15 ms·

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

by Cuuugi 10y ago

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.

coldpie 10y ago
The travel ban is 100% about stopping legal immigration.
- sremani 10y ago
  Visa is different from Immigration, technically speaking.
  - coldpie 10y ago
    Green card holders? Refugees? Migrants' family members? Don't try to paper over or make excuses for the blatant racism espoused by the Republican party.
    - GrinningFool 10y ago
      > by the Republican party. By some members of it, anyway. The Republican party is no more a united front than the Democrat party at the moment.
      - coldpie 10y ago
        Gosh, thanks for the correction. We wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the racists' close allies and supporters, now, would we? Supporting Republicans means supporting racism. This was made extremely clear during the 2016 election, and I don't see any Republicans scrambling to prevent the White House's blatantly racist policies since then. There are no more excuses, you are either a supporter of hate and bigotry or you are not a Republican.
        tristor 10y ago
        > Supporting Republicans means supporting racism. This is patently untrue and statements like these are not helpful to the overall political situation that you're upset about. Demonizing your opposition in your rhetoric is divisive and causes reasonable people to shy away. One of the reasons the Democrats lost the elections almost across the board in 2016 was because of their insistence on divisive rhetoric. To win elections you need the reasonable middle that are registered to neither party, this voting bloc overwhelmingly voted Republican in 2016. The conservative ideology is not racist. In fact, strong conservativism was a primary hallmark of support for things like the civil rights movement. Unfortunately the Republican Party is more authoritarian and corporatist than conservative these days. Regardless, many people are registered as Republicans who abhor racism and bigotry.
        coldpie 10y ago
        >> Supporting Republicans means supporting racism. > This is patently untrue No it isn't. The border wall is an idea rooted in racism. Look at Trump's nonsense about rapists and murderers. The immigration ban is a policy rooted in racism. Look at Trump's nonsense about Muslims cheering during 9/11. Do you notice a pattern how support for these policies go hand-in-hand with racist comments? That's because these policies are inspired by the idea that white people are superior to non-white people. It's not hard to tie Republican economic and domestic policies to racism either if you're willing to go one step below the surface. > Regardless, many people are registered as Republicans who abhor racism and bigotry. Then they need to stop supporting it. Voting for racists or for people who stand by while racist policies are enacted is equivalent to supporting racism. This is simply calling a spade a spade. Republican policies are racist and supporting Republicans means supporting racism.
        tristor 10y ago
        You clearly seem to misunderstand or be unable to separate Trumpism from conservatism. There are a lot of registered Republicans who are believers in a conservative political ideology. Trumpism is NOT a conservative ideology. Trump is not a conservative, he's a populist authoritarian. It's a seriously unfortunate circumstance for a lot of Republicans that Trump ended up being their party's candidate. Calling /all/ of these people racists is extremely divisive and also blatantly untrue. Doing so does not win you elections and it doesn't move the politics of the US forward. All it does is make you look unreasonable to anyone intelligent and maybe win you virtue signalling points with Facebook-focused liberals. It also demeans the term "racism". Can we focus on the ACTUAL racism that's occurring within our current administration without painting large swaths of the voting population with an unfair brush? Also, can you please take the time to breath deeply and realize that Donald Trump is not the only politician who was voted into office on behalf of the Republican Party?
      - freehunter 10y ago
        As long as the Republican leadership stands with Trump, they're one and the same. The party in power does not get to separate themselves from the words and actions of the president or Congress. If you don't feel that the actions of the Republican leadership represents your viewpoints, you are not a Republican. Republicans put Trump in power and are keeping Trump in power and they are directly responsible for anything that comes from that.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - garysieling 10y ago
    The F-1 visa is for education, but is often a step towards an H1-B, since it gives you enough time to work in the U.S. to get an internship/first job.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    It banned people with green cards. That is a ban on people who already immigrated legally.
researcher11 10y ago
As much as I'd like to see it happen the Trump admistration has stated that H1B reform is not a priority. I doubt anything will come of it. Just more bait and switch.
cromwellian 10y ago
Really? Than why so many leaked memos show that Bannon and Miller want to reduce family Visas for those already legally here? Why is Bannon and Miller's favorite novel a racist French book about Europe becoming less white? Why when Bannon was interviewed on radio he said he wanted to bring the numbers on legal immigration way down? You're fooling yourself if you think this is just about undocumented Mexicans, Muslims, or H1-B abuse. There's way too much circumstantial rhetoric that's been said that indicates this is something more and we invite peril if we don't harshly Critique it.
- pm90 10y ago
  First they came for the "Illegals"... Rhetoric aside, as you pointed out, this is only the beginning. Authoritarians always need a scrapegoat to blame for "failed policies". Once one group is eliminated, on to another.
  - jlebrech 10y ago
    this is also called the slippery slope fallacy.
    - 24gttghh 10y ago
      This is also called history repeating/rhyming with itself.
