Debate Now A discussion about the efficacy of Trump's merit based criteria for immigration eligibility

[Darkwind]

What I'm scratching my head about is the "speak English" requirement.
How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know? My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work. So the law doesn't change up the type of folks who would be coming here with skills in the first place. But it sends a signal to Trump's xenophobic base.

One other question, are these PERMANENT immigrants the bill is talking about, or the temporary workers that flood the country? Or isn't there actually a difference?

Census Bureau said almost half of legal immigrants cant speak good english. 15% cant speak english at all. But lets just assume so we can pull out the "phobe" card.

How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Do you know?
Yes, it's a phobe thing. Every student of a foreign language knows you don't become actually proficient in it until you are "immersed" in it by going to a country where it is written and spoken all around you. So immigrants will learn the language once they get here, if it's so important to you. Why is that?
I don't know how what you said in any way contradicts what I said.

Sort of the whole point of the policy, isn't it? They don't function effectively, so some level of proficiency in the language is a requirement.

Okay. No argument it helps to speak English when you are living in a country that is de facto an English speaking country (although we will not, for political reason, call it our "official" language).
It seems the whole point of the policy is to eliminate as much as possible the unskilled workers who are stealing jobs from unskilled Americans. Trump wants to put African American drop outs to work in the lettuce fields, I guess. Stephen Miller seemed to feel this would be quite a boon to them and all the other unskilled Americans currently out of work and collecting welfare.

Trump said that to you or the nation, or is that just an emotional response. I don't recall Trump or anyone saying they wanted to put blacks in the lettuce fields. This is what I refer to as 'issue creep'.

Since the focus of the policy cannot be effectively argued against, the discussion moves to outlier and unrelated topics that have, at best, a tertiary connection to the topic.

Simply put, allowing immigrants into this country as permanent citizens (Please note that this entire policy is focused on ONLY green card policy) absolutely must benefit this country. That is achieved by having;

1. An immigrant that will not require any social aid. They have skills we don't have to provide, and they can very quickly (should be a requirement in My opinion) get a job that supports them and the family they bring with them.

2. They quickly or immediately begin to contribute to the tax base and community.

3. They have one of the largest barriers to assimilation removed by understanding the language.

Since the quota is being limited to 500,000k per year, they won't overwhelm the middle class but will promote a healthy competition for everyone. A good thing to have.

I don't see much to complain about in this aspect of immigration reform.

The biggest plus is that it is not 'comprehensive' reform, which is just D.C. speak for a slush fund.

 

[cnelsen]

What I'm scratching my head about is the "speak English" requirement.
How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know? My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work. So the law doesn't change up the type of folks who would be coming here with skills in the first place. But it sends a signal to Trump's xenophobic base.

One other question, are these PERMANENT immigrants the bill is talking about, or the temporary workers that flood the country? Or isn't there actually a difference?

Census Bureau said almost half of legal immigrants cant speak good english. 15% cant speak english at all. But lets just assume so we can pull out the "phobe" card.

How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Do you know?
Yes, it's a phobe thing. Every student of a foreign language knows you don't become actually proficient in it until you are "immersed" in it by going to a country where it is written and spoken all around you. So immigrants will learn the language once they get here, if it's so important to you. Why is that?
I don't know how what you said in any way contradicts what I said.

My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work
https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/acs-26.pdf
Choke on that.
Bringing up a ridiculous regressive term like "phobe" is the epitome of desperation or hate. Especially when you have no freakin idea what you are talking about. At least you admit your bigotry is based off of "assumption"

You did catch the fact that I was talking about the "skilled workers" which will now be given precedence, right? Unless you've got some kind of breakdown showing that the skilled professionals entering this country to work do NOT speak English, you're still not answering my point.

Every person let into the country on a work visa increases the labor supply--good for employers, bad for workers. If the chamber of commerce had its way the gates would be wide open. To them the flood of humanity out there is just cheaper humans and it's a buyers market. But economics is always subpolitical.

 

[OldLady]

What I'm scratching my head about is the "speak English" requirement.
How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know? My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work. So the law doesn't change up the type of folks who would be coming here with skills in the first place. But it sends a signal to Trump's xenophobic base.

One other question, are these PERMANENT immigrants the bill is talking about, or the temporary workers that flood the country? Or isn't there actually a difference?

Census Bureau said almost half of legal immigrants cant speak good english. 15% cant speak english at all. But lets just assume so we can pull out the "phobe" card.

How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Do you know?
Yes, it's a phobe thing. Every student of a foreign language knows you don't become actually proficient in it until you are "immersed" in it by going to a country where it is written and spoken all around you. So immigrants will learn the language once they get here, if it's so important to you. Why is that?
I don't know how what you said in any way contradicts what I said.

