271–280 of 701 posts
One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. It looks like every kind of screening of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones, as far as that determination is possible on their arrival at all.
Don't most countries implement some sort of merit-based immigration? "We want educated people with degrees from this age range?". Don't employees do that as well - "we want people with these qualifications"... is that terribly wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's no evidence that immigration, even mass immigration, has any negative consequences, apart from some more competition at the very low end of salaries So, in other words, there is evidence that it does have negative consequences? I myself don't know either way. I just think that, if what you write is true, an impact at the low end of the salary spectrum isn't something to brush off as if it's nothing and does…
that effect is only negative from the specific perspective of low end salary holders. that effect is positive for businesses and consumers.
Second and perhaps more importantly, the more salaries are driven down, the less money those earners have to spend, which means businesses will see less potential revenue.
One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. It looks like every kind of screening of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones, as far as that determination is possible on their arrival at all.
It wouldn't be hard to have an immigration system which is biased toward useful vs. not useful. The question is: where do you want to have the cutoff? I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), combined with a transparent and straightforward points-based system for mainly immigrant visas. I'd eliminate the inherent racism in the current system (penalizing India and China vs. Equatorial Gui…
Is an artist useful?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First they came for the illegals but I didn't speak up because my 401k has been making massive gains and this whole administration has been awesome for me but I can't say that out loud in California because people are still imagining a reason to lose their minds while the checks and balances are working out as intended the whole time!
And your 401k was up massively since Obama took office as well long before this current wave of anti-immigrant sentiment. The market is up because of an irrational belief that Trump is going to enact the pipe dreams of the SeekingAlpha crowd with massive tax cuts that the Democrats are never going to approve. Statistics show most likely there is going to be a big correction and a recession on Trump's watch. Never in…
To be clear, I think presidents have little to do with market moves. So they should not be accredited with gains nor blamed for falls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't be hard to have an immigration system which is biased toward useful vs. not useful. The question is: where do you want to have the cutoff? I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), combined with a transparent and straightforward points-based system for mainly immigrant visas. I'd eliminate the inherent racism in the current system (penalizing India and China vs. Equatorial Gui…
I think building a wall will increase the net flow of illegal immigrants as currently more people are leaving than entering. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-... I don't think you need >3x the annual median income (that's top 10%) for immigrants to benefit. Economics research says high wage immigrants benefit while low wage immigrants benefit the natives on net, although it may harm some na…
What is the point of government if not to act in the best interests of its citizens? Why are our governments now apparently obligated to act in the best interests of foreign nationals? This has nothing to do with alleviating poverty or humanitarian ideals. It's blatantly obvious that this advocacy for open borders is part of a power grab by the left to ensure that they stay in power for decades to come, at the expense of the people who actually built the society that they want to invite everyone else to live in. What party do they think these people are going to overwhelmingly vote for? I don't understand how people can openly advocate for destroying our society just for political gain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't be hard to have an immigration system which is biased toward useful vs. not useful. The question is: where do you want to have the cutoff? I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), combined with a transparent and straightforward points-based system for mainly immigrant visas. I'd eliminate the inherent racism in the current system (penalizing India and China vs. Equatorial Gui…
You start getting into weird questions with "usefulness" right? Is an artist useful?
Are they a respected contributor in their field?
Can they afford to support themselves here?
Whenever I see "Immigration" in the title, i think anti-Trump and get sad. No one is trying to stop legal immigration. Tech companies are mad because they are cracking down on H1-B Visa abuse. This is not a bad thing.
Seriously, if you haven't gotten off the Trump train by this point you need to open your eyes.