Posted on 02/13/2013 7:16:00 AM PST by SeekAndFind
As I didn't watch the State of the Union speech live, I also missed the two responses to it from Barack Obama's opposition. The networks carried Marco Rubio's speech live, but most viewers had to go to the Tea Party Express website to watch Rand Paul rebut Obma's SOTU address. While some may complain about that decision, it is arguably fair. If Mitt Romney had won the election, would we have cheered while the networks not only provided live coverage of Harry Reid's rebuttal, but also one from Senator Bernie Sanders representing the Center for American Progress? Somehow, I doubt it.
Anyway, it's almost anachronistic to complain about a lack of coverage in the age of YouTube, isn't it?
Like Rubio, Paul eschewed the laundry-list agenda approach in his response, and in some ways relied more on philosophy than Rubio did:
Ronald Reagan said, government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem.
Tonight, the President told the nation he disagrees. President Obama believes government is the solution: More government, more taxes, more debt.
What the President fails to grasp is that the American system that rewards hard work is what made America so prosperous.
What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith. In the year we won our independence, Adam Smith described what creates the Wealth of Nations.
He described a limited government that largely did not interfere with individuals and their pursuit of happiness.
All that we are, all that we wish to be is now threatened by the notion that you can have something for nothing, that you can have your cake and eat it too, that you can spend a trillion dollars every year that you don’t have.
Noting that Obama rebuked Congress for the supposedly dangerous cuts in the sequester, Paul reminded viewers who came up with the idea in the first place. He also pointed out that few understand that the sequester doesn’t actually cut current spending, but merely cuts the rate of growth in future spending:
The President does a big “woe is me” over the $1.2 trillion sequester that he endorsed and signed into law. Some Republicans are joining him. Few people understand that the sequester doesn’t even cut any spending. It just slows the rate of growth. Even with the sequester, government will grow over $7 trillion over the next decade.
Only in Washington could an increase of $7 trillion in spending over a decade be called a cut.
Like Rubio, Paul also argues for a balanced budget amendment:
So, what is the President’s answer? Over the past four years he has added over $6 trillion in new debt and may well do the same in a second term. What solutions does he offer? He takes entitlement reform off the table and seeks to squeeze more money out of the private sector.
He says he wants a balanced approach.
What the country really needs is a balanced budget. …
To begin with, we absolutely must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution!
The amendment must include strict tax and spending limitations.
Liberals complain that the budget can’t be balanced but if you cut just one penny from each dollar we currently spend, the budget would balance within six or seven years.
Contra Obama, Paul says that Washington has plenty of bipartisanship … and that’s the problem:
It is often said that there is not enough bipartisanship up here.
That is not true.
In fact, there is plenty.
Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone up here wins, but every taxpayer loses.
It is time for a new bipartisan consensus.
It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud.
It’s an excellent, vigorous speech aimed at the GOP base, a clever companion to Rubio’s effort to recast the GOP more broadly within the electorate. Before yesterday, most news accounts cast this as a competition between the two men, and that competition may arise electorally at some point. To me, though, these two speeches look more complementary than competitive, as Republicans attempt to grow their influence and enlarge their tent rather than just shift the tent pegs over.
Every other video I've seen starts part way through his address.
RAND PAUL TELLS WORLD LABOR FORCE THAT IF YOU WANT TO WORK YOU DESERVE A U.S. JOB?
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave the Tea Party response with immigration principles that would undermine all efforts of the Tea Party to rein in the size of government and reduce government spending.
"We are the party that embraces hard work and ingenuity, therefore we must be the party that embraces the immigrant who wants to come to America for a better future. We must be the party who sees immigrants as assets, not liabilities. We must be the party that says, 'If you want to work, if you want to become an American, we welcome you."
This is disastrous talk that resembles Pres. George W. Bush's insistence that every willing worker around the world should be allowed to come to the U.S. if they find a willing employer.
Certainly, part of Paul's comments are on target. We at NumbersUSA believe that every person we allow to be an immigrant should be embraced as he/she wants to work and wants to become an American.
But to suggest that we should allow entrance of every person in the world who wants to work and become an American would mean tens of millions more immigrants in the next few years.
Surely Sen. Paul is aware of the many studies showing the net costs to taxpayers of most immigrants. While most immigrants do find a better future by moving to the United States, a lot of what makes it better is paid by taxpayers.
With government data showing that 57% of all foreign-born households with children on welfare programs, increasing the number of foreign-born households sounds like a betrayal of the Tea Party.
RE: Embrace immigrants
LEGAL or ILLEGAL?
I didn’t see him qualify that in his speech.
I am all for LEGAL ( especially SKILLED ) immigration.
Welcome to the Rand Paul evolution
"In an interview with POLITICO, Paul said he’ll return to Congress this week pushing measures long avoided by his party...He wants to carve a compromise immigration plan with an “eventual path” to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a proposal he believes could be palatable to conservatives."
Paul plans to inject himself into the middle of the GOP’s emotional immigration debate in the wake of Romney losing swing states with heavy Latino populations like Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Paul is working on a novel plan that he says would “assimilate” many of the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the country. Those individuals, he said, could apply for legal status, but immigration would then be clamped down in the interim. He also says his plan would toughen security at the border.
“I want to show what conservatives would or can accept,” he said in describing his plan. “If we assimilate those who are here, however they got here — don’t make it an easy path for citizenship. There would be an eventual path, but we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came here illegally. But if they’re willing to work, willing to pay taxes, I think we need to normalize those who are here.”
Paul said the “trade-off” would be “not to accept any new legal immigrants while we’re assimilating the ones who are here.” Asked if he is concerned about the ripple effect that could cause around the world, Paul said the details over which countries would be affected are still in the works.
But it’s clear Paul wants to have a voice in the roiling debate, even as other prospective 2016 GOP players, such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, plan to assert their views when Congress takes up immigration reform next year. “I think I might have the ability to get out in front of this issue,” Paul said when asked if he believed conservatives would cry “amnesty” over such a plan. “I think I might have the ability because nobody really questions — at least not so far — whether I’m conservative enough.”
I am all for LEGAL ( especially SKILLED ) immigration.
