3 ms·

I'm not aware of this being a variable worth considering. Can you please give me some specific examples so as to sway my opinion?

by icu 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago
Two example policies (chosen because they were the first two in a Google search, and show contrasting approaches to the general issue, not, e.g., because of any special relevance of the two institutions): http://registrar.calpoly.edu/content/stu_info/credit_byexam http://registrar.calpoly.edu/content/stu_info/credit_byexam http://admissions.utah.edu/apply/special-credit/challenge-a-course-for-credit.php http://admissions.utah.edu/apply/special-credit/challenge-a-...
- icu 10y ago
  Hi dragonwriter... I've visited both links and neither of them seem to be related to immigration and how limits to illegal immigration impacts pathways for legal immigration. Also I did a duckduckgo search (I don't use Google due to their TOS and my perception of their ethics) and could find nothing on the first page of results to support what you were saying which is why I asked. Please advise.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    That...Was a mistake I somehow read your post as a reply to a different post of mine on a different thread. I have no idea how that happened. Since it's impossible to edit now, I'll replace (well, accompany since it can be deleted) it with a more relevant response.
dragonwriter 10y ago
As a replacement for the odd and misplaced response I posted earlier, consider the new Cotton/Perdue immigration bill said to be backed also by Trump. The Senate backers (and Trump) have been big attackers of illegal immigration and blamed negative job impacts on that source, but the bill would halve the number of legal immigrants annually, partially by eliminating several family-based visa categories. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/cotton-perdue-immigration-bill/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/cotton-perdue-immigra...
- icu 10y ago
  Hi dragonwriter, no worries about the mis-post I completely understand. Thank you for taking the time to post a reply. I've read the article (although I don't put much weight in CNN's reporting) so I went straight to the copy of the bill (http://static.politico.com/ad/1b/a981934c4278bfef730dc51b341b/raise-act-bill-text.pdf http://static.politico.com/ad/1b/a981934c4278bfef730dc51b341...) and then read some commentary on it from both sides of the political spectrum. Okay so... firstly the assertion that limits to illegal immigration impacts pathways for legal immigration. I'm sorry but I'm still not fully convinced that this example shows your assertion to be the case. I concede however that it cannot be ruled out--so basically I'm still reserving judgement on this point and now that I'm aware of it I will definitely be keeping an eye out for any new data. So why reserve judgement? Well you specifically said, "Anti-immigrant policies, including ones sold on rhetoric about illegal immigration, often include changes to reduce levels of legal immigration or erect new cosrs (sic) and/or procedural obstacles to it, so that people who were legal immigrants under the old system would be prevented or discouraged from legal immigration under the new system." The RAISE Act is an entirely separate proposed piece of legislation and therefore it does not hold as a clear example of cause and effect. You could use abduction and say that the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the resulting political climate post his win has brought immigration as a whole into the spotlight, therefore there is a likelihood for a reduction immigration, including previously legal forms of immigration. While I would agree with that line of reasoning I would still reserve calling it a truth and I wouldn't adopt it into my belief structure as I generally hold out for cause and effect reasoning based on verifiable facts before accepting something as a 'truth'. As to the RAISE Act itself, I think it actually sounds rather sensible. In essence they want to shift more towards entry through work merit as in, prioritising those with education and qualifications, similar to the points system in Canada and Australia. That means cutting back significantly on the low skill migrants and removing the diversity visa completely. Would this hurt the number of people who go on to make a billion dollar company? I doubt it... I'm sure those people would go through the system legally and would be able to do so on merit. Would this hurt the average American? Personally I believe that it wouldn't... in fact I think it would help the 97.3 million Americans who fall into a low-income category, defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level (source: 2010 US Census). If considering the effect the RAISE Act would have through the lens of supply and demand economics... less low skilled labour (due to a reduction of low skilled legal immigrants) would lead to more supply of low skilled job openings (which would need to be filled by the existing American workforce). I should think that any government must consider the impact of legislation would have on low income households and the country's poverty line. In my mind there is no greater social program than a job and that Sir Thomas Browne's words ring true: "But how shall we expect charity towards others, when we are uncharitable to ourselves? 'Charity begins at home,' is the voice of the world;". As to the 'reduce legal family immigration', the RAISE Act retain immigration preference for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. It would eliminate preferences for the extended adult family members including: • Adult parents of U.S. citizens • Adult siblings of U.S. citizens • Unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens • Married adult children of U.S. citizens, and • Unmarried adult children of legal permanent residents. I don't see how this is unfair. I get that immigration rights would cover your immediate family unit--especially minors--but why should it automatically cover adult children when they could apply under the same merit based system as other adults?

