work is going to be the same under this.
In fact this bill would probably not hit the senate floor at all [1]. It has too much opposition from Republicans whose states would collapse under the bill and Republicans that want an actual decrease in immigration. Democrat opposition is a given as well.
(1)https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/02/trump_...
Assuming an "American first" policy, this is ironically in a way very much the opposite since only refugees are being cut. People coming for work is going to be the same under this.
In fact this bill would probably not hit the senate floor at all [1]. It has too much opposition from Republicans whose states would collapse under the bill and Republicans that want an actual decrease in immigration. Democrat opposition is a given as well.
(1)https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/02/trump_...
the "jobs americans don't want" meme needs to die. The whole reason there has been no wage growth for the middle class is because we bring in uneducated workers who drive wages down, basic supply and demand. Eliminate that and those jobs would pay more and americans would do them. The reason republicans don't want it is because their donors don't want to pay higher wages.
The reason america is #1 is because in the past we brain drained other countries, the Manhattan project was run by Hungarian jews hitler ran out, NASA rockets were built by Nazi scientists. Now for some reason we want to do the opposite, might explain why we are on the decline.
The reason america is #1 is because in the past we brain drained other countries, the Manhattan project was run by Hungarian jews hitler ran out, NASA rockets were built by Nazi scientists. Now for some reason we want to do the opposite, might explain why we are on the decline.
Regardless of what you think about the meme, it is an accurate description of the situation. If you feel uneducated workers are taking jobs Americans DO want, then by definition its not a job Americans don't want.
Its why I specifically mentioned the bill not actually decreasing immigration. Under this logic the last thing you'd want is to shift the immigrants to take the even better jobs. Most people that believe there isn't a shortage of uneducated workers don't believe educated workers are in short-supply either.
Its why I specifically mentioned the bill not actually decreasing immigration. Under this logic the last thing you'd want is to shift the immigrants to take the even better jobs. Most people that believe there isn't a shortage of uneducated workers don't believe educated workers are in short-supply either.
I'm fine taking both. The AI researcher is going to need a housekeeper, taxi driver, dry cleaner, lunch from restaurants, and dozens of other services and products performed by unskilled labor. Unskilled immigrants' children will be the next generation of AI researchers and businesspeople. People don't come to America for the handouts. They come because it's a place where hard work leads to prosperity.
I say this as the software engineer son of an immigrant housekeeper.
I say this as the software engineer son of an immigrant housekeeper.
Immigrants, particularly undocumented ones, contribute more to our economy than they receive as handouts.
'While still targeting the middle class for downward wage pressure.' I am not saying it's a bad thing, just coverage on this issue seems odd.
Sad to see the DV lottery is being canned. I've been applying for the last few years.
This proposal is unlikely to go anywhere.
Pass the paywall: https://t.co/evMDPWlEHx
How does this work?
HTTP referrer header is set to allow those incoming from social media to get X articles free a month.
Cutting the issued cards in half seems a bit of the wrong focus point in this bill and creates a lot of controversy/doesn't really get the intended effect (i.e. merit based policy); so I would can that and the "English" requirement.
Don't a lot of other countries implement a merit-based immigration policy? I say that but also knowing that a lot of other countries also prioritize refugees (Canada) in addition to merit-based immigration. The system I would prefer would be : prioritize refugees, merit-based skills & financial stability for employment and allow spouses and children to come along (preferably allowing spouse to live and work as well). Some countries, like Switzerland, prioritize EU citizens first for employment for instance before considering employment for immigrants from non-EU states. France, another one, is pushing forward with a tech visa program that is a bit enticing since your spouse can also live and work in the country. Overall, this proposal seems to fall closer in line with how other countries are doing things (not exactly the same) but somewhat closer.
I would be curious to know the numbers in terms of population growth percentages to what other countries capped immigration numbers are; also taking into account people migrating out of the country or in the case of the EU, to and from a given country that works with the EU (i.e. Switzerland).
Don't a lot of other countries implement a merit-based immigration policy? I say that but also knowing that a lot of other countries also prioritize refugees (Canada) in addition to merit-based immigration. The system I would prefer would be : prioritize refugees, merit-based skills & financial stability for employment and allow spouses and children to come along (preferably allowing spouse to live and work as well). Some countries, like Switzerland, prioritize EU citizens first for employment for instance before considering employment for immigrants from non-EU states. France, another one, is pushing forward with a tech visa program that is a bit enticing since your spouse can also live and work in the country. Overall, this proposal seems to fall closer in line with how other countries are doing things (not exactly the same) but somewhat closer.
I would be curious to know the numbers in terms of population growth percentages to what other countries capped immigration numbers are; also taking into account people migrating out of the country or in the case of the EU, to and from a given country that works with the EU (i.e. Switzerland).
This won't have much impact as I doubt there'll be that many Green Card applicants while he is in charge.
If we could just get away from the notion that the President (and the rest of the Federal government for that matter) is "in charge" of anything beyond the explicitly enumerated powers in the Constitution - these political changeovers wouldn't feel so important to most members of the civil society.
The funny thing is the far left will switch between comparing Trump to Hitler then the next day make fun of him for not getting legislation passed. Is he an authoritarian dictator or a weak leader who can't get things done?
I will risk some downvotes to point this out...
You must be confused. There is no left in this country. The Dems are a center right party shifting rightward over the last few decades in line with the general rightward shift in most national officeholders.
