This seems like a good proposal, what do you all think?
Sorry for that very short post... I left home Tuesday at 4 AM, travelled to Beijing, travelled to Tianjin met with customers and travelled back to Beijing last night. I am always amazed how I can be "awake" and moving for days, and yet seem to be in some lower state of consciousness... Well last night I hit the bed and was out for 12+ hours. Now I feel a bit better.
Due to customer conflicts I am trapped in Beijing this weekend, however I have finally scheduled time tomorrow to see the Great Wall. The concierge assured me that this is the best tour since President Obama went there. :-)
Now back to the topic of the post.
White House Immigration Framework
NPR WH Outline
VOX Explains
The VOX piece covers the topic pretty well, and I think these will be the DEM sticking points.
Sorry for that very short post... I left home Tuesday at 4 AM, travelled to Beijing, travelled to Tianjin met with customers and travelled back to Beijing last night. I am always amazed how I can be "awake" and moving for days, and yet seem to be in some lower state of consciousness... Well last night I hit the bed and was out for 12+ hours. Now I feel a bit better.
Due to customer conflicts I am trapped in Beijing this weekend, however I have finally scheduled time tomorrow to see the Great Wall. The concierge assured me that this is the best tour since President Obama went there. :-)
Now back to the topic of the post.
White House Immigration Framework
NPR WH Outline
VOX Explains
The VOX piece covers the topic pretty well, and I think these will be the DEM sticking points.
"It mentions “same treatment of illegal aliens, regardless of country of origin” — an allusion to changing the law that prevents Border Patrol agents from summarily deporting unaccompanied children from countries other than Mexico. And it refers to changing “the ‘catch and release’ policy through which immigrants are released while awaiting a hearing” — which would make it harder for asylum seekers to get a lawyer while their cases are pending.I heard a Liberal woman on CNN who was adamant that the USA should keep all illegal workers and accept all people who show up at our borders because "they are just trying to improve their lives"!!! Which of course is one of the silliest rationales I have heard since after travelling the world for decades I have never met anyone who is intentionally trying to ruin their life!!! I have however met:
Democrats have rejected past attempts at these changes as cruel: a crackdown on people fleeing gang violence that doesn’t make anyone safer. It’s not clear how many of them will accept these changes now as the cost of citizenship for DREAMers.
Preventing people from sponsoring parents, adult children, or siblings for US citizenship. The White House, led by Trump, has demanded limits on family-based immigration — which accounts for the majority of legal immigration to the US — as part of a DACA deal. The Trump framework would limit family sponsorship to “spouses and minor children” — thus presumably changing the F3 and F4 visas, used for US citizens to bring adult children and siblings, respectively, to the US, as well as an unlimited visa for citizens to sponsor their parents. (Reports indicate that people currently in line for those visas — a backlog that extends for years — will be able to remain in line.)"
- People who have beliefs and behaviors who make their life worse.
- People who work to improve their lives in their home country.
44 comments:
I think it's not bad, but I would add one requirement-- universal e-verify (and SS# verification) to end the illegal worker from "staying in the shadows" and REQUIRING them to obtain a "guest worker" permit (and eventually leave) or apply for citizenship. Then I would demand that those seeking either guest worker or citizenship status pass a rigorous background check. I know a lot of folks who would make wonderful neighbors who have been here a long time but are not yet legal. I would like them to stay. The others, who break our laws repeatedly and wantonly, ought to leave. And having all the "good" folks registered would make it easier to find the "bad" ones.
I agree the mandatory e-verify should occur, and maybe much bigger consequences for those who hire illegal workers. It seems ICE is stepping up enforcement.
The question I have is how do we address the very large number of "self employed" illegal workers who work for home owners and farmers for cash?
Do we have ICE checking green cards on Mrs Smith's lawn and then toss her in jail for giving Mr Ramirez $20 to mow her lawn?
I had a co-worker who was so proud that he saved $2,000 by hiring an illegal crew to install his roof / shingles. Of course, then I took some of the air out of his sails when I asked about how he felt about robbing jobs from legal American workers. He still chose to keep his $2 grand. :-)
I think the dems should accept whatever changes they have to in order to get the dreamers allowed to stay legally. We need to accept that the GOP is in power now. Immigration laws can be changed again if / when the dems gain control in DC.
the far left wants me to sign this petition:
Donald Trump claims he'd be willing to support a pathway to citizenship for the 1.8 million undocumented immigrants brought here as children, but it comes with a HUGE catch.