Sort of the whole point of the policy, isn't it? They don't function effectively, so some level of proficiency in the language is a requirement.

Okay. No argument it helps to speak English when you are living in a country that is de facto an English speaking country (although we will not, for political reason, call it our "official" language).
It seems the whole point of the policy is to eliminate as much as possible the unskilled workers who are stealing jobs from unskilled Americans. Trump wants to put African American drop outs to work in the lettuce fields, I guess. Stephen Miller seemed to feel this would be quite a boon to them and all the other unskilled Americans currently out of work and collecting welfare.

Trump said that to you or the nation, or is that just an emotional response. I don't recall Trump or anyone saying they wanted to put blacks in the lettuce fields. This is what I refer to as 'issue creep'.

Since the focus of the policy cannot be effectively argued against, the discussion moves to outlier and unrelated topics that have, at best, a tertiary connection to the topic.

Simply put, allowing immigrants into this country as permanent citizens (Please note that this entire policy is focused on ONLY green card policy) absolutely must benefit this country. That is achieved by having;

1. An immigrant that will not require any social aid. They have skills we don't have to provide, and they can very quickly (should be a requirement in My opinion) get a job that supports them and the family they bring with them.

2. They quickly or immediately begin to contribute to the tax base and community.

3. They have one of the largest barriers to assimilation removed by understanding the language.

Since the quota is being limited to 500,000k per year, they won't overwhelm the middle class but will promote a healthy competition for everyone. A good thing to have.

I don't see much to complain about in this aspect of immigration reform.

The biggest plus is that it is not 'comprehensive' reform, which is just D.C. speak for a slush fund.

As to African Americans in the lettuce fields: See Stephen Miller vid above and then see discussion with TNHarley about what the unskilled workers no longer coming here were doing. So I used that as the occupation example.

 

[OldLady]

What I'm scratching my head about is the "speak English" requirement.
How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know? My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work. So the law doesn't change up the type of folks who would be coming here with skills in the first place. But it sends a signal to Trump's xenophobic base.

One other question, are these PERMANENT immigrants the bill is talking about, or the temporary workers that flood the country? Or isn't there actually a difference?

Census Bureau said almost half of legal immigrants cant speak good english. 15% cant speak english at all. But lets just assume so we can pull out the "phobe" card.

How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Do you know?
Yes, it's a phobe thing. Every student of a foreign language knows you don't become actually proficient in it until you are "immersed" in it by going to a country where it is written and spoken all around you. So immigrants will learn the language once they get here, if it's so important to you. Why is that?
I don't know how what you said in any way contradicts what I said.

Sort of the whole point of the policy, isn't it? They don't function effectively, so some level of proficiency in the language is a requirement.

Okay. No argument it helps to speak English when you are living in a country that is de facto an English speaking country (although we will not, for political reason, call it our "official" language).
It seems the whole point of the policy is to eliminate as much as possible the unskilled workers who are stealing jobs from unskilled Americans. Trump wants to put African American drop outs to work in the lettuce fields, I guess. Stephen Miller seemed to feel this would be quite a boon to them and all the other unskilled Americans currently out of work and collecting welfare.

Trump said that to you or the nation, or is that just an emotional response. I don't recall Trump or anyone saying they wanted to put blacks in the lettuce fields. This is what I refer to as 'issue creep'.

Since the focus of the policy cannot be effectively argued against, the discussion moves to outlier and unrelated topics that have, at best, a tertiary connection to the topic.

Simply put, allowing immigrants into this country as permanent citizens (Please note that this entire policy is focused on ONLY green card policy) absolutely must benefit this country. That is achieved by having;

1. An immigrant that will not require any social aid. They have skills we don't have to provide, and they can very quickly (should be a requirement in My opinion) get a job that supports them and the family they bring with them.

2. They quickly or immediately begin to contribute to the tax base and community.

3. They have one of the largest barriers to assimilation removed by understanding the language.

Since the quota is being limited to 500,000k per year, they won't overwhelm the middle class but will promote a healthy competition for everyone. A good thing to have.

I don't see much to complain about in this aspect of immigration reform.

The biggest plus is that it is not 'comprehensive' reform, which is just D.C. speak for a slush fund.

Do you know what "green card" means? Is that temporary or permanent or do they both get them as workers? Is the H1-B visa program separate?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What I'm scratching my head about is the "speak English" requirement.
How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know? My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work. So the law doesn't change up the type of folks who would be coming here with skills in the first place. But it sends a signal to Trump's xenophobic base.

One other question, are these PERMANENT immigrants the bill is talking about, or the temporary workers that flood the country? Or isn't there actually a difference?