Why? Are you for the current 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who enter each year while 23 million Americans are looking for fulltime employment and half of college graduates can't find work in their fields?
The decade ending in 2010 saw the highest number of legal immigrants ever to enter this country--13.9 million. During that same period we suffered a net loss of jobs of 400,000. There is no correlation between immigration and our job needs.
In addition to permanent legal immigrants, we have at any one time over 2 million workers here under temporary work visas like H1B visas. Rubio and the Gang of 8 want to double that number. Is anyone concerned about the welfare of the American worker? Why can't we produce enough skilled labor?
Initially, we were told by the political class that we needed immigrants to do jobs Americans WON'T do. Now we need immigrants to do jobs Americans CAN'T do.
Rand Paul is no conservative if he wants to discard the Rule of Law and legalize lawbreakers while stopping entry of those who followed the rules and are waiting their turn to enter overseas. What kind of message does this send?
> “What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith.”
As a child I was a big fan of reading the original Middle English Tales of Robin Hood.
Robin never robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Somehow the legend of Robin Hood has been twisted into some sort of caricature that fits a social redistribution agenda.
Robin Hood ‘took back’ taxes collected by a despot not authorized by King Richard ‘the Lionheart’ and funded his rebel band as well as those townsfolk who supported him.
Robin hood was a rebel gorilla leader who was the sharpest archer in all of England and who used strategy and tactics to completely frustrate those that had wrongly taken power and who were taxing subjects to fill their own pockets in defiance of King Richard.
In other words, Robin Hood was a conservative.
RE: Why? Are you for the current 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who enter each year while 23 million Americans are looking for fulltime employment and half of college graduates can’t find work in their fields?
_______________________________
I am going to disagree with you regarding LEGAL immigration.
And remember this word — LEGAL. I have no arguments with you when it comes to ILLEGALs.
Let’s ask ourselves one question first — are these LEGAL (emphasis ) immigrants taking jobs away from Americans? Or are they filling jobs that can’t be filled locally?
You talk about college grads who can’t find work.
How many of these college grads graduate with EMPLOYABLE degrees instead of taking fluff courses in liberal colleges?
I am in the IT field (Software Development). I HIRE people (mostly contractors) for projects. When I put out a job requirement, I get numerous resumes from recruiting agencies. I HARDLY ever find a name with the family name like SMITH or JOHNSON today (Occasionally I do, but they are few and far between ).
I do get a lot of resumes with Indian, Russian-Jewish, Filipino and Asian family names. I interview a few of them and found many to be QUALIFIED with the requisite skillset. ALL of them here LEGALLY.
What am I supposed to do? Tell the recruiting to find me someone with a European family name or else.... ?
Secondly, are these LEGAL ( emphasis ) immigrants coming here to be on welfare? Or are they self-sufficient and willing to work and start businesses (like my new LEGAL immigrant neighbor of a few blocks away, from Sri Lanka who just opened a newsstand, hiring one Hispanic in the process, and my other new LEGAL immigrant neighbor from a few blocks out from the Carribean, who took over a small deli with three employees)?
THESE ARE JOB CREATORS MAN AND WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE THESE.
If you can show me that these LEGAL (emphasis) immigrants are by and large WELFARE dependents, I’ll be on your side.
THIRDLY, You have to consider DEMOGRAPHICS.
In 1900, 4.1% of the US population was 65+.
By 1950, this number had almost doubled to 8.1%.
Baby Boomers (now ages 48-66) represent the most significant population wave in US history. According to the CBO, the population aged 65 and over will increase by 87% over the next 25 years as Baby Boomers enter retirement, compared to an increase of only 12% in those aged 20-64.
This year, 13% of the US population is 65+ and entitlement spending accounts for 8.7% of GDP. And that number only includes SSI and Medicare, not Medicaid and future Obamacare subsidies which add to these outlays.
In 10 years (2022): 16.1% of the population will be 65+, entitlement spending estimated at 9.6% ($1.5 trillion, based on 2011 US GDP)
2037 (25 years on): 20 % of the US population will be 65+, entitlement spending estimated at 12.2% of GDP ($2.0 trillion)
Not surprisingly, there will be far more women than men in the 65+ population. Women currently live about five years longer than their male peers, on average. Accordingly, the Census Bureau estimates that in 2030, there will be about 8 million more women than men that are 65 and older by 2030: 27.8 million versus 35.7 million.
Here’s something we ought to consider -— Like most of Europe and the more prosperous parts of Asia ( e.g., Japan, Taiwan and Korea ), our birth rate is BELOW replacement rates.
Our population growth is AT replacement rate BECAUSE of IMMIGRATION.
Unless we start having more babies instead of aborting them, we will need fresh, new blood coming in to take care of the growing number of old folks in America.
So, WE NEED MORE LEGAL (emphasis) IMMIGRANTS. The kind who will not be dependent on the government, but the skilled and entrepreneural ones who will help the economy grow.
How about we stop sending money to countries that hate us and accepting immigrants from countries who hate us as well....
Robin Hood ‘took back’ taxes collected by a despot not authorized by King Richard ‘the Lionheart’ and funded his rebel band as well as those townsfolk who supported him.
Robin hood was a rebel gorilla leader who was the sharpest archer in all of England and who used strategy and tactics to completely frustrate those that had wrongly taken power and who were taxing subjects to fill their own pockets in defiance of King Richard.
In other words, Robin Hood was a conservative.
Rand Paul wants to legalize the status of the illegal aliens, aka, lawbreakers. When you reward something, you get more of it.
How many of these college grads graduate with EMPLOYABLE degrees instead of taking fluff courses in liberal colleges?
I don't know how you define "fluff," but when did most college graduates become unemployable. Here are some facts:
• There are about 10 million Americans with STEM degrees (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) not working in those fields.
• Each year, some 200,000 additional skilled foreign workers are admitted through a variety of existing visa programs.
• At least one million skilled nonimmigrant workers are in the United States at any one time.
• The large majority of foreign PhD recipients already remain in the United States under current law
I do get a lot of resumes with Indian, Russian-Jewish, Filipino and Asian family names. I interview a few of them and found many to be QUALIFIED with the requisite skillset. ALL of them here LEGALLY. What am I supposed to do? Tell the recruiting to find me someone with a European family name or else....
