PDA

View Full Version : President to Reform Immigration


Porpoise101
August 3rd, 2017, 08:48 AM
First, a heads up. You can read the original bill here (https://www.cotton.senate.gov/files/documents/170802_New_RAISE_Act_Bill_Text.pdf).

WASHINGTON — President Trump embraced a proposal on Wednesday to slash legal immigration to the United States in half within a decade by sharply curtailing the ability of American citizens and legal residents to bring family members into the country.

The plan would enact the most far-reaching changes to the system of legal immigration in decades and represents the president’s latest effort to stem the flow of newcomers to the United States. Since taking office, he has barred many visitors from select Muslim-majority countries, limited the influx of refugees, increased immigration arrests and pressed to build a wall along the southern border.

[...]

The bill, sponsored by Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, would institute a merit-based system to determine who is admitted to the country and granted legal residency green cards, favoring applicants based on skills, education and language ability rather than relations with people already here. The proposal revives an idea included in broader immigration legislation supported by President George W. Bush that died in 2007.

More than one million people are granted legal residency each year, and the proposal would reduce that by 41 percent in its first year and 50 percent by its 10th year, according to projections cited by its sponsors. The reductions would come largely from those brought in through family connections. The number of immigrants granted legal residency on the basis of job skills, about 140,000, would remain roughly the same.

Under the current system, most legal immigrants are admitted to the United States based on family ties. American citizens can sponsor spouses, parents and minor children for an unrestricted number of visas, while siblings and adult children are given preferences for a limited number of visas available to them. Legal permanent residents holding green cards can also sponsor spouses and children.

[...]

The legislation would award points based on education, ability to speak English, high-paying job offers, age, record of achievement and entrepreneurial initiative. But while it would still allow spouses and minor children of Americans and legal residents to come in, it would eliminate preferences for other relatives, like siblings and adult children. The bill would create a renewable temporary visa for older-adult parents who come for caretaking purposes.

The legislation would limit refugees offered permanent residency to 50,000 a year and eliminate a diversity visa lottery that the sponsors said does not promote diversity. The senators said their bill was meant to emulate systems in Canada and Australia.
Read the whole story at New York Times (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/trump-immigration.html)

What do you think of these efforts to reform immigration? I don't see much wrong with it in all honesty.

PlasmaHam
August 3rd, 2017, 09:30 AM
I don't think people realize that the USA does not a actually require much of people to immigrate here. This proposal is basically making the USA more similar to other developed countries in terms of accepting legal immigrants. And I support it. We should be basing immigration allowance on their benefit to American society, not whether they have a relative here or not.

DriveAlive
August 3rd, 2017, 10:20 AM
While I like it in theory, I feel like this will mean that we are going to only see a bunch of rich Chinese and Indians and Saudi Arabians moving here.

Snowfox
August 3rd, 2017, 12:22 PM
In perspective of USA it should be USA first.
Anyhow what do you DriveAlive PlasmaHam and Porpoise101 think about letting those in who volunteer to serve in US military set period of time. Would that be good reason to give citicenship/permanent resident status. In was thinking something like Foreign Legion type of system

PlasmaHam
August 3rd, 2017, 01:16 PM
In perspective of USA it should be USA first.
Anyhow what do you DriveAlive PlasmaHam and Porpoise101 think about letting those in who volunteer to serve in US military set period of time. Would that be good reason to give citicenship/permanent resident status. In was thinking something like Foreign Legion type of system
I think if legal immigrants join the US Armed Forces, and are honorably discharged at the end of their term, then they should be entitled to permanent resident status (if they weren't already) and have an advanced route to citizenship.

Idk how comfortable I am with non-US residents joining the military though. It seems a bit risky and could potentially cause problems. But I am not that familiar with how the "Foreign Legion" works, so don't cite me on that. But even if that was the case, it would still only take care of a small percentage of actual immigration in the USA.

Snowfox
August 3rd, 2017, 01:44 PM
I think if legal immigrants join the US Armed Forces, and are honorably discharged at the end of their term, then they should be entitled to permanent resident status (if they weren't already) and have an advanced route to citizenship.

Idk how comfortable I am with non-US residents joining the military though. It seems a bit risky and could potentially cause problems. But I am not that familiar with how the "Foreign Legion" works, so don't cite me on that. But even if that was the case, it would still only take care of a small percentage of actual immigration in the USA.