How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know?

I haven't read the bill, so I don't have an answer for your second question.

My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work.

People who immigrate as a result of their refugee status will often not speak English. There are millions of highly capable people -- folks with advanced training, work experience and educations -- who do not speak English. Be that as it may, there are a very small few jobs in the U.S. that have little to no English requirement. Mathematician (purely so) is one role that comes to mind, but only because math is a language and mathematicians. Because all that matters in math (and to a lesser extent fields for which math is the language of idea expression) can be shown/disproved mathematically, mathematicians don't need English to communicate their ideas.

Of course, when it comes to explaining their ideas to people who are not mathematicians (physicists, etc.), one does, in the U.S., need to speak English. That said, I doubt there's much need for mathematicians and physicists to communicate much to most Americans. To wit, even here on USMB, so far, not one person here has responded in kind to any of the simple math I've shared (or linked to) that explains economic models and behavior. I'm sure most people have no interest in considering abstruse notions of "whatever" that require "hard" math.

Using USMB again as an example, it's also very clear that mastery of English is hardly necessary. The theme that Trump appears to be advancing is that the U.S admit as immigrants people who, like many Dutchmen, have reading, writing and comprehension skills in English than does the average American. (About the only things the Dutch seem not to know about English are the American cultural idioms that gain and lose favor.)

 

[Care4all]

My father, a military man, married my Italian born mother overseas, and when his tour was up they moved back to the USA and mom got her citizenship...then they applied for a visa for my mother's parents, my grandparents to move here....it took about 6 years before they were able to come, and then 5 years later, my Italian grandparents got their citizenship....they own 3 bars and one car dealership that they sold before moving here...so they always had money, but they too...both of them got jobs when they arrived and they spoke no English...my grandmother got a job making fake fur coats in Manhattan and my grandfather got a job making kitchen cabinets....and neither had problems at their jobs....I believe my grandmother's boss spoke Italian and so did my grandfather's...He had made furniture early in his life before they bought the bars and car dealership so those skill came in handy with making wood cabinets...my grandfather could not stand working for someone else so he quit and began buying run down row houses in Brooklyn and refurbishing them and selling them and my grandmother continued to sew winter fake fur coats...

I tell you this because I think it is important for those who have been naturalized citizens to have their immediate family near them....

I am so happy I could grow up, knowing and loving my grandparents... I would have never even met them, otherwise.

I don't think cutting out the immediate family members of immigrants that got their citizenship is such a good idea.... a family unit is also important for success.

 

[OldLady]

What I'm scratching my head about is the "speak English" requirement.
How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know? My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work. So the law doesn't change up the type of folks who would be coming here with skills in the first place. But it sends a signal to Trump's xenophobic base.

One other question, are these PERMANENT immigrants the bill is talking about, or the temporary workers that flood the country? Or isn't there actually a difference?

How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know?

I haven't read the bill, so I don't have an answer for your second question.

My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work.

People who immigrate as a result of their refugee status will often not speak English. There are millions of highly capable people -- folks with advanced training, work experience and educations -- who do not speak English. Be that as it may, there are a very small few jobs in the U.S. that have little to no English requirement. Mathematician (purely so) is one role that comes to mind, but only because math is a language and mathematicians. Because all that matters in math (and to a lesser extent fields for which math is the language of idea expression) can be shown/disproved mathematically, mathematicians don't need English to communicate their ideas.

Of course, when it comes to explaining their ideas to people who are not mathematicians (physicists, etc.), one does, in the U.S., need to speak English. That said, I doubt there's much need for mathematicians and physicists to communicate much to most Americans. To wit, even here on USMB, so far, not one person here has responded in kind to any of the simple math I've shared (or linked to) that explains economic models and behavior. I'm sure most people have no interest in considering abstruse notions of "whatever" that require "hard" math.

Using USMB again as an example, it's also very clear that mastery of English is hardly necessary. The theme that Trump appears to be advancing is that the U.S admit as immigrants people who, like many Dutchmen, have reading, writing and comprehension skills in English than does the average American. (About the only things the Dutch seem not to know about English are the American cultural idioms that gain and lose favor.)

I did not know that refugees were included in this bill. Immigrants and refugees are usually counted separately by the government, because refugees are admitted and have different rules of the road, so to speak, than general immigrants. I would love to have some clarification of what this bill actually entails. I am not a "bill reader" but I'm sure I'll stumble upon it somewhere by someone who has patience with all the mumbo jumbo.

 

[TNHarley]

What I'm scratching my head about is the "speak English" requirement.
How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know? My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work. So the law doesn't change up the type of folks who would be coming here with skills in the first place. But it sends a signal to Trump's xenophobic base.