Now you are being silly and insulting at the same time. Are you insinuating that I consider only those with European names to be "Americans?" If they are here LEGALLY, they are either American citizen, legal permanent residents (green card holders), or they have work visas.
Secondly, are these LEGAL ( emphasis ) immigrants coming here to be on welfare? Or are they self-sufficient and willing to work and start businesses (like my new LEGAL immigrant neighbor of a few blocks away, from Sri Lanka who just opened a newsstand, hiring one Hispanic in the process, and my other new LEGAL immigrant neighbor from a few blocks out from the Carribean, who took over a small deli with three employees)?
We have both LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON WELFARE. They use it to a much higher degree than native born Americans. Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
Anecdotal experience does not capture the truth, which is reflected in USG data that is portrayed in these charts above. Singling out individual achievement does not reflect the total reality. Such arguments as yours are the stock and trade of the Democrats and RINOs who portray immigrants as hard working and entrepreneurial while ignoring the fact that we are importing poverty on a large scale. 25% of all the adult LEGAL IMMIGRANTS lack even a high school degree. Why are we importing hundreds of thousands of high school dropouts each year?
Milton Friedman said that, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.
Our population growth is AT replacement rate BECAUSE of IMMIGRATION.
Yes, but even immigrants grow old. Are you suggesting that we increase our immigration numbers? Immigrants are not units of labor. They bring their own culture and values. Since the 1965 Immigration Act, they have drastically changed this nation's demographics and electoral politics.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.
Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 309 million (2009), i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by an additional 127 million to 436 million by 2050. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.9% (2012 estimate,) principally due to immigration.
The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached 40 million in 2010, the highest number in our history. The U.S. immigrant population has doubled since 1990, nearly tripled since 1980, and quadrupled since 1970, when it stood at 9.7 million. Of the 40 million immigrants in the country in 2010, 13.9 million arrived in 2000 or later making it the highest decade of immigration in American history, even though there was a net loss of jobs during the decade. Growth in the immigrant population has primarily been driven by high levels of legal immigration. Roughly three-fourths of immigrants in the country are here legally. With nearly 12 million immigrants, Mexico was by far the top immigrant-sending country, accounting for 29 percent of all immigrants and 29 percent of growth in the immigrant population from 2000 to 2010. The median age of immigrants in 2010 was 41.4 compared to 35.9 for natives.
Consistent with prior research, the projections show immigration only slightly increases the working-age (18 to 65) share of the population. Assuming the Census Bureau's immigration level, 58 percent of the population will be of working-age in 2050, compared to 57 percent if there is no immigration.
• Raising the retirement age by one year would have a larger positive impact on the working-age share over the next 40 years than would the Census Bureau's total projected level of net immigration (68 million).
• While immigrants do tend to arrive relatively young and have higher fertility than natives, immigrants age just like everyone else, and the differences with natives are not large enough to fundamentally increase the share of the population who are potential workers.
So, WE NEED MORE LEGAL (emphasis) IMMIGRANTS. The kind who will not be dependent on the government, but the skilled and entrepreneurial ones who will help the economy grow.
No, we don't. How many more than the 1.2 million we take in now, which is more than the rest of the world combined?
Yes, we need a merit based immigration system, but it has to be linked to our real job needs in order to be competitive in the global economy. We should not be bringing in 13.9 million legal immigrants while losing a net of 400,000 jobs during that same period or while 23 million Americans are looking for full time employment.
RE: Rand Paul wants to legalize the status of the illegal aliens, aka, lawbreakers. When you reward something, you get more of it.
Well if that is the case, then I am against Rand Paul. BTW, what statement did he make telling us this? Can you give me a quote in context?
And why you keep bringing up ILLEGALS is a puzzle to me. I never disagreed with you regarding ILLEGALS. I want Good, LEGAL immigrants. PERIOD.
RE: The large majority of foreign PhD recipients already remain in the United States under current law
And why is that a bad thing? Are they on welfare? Or are they productive workers? If they are productive, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be encouraged to apply for permanent residency.
RE: At least one million skilled nonimmigrant workers are in the United States at any one time.
Again, are they on welfare? Or are they working and earning money and PRODUCING? If they are productive workers, why is that a bad thing?
RE: There are about 10 million Americans with STEM degrees (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) not working in those fields.
Now we’re talking. If your argument is this — Let’s TWEAK or TUNE the number of LEGAL immigrants coming to the USA based on the current unemployment rate, but NOT ENTIRELY CLOSE THE DOOR TO THEM, then I don’t see why this is an unreasonable policy.
What I am against is a total ban on legal immigration.
In fact, I would ENCOURAGE entrepreneural immigration. I don’t see why can’t create a brand new class of alien entrepreneurs who would need to raise a certain amount of of money for start-up businesses. we could in fact, after a conditional period, admit them outside
These, too, would be admitted, after a conditional period, outside the limit for employment based workers.
RE: Now you are being silly and insulting at the same time. Are you insinuating that I consider only those with European names to be “Americans?” If they are here LEGALLY, they are either American citizen, legal permanent residents (green card holders), or they have work visas.
Don’t get personal, I am citing the above as EVIDENCE that MANY LEGAL IMMIGRANTS are here because they are an ASSET to this country.
If you want to limit their number because citizens with the same skills cannot find jobs, I am all for it.
RE: We have both LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON WELFARE
Again, I said we need more LEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO WILL NOT BE ON WELFARE AND WHO WILL BE PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS.
I have no arguments with you if you are for those who are going top be productive residents in this country.
RE: No, we don’t.
Yes we do. With the qualifications I cited above and before.
RE: How many more than the 1.2 million we take in now, which is more than the rest of the world combined?
Again when I said we need MORE LEGAL immigrants, I don’t mean that we don’t adjust the number of people that we take in. I mean we need MORE.
10,000 is more, 100,000 is more. If 1.2 million is too much, then we can trim the number accordingly. But we do need MORE unless we have more babies ( which we aren’t having ).
