5 ms·

Trump Pushes Bill to Cut Number of Green Cards Issued by Half

24 points by SirLJ 9y ago

Retric 9y ago
'While still targeting the middle class for downward wage pressure.' I am not saying it's a bad thing, just coverage on this issue seems odd.
hackerboos 9y ago
Sad to see the DV lottery is being canned. I've been applying for the last few years.
- khuey 9y ago
  This proposal is unlikely to go anywhere.
jeremynixon 9y ago
Pass the paywall: https://t.co/evMDPWlEHx https://t.co/evMDPWlEHx
- sunwooz 9y ago
  How does this work?
  - hackerboos 9y ago
    HTTP referrer header is set to allow those incoming from social media to get X articles free a month.
nyxtom 9y ago
Cutting the issued cards in half seems a bit of the wrong focus point in this bill and creates a lot of controversy/doesn't really get the intended effect (i.e. merit based policy); so I would can that and the "English" requirement. Don't a lot of other countries implement a merit-based immigration policy? I say that but also knowing that a lot of other countries also prioritize refugees (Canada) in addition to merit-based immigration. The system I would prefer would be : prioritize refugees, merit-based skills & financial stability for employment and allow spouses and children to come along (preferably allowing spouse to live and work as well). Some countries, like Switzerland, prioritize EU citizens first for employment for instance before considering employment for immigrants from non-EU states. France, another one, is pushing forward with a tech visa program that is a bit enticing since your spouse can also live and work in the country. Overall, this proposal seems to fall closer in line with how other countries are doing things (not exactly the same) but somewhat closer. I would be curious to know the numbers in terms of population growth percentages to what other countries capped immigration numbers are; also taking into account people migrating out of the country or in the case of the EU, to and from a given country that works with the EU (i.e. Switzerland).
cmahler7 9y ago
I don't see how anyone can be against this. Should we really take an unskilled immigrant who can't speak english over an AI researcher? This is a similar merit system as used by Canada and Australia. Reminder that people who couldn't work or speak english were sent back at Ellis Island. People who came here knew they were going to have to work and wouldn't be getting handouts. The idea that we just took in whoever wanted to come here is revisionary history used to push agendas.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tclancy 9y ago
  >Reminder that people who couldn't work or speak english were sent back at Ellis Island. Which is why the questions were translated into 39 languages? http://www.essortment.com/requirements-immigrants-ellis-island-21024.html http://www.essortment.com/requirements-immigrants-ellis-isla... There's nothing in the manifest documentation to suggest this either: http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/EllisIsland/1905-02-HowImmigrantsAreInspected.html http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/EllisIsland/1905-02-HowI... Admittedly, this is the result of 10 seconds of Googling, but I'd like to see some counter-evidence for your claim.
  - cmahler7 9y ago
    I was wrong on english but people were still required to be able to work and not be reliant on government. This included pregnant women and children if they didn't have a husband or father This was the immigration law at the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882
- eregorn 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's very easy to be against this. An immigration policy should ideally be either uneducated immigrants that take jobs Americans don't want and entrepreneurs to support more jobs. Preferring highly skilled immigrants that take the jobs Americans do want is the worst case. Assuming an "American first" policy, this is ironically in a way very much the opposite since only refugees are being cut. People coming for work is going to be the same under this. In fact this bill would probably not hit the senate floor at all [1]. It has too much opposition from Republicans whose states would collapse under the bill and Republicans that want an actual decrease in immigration. Democrat opposition is a given as well. (1)https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/02/trump_backs_senators_bill_to_curb_legal_immigration_134655.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/02/trump_...
ulfw 9y ago
This won't have much impact as I doubt there'll be that many Green Card applicants while he is in charge.
- crusso 9y ago
  If we could just get away from the notion that the President (and the rest of the Federal government for that matter) is "in charge" of anything beyond the explicitly enumerated powers in the Constitution - these political changeovers wouldn't feel so important to most members of the civil society.
  - cmahler7 9y ago
    The funny thing is the far left will switch between comparing Trump to Hitler then the next day make fun of him for not getting legislation passed. Is he an authoritarian dictator or a weak leader who can't get things done?
    - asveikau 9y ago
      I will risk some downvotes to point this out... You must be confused. There is no left in this country. The Dems are a center right party shifting rightward over the last few decades in line with the general rightward shift in most national officeholders. For all this deriding of "the left" I hear from my righty friends I cannot name very many authentically leftist officeholders or party leadership. Instead, that party just offers what used to be considered Republican plans (like Gingrich or Romney's views on health care, or the Reagan/Bush tax policy)
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The Dems are a center right party shifting rightward over the last few decades in line with the general rightward shift in most national officeholders. That's not entirely true; the Democratic rightward shift pretty much stopped around 2008, plus or minus a little bit. It's dominated by a center-right faction, but it has a substantial (and resurgent over the past ~decade, after having been in retreat since the late 1980s) faction that is somewhere between center-left and left (but not hard left.)
ep103 9y ago
So I was confused by this article, and did a little bit of research. Specifically, I was confused how cutting 50k applications could cut our immigration rate in half. We're a country with a population of 330 million people, 50k shouldn't cause a dent. It turns out, that the legal immigration rate into the US hovers around 1-2 million people a year. The Illegal immigration rate hovers around 10 million people a year. Over the course of the 1990s, ~10 million people immigrated legally, and 100 million illegally. So my immediate reaction is that this bill is Trump half-assing again. Dealing with illegal immigration is a difficult issue. But dealing with legal immigration, is far, far easier. After all, these are the law abiding people. So to me, this looks like, just like the Muslim ban, Trump going after something that looks like easy points to put on the board, regardless of policy. Illegal immigration is much harder to deal with. There are so many people here already, that you're stuck with either the status quo, deportation, or mass amnesty, none of which are great options. On top of that, the Democratic party likes to turn a blind eye to the issue, as the demographic trends this enables works in their favor long term. Similarly, there is strong economic lobbying pressure, usually to the Republican party, by businesses not to crack down on illegal immigration, by businesses who exploit these people as workers without any rights or protection. Historically, while Republican presidencies have been willing to deport people found with illegal immigration status, they genuinely undermine or completely stop enforcement against businesses that hire illegal immigrants, which in turn results in higher illegal immigration during Republican presidencies. Credit due where credit is due, I've seen a few articles mention that that isn't the case for Trump's administration, but I haven't found anything conclusive yet. So, I welcome with someone with more knowledge than a few google searches, but this seems like a bullshit bill that hurts good people, to give Trump an "easy win".
- shalmanese 9y ago
  I think you've read your numbers wrong. There's a total of 10 million illegal immigrants in the US. Inflow is about 200K.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
craptocurrency 9y ago
What does "Cutting issued cards in half" mean? Will they recall cards, cut and redeliver? English is a funny language