The "deal" he has offered Congress would include $25 billion on border security (such as his infamous wall with Mexico), and make fundamental changes to immigration policy regarding the visa lottery and sponsoring relatives. Legal immigration would be cut by 50%!
This is not a serious start for negotiations. It's a legislative burning cross, using the Dreamers as pawns to get every anti-immigrant, racist item on the white supremacist wish list.
Sign and send the petition to your U.S. senators. Reject Trump's "deal."
Whether to accept this to protect the dreamers would be a tough vote. I can't believe the pro business GOP senators are in favor of cutting immigration by 50%. companies need workers.
one other thing I think should be noted. What is at dispute here is Obama's unconstitutional waiver of the DACA law. Trump mercifully extended that waiver until March, but unless Democrats stop their obstruction and actually pass something resembling Pres. Trump's proposal, every last one of those "Dreamers" will LOSE their right to stay here and be subject to deportation-- starting with those who foolishly registered based on Obama's promise.
Laurie, that 50% would not be workers, but family members, even with the reduced chain migration. And I don't understand why Democrats would want to favor illegal immigrants who supposedly cannot vote over black Americans who can.
John, the last I heard, the federal government supposedly knew exactly where 9 million of the 11 million were, because they were using false Social Security numbers – a crime in itself. And the couple of states which have had mandatory E-Verify laws have indeed attached harsh penalties for knowingly hiring an illegal alien. At least one required a six-month suspension of the business license for the first offense and loss of the business license for the second. Of course, if the E-Verify check came back clean the business was off the hook. Needless to say that encouraged the use of E-Verify.
Slashing legal immigration by 50% is not "common-sense".
I see nothing about the reduction in Green Cards in the White House piece.
Source?
Or is that reduction because we have let all the DACA recipients take them?
I thought that was the goal?
Jerry,
Prove this... I don't think SCOTUS ever ruled against it.
"Obama's unconstitutional waiver of the DACA law"
It's been all over the place, like here:
CNN: Trump plan would reshape immigration drastically
Yes, the backlog would be processed, but ultimately it's a severe cut to the number of legal immigrants.
Are these the sentences you were referring to?
"The White House proposal would limit family sponsorship to spouses and minor children, eliminating a number of existing categories including adult children, both married and unmarried; parents of adult US citizens; and siblings of adult US citizens. Experts have estimated that cutting these categories would reduce the roughly 1 million green cards given out yearly by 25% to 50%.
At first, the Trump proposal would use the green cards from the eliminated categories -- plus the 50,000 from the eliminated diversity visa lottery -- to work through a backlog of millions of people waiting in a line upward of 30 years long for their green cards. The bill does extend an olive branch to the left in not making the cuts retroactive -- meaning anyone already in line would still be eligible. Groups on the right are outraged that the plan would mean potentially 10 to 20 years before cuts to immigration begin. "
It seems to me that Laurie's petition is a bit "whacked" and misleading.
"Donald Trump claims he'd be willing to support a pathway to citizenship for the 1.8 million undocumented immigrants brought here as children, but it comes with a HUGE catch.
The "deal" he has offered Congress would include $25 billion on border security (such as his infamous wall with Mexico), and make fundamental changes to immigration policy regarding the visa lottery and sponsoring relatives. Legal immigration would be cut by 50%!
This is not a serious start for negotiations. It's a legislative burning cross, using the Dreamers as pawns to get every anti-immigrant, racist item on the white supremacist wish list.
Sign and send the petition to your U.S. senators. Reject Trump's "deal."
Yes, that's the passage.
Does Trump’s Immigration Plan Actually Cut Legal Immigration?
Laurie, Kevin himself says he does not know... So how can you or the petition writers?
"And that brings us to the fourth pillar: family sponsorships, which conservatives refer to as “chain migration.” The Trump plan would allow citizens and permanent residents to sponsor spouses and minor children for visas, but would no longer allow sponsorship of parents, siblings, or adult children. What effect would this have?