RE: Yes, we need a merit based immigration system, but it has to be linked to our real job needs in order to be competitive in the global economy. We should not be bringing in 13.9 million legal immigrants while losing a net of 400,000 jobs during that same period or while 23 million Americans are looking for full time employment.
I am not sure how losing a net of 400,000 is related to more immigration.
Immigration is NOT the cause of job lose. Government regulations, overly generous pensions, mandates, unions, high corporate taxes ( the highest in the industrialized world ), government imposed burdens, Obamacare, etc.
These are the ones that cause job loss, outsourcing and businesses holding back.
Let’s not blame immigration for this.
Excellent posts in reply to those who refuse to realize that Rand Paul supports Illegal Alien Amnesty.....and is way to left on Border Security/National Security
Unfortnately too many support politicians before they know how they stand on the issues. Fact is that Rand Paul is Amnesty Liberal ....and our Tea Party folks need to wake up on Border Security/National Security...Illegal Alien issues
I gave you the link to the Politico article including direct quotes from him. For example,
“I want to show what conservatives would or can accept,” he said in describing his plan. “If we assimilate those who are here, however they got here — don’t make it an easy path for citizenship. There would be an eventual path, but we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came here illegally. But if they’re willing to work, willing to pay taxes, I think we need to normalize those who are here.”
And why you keep bringing up ILLEGALS is a puzzle to me. I never disagreed with you regarding ILLEGALS. I want Good, LEGAL immigrants. PERIOD.<
Good legal immigrants come thru the approved process and don't enter this country illegally and then expect to have their status changed to make them LEGAL.
And why is that a bad thing? Are they on welfare? Or are they productive workers? If they are productive, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be encouraged to apply for permanent residency.
When someone applies for a student visa to attend a university in the US, it is a temporary student visa. Dems and Reps alike want to make a student visa an additional source of legal immigrants on top of the 1.2 million who enter legally each year. We have 900,000 foreign students attending US colleges. There are economic reasons why universities want them--mainly because they pay full tuition. Most of these institutions are supported in some way by the US taxpayer whether they are public universities or private. If we want to recruit foreign students as permanent immigrants, then let's reduce our legal immigration numbers.
And why can't Americans earn these degrees and get these jobs? Much of it has to do with the changing demographics of this country. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities, as classified by the USG. Blacks and Hispanics will make up the vast majority of that 50%. They have the poorest performance and highest school drop out rates. Most are not attending college. So instead of trying to educate our own people, the most expedient way to meet such needs is to import what we need. They work cheaper than Americans and we don't have to invest in their primary school education. In the meantime, we are building a permanent underclass fueled by immigration. 87% of all legal immigrants are minorities as defined by the USG. Immigrants and minorities vote two to one Democrat. Demography is destiny.
Again, are they on welfare? Or are they working and earning money and PRODUCING? If they are productive workers, why is that a bad thing?
Because they are filling jobs that can be done by Americans and LPRs. We have 23 million people looking for fulltime employment. Many of these people here on work visas are here because they accept lower wages. The H1B system is filled with fraud and abuse. I can provide you with plenty of documentation if you are intestested.
What I am against is a total ban on legal immigration.
I have never said or hinted at such a policy. I am in favor of a pro-immigrant low immigration policy. We should return to about 300,000 legal immigrants a year. And it must be based on need--a merit system, not a kinship system.
Don’t get personal, I am citing the above as EVIDENCE that MANY LEGAL IMMIGRANTS are here because they are an ASSET to this country.
And MANY LEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE A LIABILITY TO THIS COUNTRY IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY CONTRIBUTE AND WHAT THEY RECEIVE. Importing poverty makes no sense and it hurts the safety net for American citizens. The poverty rate of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years is 50 percent higher than that of adult natives.
Again, I said we need more LEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO WILL NOT BE ON WELFARE AND WHO WILL BE PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS. I have no arguments with you if you are for those who are going top be productive residents in this country.
If you mean more being more qualified and able to meet our job needs, fine. But if you mean more in terms of numbers, then we profoundly disagree.
10,000 is more, 100,000 is more. If 1.2 million is too much, then we can trim the number accordingly. But we do need MORE unless we have more babies ( which we aren’t having ).
We don't need immigration to maintain our population level in the near future. We have some policy issues involved. The importance of immigration to population growth can be seen by projecting the impact of reduced fertility. If the fertility of natives were to fall 20 percent more than the Census already assumes by 2030, but immigration continued at the pace the Bureau expects, the U.S. population would still grow to 409 million by 2050 — a 99 million or a 32 percent increase from 2010.
"The debate over immigration should not be whether it makes for a much larger population — without question it does. The debate over immigration should also not be whether it has a large impact on increasing the working-age share of the population — without question it does not. The key question for the public and policy-makers is what costs and benefits come with having a much larger population and a more densely settled country."
As a nation, do we want continuing population growth as far as the eye can see? Is a billion too much?
I am not sure how losing a net of 400,000 is related to more immigration.
Really? Our job needs should dictate our immigration needs. Why are we bringing in more people at a time when we have high unemployment?
mmigration is NOT the cause of job lose. Government regulations, overly generous pensions, mandates, unions, high corporate taxes ( the highest in the industrialized world ), government imposed burdens, Obamacare, etc. These are the ones that cause job loss, outsourcing and businesses holding back. Let’s not blame immigration for this.
You just don't get it. Our immigration policy should be linked to our job needs and the economy. If we don't have any link or correlation to what else is happening in the country, then this is our current policy. These additional people are eligible for the entitlement programs, they compete for jobs, and yes, they will even qualify for Obamacare. Immigration affects almost every major challenge this nation has from healthcare to energy to infrastructure, etc.
RE: Good legal immigrants come thru the approved process and don’t enter this country illegally and then expect to have their status changed to make them LEGAL.
No arguments here.
By LEGAL, I am however, talking about my approval for THOSE WHO APPLIED AND OBEYED THE LAW.
RE: And why can’t Americans earn these degrees and get these jobs?
Well, you tell me. If we have enough of such people, I’ll be willing to limit the number of LEGAL immigrants to this country in the skills category.