24 points by SirLJ 9y ago

'While still targeting the middle class for downward wage pressure.' I am not saying it's a bad thing, just coverage on this issue seems odd.

hackerboos 9y ago

Sad to see the DV lottery is being canned. I've been applying for the last few years.

khuey 9y ago
This proposal is unlikely to go anywhere.

jeremynixon 9y ago

Pass the paywall: https://t.co/evMDPWlEHx https://t.co/evMDPWlEHx

sunwooz 9y ago
How does this work?
- hackerboos 9y ago
  HTTP referrer header is set to allow those incoming from social media to get X articles free a month.

nyxtom 9y ago

Cutting the issued cards in half seems a bit of the wrong focus point in this bill and creates a lot of controversy/doesn't really get the intended effect (i.e. merit based policy); so I would can that and the "English" requirement. Don't a lot of other countries implement a merit-based immigration policy? I say that but also knowing that a lot of other countries also prioritize refugees (Canada) in addition to merit-based immigration. The system I would prefer would be : prioritize refugees, merit-based skills & financial stability for employment and allow spouses and children to come along (preferably allowing spouse to live and work as well). Some countries, like Switzerland, prioritize EU citizens first for employment for instance before considering employment for immigrants from non-EU states. France, another one, is pushing forward with a tech visa program that is a bit enticing since your spouse can also live and work in the country. Overall, this proposal seems to fall closer in line with how other countries are doing things (not exactly the same) but somewhat closer. I would be curious to know the numbers in terms of population growth percentages to what other countries capped immigration numbers are; also taking into account people migrating out of the country or in the case of the EU, to and from a given country that works with the EU (i.e. Switzerland).