I'm not aware of this being a variable worth considering. Can you please give me some specific examples so as to sway my opinion?

by icu 10y ago

I'm not aware of this being a variable worth considering. Can you please give me some specific examples so as to sway my opinion?

dragonwriter 10y ago

Two example policies (chosen because they were the first two in a Google search, and show contrasting approaches to the general issue, not, e.g., because of any special relevance of the two institutions): http://registrar.calpoly.edu/content/stu_info/credit_byexam http://registrar.calpoly.edu/content/stu_info/credit_byexam http://admissions.utah.edu/apply/special-credit/challenge-a-course-for-credit.php http://admissions.utah.edu/apply/special-credit/challenge-a-...

icu 10y ago
Hi dragonwriter... I've visited both links and neither of them seem to be related to immigration and how limits to illegal immigration impacts pathways for legal immigration. Also I did a duckduckgo search (I don't use Google due to their TOS and my perception of their ethics) and could find nothing on the first page of results to support what you were saying which is why I asked. Please advise.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  That...Was a mistake I somehow read your post as a reply to a different post of mine on a different thread. I have no idea how that happened. Since it's impossible to edit now, I'll replace (well, accompany since it can be deleted) it with a more relevant response.

dragonwriter 10y ago

As a replacement for the odd and misplaced response I posted earlier, consider the new Cotton/Perdue immigration bill said to be backed also by Trump. The Senate backers (and Trump) have been big attackers of illegal immigration and blamed negative job impacts on that source, but the bill would halve the number of legal immigrants annually, partially by eliminating several family-based visa categories. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/cotton-perdue-immigration-bill/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/cotton-perdue-immigra...

icu 10y ago
Hi dragonwriter, no worries about the mis-post I completely understand. Thank you for taking the time to post a reply. I've read the article (although I don't put much weight in CNN's reporting) so I went straight to the copy of the bill (http://static.politico.com/ad/1b/a981934c4278bfef730dc51b341b/raise-act-bill-text.pdf http://static.politico.com/ad/1b/a981934c4278bfef730dc51b341...) and then read some commentary on it from both sides of the political spectrum. Okay so... firstly the assertion that limits to illegal immigration impacts pathways for legal immigration. I'm sorry but I'm still not fully convinced that this example shows your assertion to be the case. I concede however that it cannot be ruled out--so basically I'm still reserving judgement on this point and now that I'm aware of it I will definitely be keeping an eye out for any new data. So why reserve judgement? Well you specifically said, "Anti-immigrant policies, including ones sold on rhetoric about illegal immigration, often include changes to reduce levels of legal immigration or erect new cosrs (sic) and/or procedural obstacles to it, so that people who were legal immigrants under the old system would be prevented or discouraged from legal immigration under the new system." The RAISE Act is an entirely separate proposed piece of legislation and therefore it does not hold as a clear example of cause and effect. You could use abduction and say that the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the resulting political climate post his win has brought immigration as a whole into the spotlight, therefore there is a likelihood for a reduction immigration, including previously legal forms of immigration. While I would agree with that line of reasoning I would still reserve calling it a truth and I wouldn't adopt it into my belief structure as I generally hold out for cause and effect reasoning based on verifiable facts before accepting something as a 'truth'. As to the RAISE Act itself, I think it actually sounds rather sensible. In essence they want to shift more towards entry through work merit as in, prioritising those with education and qualifications, similar to the points system in Canada and Australia. That means cutting back significantly on the low skill migrants and removing the diversity visa completely. Would this hurt the number of people who go on to make a billion dollar company? I doubt it... I'm sure those people would go through the system legally and would be able to do so on merit. Would this hurt the average American? Personally I believe that it wouldn't... in fact I think it would help the 97.3 million Americans who fall into a low-income category, defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level (source: 2010 US Census). If considering the effect the RAISE Act would have through the lens of supply and demand economics... less low skilled labour (due to a reduction of low skilled legal immigrants) would lead to more supply of low skilled job openings (which would need to be filled by the existing American workforce). I should think that any government must consider the impact of legislation would have on low income households and the country's poverty line. In my mind there is no greater social program than a job and that Sir Thomas Browne's words ring true: "But how shall we expect charity towards others, when we are uncharitable to ourselves? 'Charity begins at home,' is the voice of the world;". As to the 'reduce legal family immigration', the RAISE Act retain immigration preference for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. It would eliminate preferences for the extended adult family members including: • Adult parents of U.S. citizens • Adult siblings of U.S. citizens • Unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens • Married adult children of U.S. citizens, and • Unmarried adult children of legal permanent residents. I don't see how this is unfair. I get that immigration rights would cover your immediate family unit--especially minors--but why should it automatically cover adult children when they could apply under the same merit based system as other adults?