4 ms·

Two points: 1) Given that the numbers did indeed end up proving that wage arbitrageurs like Accenture were dominating the H1B lottery [https://www.nytimes.com/

Two points: 1) Given that the numbers did indeed end up proving that wage arbitrageurs like Accenture were dominating the H1B lottery [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcing-companies-dominate-h1b-visas.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcin...], reform would seem to be necessary. 2) Trump has repeatedly called for a Canadian or Australian style skills-based immigration system to replace chain and quota-based immigration. One would think HN would generally support this?

giobox 9y ago
I would also assume that few here would take issue with merit-based immigration policies. The problem is arguably whether you trust Trump to actually do what he says, especially when he uses immigration policy as a dog whistle when preaching to his core vote.
- dmix 9y ago
  > The problem is arguably whether you trust Trump to actually do what he says Is Trump even the one doing it? I thought this was the job of congress?... this seems well out of the scope of an executive order. Hopefully they do end up copying Canada/Australia directly because they've both performed really well and there is plenty of data there to support it. Instead of the usual series of minor bandaids on top of the old broken system, ala the US healthcare system.
  - giobox 9y ago
    Given final say on any bill rests with Trump himself (signature/veto when it reaches his desk etc), I'm not sure this distinction matters all that much. At any rate, the president is entirely free to propose a bill, and assuming he can find a congress person to back it (I'm guessing he knows a guy who knows a guy...), can have introduced in Congress. Even if Trump's team doesn't draft a new bill, the lobbying power of the Whitehouse alone on legislation in congress is huge - the threat of a veto alone is a compelling stick. I think its absurd to think Trump/the executive wouldn't influence the shape of any proposed legislation in this area, when its been such a public part of his campaign.
    - dmix 9y ago
      It still has to first pass the hundreds of eyes in congress, that's the primary challenge of any bill. Vetoing is relatively rare and I doubt he would veto an immigration bill coming from a republican-majority congress... That said, I never said he had zero influence, but having influence on a congressional bill is a far cry from implying he wrote and proposed it himself.
      - giobox 9y ago
        If you honestly believe the Executive in the US has this little influence on policy agenda, I'm not sure what else to say! I think most people are capable of understanding that when we talk about "Trump" performing a legislative act, we almost never mean he literally picks up pen and paper and writes the bill himself, or even directly proposes it.
        dmix 9y ago
        > If you honestly believe the Executive in the US has this little influence on policy agenda, Again, I never said that, or that he writes it directly himself. This is why I don't debate politics on the internet. My point is the bill is primarily a congressional matter, and is not at the whims of just the president the way an executive order would be, as was suggested above.
        giobox 9y ago
        > This is why I don't debate politics on the internet. This thread and your post history strongly suggest otherwise!
        dmix 9y ago
        I post occasionally about political topics but I rarely engage in debates (the key word here). I find the other person usually just digs in their heels the more you reply...
rrhd 9y ago
> Trump has repeatedly called for a Canadian or Australian style skills-based immigration system to replace chain and quota-based immigration coupled with slashing immigration in general.
- dmix 9y ago
  That's because 64% of people currently coming into the US get in because they are relatives or family of another person who was given a green card. Only 15% of people come in due to skill or a job. The bill would change the system to be more about skill/merit rather than the fact you are related by blood to someone who has skill. The reduction in numbers is a side effect of the current ratios of the existing system. So ideally they will boost the maximum number on the other end to increase the total number of skilled visas, instead of just cutting the relatives portion (as the bill proposed in August). To me that's the best of both worlds. It's possible it will may be tweaked as it goes through congress or it may have to wait for a future bill, but at least the basic framework is being laid out for a better system similar to Canada/Australia.
  - rrhd 9y ago
    The bill he endorsed switches to merit based immigration and cuts the number of green cards given out in half.
    - dmix 9y ago
      That's why I said it's the ideal best of both worlds. Shifting the framework from a primarily relative-based one to skills-based, ala Canada/Australia, is a still a better system regardless. Plenty of republicans and democrats criticized the "50% reduction by 2028" projection when the original bill was announced a few months ago, so it's not entirely wishful thinking it may change in the future for the better.
  - comicjk 9y ago
    Cutting legal immigration in hopes of a later bill that increases it is a fool's errand. This proposal already gives the lie to the Republican marketing on immigration - that they have nothing against legal immigration, and only want to cut the illegal kind. Who knows what they'll ask for next.