The details of Trump’s plan make a huge difference here. At a first pass, it would cut legal immigration by about 400,000, according to estimates from the Cato Institute. That’s about a third of all legal immigration, so it’s a very big number. However, there are currently about 4 million people on the waiting list for family-sponsored visas. If these people are grandfathered, the number of legal immigrants would stay about the same. In a decade or two, after the backlog is worked off, legal immigration levels would start to drop.
So which is it? A cut in legal immigration of about a third? Or no cuts at all for at least a decade? This is an enormous difference, and one that overwhelms all the other details. Until we have a concrete answer about this, I think it’s impossible for folks on either side of the debate to have any real idea of whether Trump’s plan is a reasonable starting point for negotiations."
"plan would allow citizens and permanent residents to sponsor spouses and minor children for visas, but would no longer allow sponsorship of parents, siblings, or adult children."
No wonder the current method is such a mess, once an adult is in... It is like dominoes falling over in increasing numbers. The USA let's 50,000 in on the lottery, then they sponsor their siblings, then they sponsor their siblings and on and on...
This of course limits the green cards available for more qualified candidates, and/or people not from these families who want to come here.
"This of course limits the green cards available for more qualified candidates, and/or people not from these families who want to come here."
No, it doesn't. The different visa programs have individual limits. You can increase skilled immigration without reducing family migration. It's not a zero-sum game.
Now we are back to the challenge... We are bringing in a record number of legal immigrants into our country.
Open the Lawful Permanent Residents Tab if you doubt me
And now you think we should bring them in at even a faster rate with little or no concern about how they will impact the livelihoods of our current lower economic situation citizens. How does this make any sense to you?
Back to my old question... How many per year is enough?
If we bring the whole population of Somalia into the Twin Cities via chain migration, will that be good or bad for our low education / low skill citizens?
"We are bringing in a record number of legal immigrants into our country."
In absolute terms, kind of. Certainly less than the peak in the 90s in absolute terms, and less (as a % of population) compared to many points on that graph.
"If we bring the whole population of Somalia into the Twin Cities via chain migration, will that be good or bad for our low education / low skill citizens?"
That's not the argument being made by anyone, John. I guess you are a straw man engineer.
More Facts and Data
As for my straw man... "The White House proposal would limit family sponsorship to spouses and minor children, eliminating a number of existing categories including adult children, both married and unmarried; parents of adult US citizens; and siblings of adult US citizens."
What do you think the result of giving the extended families a step up on all other immigrants would lead to?
In my wife's family there are 8 kids with 8 spouses with many siblings who have spouses and siblings and parents, etc, etc, etc. This "chain" / extended family immigration method is incredible. If you let one family immigrate, it can lead to hundreds each time.
Is that really what is good for the challenged citizens of the USA?
And as long as people are still struggling in Somalia, why wouldn't one invite their brother who then invite their wife's sister, etc, etc, etc.
Another note regarding my "straw man"...
"No, it doesn't. The different visa programs have individual limits. You can increase skilled immigration without reducing family migration. It's not a zero-sum game."
I guess I did not know where to go with this wide open statement.
I mean it seems that you are happy to increase the rate in an open ended manner to bring in immigrant extended families no matter the impact it would have on individual existing American citizens. I agree that it is not a "zero sum game", however there are consequences that do need to be considered.
Another interesting piece
What amazes me the most is that many of the same people who complain about the wages being too low in the USA are the ones demanding that we bring in many more people to compete for those jobs...
And the same people who complain about minorities not having opportunities in the USA are the ones demanding that we bring in many more people to compete for those opportunities...
And the same people who are scared that automation is going to destroy jobs in the USA are the ones demanding that we bring in many more people for jobs we may no longer have...
It simply defies logic from my position. I have a vision of a life boat where people keep picking up more people from the ocean while the people in the bottom of the boat are smothering to death. I mean it is good to help people, but not if it is going to harm others.
"What do you think the result of giving the extended families a step up on all other immigrants would lead to?"
That's how immigration to this country has worked for literally centuries. Having family connections in the U.S. gave you a leg up at Ellis Island. That's how my family came over, and probably how yours did, too.
"'You can increase skilled immigration without reducing family migration. It's not a zero-sum game.'
I guess I did not know where to go with this wide open statement.
I mean it seems that you are happy to increase the rate in an open ended manner to bring in immigrant extended families no matter the impact it would have on individual existing American citizens."