    - cromwellian 10y ago
      It's not when there's already evidence that we're slipping down the slope. We have verbal interviews of Steve Bannon's intent and philosophy and leaked drafts of policies aimed at slashing legal immigration by 50%. Supporters of Trump and his policies go out of their way to try and soften and explain what he "really" means by saying to ignore what he or his advisors literally say. I think this is dangerously naive and the time is past giving the benefit of the doubt and sticking to rigid logical standards. This isn't philosophy class and this stuff poses real world dangers.
    - jinfiesto 10y ago
xapata 10y ago
No, Bannon has explicitly said he wants to reduce the number of ethnic minorities running tech companies. This is independent of their legal status.
- nilkn 10y ago
  I think that needs a citation with a clear quote.
  - ziszis 10y ago
    This is the closest I can find: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, not finishing the sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered-and-coaxed-trump-on-policies-key-to-the-alt-right/2016/11/15/53c66362-ab69-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered...
  - plingamp 10y ago
    I think he maybe referring to this: Bannon responded: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” he didn’t finish his sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.” http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-trump-presidency-chief-strategist-breitbart-tech-visa http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-tru...
    - TheGirondin 10y ago
      What a surprise, a request for citation of an outrageous anti-Trump claim results in an avalanche of irrelevant links.
      - xapata 10y ago
        > outrageous ... irrelevant The citation seems quite clear to me. Perhaps I'm missing something. Was Bannon not complaining about the number of ethnic minorities?
btian 10y ago
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..." - https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... Did you mean no one in the sense that no one knows healthcare is complicated?
- eugeneionesco 10y ago
  How many of those founders are muslims?
  - rat87 10y ago
    Tons. Although I'm sure many aren't very religious
    - eugeneionesco 10y ago
      How about you give me a number or at least some percentage, not just "tons".
ericjang 10y ago
Issues of H1-B Visa abuse aside, I think this guy was trying to stop legal immigration: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/kent-shooting-victim-says-he-was-told-go-back-to-your-own-country/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/kent-shooting... I don't think articles like "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups" are all about anti-Trump, it's more like pointing out to the American public that immigrants are not a tax on the rest of society.
- innocentoldguy 10y ago
  I am sure there are some who don't like any kind of immigration; however, I believe most Americans are only concerned with illegal immigration, so it really doesn't do much to sway public opinion to claim that immigrants are good for the economy, since nobody is denying that and it is irrelevant to the issue of illegal immigration. Most people are fine with immigration, as long as immigrants come in legally. For example, my wife is an immigrant and currently holds a green card, but both of us are against illegal immigration. It's best not to conflate the two.
- jorvi 10y ago
  Not true. 70% of Somalians in The Netherlands are still on welfare after 2 years. Most other Africans, most Middle-Eastern types etc all hover between 25 and 50%. In comparison, most Europeans hover around 1-5%. And this is from the CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics), which is a government institution. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2015/31/zeven-van-de-tien-somaliers-in-de-bijstand https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2015/31/zeven-van-de-tien-so... Edit: guys.. just read the link or come with rebuttals instead of this lame cop-out when facing the truth. I thought we are people of science and facts here?
  - scatters 10y ago
    Does that count people legally barred from working (e.g. refugees)?
    - jorvi 10y ago
ruddct 10y ago
Refugees come here legally. The travel ban explicitly tries to stop them from doing so.
differentView 10y ago
>No one is trying to stop legal immigration. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and believe that YOU are not trying to stop legal immigration. However, many are trying to stop immigration, some are against all immigration, some are against only those of a certain religion.
op00to 10y ago
The Trump administration is trying to stop legal immigration. One way they are doing this is by reducing the number of refugees America accepts. This is a form of legal immigration that is being stopped, mainly by reducing it bit by bit.
TuringNYC 10y ago
The first ban was most certainly not only illegal immigrants, it was legal immigrants such as green card holders and even on dual-citizens from a number of countries. Specifically, the first ban also banned permanent residents from a number of countries (i.e. greencard holders.) Note that permanent residents have to pay US taxes even on income back home, even if living overseas. They are very much legal residents that have committed quite a bit of effort (and usually also funds) into becoming legal residents. Reference: "It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-gree...
sdenton4 10y ago
For a while, they were keeping green card holders from re-entering the country, and entirely barred people with legal visas from entry. It's clearly not about legality. It's a capricious approach to policy, which seems the message that after spending years navigating the legal system, and uprooting ones entire life to move to the US, one can be turned away for no particular reason. This has a huge impact on legal immigration, which will have an impact on business in this country, both as we look abroad for strong workers and innovators.
- bruceb 10y ago