RE: Much of it has to do with the changing demographics of this country. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities, as classified by the USG. Blacks and Hispanics will make up the vast majority of that 50%.
Well there you go, you just gave me the answer. If the answer is to PREVENT such people from immigrating, I am all for it. However, if the answer is to prevent the skilled and good ones (from anywhere) from immigrating LEGALLY, I am against it.
RE: If we want to recruit foreign students as permanent immigrants, then let’s reduce our legal immigration numbers.
I note that many of those my company and others in the high tech industry hires were formerly foreign students, many with advanced degrees in STEM.
Again, if your argument is that we should have a comprehensive way of looking at our NATIVE skills vs. NATIVE demand, and then on that basis, adjust our LEGAL immigration numbers, I am all for it.
However, this should not mean being against any LEGAL immigration whatsoever.
RE: We should return to about 300,000 legal immigrants a year. And it must be based on need—a merit system, not a kinship system.
I am not sure where you are getting the 300,000 number from, but I am for ADJUSTING it upwards or downwards based on need. It could be 300,000 or double that, depending on the state of the economy. As for kinship system, I’m not sure if this is practical at all.
If a highly skilled scientist who studied here and created something that is useful for society was given a LEGAL way of immigrating, and had a wife and child overseas, why would we not allow him to sponsor his wife and child after he becomes a legal immigrant?
RE: Because they are filling jobs that can be done by Americans and LPRs. We have 23 million people looking for fulltime employment. Many of these people here on work visas are here because they accept lower wages
If you are referring to highly skilled software developers, then I beg to disagree. Our company and the competition are paying AVERAGE to ABOVE AVERAGE wages for highly skilled H1B workers and immigrants. And here’s their advantage over people who already live here — THEY ARE FLEXIBLE AND WILLING TO MOVE FROM STATE TO STATE DEPENDING ON WHERE THE JOBS ARE.
Say I found a highly qualified person who lives in Ohio who is an American, and another similarly highly qualified one on H1B who works in Wisconsin. Inevitably, the one who lives in Ohio won’t want to uproot, sell his house, leave his family and kidsw ( who are in school) and move to NY. The H1B guy or girl WILL COME TO NY. So, how can you blame me for hiring the H1B worker?
And no, we don’t go cheap on these people (we’ll have the labor department to deal with and it’s a hassle).
RE: And MANY LEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE A LIABILITY TO THIS COUNTRY IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY CONTRIBUTE AND WHAT THEY RECEIVE. Importing poverty makes no sense and it hurts the safety net for American citizens
I don’t know what you are still bringing this up when I clearly filtered out such people as undesirables in my previous post.
Re: As a nation, do we want continuing population growth as far as the eye can see? Is a billion too much?
I would say this — SUSTAINABLE POPULATION GROWTH.
Our birth rates are NOT INCREASING and in fact are slightly below replacement rate. It has fallen SHARPLY since 2007 also.
Those 65 and over will grow to 22% of the population by 2050 from 14% now, while the working-age population slips to 57% from 63%.
You do the math if we can support these retired Seniors without enough immigrants.
RE: You just don’t get it. Our immigration policy should be linked to our job needs and the economy.
Then you are not understanding what I just said. I said IMMIGRATION IS NOT THE CAUSE OF OUR JOB LOSE. THAT’s ALL.
If (hopefully) we get rid of Obama and as a result of better economic policies, our economy grows, we will have need for MORE not LESS immigrants.
we should not be blaming immigrants for POOR JOB CREATION. That is an entirely different matter altogether.
RE: If we don’t have any link or correlation to what else is happening in the country, then this is our current policy.
I never said our current policy is problematic, all I said was we DO NEED MORE IMMIGRANTS (THE RIGHT ONES ) given our current demographics.
RE: These additional people are eligible for the entitlement programs, they compete for jobs, and yes, they will even qualify for Obamacare.
If the problem is Obamacare, then scrap Obamacare, let’s not blame LEGAL immigrants for what clearly is a political problem they did not create.
RE: Immigration affects almost every major challenge this nation has from healthcare to energy to infrastructure, etc.
I agree, that is why I said what I said.
That was absolutely great. I’m going to send it on to everyone. : )
That was absolutely great. I’m going to send it on to everyone. : )
The LAW can be changed, which is what Rand Paul wants to do. Any legislation that allows the illegal aliens to stay and work here is amnesty. It makes them LEGAL.
Well, you tell me. If we have enough of such people, I’ll be willing to limit the number of LEGAL immigrants to this country in the skills category.
Well, that is very big of you. We should be concerned about our own citizens first. And there is no doubt in my mind that we can produce the number of people needed if make it a national priority. We don't need to be bringing in Filippino school teachers to teach English like they did in Prince George's County, MD where one in every 10 teachers was from the Philippines. It was a matter of money, nothing else.
However, this should not mean being against any LEGAL immigration whatsoever.
Give it a rest. Stop creating these phony strawmen. No one is talking about being against any legal immigration whatsover, least of all me who is married to an immigrant, had a grandmother who was an immigrant, grew up in an immigrant neighborhood, and lived over 25 years of my adult life overseas in nine different countries--half of it in the Third World.
Well there you go, you just gave me the answer. If the answer is to PREVENT such people from immigrating, I am all for it. However, if the answer is to prevent the skilled and good ones (from anywhere) from immigrating LEGALLY, I am against it.
There you go again.
f you are referring to highly skilled software developers, then I beg to disagree. Our company and the competition are paying AVERAGE to ABOVE AVERAGE wages for highly skilled H1B workers and immigrants. And here’s their advantage over people who already live here — THEY ARE FLEXIBLE AND WILLING TO MOVE FROM STATE TO STATE DEPENDING ON WHERE THE JOBS ARE.
You have far more control over an H1B worker than a citizen. You are sponsoring them and their presence in this country is dependent upon your sponsorship.
I am not sure where you are getting the 300,000 number from, but I am for ADJUSTING it upwards or downwards based on need. It could be 300,000 or double that, depending on the state of the economy. As for kinship system, I’m not sure if this is practical at all.