There is literally nothing "wide open" about my statement. Nowhere do I advocate for increasing family or unskilled immigration.
The "it worked back then argument" is ever so pointless.
Back then the USA needed a whole lot of unskilled uneducated labor to fill and grow our country.
Back then one wrote letters to family members and waited months for replies. And people moving was challenging to say the least.
Now let's compare that to today, communication in instantaneous, relocating takes a ~15 hour air plane ride and the USA really does not need anymore unskilled uneducated workers at this time...
So let's live in today and find a solution that helps American citizens first. And one that helps people from other countries second.
"The "it worked back then argument" is ever so pointless."
I understand this sentiment to an extent. But you also have to understand how this looks and feels to a new generation of immigrants who note that now their relatives aren't good enough to come in anymore. And let's not pretend that the fact immigrants today are less white than before doesn't play a part in this.
The facts -- again -- are that immigrants to this country tend to be better educated than the citizens that are already here. Study after study shows immigration is a net benefit to this country. We have many occupations that are facing job shortages in the near future. We need a larger workforce. Let's embrace the spirit that built America, not run away from it.
I agree... "Let's embrace the spirit that built America"
Let's bring in immigrants who help America and it's citizens become more successful... :-)
It seems to be only the Liberals who see our immigration policy as a life boat for the world's poor. Somehow a gift from a foreign country and a poem were made into USA policy.
Page 1 and 2 of this document have some interesting history of how this mess came to be.
Did your ancestors come to America because they were too wealthy and bored in their home country and required a challenge?
America was a lifeboat for my ancestors. It gave them opportunity they didn't have at home. We shouldn't shut the door behind us now. No one is suggesting that we allowed unlimited, unfettered immigration. But it can't just be wealthy Norwegians, either.
For most of my life I lived to serve and help my family, friends and employer. Then one day I had a stress induced massive panic attack that triggered on going anxiety symptoms. Which thankfully 30 mg of paxil controls very well.
What I learned from that experience is that I simply need to put my needs first in order to ensure that I stay strong and healthy enough to care for my family, friends and employer.
Now you can believe that this is some massive xenophobic racist plot, and maybe it is for a small group of Americans. But the reality is that it is just taking care of America and Americans so we can continue to help people all around the world.
No one wins when we overload the life boat and many American citizens suffer because of it.
Most of us do not want to reduce the legal immigration rate, we just want to change the mix to better meet the needs of America and it's citizens. We will still support family reunification and refugees, they would just not make up the majority of our immigrants as they do today.
By the way, I don't see country of origin in the scoring criteria:
A candidate must have at least 30 points to apply.
Here's how the points would be doled out:
Age
Priority is given to prime working ages. Someone aged 18 through 21 gets six points, ages 22 through 25 gets eight points and ages 26 through 30 get 10 points.
The points then decrease, with someone aged 31 through 35 getting eight points, 36 through 40 getting six points, ages 41 through 45 getting four points and ages 46 through 50 getting two points.
Minors under the age of 18 and those over the age of 50 receive no points, though people over 50 years old are still allowed to apply.
Education
Points are distributed based on the highest degree a person has achieved. One point is given for an applicant with a US high school diploma or the foreign equivalent. A foreign bachelor's degree earns five points, while a US bachelor's degree earns six points.
A foreign master's degree in STEM fields earns seven points while a US master's earns eight points. A foreign professional degree or doctorate earns 10 points and a US equivalent earns 13.
English ability
Points are also given out for English ability, as determined by standardized English test.
Anyone with less than a 60th percentile proficiency gets no points. Between 60th and 80th percentile is worth six points, someone in the 80th to 90th percentile range earns 10 points, someone with a 90th percentile proficiency or above earns 11 points, and someone in the 100th percentile range earns 12 points.
Job offer?
The only point scale that factors in whether an individual actually has a job offer in the US comes in the form of salary in an effort to boost wages.
Five points are awarded if an applicant has a job offer that will pay at least 150% of median household income in the state where he or she will be employed. That goes up to eight points if the income is 200% the median income, and 13 points if it's 300% the median.
Nobel Prize
There are bonus points available for "extraordinary achievement," mainly reserved for major international awards. The system grants 25 points to someone who has won a Nobel prize or something "comparable."
