4 ms·

"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 demonstr

"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.
- masondixon 10y ago
  > Family-based migration absolutely does exist in other countries, including those you have specifically named. Sorry, I genuinely meant that its not as extensive. "Australia admits approximately two-thirds of its immigrants on skill criteria and strives to recruit persons during their peak working ages (Walsh, 2008). By contrast, about two-thirds of U.S. immigrants are family sponsored, without regard to skills or age (Wasem, 2007)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516050/ Do you agree with me that the rhetoric and outrage surrounding this proposal are dramatically overblown when considering the statistics and practices in a very liberal country like Australia? This is my main point. There is a debate to be had, and the left/liberal/progressive/MSM want to shut it down with scary headlines. This is most definitely an example of fake news.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    The reason why the difference is so big is only partially because family immigration is less extensive in those countries. The bigger part is that US doesn't have a well designed skilled immigration track, while those other countries do. Most skilled immigrants come to US via H-1B or L-1, neither of which were originally designed for that purpose. Because H-1B specifically has an elaborate quota system, the number of people that can come under it is limited. But there's no similar quota on family immigration, and so the immigration system is dominated by the latter. So if you want to see ratios more like in Australia or Canada, the first thing you should do is not clamp down on family immigration, but open up skilled immigration - e.g. by removing H-1B quotas, or (better yet) creating a proper work-your-way-to-citizenship visa with no quotas. That will increase the overall number of immigrants, but most of that increase will come from skilled immigration, evening things out. Of course, at that point you'll want to have some merit-based system (points etc), because otherwise you'll get too many skilled immigrants to process... I think that a lot of people on the left would actually be fine with that kind of tradeoff - point-based system, but without quotas. So larger number of immigrants overall, but eligibility bar is higher, and skilled immigration is more prominent compared to family immigration. Would you be okay with that?
    - masondixon 10y ago
      > So larger number of immigrants overall What is the rationale behind this? Or how will this benefit existing citizens? Where do you draw the line for a cap on immigration, and why? There is an almost infinite number of people who want to come to the US. Decisions must be made fairly and consistently, and to the benefit of the standard of living of existing citizens. H1-B = 236K applicants / 85K spots So that is ~150K high-skilled people who want to come but cannot right now. I would say the first priority is to ensure this system is not being used to drive down wages, and not being used to abuse migrants. If companies still need these people to grow the economy, and cannot find US people to do it, then we should get them in first. Family-based immigration must be done in a way to ensure that we are not creating greater demands on the economy. They should be able to support themselves and not contribute to the decrease in participation rate, and increasing unemployment. > "28% of new [tech] startups in America are started by immigrants," - Ron Conway > "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Doll..." This says that there should have some kind of entrepreneurial visa.

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.

masondixon 10y ago
> Family-based migration absolutely does exist in other countries, including those you have specifically named. Sorry, I genuinely meant that its not as extensive. "Australia admits approximately two-thirds of its immigrants on skill criteria and strives to recruit persons during their peak working ages (Walsh, 2008). By contrast, about two-thirds of U.S. immigrants are family sponsored, without regard to skills or age (Wasem, 2007)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516050/ Do you agree with me that the rhetoric and outrage surrounding this proposal are dramatically overblown when considering the statistics and practices in a very liberal country like Australia? This is my main point. There is a debate to be had, and the left/liberal/progressive/MSM want to shut it down with scary headlines. This is most definitely an example of fake news.
- int_19h 10y ago
  The reason why the difference is so big is only partially because family immigration is less extensive in those countries. The bigger part is that US doesn't have a well designed skilled immigration track, while those other countries do. Most skilled immigrants come to US via H-1B or L-1, neither of which were originally designed for that purpose. Because H-1B specifically has an elaborate quota system, the number of people that can come under it is limited. But there's no similar quota on family immigration, and so the immigration system is dominated by the latter. So if you want to see ratios more like in Australia or Canada, the first thing you should do is not clamp down on family immigration, but open up skilled immigration - e.g. by removing H-1B quotas, or (better yet) creating a proper work-your-way-to-citizenship visa with no quotas. That will increase the overall number of immigrants, but most of that increase will come from skilled immigration, evening things out. Of course, at that point you'll want to have some merit-based system (points etc), because otherwise you'll get too many skilled immigrants to process... I think that a lot of people on the left would actually be fine with that kind of tradeoff - point-based system, but without quotas. So larger number of immigrants overall, but eligibility bar is higher, and skilled immigration is more prominent compared to family immigration. Would you be okay with that?
  - masondixon 10y ago
    > So larger number of immigrants overall What is the rationale behind this? Or how will this benefit existing citizens? Where do you draw the line for a cap on immigration, and why? There is an almost infinite number of people who want to come to the US. Decisions must be made fairly and consistently, and to the benefit of the standard of living of existing citizens. H1-B = 236K applicants / 85K spots So that is ~150K high-skilled people who want to come but cannot right now. I would say the first priority is to ensure this system is not being used to drive down wages, and not being used to abuse migrants. If companies still need these people to grow the economy, and cannot find US people to do it, then we should get them in first. Family-based immigration must be done in a way to ensure that we are not creating greater demands on the economy. They should be able to support themselves and not contribute to the decrease in participation rate, and increasing unemployment. > "28% of new [tech] startups in America are started by immigrants," - Ron Conway > "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Doll..." This says that there should have some kind of entrepreneurial visa.