giobox 9y ago

I would also assume that few here would take issue with merit-based immigration policies. The problem is arguably whether you trust Trump to actually do what he says, especially when he uses immigration policy as a dog whistle when preaching to his core vote.

dmix 9y ago
> The problem is arguably whether you trust Trump to actually do what he says Is Trump even the one doing it? I thought this was the job of congress?... this seems well out of the scope of an executive order. Hopefully they do end up copying Canada/Australia directly because they've both performed really well and there is plenty of data there to support it. Instead of the usual series of minor bandaids on top of the old broken system, ala the US healthcare system.
- giobox 9y ago
  Given final say on any bill rests with Trump himself (signature/veto when it reaches his desk etc), I'm not sure this distinction matters all that much. At any rate, the president is entirely free to propose a bill, and assuming he can find a congress person to back it (I'm guessing he knows a guy who knows a guy...), can have introduced in Congress. Even if Trump's team doesn't draft a new bill, the lobbying power of the Whitehouse alone on legislation in congress is huge - the threat of a veto alone is a compelling stick. I think its absurd to think Trump/the executive wouldn't influence the shape of any proposed legislation in this area, when its been such a public part of his campaign.
  - dmix 9y ago
    It still has to first pass the hundreds of eyes in congress, that's the primary challenge of any bill. Vetoing is relatively rare and I doubt he would veto an immigration bill coming from a republican-majority congress... That said, I never said he had zero influence, but having influence on a congressional bill is a far cry from implying he wrote and proposed it himself.
    - giobox 9y ago
      If you honestly believe the Executive in the US has this little influence on policy agenda, I'm not sure what else to say! I think most people are capable of understanding that when we talk about "Trump" performing a legislative act, we almost never mean he literally picks up pen and paper and writes the bill himself, or even directly proposes it.
      - dmix 9y ago
        > If you honestly believe the Executive in the US has this little influence on policy agenda, Again, I never said that, or that he writes it directly himself. This is why I don't debate politics on the internet. My point is the bill is primarily a congressional matter, and is not at the whims of just the president the way an executive order would be, as was suggested above.
        giobox 9y ago
        > This is why I don't debate politics on the internet. This thread and your post history strongly suggest otherwise!
        dmix 9y ago
        I post occasionally about political topics but I rarely engage in debates (the key word here). I find the other person usually just digs in their heels the more you reply...

rrhd 9y ago

> Trump has repeatedly called for a Canadian or Australian style skills-based immigration system to replace chain and quota-based immigration coupled with slashing immigration in general.

dmix 9y ago
That's because 64% of people currently coming into the US get in because they are relatives or family of another person who was given a green card. Only 15% of people come in due to skill or a job. The bill would change the system to be more about skill/merit rather than the fact you are related by blood to someone who has skill. The reduction in numbers is a side effect of the current ratios of the existing system. So ideally they will boost the maximum number on the other end to increase the total number of skilled visas, instead of just cutting the relatives portion (as the bill proposed in August). To me that's the best of both worlds. It's possible it will may be tweaked as it goes through congress or it may have to wait for a future bill, but at least the basic framework is being laid out for a better system similar to Canada/Australia.
- rrhd 9y ago
  The bill he endorsed switches to merit based immigration and cuts the number of green cards given out in half.
  - dmix 9y ago
    That's why I said it's the ideal best of both worlds. Shifting the framework from a primarily relative-based one to skills-based, ala Canada/Australia, is a still a better system regardless. Plenty of republicans and democrats criticized the "50% reduction by 2028" projection when the original bill was announced a few months ago, so it's not entirely wishful thinking it may change in the future for the better.
- comicjk 9y ago
  Cutting legal immigration in hopes of a later bill that increases it is a fool's errand. This proposal already gives the lie to the Republican marketing on immigration - that they have nothing against legal immigration, and only want to cut the illegal kind. Who knows what they'll ask for next.