
Trump unveils 'merit-based' immigration policy plan - godelmachine
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48304975
======
snvzz
This works out well for Japan. Why wouldn't it for the US?

The way I see it, only those highly qualified shall apply. If an american can
do the job, then an american should do it.

~~~
legohead
It sounded fine up until this line:

> he proposed moving away from the current system that favours applicants with
> family ties to the US

If a citizen is in the country and they want to bring their family over, that
should be their right.

~~~
briandear
Except Europe, Canada, the UK, Australia, China and almost every other country
in the world would disagree. Immediate family is one thing, however US
immigration family preference means that a illiterate cousin of an applicant
has priority over a highly accomplished person with no family in the US.
Spouse and minor children, certainly, and Trump’s proposal is in line with
Europe and Canada in the regard. In fact, his proposal is more like Canadian
immigration policy.

Honestly, Trump could propose single payer healthcare or universal pre-K and
the anti-Trump crowd would oppose it.

A helpful exercise for people of both parties is to ask if you would agree
with a given policy if “your guy” had said it.

~~~
schnevets
It seems like a very outdated part of America's immigration philosophy, but it
is such a fundamental part of American culture, that I'm shocked it has
recently been relabeled and scorned as "chain migration".

Sure, "Talented Doctor Immigrant" migrates to the US and sponsors "Illiterate
Cousin", but IC finds a less skilled role, and still has the familial support
of TDI. In fact, oftentimes, this takes the form of small business loans. It's
basically how every ethnic community in the US flourished, from German
migrants settling the midwest to recent immigrant-fueled boons like the Indian
population in Edison, NJ.

The system may be a little outdated in the globalized world, but it's a source
of labor that mitigates the risk of antisocial consequences (IC turns to
crime, is exploited at work, becomes a burden on the government, etc). I don't
entirely agree that it's the "right" of a new immigrant, but eliminating it
could have far greater consequences on the future of American than it may
seem.

------
iscrewyou
People talking about this not passing Congress, they know. This is a play for
the next election. He made promises in his last election that he can’t keep.
Now this will let him blame someone while saying look I tried.

~~~
suyash
The real question we need to ask here is why won't it pass in Congress, answer
is Democrats are blindly opposed to Trump even if he wants to do something
that is great for the country. This is the root of the problem in this case.

~~~
avocado4
It wouldn't have passed under any other Republican leadership, let alone
Trump. If you want Democrats on board any immigration package would need to
contain path to citizenship for undocumented folks.

------
godelmachine
So, do those who have Masters degrees from US get preference over those who
don’t possess any sort of Bachelors or Masters degrees from US?

~~~
frankbreetz
This is unlikely to be passed. It has to be approved by Congress, which is
controlled by the opposing party. Even if the Republicans win the next
election it is unlikely this specific bill will be passed. As far as the
specifics for this, all the article says is highly educated people would be
given preference. I would assume this would mean a person with a master's
degree would be given more preference than one with a bachelor's, but not as
much as one with a doctorate. I am sure the area study would play a large role
in this as well. Job offers are always helpful, as is the ability to speak
English

~~~
WillPostForFood
Congress isn't controlled by the opposing party, it is split. Regardless,
there is value in the proposal because, agree or disagree, it is actual policy
you can't weigh in on by voting in the next election, not just the usual
vitriol.

~~~
frankbreetz
You're right, the House of Representatives is controlled by the opposing
party, I always wrongly consider this "Congress" because it is full of what we
call Congressmen and women, whereas the other house of Congress is filled with
Senators, which I supposed are also Congressmen and women, but I never hear
them called that.

------
ianhawes
> Senior Democrats dismissed his ideas as "dead-on-arrival".

That is the most important line of the article. Without Democrat support, this
plan will not pass in this congress. While it is possible it could pass in the
next congress (2021), I would characterize it as unlikely. Both parties see
the status quo in legal immigration as a good thing, with most changes in the
day-to-day policies of USCIS being dictated by court rulings and not congress.

~~~
Shivetya
why would they be any other way. We have been trapped in a cycle of party
first American second for far too long. The schism caused by the Tea Party was
the first major rebellion within a political party and it took years before
the Republican party could co-opt it and bury it. The Democrats had an inkling
of similar with a few candidates displacing established players but they are
too few and too radical in general to steer the party in a different
direction.

however most all reforms towards voting all lead to the same outcome, no
competition for established parties. Oh sure they dress it up and market it as
protecting us from big special interest or money but the real outcome is, no
one is permitted to run who does not have the blessing of either party. the US
pays towards the security of only the Democrat or Republican conventions just
to make it clear how much they have locked out all other choices. People decry
barriers to voting but the real issue is the barrier to even be a choice.

------
idlewords
This seems like it would set up a situation where immigrants really do compete
for US jobs, rather than being a net economic positive.

Right now, unauthorized immigrants are 24% of maids and cleaners, _half_ of ag
workers, and a big chunk of construction labor and home aides like nannies.

These jobs are filled by immigrants because they are a big step up for a lot
of the people arriving here, while Americans don't want them. In a saner
world, work visas for unskilled labor and a pathway up to citizenship would
benefit everyone.

Instead, the president seems to want a carve-out for the tech and health
industry that makes life more precarious for everyone else.

Source on numbers: [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrants-us-jobs-
econ...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrants-us-jobs-economy-farm-
workers-taxes/)

~~~
JPKab
"while Americans don't want them"

Former construction worker here.