Foreign Legion works basically like this(based what my dad told me in letters)
- You go to France as tourist
- You go to some of those enlistment points and tell them that you want to enlist.
- They take you in for evaluation. They check your backround. They put you trough series of tests both mental and physical. If you are approved you start basic training.
- Basic training is hard really really hard. It takes 4 months and there is no single day without training. Legion can send you home any day during that 4 month period and you can say that was enough any time too during that 4 months.
- If you pass that 4 months you can choose to serve 5 years term or go to home.
- If you choose to serve you can get French citicenship and new identity if you wish after 3 years of service.
-Foreign Legion doesnt give you away to police. So if you are running that is option.

mick01
August 3rd, 2017, 03:39 PM
I'm ok with the part that reduces or eliminates immigrants on welfare. But we need people who are willing to accept lower paying jobs for a chance to live here and get away from poverty or oppression. So having specialized skills and the ability to speak English, as opposed to learning it after getting here, I am against.

Dalcourt
August 3rd, 2017, 10:26 PM
Well sure there is no real harm in it but I also don't see any real benefits.

It will just increase the number of people who live illegally in the US as those who want to bring their families or whoever there will continue to do so.

So basically this just goes against the decent working class people who want their families with them while doing nothing to reduce any real immigration problems we have.

DriveAlive
August 4th, 2017, 02:06 AM
In perspective of USA it should be USA first.
Anyhow what do you DriveAlive PlasmaHam and Porpoise101 think about letting those in who volunteer to serve in US military set period of time. Would that be good reason to give citicenship/permanent resident status. In was thinking something like Foreign Legion type of system

I agree with Plasmaham that it sounds like a good idea in practice but having a large portion of our military be made up of foreigners could be problematic.

Snowfox
August 4th, 2017, 10:53 AM
I agree with Plasmaham that it sounds like a good idea in practice but having a large portion of our military be made up of foreigners could be problematic.

It does not have to be large portion. Just put some maximum amount of personel into effect and keep all officers American. Also control minimum requirements of enlisting.
France has done it and it works fine. Also they use their legion in worst places.
Legio patria nostra (Legion is homeland or something like that). Means that those who get possibility to serve there are loyal to legion and france.

ShineintheDark
August 4th, 2017, 12:09 PM
The main issue with it is that most people who already have skills and are able to earn a decent wage have no need to come to America. Why move over and face all the issues of that when they can earn a good life where they started off? All it will do is attract more oligarchs and rich people to the US which is fantastic for investment in American tycoons (*cough* Trump Enterprises *cough*) but not too good when it comes toallowing a fair and equal system. The groups most likely to want and need to immigrate to the US are the lower skilled, lower paid workers who'd have a better life here than other places. Furthermore, the reply Lindsay Graham gave to this proposal puts best the practical issues you have: South Carolina (Senator Graham's state) amongst other states heavily rely on the tourism money as well as low-wage work that low-skilled immigrants bring in order to continue generating money for the economy. You bring in higher skilled workers as a priority, that kills pretty much most of those states beside New York and California.

Porpoise101
August 4th, 2017, 12:52 PM
It will just increase the number of people who live illegally in the US as those who want to bring their families or whoever there will continue to do so.Doubtful. The main way that people enter the US illegally is by overstaying visas and other 'documentation errors'. If the visas aren't granted, then they can't come in and plan long-term careers and settle down. And if this happens, then there will be less illegal immigration through that route. However, it could increase human trafficking as people find an alternative path. But, if you can pay someone to smuggle you across borders, then surely you can pay someone to teach you English instead.

So basically this just goes against the decent working class people who want their families with them while doing nothing to reduce any real immigration problems we have.What are the real immigration problems we currently have in your opinion? To me I would say that there's two issues:

The large population of people here illegally
The current immigration system is unfair (not particularly merit-based) insufficient (as in they do not give enough openings).


Now, this bill would not do much to change the first issue. It would probably just redirect the flow of people to come here through criminal means. The bill's real strength comes in dealing with the second issue, which is making it a merit system. While it is problematic in the sense that it limits immigration below where it should be (making the insufficiency worse), it at least makes it fair. And in the future, I would hope that future legislators can use this system as a stepping stone. They would ideally keep the merit-system in place but add more openings for people to come in.
---
As for low-skilled labor, I think that having more low-skilled people here is not necessary. Youth employment is low and we have many people who are able to work but do not. We even have plenty of low-skilled immigrants already. I would also bring up the fact that we could hire refugees to satisfy any needs for low-skill labor. That way you bring in the people that need the most help and you satisfy your labor needs. This sort of thing would not come out of the Trump administration, but this legislation at least sets the groundwork for something like that.
---
Snowfox we already have a system where people can get expedited citizenship if they fulfill these requirements (https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/naturalization-through-military-service-fact-sheet).

