Forums / Discussion / General

The bill, proposed by GOP senators, would reduce the number of green cards (permanent residence) awarded to foreign nationals in the US from one million to a half million each year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/02/trump-gop-senators-to-introduce-bill-to-slash-legal-immigration-levels/

After all that happened I was certain president Bdrümpft was going to fail at literally everything, but at least that's something. If they actually manage to pass it.

It will be hilarious if they don't pass it.

I think this Bill is pretty unfair, but you have to sometimes realize Trumps intentions. His first duty is to help and protect Americans, through safety, economic and etc. Trump believes this will help lower class American citizens find more jobs and such.

Do I approve of this bill? No, but I always like to see things from both perspectives and the intent of his actions.

Could you please explain why do you think it's unfair, and why you don't approve of it?

Well to start with, he wants to limit the legal immigrants who can't speak English and/or have little education. Most people in Mexico can't go to school, mostly because they're poor and need to work at a young age in order to support their families. It's not fair for those who want to come here legally so they can have a way better life than they were having before. Those who have education in Mexico probably already have a good lifestyle in Mexico. I'm not saying that they can't come here just because they already have it good, or that all people with education in Mexico are rich, I just believe that poorer immigrants deserve a chance to work and have a better lifestyle for themselves and their families.

I just wish to point out that limiting legal immigration further is likely to create a greater desire for illegal immigration. For a president focused a lot on getting rid of illegal immigration, it frankly seems a little counter-productive to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the intended effect.

But why would you want immigrants who have little education in the first place? Unskilled immigration was officially pushed because Western countries had """labor shortages""" in the 1960's (which is a stupid argument, in my opinion, but at least it sort of makes sense on paper). I kept hearing during the presidential campaign about how Bdrombft is fooling everyone, because the manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, it's not economically feasible. What argument can you realistically make against limited skilled immigration policy in the [current year]? What exactly are the arguments for having a fixed immigrant quote, an enormous one at that.

> It’s not fair for those who want to come here legally

But helping people of the other countries is not what the government is elected to do. You have various other organizations for that. The government is a soulless machine elected by the citizens specifically to further their interests. If the government runs checks and balances and realizes that a certain policy is no longer in the countries best interests it is obliged to change it, otherwise it's technically treason.

The U.S. already imports more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined. Other developed countries already have merit-based immigration systems, why can't we? Would it not be in our best interest as a people and a country to place priority on importing those with skills that would enable them to succeed here and add to our prosperity, instead of potentially becoming economic liabilities?

And yes, knowing English is one of those relevant skills. The idea that it's a "white man's language" and that it's racist or bigoted to require it in the U.S. is fucking insulting. There are English speakers all over the planet, and it's the closest the world has to a common trade language(until the Chinese take over, then it'll be Mandarin). It's a benefit wherever you are, especially if you intend to emigrate to a place where it's the primary language by a wide margin.

The ability to emigrate to the U.S. is not a right or an entitlement, but a privilege. We are in no way legally or morally obligated to maintain our current levels, especially if our current policies are proving detrimental to our citizens, our economy and our national culture. Which they very much are.

Bear in mind, between 1924-1965, we placed severe restrictions on legal immigration, and had very strict quotas as to how many people were allowed per year per country of origin. Why? Because we had accepted so many millions of people in the previous decades that we wanted to give those already here time to assimilate to our distinct American culture.

Even if we cut our current number in half, 500,000 a year is still a lot of people. That's approximately same as the state of Wyoming.

Also, ending policies like "chain migration" is just common fucking sense. I mean, spouses and minor children are one thing, but bringing over distant relatives who can then go on welfare and bring over more relatives in turn and so on, is completely unacceptable. That's flat-out gaming the system. That's how one legal immigrant can potentially turn into thousands.

disclaimer: I'm an expat from a wealthy country in the US on a large college scholarship with intentions to become a citizen eventually

The U.S. already imports more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined.

This is not true.

Other developed countries already have merit-based immigration systems, why can’t we?

I agree. I don't think any serious economist would argue against moving to a more merit-based immigration system, however…

especially if our current policies are proving detrimental to our citizens, our economy and our national culture.

Economists disagree:
Should the US allow greater high-skilled immigration?
Should the US allow greater low-skilled immigration?

I can't comment on the cultural aspect; you'll have to elaborate.

Well, I certainly didn't know we were using such a specific metric in regards to comparing our immigration rates to the rest of the world. That's definitely something to ponder on.

In regards to the cultural aspect, this may take a while.

I'll freely admit the topic is kind of abstract, but here's the super-short version.

A massive influx of low-skilled immigrants with minimal to no knowledge(or interest) in America's cultural founding and values plus a lack of any real requirement to assimilate on our part equals the fastest way to effectively unmake a country. Western Europe is currently much farther along this path than we are right now.

Now for the loooong version.

I'm not sure if this is a point of confusion, so I'll try to clear it up anyway. There is such a thing as a distinctive American culture. Ideas like "The Great American Melting Pot" have fostered the perception that our culture is just a tossed together mish-mash of different cultures. That is not so.