One other question, are these PERMANENT immigrants the bill is talking about, or the temporary workers that flood the country? Or isn't there actually a difference?

How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know?

I haven't read the bill, so I don't have an answer for your second question.

My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work.

People who immigrate as a result of their refugee status will often not speak English. There are millions of highly capable people -- folks with advanced training, work experience and educations -- who do not speak English. Be that as it may, there are a very small few jobs in the U.S. that have little to no English requirement. Mathematician (purely so) is one role that comes to mind, but only because math is a language and mathematicians. Because all that matters in math (and to a lesser extent fields for which math is the language of idea expression) can be shown/disproved mathematically, mathematicians don't need English to communicate their ideas.

Of course, when it comes to explaining their ideas to people who are not mathematicians (physicists, etc.), one does, in the U.S., need to speak English. That said, I doubt there's much need for mathematicians and physicists to communicate much to most Americans. To wit, even here on USMB, so far, not one person here has responded in kind to any of the simple math I've shared (or linked to) that explains economic models and behavior. I'm sure most people have no interest in considering abstruse notions of "whatever" that require "hard" math.

Using USMB again as an example, it's also very clear that mastery of English is hardly necessary. The theme that Trump appears to be advancing is that the U.S admit as immigrants people who, like many Dutchmen, have reading, writing and comprehension skills in English than does the average American. (About the only things the Dutch seem not to know about English are the American cultural idioms that gain and lose favor.)

I did not know that refugees were included in this bill. Immigrants and refugees are usually counted separately by the government, because refugees are admitted and have different rules of the road, so to speak, than general immigrants. I would love to have some clarification of what this bill actually entails. I am not a "bill reader" but I'm sure I'll stumble upon it somewhere by someone who has patience with all the mumbo jumbo.

It hasnt been like that for some time. We allow like 80K(?) refugees in every year. Im not sure if those from syria or what not are included in that... I do know we let in ALOT from Africa.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What I'm scratching my head about is the "speak English" requirement.
How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know? My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work. So the law doesn't change up the type of folks who would be coming here with skills in the first place. But it sends a signal to Trump's xenophobic base.

One other question, are these PERMANENT immigrants the bill is talking about, or the temporary workers that flood the country? Or isn't there actually a difference?

How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know?

I haven't read the bill, so I don't have an answer for your second question.

My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work.

People who immigrate as a result of their refugee status will often not speak English. There are millions of highly capable people -- folks with advanced training, work experience and educations -- who do not speak English. Be that as it may, there are a very small few jobs in the U.S. that have little to no English requirement. Mathematician (purely so) is one role that comes to mind, but only because math is a language and mathematicians. Because all that matters in math (and to a lesser extent fields for which math is the language of idea expression) can be shown/disproved mathematically, mathematicians don't need English to communicate their ideas.

Of course, when it comes to explaining their ideas to people who are not mathematicians (physicists, etc.), one does, in the U.S., need to speak English. That said, I doubt there's much need for mathematicians and physicists to communicate much to most Americans. To wit, even here on USMB, so far, not one person here has responded in kind to any of the simple math I've shared (or linked to) that explains economic models and behavior. I'm sure most people have no interest in considering abstruse notions of "whatever" that require "hard" math.

Using USMB again as an example, it's also very clear that mastery of English is hardly necessary. The theme that Trump appears to be advancing is that the U.S admit as immigrants people who, like many Dutchmen, have reading, writing and comprehension skills in English than does the average American. (About the only things the Dutch seem not to know about English are the American cultural idioms that gain and lose favor.)

I did not know that refugees were included in this bill. Immigrants and refugees are usually counted separately by the government, because refugees are admitted and have different rules of the road, so to speak, than general immigrants. I would love to have some clarification of what this bill actually entails. I am not a "bill reader" but I'm sure I'll stumble upon it somewhere by someone who has patience with all the mumbo jumbo.

Immigrants and refugees are usually counted separately by the government, because refugees are admitted and have different rules of the road

When emigrating, they are refugees. Once they're here, they're immigrants, which is what they remain until they become citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

A working taxpaying citizen is an asset. A welfare/charity receiving leech on the system helps tear down rather than rebuild. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Well I get that- but wouldn't that well trained immigrant be more likely to take the job of a working taxpaying American citizen with a good paying job- than the unskilled worker?

 

[Syriusly]

What I'm scratching my head about is the "speak English" requirement.
How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know? My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work. So the law doesn't change up the type of folks who would be coming here with skills in the first place. But it sends a signal to Trump's xenophobic base.