  How does this have a huge impact on legal immigration? There is not shortage people wanting to come to the US. (this is not a comment on the merits of the travel ban, only the effect)
akhilcacharya 10y ago
> No one is trying to stop legal immigration. You know, except for all of the legal visas and green cards for Iranian citizens and citizens of the other 5/6 countries.
- headsupftw 10y ago
  I think you are confusing immigration with entering a foreign country.
  - akhilcacharya 10y ago
    What do you think Green cards are used for?
mataug 10y ago
The only companies abusing H1-B visas are Indian outsourcing firms. The abuse though, is based on the eye of the beholder. From the outsourcing firm's perspective they are merely providing a service that is legally allowed in the market. American companies aren't completely off the hook though, for example in WA, AT&T and T-Mobile don't hire many international students from universities, instead they prefer to bring in employees from HCL to work on H1-B visas.
- simplyluke 10y ago
  There's growing evidence [1] that even when used by american tech companies H1Bs are largely being used to suppress wages of technical laborers (us). From a purely economic perspective, if you could pay someone on an h1b $80k when it would cost you $120k to hire an american, why would you hire the american? Tech CEOs calling for more H1Bs has very little to do with their politics and morality and much more to do with reducing one of their largest costs (labor). 1: https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/h1b.pdf https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/h1b.pd...
stusmall 10y ago
> No one is trying to stop legal immigration. Serious question, what do you think the ban was?
- venomsnake 10y ago
  Stopping immigration from 7 specific countries comprising single digit percent of the human population.
greenpizza13 10y ago
This is incorrect. Evidence suggests Trump wants to make what would now be considered legal immigration illegal (such as the Muslim ban). Seriously, if you haven't gotten off the Trump train by this point you need to open your eyes.
thinkcontext 10y ago
"No one is trying to stop legal immigration." You are misinformed: "GOP Senators Move to Limit Legal Immigration A pair of Republican senators are teaming up with the White House to introduce legislation to restrict legal immigration by slashing the number of visas and green cards available each year." https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-07/senators-tom-cotton-david-perdue-move-to-limit-legal-immigration https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-07/sen...
- Cuuugi 10y ago
  Stop != Limit
- masondixon 10y ago
  "It simply tries to get a handle on 1 million immigrants coming here a year, virtually none of whom are coming here based on their employment skills or demonstrated economic need," he said. " I don't think our immigration system is working for working Americans." How does it make sense to let people in who will not work or fulfil a need? How is this sustainable? From http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14773298/merit-based-immigration http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14773298/mer...: "Reforming the immigration system to be more “merit-based” is predicated on the idea that some of these slots are going to the wrong immigrants — immigrants who don’t have as much to give the US as the US has to give them. Proponents point to Australia and Canada — places that don’t have the American tradition of family-based migration, and that deliberately select for immigrants who are likely to contribute economically and assimilate culturally from the moment they arrive. In these countries, having a family member who’s already a citizen doesn’t guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself — having an advanced degree, being fluent in the language, and being able to support yourself (or have a job waiting for you when you arrive) matter as much or more." Family-based migration doesn't exist in other countries, and doesn't make sense. There is a debate to be had here, but instead everyone is reading fake news headlines and confirming their biases. Sigh.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    > Family-based migration doesn't exist in other countries Family-based migration absolutely does exist in other countries, including those you have specifically named. It may not be as extensive as in US, but that's a different matter. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/ http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/ https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Brin https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Brin And yes, having an eligible family member does effectively "guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself". Point-based system is for skilled immigration.
rat87 10y ago
> 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. Trump allies in Congress are literally introducing a bill to cut legal immigration in half. Whenever I see comments like this I get sad. The idea that the administration is only trying to stop "illegal immigration is just plain wrong. It's clear Steve Bannon sees successful immigrants, especially non white non Christian ones, as a danger. And as for Stephen Miller he literally broke up with a close friend because he was Latino. Tech companies aren't just worried about profits, many are headed by immigrants and they're worried about an extremely xenophobic white house.
int_19h 10y ago
I'm a legal immigrant here in US. I have a green card, and patiently waiting for when I can finally apply for citizenship. After the mess that they have made with the first EO, when people with green cards were turned at the border, my main takeaway is that I'm not going to come anywhere near the border until I get that citizenship. Yes, I am anti-Trump. Even if there were no other reasons, the EO alone would be quite sufficient to make me so, out of pure self-preservation. I've also increased my monthly ACLU donation 5x. Not the least because I can never know if I wouldn't end up the beneficiary of their services some day under this administration.