Olympics
Fifteen points would be given to someone earning an individual Olympic medal or relatively competitive international sporting event.
Investors
The bill would eliminate a category of visas that spurred foreign investment in the US, the EB-5 program, which was used by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner's family businesses to build major real estate projects.
That concept is represented by awarding six points to an applicant who invests $1.35 million into a "new commercial enterprise" in the US, maintained for three years and with that individual holding management of that business as his or her primary application. The points go up to 12 if the investment is $1.8 million.
Spouses
The bill also requires applicants, if they want to bring a spouse with them, to calculate the points the spouse would earn under the same rubric.
That text is from a different bill, not the White House framework.
That text comes from last CNN in August.
The WH Framework Does Not Seem to Specify
"The WH Framework Does Not Seem to Specify"
Correct. So what's the point -- that's not the bill at hand.
It's not often I say this, but I recommend the David Brooks column today.
"That’s because when you wade into the evidence you find that the case for restricting immigration is pathetically weak. The only people who have less actual data on their side are the people who deny climate change.
You don’t have to rely on pointy-headed academics. Get in your car. If you start in rural New England and drive down into Appalachia or across into the Upper Midwest you will be driving through county after county with few immigrants. These rural places are often 95 percent white. These places lack the diversity restrictionists say is straining the social fabric.
Are these counties marked by high social cohesion, economic dynamism, surging wages and healthy family values? No. Quite the opposite. They are often marked by economic stagnation, social isolation, family breakdown and high opioid addiction."
NYT Brooks: The East Germans of the 21st Century
I will take the rare opportunity to agree with David Brooks, also. Since the data AGAINST man-made climate change is so overwhelming, it seems obvious that, From the data, the only possible conclusion regarding illegal immigration is that it must be curbed. And I hate to tell him this, but a 1000 mile road trip is barely anecdotal evidence of anything, let alone the composition of the population beyond the berms of the highway.
I find the Goodlatte bill more satisfying. I disagree with Breitbart's negative assessment
Breitbart
And prefer the official summary:
Securing Americas Future Act
Sean,
Thanks for the link. I thought his summary was most accurate.
"Progressives say Republicans oppose immigration because of bigotry. But it’s not that simple. It’s more accurate to say restrictionists are stuck in a mono-cultural system that undermines their own values: industry, faithfulness and self-discipline. Of course they react with defensive animosity to the immigrants who out-hustle and out-build them. You’d react negatively, too, if confronted with people who are better versions of what you wish you were yourself."
Sean,
Please remember that I have no issue with the number of legal immigrants we allow each year. I just to ensure they are these educated, qualified, financially stable folks, etc.
No sense adding to our currently too large "dependent class".
And illegal immigration is NOT legal immigration and it should be STOPPED ASAP.
Jerry,
The Goodlatte summary looks fine to me except:
- I like Trump's path to citizenship for the ~2 million
- We should not be reducing immigrant intake
- We should be bringing in people who can make the USA more globally competitive
My favorite part of the State of the Union last night was when the President decried "chain migration", then saluted the North Korean refugee whose family followed him out in waves over the following years.
John, I find a couple faults with the Goodlatte bill, too, but none of those you cite are included in those objections.
-- I really like the notion that DACA folks get to stay (after vetting), but have to "get in line" for citizenship.
-- I don't see that we are "reducing intake." I see a cut to ordinary folk and a corresponding increase in the more desirable immigrants.
-- Which is what you want.
My objections are that we do not share the 9+ million names and locations of illegals KNOWN to the government with ICE, and that we are unwilling to expand the guest worker program to allow all of those folks to stay under the same conditions as proposed for the DACA folks. Huge amount of work for ICE, but to me it solves all the problems with either amnesty or "throw them all out" extremes. And it lets some very nice people I know stay here and work, legally.
Sean, that NK refugee, as I understand it, "lives in Seoul."
I'll just leave this here.
Forbes: A Different Theory for Stagnant Wages
Sean,
Thanks for the link. They are interesting theories though they all seem pretty unproven so far.
Since ~half of America non-governmental workers are employed by small businesses. And often the large employers pay more, I am not sure I buy into it.
I would love to see an unbiased study focused exclusively on low end job impacts.
Post a Comment