One other question, are these PERMANENT immigrants the bill is talking about, or the temporary workers that flood the country? Or isn't there actually a difference?

How does anyone in a skilled position who does NOT speak English function effectively in an American workplace? Anyone know?

I haven't read the bill, so I don't have an answer for your second question.

My assumption is that the vast majority of those folks do speak English, or they wouldn't be coming here to work.

People who immigrate as a result of their refugee status will often not speak English. There are millions of highly capable people -- folks with advanced training, work experience and educations -- who do not speak English. Be that as it may, there are a very small few jobs in the U.S. that have little to no English requirement. Mathematician (purely so) is one role that comes to mind, but only because math is a language and mathematicians. Because all that matters in math (and to a lesser extent fields for which math is the language of idea expression) can be shown/disproved mathematically, mathematicians don't need English to communicate their ideas.

Of course, when it comes to explaining their ideas to people who are not mathematicians (physicists, etc.), one does, in the U.S., need to speak English. That said, I doubt there's much need for mathematicians and physicists to communicate much to most Americans. To wit, even here on USMB, so far, not one person here has responded in kind to any of the simple math I've shared (or linked to) that explains economic models and behavior. I'm sure most people have no interest in considering abstruse notions of "whatever" that require "hard" math.

Using USMB again as an example, it's also very clear that mastery of English is hardly necessary. The theme that Trump appears to be advancing is that the U.S admit as immigrants people who, like many Dutchmen, have reading, writing and comprehension skills in English than does the average American. (About the only things the Dutch seem not to know about English are the American cultural idioms that gain and lose favor.)

I did not know that refugees were included in this bill. Immigrants and refugees are usually counted separately by the government, because refugees are admitted and have different rules of the road, so to speak, than general immigrants. I would love to have some clarification of what this bill actually entails. I am not a "bill reader" but I'm sure I'll stumble upon it somewhere by someone who has patience with all the mumbo jumbo.

It hasnt been like that for some time. We allow like 80K(?) refugees in every year. Im not sure if those from syria or what not are included in that... I do know we let in ALOT from Africa.

After the most recent peak of 142,000 refugees admitted for resettlement in 1993 (largely a response to the Balkan wars), the annual admission ceiling steadily declined. In 2008, the ceiling was raised by 10,000 to accommodate an expected increase in refugees from Iraq, Iran, and Bhutan. From 2008 to 2011, the annual ceiling remained at 80,000; it was reduced to 76,000 in 2012, and further reduced to 70,000 in 2013, where it remained until 2016 (see Figure 1).

The Obama administration’s increase to 85,000 resettlement places for FY 2016 and 110,000 for FY 2017 marked the largest yearly increases in refugee admissions since 1990. The proposed ceiling for FY 2017 would include 40,000 resettlement places for refugees from the Near East and South Asia (up 4,000 from 2016); 12,000 from East Asia (down 1,000); 35,000 from Africa (up 10,000); 5,000 from Latin America and the Caribbean (up 2,000); and 4,000 from Europe and Central Asia (no change). The unallocated reserve also increased from 6,000 in 2016 to 14,000 in 2017.

However, in Executive Order 13780 (“Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”), the Trump administration reduced the 110,000 admission ceiling for FY 2017 to 50,000.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, now that the low skilled immigrants will no longer be here to pick oranges for us, the farmers can try to recruit Americans who are willing to do that. They will not find many. On the other hand, the Middle Class will have to start competing for jobs in skilled professions, like coding for Microsoft. It will be like the Vietnam refugees who came over and took jobs from Americans in almost every sector back in the 1970's. In fact, There are few fishermen fishing the Gulf of Mexico from Louisiana, who are not Vietnamese. This, of course, will lead to further antagonistic attitudes toward immigrants. I consider it to be yet another fail by Trump to think things through.

 

[TNHarley]

Well, now that the low skilled immigrants will no longer be here to pick oranges for us, the farmers can try to recruit Americans who are willing to do that. They will not find many. On the other hand, the Middle Class will have to start competing for jobs in skilled professions, like coding for Microsoft. It will be like the Vietnam refugees who came over and took jobs from Americans in almost every sector back in the 1970's. In fact, There are few fishermen fishing the Gulf of Mexico from Louisiana, who are not Vietnamese. This, of course, will lead to further antagonistic attitudes toward immigrants. I consider it to be yet another fail by Trump to think things through.

Work requirement! 2 birds, one stone.

 

[flacaltenn]

Discussion Rubric:
So, one of Trump's stated changes to immigration policy mean that rather than vying for jobs the low end of pay scales, the only immigrants that will be admitted will be ones who can compete at the upper middle segment of them. Well, okay....that's not doing anything helpful for people who qualify only for low-wage (or relatively so) jobs, and such people are the ones griping about immigrants "taking their jobs."