Dalcourt
August 4th, 2017, 01:08 PM
Porpoise101 so there will be no more visa for visitors? Most illegals I know about came with visas you get for vacations.

Porpoise101
August 4th, 2017, 01:27 PM
Porpoise101 so there will be no more visa for visitors? Most illegals I know about came with visas you get for vacations.It won't change anything in regards to tourist visas. But many eventual illegal immigrants come through by employment based visas. Like I said, this bill won't really touch on the issue of the large population we have residing here illegally.

Dalcourt
August 4th, 2017, 11:00 PM
It won't change anything in regards to tourist visas. But many eventual illegal immigrants come through by employment based visas. Like I said, this bill won't really touch on the issue of the large population we have residing here illegally.


I was just wondering, since if you don't get a work visa you simply get a tourist visa to come to the US illegally.
So the main immigration problem, the illegal immigration won't be touched really.


I don't know a country with a fair or working immigration law so I don't know if it's even possible to create one since what would be a really fair system?

One thing is that it's also problematic to judge a person by the money he or she or their family had or by the education they had in their home country. It clearly contradicts the reasons why people used to leave their country and wanted to live the so called American dream here.

What you are at the moment doesn't always show what you are capable of and strict regulations on immigration could also make you miss out on valuable people who could have done something for your country but are denied access according to law...not only in the US but everywhere.

So regulating immigration in a land that's made just of immigrants is somehow tricky from a moral point of view Imo.
I don't deny there is a need but I sometimes see it as a little hypocritical.

Can you deny people access to a better future due to a law with a clear conscience while knowing your great grandfather wouldn't have been allowed here either if these laws would have been there earlier?

So whatever problems immigration may cause in a country like the US is see it always more critical than in let's say France or Germany.

PlasmaHam
August 4th, 2017, 11:27 PM
There has always been a limiting factor in who can enter the USA. Up until the late 18-hundreds, the factor of voyaging to the USA from Europe was the large factor, since trans-Atlantic trips were rather expensive and were difficult to gain passage. Nowadays, with international travel being reasonable even for lower class individuals, there needs to be another type of limiting factor. This one being legal rather than practical.

We also got to remember that there are large difference's between the age of open immigration and today. Back then, there were millions of unsettled acres and very few welfare programs. Nowadays, land and property is less abounding, and there are welfare programs all over the place. This makes it much more difficult to allow immigration without aversely affecting the native populace.

Snowfox
August 4th, 2017, 11:35 PM
The main issue with it is that most people who already have skills and are able to earn a decent wage have no need to come to America. Why move over and face all the issues of that when they can earn a good life where they started off? All it will do is attract more oligarchs and rich people to the US which is fantastic for investment in American tycoons (*cough* Trump Enterprises *cough*) but not too good when it comes toallowing a fair and equal system. The groups most likely to want and need to immigrate to the US are the lower skilled, lower paid workers who'd have a better life here than other places. Furthermore, the reply Lindsay Graham gave to this proposal puts best the practical issues you have: South Carolina (Senator Graham's state) amongst other states heavily rely on the tourism money as well as low-wage work that low-skilled immigrants bring in order to continue generating money for the economy. You bring in higher skilled workers as a priority, that kills pretty much most of those states beside New York and California.

Not all who have skills and degrees can earn decent wages where they live. There are millions of people who have skills and degrees but are currently flipping burgers in their homeland because of following reasons.

1: They are unlucky to be born to wrong family and because their family backround no one ever gives them any job other than burger flipping.
2:There is no real jobs available at all.

Reason number one is most common. For example where I live employers dont hire people with skill or degree. They hire people from right families and dont give a fuck if said person is embodiment of incompetence. So education for lower classes is pretty much useless. Unless you leave country.

Porpoise101
August 5th, 2017, 12:17 PM
I don't know a country with a fair or working immigration law so I don't know if it's even possible to create one since what would be a really fair system?Canada and Australia are decent models to follow because they are a similar type of country to us (immigrant country) and their systems are functional. Australia has some issues with refugees and Indonesian illegal immigration, but for the most part it is pretty good.