The 300,000 was the number for the period 1924-65. The Jordan Commission in the 1990s recommended about 500,000. The kinship system is what we use now. Immigrants thru chain migration can sponsor their wives, children, siblings, and parents. One immigrant from Nigeria sponsored 84 of his relatives. Whether this system is "practical" or not is irrelevant since it is the law. And if we have an amnesty, the Heritage Foundation estimates that an additional 66 million more legal immigrants will enter the US thru family reunification.
I don’t know what you are still bringing this up when I clearly filtered out such people as undesirables in my previous post.
I keep bringing it up because it is a reality. This is the system we now have in place for the past 47 years. The Dems and groups like La Raza want to keep it in place. It will be very difficult to change it. You choose either to live in a fantasy world where you think that by saying something it becomes reality or you live in the real world where you must deal with facts.
Our birth rates are NOT INCREASING and in fact are slightly below replacement rate. It has fallen SHARPLY since 2007 also.
I provided you with a link on population projections. Yes, birth rates are a little below replacement rates, but immigration will continue to increase our population. At the current level of immigration we will add another 127 million people over the next 40 years. We are still going to be an aging country even if we were to double our immigration numbers. Please look at the link and be better informed.
Immigrants are not going to be able to support our unsustainable welfare system. In fact, they are making matters worse because they take more out of the system, about $20,000 a year, than they contribute in taxes.
Then you are not understanding what I just said. I said IMMIGRATION IS NOT THE CAUSE OF OUR JOB LOSE. THAT’s ALL.
You seem to have a comprehension problem. I never said that immigration is the cause of our job loss. I said that our immigration policies don't make sense when we bring in 13.9 million legal immigrants over the decade ending in 2010--the highest number in our history--while we lost over 400,000 jobs during that same period. It makes no sense. Do you understand what I am saying? Perhaps this graph will help you comprehend it a little better.
Immigrants do depress wage levels and take jobs from Americans. There are an estimated 8 million illegal aliens working in the US and about 22 million total immigrants in the work force.
If (hopefully) we get rid of Obama and as a result of better economic policies, our economy grows, we will have need for MORE not LESS immigrants.
Obama is going to be in office for four more years. And the Dems may take the House in 2014. Sorry to introduce reality again into the discourse.
We really don't have a labor shortage, especially among the less skilled and educated. In fact, we have a huge supply and the numbers increase each year as we bring in more unskilled and uneducated immigrants. Labor participation rates are at all time lows.
In the fourth quarter of 2012, the standard unemployment rate (referred to as U-3) for U.S.-born adults who have not completed high school was 18.7 percent.
• Using the broader measure of unemployment (referred to as U-6), which includes those who want to work but have not looked recently, the rate for U.S.-born adults who have not completed high school was 30.8 percent.
• The U-3 unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers who have only a high school education and no additional schooling was 9.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012. Using the U-6 measure, the unemployment rate was 17.3 percent.
• All of the above figures are much worse for less-educated adults under the age of 30.
• The total number of U.S.-born working-age adults (18 to 65) not working was 50 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. This is up almost 8.3 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2007, when the recession began.
• If we consider all American citizens (U.S.-born and naturalized), the number of working-age adults not holding a job was 53.7 million.
• More than half (26.9 million) of working-age American citizens not holding a job have no education beyond high school. This is a huge pool of potential less-skilled workers.
• The above figures for less-educated citizens not working do not include the 3.2 million adults forced to work part-time, nor do they include the 7.1 million teenagers (16 and 17) not working. They also do not include the 142,000 less-educated U.S. citizens over age 65 who are actively looking for a job.
What is happening is that we are creating a huge permanent underclass that will become more dependent upon government and the welfare state. Bringing in more immigrants regardless of the state of the economy makes matters worse, not better.
If the problem is Obamacare, then scrap Obamacare, let’s not blame LEGAL immigrants for what clearly is a political problem they did not create.
No, the problem is the welfare state and our immigration policies that import poverty. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are on welfare to a much higher extent than native born citizens. I will again give you a chart to look at that may help you comprehend the problem.
<[>
I am not blaming immigrants. I am blaming our immigration policies that are effectively destroying this country. And the electoral consequences are devastating for the Reps and the vision and values of our Founders. The demographic changes are almost impossible to reverse.
RE: The LAW can be changed, which is what Rand Paul wants to do. Any legislation that allows the illegal aliens to stay and work here is amnesty. It makes them LEGAL.
That’s not what I am talking about when I say i want LEGAL immigration. I DON’T WANT the law to be changed. I want it REFORMED and ENFORCED.
When I say I want to encourage legal immigration, I want it the RIGHT WAY. SKILLED, EDUCATED, PRODUCTIVE, WILLING-TO-WORK IMMIGRANTS. Those who don’t come here to suck on government largess.
RE: We should be concerned about our own citizens first. And there is no doubt in my mind that we can produce the number of people needed if make it a national priority. We don’t need to be bringing in Filippino school teachers to teach English like they did in Prince George’s County, MD where one in every 10 teachers was from the Philippines. It was a matter of money, nothing else.
I don’t know why you keep telling me this as if I disagreed with you. Let me re-post what I said : , I’ll be willing to limit the number of LEGAL immigrants to this country in the skills category IF WE CAN FIND THE PEOPLE WITH THE RIGHT SKILL SETS WE NEED.
If supply exceeds demand, yes, we can be flexible and LIMIT immigration, and then turn it back on again when the demand exceeds supply. Nowhere in my response did I disagree with this. All these back and forth we are doing simply REINFORCES our agreement.
RE: Give it a rest. Stop creating these phony strawmen.
Where is the straw man? I said this country STILL NEEDS GOOD, SKILLED, ENTREPRENUERAL, LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. There is no strawman there. I am simply repeating what I believe and you seem to be agreeing with me ( except for the number, which I never disagreed with ).
So, I never said I disagreed with you. I simply said this -— Let us ENCOURAGE GOOD, LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, even as we FIGHT to DISCOURAGE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Where’s the strawman argument?
RE: No one is talking about being against any legal immigration whatsover,
Well certainly not me.
RE: There you go again.
There I go what again? Simply reiterating my stance goes where again?