Really amazed at the apparent faulty logic here. Seems to be not typical of your discussions..

OF COURSE the change in policy HELPS GREATLY the Americans at the lower levels of the wage scale. Because THAT'S the cohort of immigration to be stopped.. What did you mean by this change

not doing anything helpful for people who qualify only for low-wage (or relatively so) jobs, and such people are the ones griping about immigrants "taking their jobs."

That's the MAJOR EFFECT of this change...

 

[usmbguest5318]

Discussion Rubric:
So, one of Trump's stated changes to immigration policy mean that rather than vying for jobs the low end of pay scales, the only immigrants that will be admitted will be ones who can compete at the upper middle segment of them. Well, okay....that's not doing anything helpful for people who qualify only for low-wage (or relatively so) jobs, and such people are the ones griping about immigrants "taking their jobs."

Really amazed at the apparent faulty logic here. Seems to be not typical of your discussions..

OF COURSE the change in policy HELPS GREATLY the Americans at the lower levels of the wage scale. Because THAT'S the cohort of immigration to be stopped.. What did you mean by this change

not doing anything helpful for people who qualify only for low-wage (or relatively so) jobs, and such people are the ones griping about immigrants "taking their jobs."

That's the MAJOR EFFECT of this change...

Really amazed at the apparent faulty logic here.

It's a discussion rubric, a catalyst, something to foment discussion, not make a claim and then support it.

OF COURSE the change in policy HELPS GREATLY the Americans at the lower levels of the wage scale.

Okay, I'll "bite"....

• How does reducing the quantity of immigrants who qualify only for low-skill jobs help lower level Americans in light of the fact that similarly low-skilled Americans were unwilling to accept the jobs offered at the wages offered?
  • How, as a consequence of the above, is employers increasing the wages paid to lowly skilled workers going to be good for all Americans except those financially positioned to be indifferent about the concomitant multi-sector price increases wrought by the reduction in the size of the immigrant workforce that willing to accept the wages (and wage rates of increase) currently/traditionally offered?

See the following prior to answering:

1. The Unemployment Paradox: Why Job Seekers, Employers Aren't Connecting
2. What are the jobs Americans won't do?
3. Immigrants Aren't Stealing American Jobs

• In reading the content at the "Atlantic" link, please be aware that I'm well aware of and accept the findings and the full picture Borjas presents. (For the whole of his findings, see Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy.) I say that because if you (one) feel compelled to remark upon losses (costs), you need also to present the gains. Cost/loss discussions absent comprehensive loss/gain discussion are of no use, just as discussions about gains are of no use when costs are not also fully incorporated.
  
  For now, I'll note only that Borjas' findings are that the overall impact of all forms of immigration on the U.S. as a whole are net positive, not negative. The gains/benefits are small, but nonetheless not negative:
  • "A competitive labor market yields an estimate of the immigration surplus equal to $35 billion a year."
  • "The presence of all immigrant workers (legal and illegal) in the labor market makes the U.S. economy (GDP) an estimated 11 percent larger ($1.6 trillion) each year."

I point this out because, as I shared with another it is, of course, so that you, I or any other individual can, as individuals, declare that we are willing and in fact will to forgo the small net gain accruing from immigration. The government (and it's functionaries/leaders), however, having the fiduciary duty it does, cannot -- at least not deliberately, knowingly -- do so, not if it/they also intend to present a sound case for their doing so being in the citizenry's best interest. Individuals can "go with their gut" at their discretion; policy makers need something vastly more compelling.

I briefly discussed Borjas work in several posts found in the following thread: Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration .​

 

[usmbguest5318]

amazed at the apparent faulty logic here. Seems to be not typical of your discussions..

Thanks for the sort-of compliment regarding the preponderance of my remarks.

 

[flacaltenn]

Discussion Rubric:
So, one of Trump's stated changes to immigration policy mean that rather than vying for jobs the low end of pay scales, the only immigrants that will be admitted will be ones who can compete at the upper middle segment of them. Well, okay....that's not doing anything helpful for people who qualify only for low-wage (or relatively so) jobs, and such people are the ones griping about immigrants "taking their jobs."

Really amazed at the apparent faulty logic here. Seems to be not typical of your discussions..

OF COURSE the change in policy HELPS GREATLY the Americans at the lower levels of the wage scale. Because THAT'S the cohort of immigration to be stopped.. What did you mean by this change

not doing anything helpful for people who qualify only for low-wage (or relatively so) jobs, and such people are the ones griping about immigrants "taking their jobs."

That's the MAJOR EFFECT of this change...