cmahler7 9y ago

I don't see how anyone can be against this. Should we really take an unskilled immigrant who can't speak english over an AI researcher? This is a similar merit system as used by Canada and Australia. Reminder that people who couldn't work or speak english were sent back at Ellis Island. People who came here knew they were going to have to work and wouldn't be getting handouts. The idea that we just took in whoever wanted to come here is revisionary history used to push agendas.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tclancy 9y ago
>Reminder that people who couldn't work or speak english were sent back at Ellis Island. Which is why the questions were translated into 39 languages? http://www.essortment.com/requirements-immigrants-ellis-island-21024.html http://www.essortment.com/requirements-immigrants-ellis-isla... There's nothing in the manifest documentation to suggest this either: http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/EllisIsland/1905-02-HowImmigrantsAreInspected.html http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/EllisIsland/1905-02-HowI... Admittedly, this is the result of 10 seconds of Googling, but I'd like to see some counter-evidence for your claim.
- cmahler7 9y ago
  I was wrong on english but people were still required to be able to work and not be reliant on government. This included pregnant women and children if they didn't have a husband or father This was the immigration law at the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882
eregorn 9y ago
I'm pretty sure it's very easy to be against this. An immigration policy should ideally be either uneducated immigrants that take jobs Americans don't want and entrepreneurs to support more jobs. Preferring highly skilled immigrants that take the jobs Americans do want is the worst case. Assuming an "American first" policy, this is ironically in a way very much the opposite since only refugees are being cut. People coming for work is going to be the same under this. In fact this bill would probably not hit the senate floor at all [1]. It has too much opposition from Republicans whose states would collapse under the bill and Republicans that want an actual decrease in immigration. Democrat opposition is a given as well. (1)https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/02/trump_backs_senators_bill_to_curb_legal_immigration_134655.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/02/trump_...

ulfw 9y ago

This won't have much impact as I doubt there'll be that many Green Card applicants while he is in charge.

crusso 9y ago
If we could just get away from the notion that the President (and the rest of the Federal government for that matter) is "in charge" of anything beyond the explicitly enumerated powers in the Constitution - these political changeovers wouldn't feel so important to most members of the civil society.
- cmahler7 9y ago
  The funny thing is the far left will switch between comparing Trump to Hitler then the next day make fun of him for not getting legislation passed. Is he an authoritarian dictator or a weak leader who can't get things done?
  - asveikau 9y ago
    I will risk some downvotes to point this out... You must be confused. There is no left in this country. The Dems are a center right party shifting rightward over the last few decades in line with the general rightward shift in most national officeholders. For all this deriding of "the left" I hear from my righty friends I cannot name very many authentically leftist officeholders or party leadership. Instead, that party just offers what used to be considered Republican plans (like Gingrich or Romney's views on health care, or the Reagan/Bush tax policy)
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > The Dems are a center right party shifting rightward over the last few decades in line with the general rightward shift in most national officeholders. That's not entirely true; the Democratic rightward shift pretty much stopped around 2008, plus or minus a little bit. It's dominated by a center-right faction, but it has a substantial (and resurgent over the past ~decade, after having been in retreat since the late 1980s) faction that is somewhere between center-left and left (but not hard left.)

ep103 9y ago

So I was confused by this article, and did a little bit of research. Specifically, I was confused how cutting 50k applications could cut our immigration rate in half. We're a country with a population of 330 million people, 50k shouldn't cause a dent. It turns out, that the legal immigration rate into the US hovers around 1-2 million people a year. The Illegal immigration rate hovers around 10 million people a year. Over the course of the 1990s, ~10 million people immigrated legally, and 100 million illegally. So my immediate reaction is that this bill is Trump half-assing again. Dealing with illegal immigration is a difficult issue. But dealing with legal immigration, is far, far easier. After all, these are the law abiding people. So to me, this looks like, just like the Muslim ban, Trump going after something that looks like easy points to put on the board, regardless of policy. Illegal immigration is much harder to deal with. There are so many people here already, that you're stuck with either the status quo, deportation, or mass amnesty, none of which are great options. On top of that, the Democratic party likes to turn a blind eye to the issue, as the demographic trends this enables works in their favor long term. Similarly, there is strong economic lobbying pressure, usually to the Republican party, by businesses not to crack down on illegal immigration, by businesses who exploit these people as workers without any rights or protection. Historically, while Republican presidencies have been willing to deport people found with illegal immigration status, they genuinely undermine or completely stop enforcement against businesses that hire illegal immigrants, which in turn results in higher illegal immigration during Republican presidencies. Credit due where credit is due, I've seen a few articles mention that that isn't the case for Trump's administration, but I haven't found anything conclusive yet. So, I welcome with someone with more knowledge than a few google searches, but this seems like a bullshit bill that hurts good people, to give Trump an "easy win".

shalmanese 9y ago
I think you've read your numbers wrong. There's a total of 10 million illegal immigrants in the US. Inflow is about 200K.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

craptocurrency 9y ago

What does "Cutting issued cards in half" mean? Will they recall cards, cut and redeliver? English is a funny language