For all this deriding of "the left" I hear from my righty friends I cannot name very many authentically leftist officeholders or party leadership. Instead, that party just offers what used to be considered Republican plans (like Gingrich or Romney's views on health care, or the Reagan/Bush tax policy)
You must be confused. There is no left in this country. The Dems are a center right party shifting rightward over the last few decades in line with the general rightward shift in most national officeholders.
For all this deriding of "the left" I hear from my righty friends I cannot name very many authentically leftist officeholders or party leadership. Instead, that party just offers what used to be considered Republican plans (like Gingrich or Romney's views on health care, or the Reagan/Bush tax policy)
> The Dems are a center right party shifting rightward over the last few decades in line with the general rightward shift in most national officeholders.
That's not entirely true; the Democratic rightward shift pretty much stopped around 2008, plus or minus a little bit. It's dominated by a center-right faction, but it has a substantial (and resurgent over the past ~decade, after having been in retreat since the late 1980s) faction that is somewhere between center-left and left (but not hard left.)
That's not entirely true; the Democratic rightward shift pretty much stopped around 2008, plus or minus a little bit. It's dominated by a center-right faction, but it has a substantial (and resurgent over the past ~decade, after having been in retreat since the late 1980s) faction that is somewhere between center-left and left (but not hard left.)
I think worldwide the rightward shift really accelerated in the timeframe you're talking about and the years that followed, when seemingly every elected person of seemingly all persuasions started to love austerity.
And in the US, the Obama years were tempered from day 1 by the crowd that wanted to moderate a perceived left counter-push which never materialized in legislation. Witness Obamacare is not and never was seriously proposed to be single payer, it has always been a 1990s GOP alternative to single payer.
And in the US, the Obama years were tempered from day 1 by the crowd that wanted to moderate a perceived left counter-push which never materialized in legislation. Witness Obamacare is not and never was seriously proposed to be single payer, it has always been a 1990s GOP alternative to single payer.
So I was confused by this article, and did a little bit of research. Specifically, I was confused how cutting 50k applications could cut our immigration rate in half. We're a country with a population of 330 million people, 50k shouldn't cause a dent.
It turns out, that the legal immigration rate into the US hovers around 1-2 million people a year.
The Illegal immigration rate hovers around 10 million people a year.
Over the course of the 1990s, ~10 million people immigrated legally, and 100 million illegally.
So my immediate reaction is that this bill is Trump half-assing again. Dealing with illegal immigration is a difficult issue. But dealing with legal immigration, is far, far easier. After all, these are the law abiding people. So to me, this looks like, just like the Muslim ban, Trump going after something that looks like easy points to put on the board, regardless of policy.
Illegal immigration is much harder to deal with. There are so many people here already, that you're stuck with either the status quo, deportation, or mass amnesty, none of which are great options. On top of that, the Democratic party likes to turn a blind eye to the issue, as the demographic trends this enables works in their favor long term. Similarly, there is strong economic lobbying pressure, usually to the Republican party, by businesses not to crack down on illegal immigration, by businesses who exploit these people as workers without any rights or protection. Historically, while Republican presidencies have been willing to deport people found with illegal immigration status, they genuinely undermine or completely stop enforcement against businesses that hire illegal immigrants, which in turn results in higher illegal immigration during Republican presidencies. Credit due where credit is due, I've seen a few articles mention that that isn't the case for Trump's administration, but I haven't found anything conclusive yet.
So, I welcome with someone with more knowledge than a few google searches, but this seems like a bullshit bill that hurts good people, to give Trump an "easy win".
It turns out, that the legal immigration rate into the US hovers around 1-2 million people a year.
The Illegal immigration rate hovers around 10 million people a year.
Over the course of the 1990s, ~10 million people immigrated legally, and 100 million illegally.
So my immediate reaction is that this bill is Trump half-assing again. Dealing with illegal immigration is a difficult issue. But dealing with legal immigration, is far, far easier. After all, these are the law abiding people. So to me, this looks like, just like the Muslim ban, Trump going after something that looks like easy points to put on the board, regardless of policy.
Illegal immigration is much harder to deal with. There are so many people here already, that you're stuck with either the status quo, deportation, or mass amnesty, none of which are great options. On top of that, the Democratic party likes to turn a blind eye to the issue, as the demographic trends this enables works in their favor long term. Similarly, there is strong economic lobbying pressure, usually to the Republican party, by businesses not to crack down on illegal immigration, by businesses who exploit these people as workers without any rights or protection. Historically, while Republican presidencies have been willing to deport people found with illegal immigration status, they genuinely undermine or completely stop enforcement against businesses that hire illegal immigrants, which in turn results in higher illegal immigration during Republican presidencies. Credit due where credit is due, I've seen a few articles mention that that isn't the case for Trump's administration, but I haven't found anything conclusive yet.
So, I welcome with someone with more knowledge than a few google searches, but this seems like a bullshit bill that hurts good people, to give Trump an "easy win".
I think you've read your numbers wrong. There's a total of 10 million illegal immigrants in the US. Inflow is about 200K.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Reminder that people who couldn't work or speak english were sent back at Ellis Island. People who came here knew they were going to have to work and wouldn't be getting handouts. The idea that we just took in whoever wanted to come here is revisionary history used to push agendas.