by Cuuugi 10y ago

coldpie 10y ago

The travel ban is 100% about stopping legal immigration.

sremani 10y ago
Visa is different from Immigration, technically speaking.
- coldpie 10y ago
  Green card holders? Refugees? Migrants' family members? Don't try to paper over or make excuses for the blatant racism espoused by the Republican party.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    > by the Republican party. By some members of it, anyway. The Republican party is no more a united front than the Democrat party at the moment.
    - coldpie 10y ago
      Gosh, thanks for the correction. We wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the racists' close allies and supporters, now, would we? Supporting Republicans means supporting racism. This was made extremely clear during the 2016 election, and I don't see any Republicans scrambling to prevent the White House's blatantly racist policies since then. There are no more excuses, you are either a supporter of hate and bigotry or you are not a Republican.
      - tristor 10y ago
        > Supporting Republicans means supporting racism. This is patently untrue and statements like these are not helpful to the overall political situation that you're upset about. Demonizing your opposition in your rhetoric is divisive and causes reasonable people to shy away. One of the reasons the Democrats lost the elections almost across the board in 2016 was because of their insistence on divisive rhetoric. To win elections you need the reasonable middle that are registered to neither party, this voting bloc overwhelmingly voted Republican in 2016. The conservative ideology is not racist. In fact, strong conservativism was a primary hallmark of support for things like the civil rights movement. Unfortunately the Republican Party is more authoritarian and corporatist than conservative these days. Regardless, many people are registered as Republicans who abhor racism and bigotry.
        coldpie 10y ago
        >> Supporting Republicans means supporting racism. > This is patently untrue No it isn't. The border wall is an idea rooted in racism. Look at Trump's nonsense about rapists and murderers. The immigration ban is a policy rooted in racism. Look at Trump's nonsense about Muslims cheering during 9/11. Do you notice a pattern how support for these policies go hand-in-hand with racist comments? That's because these policies are inspired by the idea that white people are superior to non-white people. It's not hard to tie Republican economic and domestic policies to racism either if you're willing to go one step below the surface. > Regardless, many people are registered as Republicans who abhor racism and bigotry. Then they need to stop supporting it. Voting for racists or for people who stand by while racist policies are enacted is equivalent to supporting racism. This is simply calling a spade a spade. Republican policies are racist and supporting Republicans means supporting racism.
        tristor 10y ago
        You clearly seem to misunderstand or be unable to separate Trumpism from conservatism. There are a lot of registered Republicans who are believers in a conservative political ideology. Trumpism is NOT a conservative ideology. Trump is not a conservative, he's a populist authoritarian. It's a seriously unfortunate circumstance for a lot of Republicans that Trump ended up being their party's candidate. Calling /all/ of these people racists is extremely divisive and also blatantly untrue. Doing so does not win you elections and it doesn't move the politics of the US forward. All it does is make you look unreasonable to anyone intelligent and maybe win you virtue signalling points with Facebook-focused liberals. It also demeans the term "racism". Can we focus on the ACTUAL racism that's occurring within our current administration without painting large swaths of the voting population with an unfair brush? Also, can you please take the time to breath deeply and realize that Donald Trump is not the only politician who was voted into office on behalf of the Republican Party?