Really amazed at the apparent faulty logic here.

It's a discussion rubric, a catalyst, something to foment discussion, not make a claim and then support it.

OF COURSE the change in policy HELPS GREATLY the Americans at the lower levels of the wage scale.

Okay, I'll "bite"....

• How does reducing the quantity of immigrants who qualify only for low-skill jobs help lower level Americans in light of the fact that similarly low-skilled Americans were unwilling to accept the jobs offered at the wages offered?
  • How, as a consequence of the above, is employers increasing the wages paid to lowly skilled workers going to be good for all Americans except those financially positioned to be indifferent about the concomitant multi-sector price increases wrought by the reduction in the size of the immigrant workforce that willing to accept the wages (and wage rates of increase) currently/traditionally offered?

See the following prior to answering:

1. The Unemployment Paradox: Why Job Seekers, Employers Aren't Connecting
2. What are the jobs Americans won't do?
3. Immigrants Aren't Stealing American Jobs

• In reading the content at the "Atlantic" link, please be aware that I'm well aware of and accept the findings and the full picture Borjas presents. (For the whole of his findings, see Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy.) I say that because if you (one) feel compelled to remark upon losses (costs), you need also to present the gains. Cost/loss discussions absent comprehensive loss/gain discussion are of no use, just as discussions about gains are of no use when costs are not also fully incorporated.
  
  For now, I'll note only that Borjas' findings are that the overall impact of all forms of immigration on the U.S. as a whole are net positive, not negative. The gains/benefits are small, but nonetheless not negative:
  • "A competitive labor market yields an estimate of the immigration surplus equal to $35 billion a year."
  • "The presence of all immigrant workers (legal and illegal) in the labor market makes the U.S. economy (GDP) an estimated 11 percent larger ($1.6 trillion) each year."

I point this out because, as I shared with another it is, of course, so that you, I or any other individual can, as individuals, declare that we are willing and in fact will to forgo the small net gain accruing from immigration. The government (and it's functionaries/leaders), however, having the fiduciary duty it does, cannot -- at least not deliberately, knowingly -- do so, not if it/they also intend to present a sound case for their doing so being in the citizenry's best interest. Individuals can "go with their gut" at their discretion; policy makers need something vastly more compelling.

I briefly discussed Borjas work in several posts found in the following thread: Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration .​

This is all debatable. Especially when you rely on the FEW studies favorable to your argument. The EFFECT of restricting immigrant lower skilled workers WILL help low skilled Americans. Of that -- there is no doubt.Nothing here takes into effect the lack of desire of Americans to work with and for (as site mgrs) crews that DON'T speak English. And blare Mariachi music at a 9 on the volume dial all day long. Or the WAGE DEPRESSION that occurs because these illegals CAN and WILL be abused.

You kind of blew your objectivity of your "rubric" by making statements that support YOUR opinions. While telling others that their OPINIONS -- aren't allowed.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Discussion Rubric:
So, one of Trump's stated changes to immigration policy mean that rather than vying for jobs the low end of pay scales, the only immigrants that will be admitted will be ones who can compete at the upper middle segment of them. Well, okay....that's not doing anything helpful for people who qualify only for low-wage (or relatively so) jobs, and such people are the ones griping about immigrants "taking their jobs."

Really amazed at the apparent faulty logic here. Seems to be not typical of your discussions..

OF COURSE the change in policy HELPS GREATLY the Americans at the lower levels of the wage scale. Because THAT'S the cohort of immigration to be stopped.. What did you mean by this change

not doing anything helpful for people who qualify only for low-wage (or relatively so) jobs, and such people are the ones griping about immigrants "taking their jobs."

That's the MAJOR EFFECT of this change...

Really amazed at the apparent faulty logic here.

It's a discussion rubric, a catalyst, something to foment discussion, not make a claim and then support it.

OF COURSE the change in policy HELPS GREATLY the Americans at the lower levels of the wage scale.

Okay, I'll "bite"....

• How does reducing the quantity of immigrants who qualify only for low-skill jobs help lower level Americans in light of the fact that similarly low-skilled Americans were unwilling to accept the jobs offered at the wages offered?
  • How, as a consequence of the above, is employers increasing the wages paid to lowly skilled workers going to be good for all Americans except those financially positioned to be indifferent about the concomitant multi-sector price increases wrought by the reduction in the size of the immigrant workforce that willing to accept the wages (and wage rates of increase) currently/traditionally offered?