One thing is that it's also problematic to judge a person by the money he or she or their family had or by the education they had in their home country. It clearly contradicts the reasons why people used to leave their country and wanted to live the so called American dream here.

What you are at the moment doesn't always show what you are capable of and strict regulations on immigration could also make you miss out on valuable people who could have done something for your country but are denied access according to law...not only in the US but everywhere.Well I would say that since we are literally letting people through a gate to come here, you may as well select for the best and brightest. That way you allow those who are more likely to:

Have a high-paying job (more income taxes)
Create innovations and new inventions here
Build businesses and be entrepreneurial

Sure, there are going to be exceptions and the system could in theory deny someone that would make great contributions to society. But for me it is all about the likelihood of such events occurring.
So regulating immigration in a land that's made just of immigrants is somehow tricky from a moral point of view Imo.
I don't deny there is a need but I sometimes see it as a little hypocritical.

Can you deny people access to a better future due to a law with a clear conscience while knowing your great grandfather wouldn't have been allowed here either if these laws would have been there earlier?While the US has been a "land of immigrants" it also has a storied history of excluding outsiders. We emphasize the former because it sounds better nowadays. If anything is hypocritical, it is only choosing to remember the "nice history". If we want to be an honest and practical nation, we have to at least acknowledge that exclusive past too.

As for my great-grandfathers:

Two would have been banned in the past and not today (not white, but comparatively well-educated)
One would have gotten in both times (WASP)
Only one would have made it in the past and been banned today

Dalcourt
August 5th, 2017, 11:26 PM
Porpoise101 lol, I don't really care about your ancestry it was just a figure of speech.

As I said most systems like Canada's don't do harm but whether they are fair I dunno...this depends on your individual views on fairness.Canada or Australia by far don't have the numbers of people who want to get there so it's not so much of a problem there.

They are countries just made up of immigrants but these days by far don't have the attractiveness so they could basically have whatever immigration policy without people even knowing. And a couple of years ago Canada had to advertise to attract immigrants for high-quality and high paid jobs like trucker.

So a country worth comparing with the US attractiveness wise would be Germany a nation not built on immigration. How do they handle immigration?

I don't think you can make economy in the US better by allowing just people with certain qualities or amounts of money in for those people the need to get to another country to start a better life isn't that huge.

So my opinion stands this law will basically do nothing apart driving a lot of people especially women into the life of illegal immigrants.

Microcosm
August 6th, 2017, 12:43 AM
I agree with both America First and our government's right to refuse immigrants, but I really don't see why Trump considers legal immigration such a bad thing. In terms of national security, we already have some of the most strenuous policies in the world concerning immigration. He campaigned on what I percieved as indifference towards legal immigration and a focus only on illegal immigration.

ShineintheDark
August 6th, 2017, 09:56 AM
I agree with both America First and our government's right to refuse immigrants, but I really don't see why Trump considers legal immigration such a bad thing. In terms of national security, we already have some of the most strenuous policies in the world concerning immigration. He campaigned on what I percieved as indifference towards legal immigration and a focus only on illegal immigration.

The reason I think he's going for legal immigration over illegal immigration is that he's vowed to bring the number of people entering the country down and there's not much he can do for illegal immigration beyond wht's already being done. Finding the illegals is one thing, getting them out is another. As we all already knoow, one of the major issues of trying to deport many illegal immigrants is that they have already started families here and so have children that cannot be left without parents. I think one of the most telling quotes about the traditional Republican view of dealing with illegals is when Ann Coulter said: 'They keep saying 'Oh you can't kick me out, I have kids here.' Well I say, send them all back then!'. Immigration law can never be that black and white because those who are born here have a right to citizenship and no president in their right mind would tear the families apart and potentially add millions more kids onto the already-overcrowded social services system. And that's just what do do when they're already here.
Prevention is another issue. I think it's already been clarified that a border wall doesn't work. Despite the popular image, most illegals don't physically walk the border. In fact, onwe of the most common ways is the aforementioned arrival on a tourist visa and failure to leave the US once it expires. How do you prevent that? Stop issuing tourist visas? Have the police watch EVERY tourist in the whole US in case they try and overstay their welcome? Illegal immigration is one of the hardest issues to solve so he's going for legal immigration instead: it doesn't matter to him what he promised specifically, as long as he gets the overall numbers down.