RE: The 300,000 was the number for the period 1924-65. The Jordan Commission in the 1990s recommended about 500,000. The kinship system is what we use now. Immigrants thru chain migration can sponsor their wives, children, siblings, and parents. One immigrant from Nigeria sponsored 84 of his relatives. Whether this system is “practical” or not is irrelevant since it is the law. And if we have an amnesty, the Heritage Foundation estimates that an additional 66 million more legal immigrants will enter the US thru family reunification.
So, let me see your argument here... Like me, you don’t want an outright ban on highly skilled legal immigrants ( because every time I mention such people, you act as if I am saying you are against such people, when the impression you give me is that you are NOT against them ). OK fine, let’s work on this agreement.
What follows? If such immigrants have a wife and kids back home, are you telling me that a law should be passed ONLY PERMITTING this skilled legal immigrant to live and work here legally? His wife and kids WILL NOT BE permitted to live here? (No strawman argument here, just asking you to clarify what you mean by “chain” migration because the wife and kids are by necessity — chained).
How is that going to work? You might as well tell the skilled legal immigrant to go home because it’s either he stays here alone, or he goes back home to be with his family.
You think such a system will work to encourage good, legal migrants?
If your answer to the above question is NO, then what do you propose to do to stop the “chaining” ( e.g., 84 relatives from Nigeria )?
RE: I provided you with a link on population projections. Yes, birth rates are a little below replacement rates, but immigration will continue to increase our population. At the current level of immigration we will add another 127 million people over the next 40 years. We are still going to be an aging country even if we were to double our immigration numbers. Please look at the link and be better informed.
First and foremost, let’s talk about the NUMBER of legal immigrants. I am sure you are for the faucet system of immigration.
A faucet is for adjusting the flow of water to your sink. If there’s too much water, you turn the faucet off just a little, if there’s too little, you turn it on just a little bit more until you are satisfied with the overall flow.
If this is all you are for, I already said I am not against this.
I believe your fear is FLOODING. Well, if that’s your fear, welcome to the club. I am against flooding too.
Now here’s my question to you, what number are you thinking that you think is sustainable?
I am sure you don’t mean a TOTAL STOP to legal immigration. So what do you propose?
RE: Immigrants are not going to be able to support our unsustainable welfare system. In fact, they are making matters worse because they take more out of the system, about $20,000 a year, than they contribute in taxes.
You see what you’re doing in the above paragraph? You are EQUIVOCATING with the word — “immigrant” again. WHAT KIND?
If by that, you are talking about those who come here to suck on our welfare system, then YES, we have to stop this kind of immigration.
But did I say I was in favor of such immigrants?
By no means. I already said this and please don’t ignore what I said this time — WE STILL NEED HIGHLY SKILLED, PRODUCTIVE, ENTREPRENEURAL immigrants. And NO, THEY DON’T TAX OUR WELFARE SYSTEM. They CONTRIBUTE to economic growth.
Scientists, engineers and innovators are the main drivers of productivity and of economic growth.
A 2002 study in the American Economic Review by Stanford economist Charles I. Jones found that half of the productivity growth in the U.S. since 1950 was driven by the INCREASE in the number of scientists and engineers doing research and development. MANY OF THEM IMMIGRANTS (LEGAL to avoid equivocation ).
Chad Sparber (Colgate University), Kevin Shih (University of California, Davis) and GIOVANNI PERI of professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, have found in a study published in January this year that foreign scientists and engineers brought into this country under the H-1B visa program have contributed to 10%-20% of the yearly productivity growth in the U.S. during the period 1990-2010.
This allowed the GDP per capita to be 4% higher that it would have been without them—that’s an aggregate increase of output of $615 billion as of 2010.
Their study also found that these immigrants DID NOT HURT but HELPED wage and employment perspectives of U.S.-born scientists and engineers. More scientists and more innovation in the U.S. mean more labs, universities and companies doing research and creating jobs for Americans too. There is abundant other research showing that foreign scientists and engineers contribute substantially to science, innovation and productivity growth in the U.S., with benefits spreading well beyond the lab and research facility where they work.
Here is a glimpse of their study:
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/overhauling_the_temporary_work_visa_system/
So yes, we need to overhaul our immigration policies, but like Australia, Singapore and Switzerland (countries that have a SANE skilled labor migration system), we should NOT discourage good, productive, business-creating immigrants. We OUGHT TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO COME. These are the best of the world we’re talking about. We should consider ourselves fortunate that they want to be Americans.
Are you against the amnesty proposed by Rubio, McCain, Graham, Schumer, et. al. in the Gang of 8? Or the backdoor amnesty of Obama for the so-called Dreamers?
When I say I want to encourage legal immigration, I want it the RIGHT WAY. SKILLED, EDUCATED, PRODUCTIVE, WILLING-TO-WORK IMMIGRANTS. Those who don’t come here to suck on government largess.
We already encourage legal immigration bringing in more permanent immigrants than all the rest of the world combined. Yes, we need to go to a merit based immigration system, but we also must reduce the numbers. Our current legal immigration policies are destroying the country. Legal immigration is not in and of itself a good thing.
I don’t know why you keep telling me this as if I disagreed with you. Let me re-post what I said : , I’ll be willing to limit the number of LEGAL immigrants to this country in the skills category IF WE CAN FIND THE PEOPLE WITH THE RIGHT SKILL SETS WE NEED.
If you reread what you posted, you start with the supposition that this country needs more skilled immigrants now and will require many more in the future not only to provide skills but to keep the welfare state afloat. I believe you are wrong on both counts.
Is There a Shortage of Skilled Foreign Workers?
You also conflate permanent immigrants with those here on temporary work visas. How do you want to bring in these skilled foreign workers and from where? Would you set limits or quotas from various countries or would you make it unlimited. Who decides if we have a shortage of a particular skill?
If supply exceeds demand, yes, we can be flexible and LIMIT immigration, and then turn it back on again when the demand exceeds supply. Nowhere in my response did I disagree with this. All these back and forth we are doing simply REINFORCES our agreement.
I believe supply already exceeds demand. The real world test is the marketplace and salary levels. If there are shortages, wages should be increasing for those sectors. The reality is that they are not.
Have Earnings Actually Declined?