    - freehunter 10y ago
      As long as the Republican leadership stands with Trump, they're one and the same. The party in power does not get to separate themselves from the words and actions of the president or Congress. If you don't feel that the actions of the Republican leadership represents your viewpoints, you are not a Republican. Republicans put Trump in power and are keeping Trump in power and they are directly responsible for anything that comes from that.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- garysieling 10y ago
  The F-1 visa is for education, but is often a step towards an H1-B, since it gives you enough time to work in the U.S. to get an internship/first job.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  It banned people with green cards. That is a ban on people who already immigrated legally.

researcher11 10y ago

As much as I'd like to see it happen the Trump admistration has stated that H1B reform is not a priority. I doubt anything will come of it. Just more bait and switch.

cromwellian 10y ago

Really? Than why so many leaked memos show that Bannon and Miller want to reduce family Visas for those already legally here? Why is Bannon and Miller's favorite novel a racist French book about Europe becoming less white? Why when Bannon was interviewed on radio he said he wanted to bring the numbers on legal immigration way down? You're fooling yourself if you think this is just about undocumented Mexicans, Muslims, or H1-B abuse. There's way too much circumstantial rhetoric that's been said that indicates this is something more and we invite peril if we don't harshly Critique it.

pm90 10y ago
First they came for the "Illegals"... Rhetoric aside, as you pointed out, this is only the beginning. Authoritarians always need a scrapegoat to blame for "failed policies". Once one group is eliminated, on to another.
- jlebrech 10y ago
  this is also called the slippery slope fallacy.
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    This is also called history repeating/rhyming with itself.
  - cromwellian 10y ago
    It's not when there's already evidence that we're slipping down the slope. We have verbal interviews of Steve Bannon's intent and philosophy and leaked drafts of policies aimed at slashing legal immigration by 50%. Supporters of Trump and his policies go out of their way to try and soften and explain what he "really" means by saying to ignore what he or his advisors literally say. I think this is dangerously naive and the time is past giving the benefit of the doubt and sticking to rigid logical standards. This isn't philosophy class and this stuff poses real world dangers.
  - jinfiesto 10y ago

xapata 10y ago

No, Bannon has explicitly said he wants to reduce the number of ethnic minorities running tech companies. This is independent of their legal status.

nilkn 10y ago
I think that needs a citation with a clear quote.
- ziszis 10y ago
  This is the closest I can find: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, not finishing the sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered-and-coaxed-trump-on-policies-key-to-the-alt-right/2016/11/15/53c66362-ab69-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered...
- plingamp 10y ago
  I think he maybe referring to this: Bannon responded: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” he didn’t finish his sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.” http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-trump-presidency-chief-strategist-breitbart-tech-visa http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-tru...
  - TheGirondin 10y ago
    What a surprise, a request for citation of an outrageous anti-Trump claim results in an avalanche of irrelevant links.
    - xapata 10y ago
      > outrageous ... irrelevant The citation seems quite clear to me. Perhaps I'm missing something. Was Bannon not complaining about the number of ethnic minorities?