See the following prior to answering:

1. The Unemployment Paradox: Why Job Seekers, Employers Aren't Connecting
2. What are the jobs Americans won't do?
3. Immigrants Aren't Stealing American Jobs

• In reading the content at the "Atlantic" link, please be aware that I'm well aware of and accept the findings and the full picture Borjas presents. (For the whole of his findings, see Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy.) I say that because if you (one) feel compelled to remark upon losses (costs), you need also to present the gains. Cost/loss discussions absent comprehensive loss/gain discussion are of no use, just as discussions about gains are of no use when costs are not also fully incorporated.
  
  For now, I'll note only that Borjas' findings are that the overall impact of all forms of immigration on the U.S. as a whole are net positive, not negative. The gains/benefits are small, but nonetheless not negative:
  • "A competitive labor market yields an estimate of the immigration surplus equal to $35 billion a year."
  • "The presence of all immigrant workers (legal and illegal) in the labor market makes the U.S. economy (GDP) an estimated 11 percent larger ($1.6 trillion) each year."

I point this out because, as I shared with another it is, of course, so that you, I or any other individual can, as individuals, declare that we are willing and in fact will to forgo the small net gain accruing from immigration. The government (and it's functionaries/leaders), however, having the fiduciary duty it does, cannot -- at least not deliberately, knowingly -- do so, not if it/they also intend to present a sound case for their doing so being in the citizenry's best interest. Individuals can "go with their gut" at their discretion; policy makers need something vastly more compelling.

I briefly discussed Borjas work in several posts found in the following thread: Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration .​

This is all debatable. Especially when you rely on the FEW studies favorable to your argument. The EFFECT of restricting immigrant lower skilled workers WILL help low skilled Americans. Of that -- there is no doubt.Nothing here takes into effect the lack of desire of Americans to work with and for (as site mgrs) crews that DON'T speak English. And blare Mariachi music at a 9 on the volume dial all day long. Or the WAGE DEPRESSION that occurs because these illegals CAN and WILL be abused.

You kind of blew your objectivity of your "rubric" by making statements that support YOUR opinions. While telling others that their OPINIONS -- aren't allowed.

This is all debatable.

Of course it is. That's part of why the thread is in the structured debate forum.

The EFFECT of restricting immigrant lower skilled workers WILL help low skilled Americans. Of that -- there is no doubt.

You've in effect made that assertion twice, yet not once have you gone beyond making the assertion by presenting any sound and credible content to support it.

Nothing here takes into effect the lack of desire of Americans to work with and for (as site mgrs) crews that DON'T speak English. And blare Mariachi music at a 9 on the volume dial all day long. Or the WAGE DEPRESSION that occurs because these illegals CAN and WILL be abused.

What you've described is opportunity cost, and economists, unlike accountants, include opportunity cost in their calculations of costs and benefits. Read Borjas' book; you'll find a variety of opportunity cost elements noted therein. If you differ with his methodology for quantifying them, by all means, present your objections and back them up with the equations that show your criticism to be both accurate and material to the overall calculation of the net impact of immigration.

You kind of blew your objectivity of your "rubric" by making statements that support YOUR opinions. While telling others that their OPINIONS -- aren't allowed.

The source I reference is the one that both conservatives and liberals acknowledge as the leading and most authoritative source on the matter. As I've said before, if you have a problem with Dr. Borjas' analysis and methodology, by all means, detail what you see as his flaws in obtaining the findings his study produced. And btw, his findings aren't opinions, they are empirical findings. There is a huge difference between the two. An opinion, at least a sound one, is what one thinks about the implications of a finding whereby the implications have not been validated, but are instead only preponderantly likely to be so. Put another way, sound opinions are logically sound inferences one draws from findings, but not the actual findings.

I'm not requiring, in this thread, that others not share their opinions that differ with mine. What I'm saying is that unsoundly supported opinions are not allowed. I took the time to read Borjas' book. I can certainly take the time to read someone else's comparably high quality (i.e., comprehensive and sound) empirical analysis of the matter.


Having said all the above, are you going to present your own sound opinion and the support for it, or are you going to persist in attempting to defame what you think is mine?

 

[Borillar]

While I agree with the president that immigrants to this country should bring something to the table, this seems like an expansion of the H1-B program, and the people will be competing with American technicians, engineers, and scientists for jobs.

 

[9thIDdoc]

A working taxpaying citizen is an asset. A welfare/charity receiving leech on the system helps tear down rather than rebuild. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Well I get that- but wouldn't that well trained immigrant be more likely to take the job of a working taxpaying American citizen with a good paying job- than the unskilled worker?

I'd say that is entirely beside the point. It seems to me that the actual point is simple: Do you let in people who will benefit the country or people that will hinder and drain it? Why let in anyone who is likely to displace American workers? Why do you think a skilled worker losing his job is more tragic than an "unskilled" worker losing his?