Our culture is rooted in the values and principles present in our founding documents, especially the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which in turn can be traced back to Judeo-Christian Values, by which I mean virtues like self-reliance, personal charity and compassion, as well as the idea that man's rights are divinely attributed to us by our Creator and that the federal government is not intended to be the highest authority in our lives.

Not to go off track, but the U.S. was the first nation that was distinctly founded on the ideas of limited government and the empowerment of the individual. That's where the phrase "American exceptionalism" comes from. Not the idea that we're somehow a superior country or people by default, but that we're the exception to the rule of tyranny that governed virtually all of human history up until that point.

Anyway, those values fostered a distinct culture. And when we were accepted millions of immigrants of all faiths, races, and origins during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they were grateful for the opportunity to assimilate, become American citizens, and become part of the American ideal. I know that assimilation is by no means an instant process, but most of them were quick to try to learn English, and were proud to raise their children as American.

Fast forward to today. The progressive agenda is actively discouraging assimilation in the name of "diversity" and "multiculturalism", which is just a fancy way of saying that all cultures are equal, and that we should essentially allow anyone from anywhere to come here at any time and effectively transplant the cultures/ideologies that made their homelands undesirable into our own country and that if we object then that means we're a nation of racists/bigots/what have you.

That's why I think a constant, massive influx of uneducated, low-skilled workers with no real interest in American culture is detrimental to the U.S., as well as why I believe the senate immigration bill is pretty much just common sense. It slows down the flow of migration, which gives more people more time to assimilate, and prioritizes those with skills that have a vested interest in becoming full-fledged citizens.

I feel like I may have gone off on a tangent here. Let me know if I somehow missed the point.

I agree with the preservation of American culture. Not in the racial or ethnic sense, which I think is in fact entirely anathematic to American culture, but in the sense that it is a constitutional liberal democracy. Its culture is one of the two reasons I have aspired to make it my future home. (The other reason being, of course, the wealth and quality of its colleges.)

But what is your evidence that immigration is damaging this culture? I'm sure you could find anecdotes, but do you have statistics? All of the credible sources I have found so far suggest that immigrants are assimilating as well as they ever have. For example, Muslim American immigrants are some of the most secular in the world, with values that are as good, or even better, at matching the foundational principles of the United States as many natural-born citizens. The same cannot be said for Muslim refugees in Europe, but that's a different problem and I don't think the parallel you're trying to draw here makes sense.

In his post he mentioned that limited government and self-reliance are core American values. Christianity, I assume, is also something sacred to every American (judging by their official motto).

So is the fact that people other than non-Hispanic Whites vote predominantly for the Democratic party evidence that immigration is damaging American culture and changing its core values?

Generally, irrespective of the country we're talking about, doesn't the fact that immigrants always have different voting patterns when compared to natives imply that immigrants always change (or damage, depending on how you look at it) the host country's culture and values?

Americans of different ideologies will naturally interpret "American values" differently. Conservatives will cite limited government and personal responsibility, and liberals will usually emphasize some form or another of egalitarianism. I think any of these concepts can be considered aspects of American culture, and supporting or rejecting them does not necessarily mean that one is "unamerican" unless one's values are directly contrary to the Constitution.

The official motto of the United States ("In God We Trust") was declared in the 1950s explicitly as a political statement, to distance the US government from the atheistic Soviet Union. This was a deft maneuver but its relevancy today is a matter of contention; some people, particularly on the left, believe that the motto represents a passive violation of the Establishment Clause. Either way, I definitely wouldn't go as far as to conclude that any one religion is sacred to "every American" – a simple poll would demonstrate this to be false.

It's true that minorities and immigrants lean Democratic, sometimes overwhelmingly, due to a variety of reasons. I do not see how this represents corrosion of American culture, though. The Democratic Party, for all its faults, has as strong a claim to American values as the Republican Party; and where they differ on the Constitution the matter usually boils down to interpretation.

In response to your edit: sure, immigrants may affect a country's culture. Or they may form a parallel culture to that held by the native population. I think Europe has provided an unfortunate glut of case studies on the cultural problems that may arise from immigration. But in the end immigration is not just a matter of culture: in order to be fair, one must weigh the multiple facets of the issue. These may include, depending on the specific type of immigration, the economic impact; the moral and ethical considerations; national and international law; and culture, good or bad. If someone immigrates to my country with values that I find admirable, I will have no objections to them representing a slight change to my culture. And if they find gainful employment, their participation in the economy represents a slight increase to my standard of living through cheaper consumer goods or the development of more efficient industries. I have already pointed out that immigration to the US is a boon to its economy, so unless someone can convincingly demonstrate a systematic erosion of its fundamental values thanks to migrants then I don't see any reason to support limiting immigration.

Well if the fundamental values are up for interpretation, there really are no fundamental values, because you can always interpret them in any way you personally like. The same way the constitution can always be amended. So in that sense, yes, you can't damage any values if there are no values.

The US and Europe are incomparable, because "Europe" is simply a geographical term. There are no "European" values. Europe is just a collection of countries that are homes to their respective ethnic groups. What unites us within our respective countries is our ethnic origin. So we don't need some "fundamental values". But the US is a country of immigrants, so Americans have no common ethnic origin to aid social cohesion. What I'm trying to say is, I think it is important for Americans to have a clear understanding of their common values because that's all that they have.

Anyway, I see your point.