btian 10y ago

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..." - https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... Did you mean no one in the sense that no one knows healthcare is complicated?

eugeneionesco 10y ago
How many of those founders are muslims?
- rat87 10y ago
  Tons. Although I'm sure many aren't very religious
  - eugeneionesco 10y ago
    How about you give me a number or at least some percentage, not just "tons".

ericjang 10y ago

Issues of H1-B Visa abuse aside, I think this guy was trying to stop legal immigration: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/kent-shooting-victim-says-he-was-told-go-back-to-your-own-country/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/kent-shooting... I don't think articles like "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups" are all about anti-Trump, it's more like pointing out to the American public that immigrants are not a tax on the rest of society.

innocentoldguy 10y ago
I am sure there are some who don't like any kind of immigration; however, I believe most Americans are only concerned with illegal immigration, so it really doesn't do much to sway public opinion to claim that immigrants are good for the economy, since nobody is denying that and it is irrelevant to the issue of illegal immigration. Most people are fine with immigration, as long as immigrants come in legally. For example, my wife is an immigrant and currently holds a green card, but both of us are against illegal immigration. It's best not to conflate the two.
jorvi 10y ago
Not true. 70% of Somalians in The Netherlands are still on welfare after 2 years. Most other Africans, most Middle-Eastern types etc all hover between 25 and 50%. In comparison, most Europeans hover around 1-5%. And this is from the CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics), which is a government institution. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2015/31/zeven-van-de-tien-somaliers-in-de-bijstand https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2015/31/zeven-van-de-tien-so... Edit: guys.. just read the link or come with rebuttals instead of this lame cop-out when facing the truth. I thought we are people of science and facts here?
- scatters 10y ago
  Does that count people legally barred from working (e.g. refugees)?
  - jorvi 10y ago

ruddct 10y ago

Refugees come here legally. The travel ban explicitly tries to stop them from doing so.

differentView 10y ago

>No one is trying to stop legal immigration. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and believe that YOU are not trying to stop legal immigration. However, many are trying to stop immigration, some are against all immigration, some are against only those of a certain religion.

op00to 10y ago

The Trump administration is trying to stop legal immigration. One way they are doing this is by reducing the number of refugees America accepts. This is a form of legal immigration that is being stopped, mainly by reducing it bit by bit.

TuringNYC 10y ago

The first ban was most certainly not only illegal immigrants, it was legal immigrants such as green card holders and even on dual-citizens from a number of countries. Specifically, the first ban also banned permanent residents from a number of countries (i.e. greencard holders.) Note that permanent residents have to pay US taxes even on income back home, even if living overseas. They are very much legal residents that have committed quite a bit of effort (and usually also funds) into becoming legal residents. Reference: "It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-gree...

sdenton4 10y ago

For a while, they were keeping green card holders from re-entering the country, and entirely barred people with legal visas from entry. It's clearly not about legality. It's a capricious approach to policy, which seems the message that after spending years navigating the legal system, and uprooting ones entire life to move to the US, one can be turned away for no particular reason. This has a huge impact on legal immigration, which will have an impact on business in this country, both as we look abroad for strong workers and innovators.

bruceb 10y ago
How does this have a huge impact on legal immigration? There is not shortage people wanting to come to the US. (this is not a comment on the merits of the travel ban, only the effect)

akhilcacharya 10y ago

> No one is trying to stop legal immigration. You know, except for all of the legal visas and green cards for Iranian citizens and citizens of the other 5/6 countries.

headsupftw 10y ago
I think you are confusing immigration with entering a foreign country.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
  What do you think Green cards are used for?