"It has been widely observed that over the last several decades wage earnings for the median full-time American male worker have stagnated. For example, in 2009 the median full-time male worker aged 25-64 brought home $48,000—roughly the same as in 1969 after adjusting for inflation.
At the same time, there has been a sharp decline in employment rates for men, particularly lower-skill men with less than a college degree. Today, only 66 percent of American prime-aged men hold full-time jobs, down from 80 percent in 1970. Further, the reduction in work is greater for the less-educated (79 percent of high-school graduates held a full-time job in 1970 versus 57 percent today.)
Three shifts in the employment landscape are largely responsible for the decline in full-time employment. First, men with jobs are less likely to hold full-time jobs. In 1970, 86 percent of jobs held by prime-age male workers were full-time jobs, compared with 81 percent today. Second, between 1970 and today, the share of men without any earnings at all increased from 6 percent to 18 percent. Third, 2.2 percent of these prime-age men now live in institutions—primarily prisons—and no longer appear in most labor-market statistics.
Thus, the pool of full-time workers has shrunk at the same time that the median wages of full-time workers has stagnated. Why is this important? It means that the statistics about the stagnation of wages like those above are based on a comparison of very different groups of workers. Put plainly, the story of the stagnation of wages is based on a comparison of apples to oranges.
When you compare apples to apples by looking on the experience of all men (rather than just the changing group of men able to find full-time work), the stagnation story has a different ending.
The below figure plots the median earnings based on all males aged 25-64, along with the more conventional plot that is based only on those men aged 25-64 that happen to work full-time.
This analysis suggests that earnings have not stagnated but have declined sharply. The median wage of the American male has declined by almost $13,000 after accounting for inflation in the four decades since 1969. This is a reduction of 28 percent!
If you go to the full study and look at the chart on page 6, you will see that wages have gone down for all male workers including those with college degrees. Wages for those without a high school degree have declined by 66%. Although the authors do not mention immigration I submit that the change in our immigration policies in 1965 helped create a surplus of workers, particularly unskilled. I have no doubt that the same effect will be in play once we start bringing in more skilled labor.
George Borjas of Harvard in his famous study, found by increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent. Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent. The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.
Where’s the strawman argument?
When you state, "What I am against is a total ban on legal immigration." and "However, this should not mean being against any LEGAL immigration whatsoever." These are strawmen arguments. No one is suggesting cutting off all immigration. Certainly I have not.
How is that going to work? You might as well tell the skilled legal immigrant to go home because it’s either he stays here alone, or he goes back home to be with his family. You think such a system will work to encourage good, legal migrants? If your answer to the above question is NO, then what do you propose to do to stop the “chaining” ( e.g., 84 relatives from Nigeria )?
Limit chain migration, i.e., family reunification to the nuclear family. There have been a number of bills introduced in Congress to make this change. It is not difficult and is more in line with the immigration policies of most of the countries on the planet.
A faucet is for adjusting the flow of water to your sink. If there’s too much water, you turn the faucet off just a little, if there’s too little, you turn it on just a little bit more until you are satisfied with the overall flow. If this is all you are for, I already said I am not against this. I believe your fear is FLOODING. Well, if that’s your fear, welcome to the club. I am against flooding too.
We are "flooding" now. You don't take in 13.9 million permanent immigrants at a time when there is a net loss of jobs and 23 million of your citizens looking for fulltime employment. Yes, we need to adjust our immigration numbers to meet our needs. Immigration to America is not a right but a privilege. And our immigration policies should serve the best interests of the nation. Currently, they do not.
Now here’s my question to you, what number are you thinking that you think is sustainable? I am sure you don’t mean a TOTAL STOP to legal immigration. So what do you propose?
I already posted that it would be about 300,000 a year returning us to the period 1924-65. We could go to a merit based system. These are numbers we can assimilate and also provide with special skills we might need, i.e., the best and brightest. The numbers could be adjusted on a yearly basis based on circumstances.
A 2002 study in the American Economic Review by Stanford economist Charles I. Jones found that half of the productivity growth in the U.S. since 1950 was driven by the INCREASE in the number of scientists and engineers doing research and development. MANY OF THEM IMMIGRANTS (LEGAL to avoid equivocation ).
Those are the people we should be including in our permanent immigration program, not as guest workers on temporary work visas. We actually have special visa categories for those people now. It is what I mean by a merit based system. Right now, only about 15% of the 1.2 million legal immigrants who enter the US are merit based.
Here is a glimpse of their study
Thanks. I read the study. I find some things that are factual and others that just don't comport with reality. For example,
At the same time, less-educated potential immigrants have extremely limited options for legal entry despite being in high demand from U.S. employers, who often end up turning to unauthorized workers. At the same time, less-educated potential immigrants have extremely limited options for legal entry despite being in high demand from U.S. employers, who often end up turning to unauthorized workers.
As I have indicated above, we have no shortage of unskilled or less educated workers. There is a huge pool of workers that not participating in the system. And the idea that employers turn to "unauthorized workers" aka illegal aliens because they can't find legal workers is laughable. It is all about the Benjamins as they say. Illegal aliens work for less, are exploitable, and in many case off the books.
As for some of the economic arguments and the value of immigrants, I suggest they read some of Robert Rector's studies, starting with Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts and his testimony before CongressUnderstanding and Reducing Poverty in America
I have actually issued visas. I understand how the system operates. Yes, it needs to be revised but not like they suggest.
So yes, we need to overhaul our immigration policies, but like Australia, Singapore and Switzerland (countries that have a SANE skilled labor migration system), we should NOT discourage good, productive, business-creating immigrants. We OUGHT TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO COME. These are the best of the world we’re talking about. We should consider ourselves fortunate that they want to be Americans.
I doubt that we could ever get Congressional approval to implement such systems because they are more restrictive and they try to maintain the current demography of those countries. They are not being colonized by the Third World. My daughter was born in Singapore.
One thing that you have yet to comment upon is the electoral impact of bringing in more and more immigrants. 87% of the 1.2 million legal immigrants who enter each year are minorities as defined by the USG. The electoral consequences are becoming more and more apparent with each election cycle. Demography is destiny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.