mataug 10y ago

The only companies abusing H1-B visas are Indian outsourcing firms. The abuse though, is based on the eye of the beholder. From the outsourcing firm's perspective they are merely providing a service that is legally allowed in the market. American companies aren't completely off the hook though, for example in WA, AT&T and T-Mobile don't hire many international students from universities, instead they prefer to bring in employees from HCL to work on H1-B visas.

simplyluke 10y ago
There's growing evidence [1] that even when used by american tech companies H1Bs are largely being used to suppress wages of technical laborers (us). From a purely economic perspective, if you could pay someone on an h1b $80k when it would cost you $120k to hire an american, why would you hire the american? Tech CEOs calling for more H1Bs has very little to do with their politics and morality and much more to do with reducing one of their largest costs (labor). 1: https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/h1b.pdf https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/h1b.pd...

stusmall 10y ago

> No one is trying to stop legal immigration. Serious question, what do you think the ban was?

venomsnake 10y ago
Stopping immigration from 7 specific countries comprising single digit percent of the human population.

greenpizza13 10y ago

This is incorrect. Evidence suggests Trump wants to make what would now be considered legal immigration illegal (such as the Muslim ban). Seriously, if you haven't gotten off the Trump train by this point you need to open your eyes.

thinkcontext 10y ago

"No one is trying to stop legal immigration." You are misinformed: "GOP Senators Move to Limit Legal Immigration A pair of Republican senators are teaming up with the White House to introduce legislation to restrict legal immigration by slashing the number of visas and green cards available each year." https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-07/senators-tom-cotton-david-perdue-move-to-limit-legal-immigration https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-07/sen...

Cuuugi 10y ago
Stop != Limit
masondixon 10y ago
"It simply tries to get a handle on 1 million immigrants coming here a year, virtually none of whom are coming here based on their employment skills or demonstrated economic need," he said. " I don't think our immigration system is working for working Americans." How does it make sense to let people in who will not work or fulfil a need? How is this sustainable? From http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14773298/merit-based-immigration http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14773298/mer...: "Reforming the immigration system to be more “merit-based” is predicated on the idea that some of these slots are going to the wrong immigrants — immigrants who don’t have as much to give the US as the US has to give them. Proponents point to Australia and Canada — places that don’t have the American tradition of family-based migration, and that deliberately select for immigrants who are likely to contribute economically and assimilate culturally from the moment they arrive. In these countries, having a family member who’s already a citizen doesn’t guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself — having an advanced degree, being fluent in the language, and being able to support yourself (or have a job waiting for you when you arrive) matter as much or more." Family-based migration doesn't exist in other countries, and doesn't make sense. There is a debate to be had here, but instead everyone is reading fake news headlines and confirming their biases. Sigh.
- int_19h 10y ago
  > Family-based migration doesn't exist in other countries Family-based migration absolutely does exist in other countries, including those you have specifically named. It may not be as extensive as in US, but that's a different matter. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/ http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/ https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Brin https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Brin And yes, having an eligible family member does effectively "guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself". Point-based system is for skilled immigration.

rat87 10y ago

> 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. Trump allies in Congress are literally introducing a bill to cut legal immigration in half. Whenever I see comments like this I get sad. The idea that the administration is only trying to stop "illegal immigration is just plain wrong. It's clear Steve Bannon sees successful immigrants, especially non white non Christian ones, as a danger. And as for Stephen Miller he literally broke up with a close friend because he was Latino. Tech companies aren't just worried about profits, many are headed by immigrants and they're worried about an extremely xenophobic white house.

int_19h 10y ago

I'm a legal immigrant here in US. I have a green card, and patiently waiting for when I can finally apply for citizenship. After the mess that they have made with the first EO, when people with green cards were turned at the border, my main takeaway is that I'm not going to come anywhere near the border until I get that citizenship. Yes, I am anti-Trump. Even if there were no other reasons, the EO alone would be quite sufficient to make me so, out of pure self-preservation. I've also increased my monthly ACLU donation 5x. Not the least because I can never know if I wouldn't end up the beneficiary of their services some day under this administration.