Americans don't want these jobs at the below-market wages they pay. The wages
would be higher if not for the supply being inflated by laborers willing to
work for below minimum wage.

The most dangerous job in the world (Alaskan crab fisherman) is brutal, dirty,
and high paying. Therefore there are always American citizens waiting on the
docks to learn the trade.

Not saying I don't want more immigration in the US. I want WAY more of it, but
only if it's not reducing pay in entry level vocations.

~~~
notacoward
Since we're talking about incentives, without cheap labor the incentive will
be to increase automation until the total cost comes back down. So domestic
workers' desire for high-pay/low-skill jobs is just as selfish/artificial as
companies' desire for cheap labor. That doesn't mean it's bad, but slamming
companies for responding to market forces when it comes to immigration alone
is almost cherry-picking. You have to consider the whole picture to make good
policy.

~~~
KirinDave
This didn't really work for Tesla.

It turns out skilled labor is still really important even if you have a bunch
of machines printing and milling material.

~~~
notacoward
What's true for high-tech manufacturing might not be true for farm labor, meat
packing, hospitality and food service, construction, or the other kinds of
jobs that many immigrants are doing. The pool of unskilled jobs with decent
wages is shrinking and will continue to do so. Artificial labor-force
limitation is a temporary palliative at best, and energy spent kicking others
off the bottom rung of the ladder would be better spent climbing. Climbing,
not kicking, is what capitalism is supposed to be about anyway.

~~~
JPKab
I get your point, but there is an inherent contradiction in your statement:

You simultaneously point out that low skilled jobs are being lost to
automation, and advocate for bringing in more low skilled workers for this
dwindling pool of jobs. Seems cruel.

~~~
notacoward
> there is an inherent contradiction in your statement > ... > Seems cruel.

I see your point also. I assure you, I don't mean to be cruel. The problem is,
what is cruel to one can be kind to another, and vice versa. That immigrant
has hopes and dreams, and maybe a family, too. If the global pool of jobs is
shrinking, and the global pool of workers is growing, the system _will_ move
toward equilibrium. Jobs will shift person by person, factory by factory, or
industry by industry. Increasing the premium for our labor, and thus for the
products of that labor, only ensures that it will be industry by industry.
This process is already under way. I'm sorry, but it's the _market_ that is
cruel.

So, since I'm away from my own home and have some time to spare, what does
that mean in terms of KirinDave's idea to keep entry-level jobs for Americans?
I'll be blunt: that's _stupid_. Americans, who have to earn a certain wage to
maintain even the lowest standard of living, can _never_ be as cost-effective
as people to whom that same wage looks like a king's ransom.

That's where "merit based" immigration comes in. It's about making the best
and the brightest from all over the world part of _our_ ecosystem instead of a
competing one. It's a deliberate brain drain. It leaves the low-skill workers
where they are, unable to compete job by job but also bereft of any leadership
that would enable them to compete industry by industry. It's unfair - one
might even say cruel - to them, but global fairness is not a goal. It's an
_effective_ way to promote Trump's and KirinDave's goal of propping up
uneducated Americans' wages. I just happen to think that's a lousy goal, not
least because it's not sustainable. The longer we put it off, the worse the
eventual result will be.

~~~
KirinDave
> So, since I'm away from my own home and have some time to spare, what does
> that mean in terms of KirinDave's idea to keep entry-level jobs for
> Americans? I'll be blunt: that's stupid. Americans, who have to earn a
> certain wage to maintain even the lowest standard of living, can never be as
> cost-effective as people to whom that same wage looks like a king's ransom.

That's uh.. not my idea? You mention me a lot here but you've comically
misrepresented my position, which you can't really know because the only thing
I've articulated on this subject in this thread is that Tesla tried and failed
spectacularly to automate, and that the American (really Victorian) idea of
trying to replace all human labor with machines (or at least make it LOOK like
it's all machines) hasn't fared very well overall despite it being a near
religious conviction by many western industrialists.

Meanwhile, China's labor policies (which in my personal belief system lead to
reprehensible limitations on human freedom and rights) lead to a country that
is industrially crushing the rest of the world to a degree that we haven't
seen since post-WW2 where American interests could push their products on
others because everyone else's industrial bases were smoking craters due to
war.

> That's where "merit based" immigration comes in. It's about making the best
> and the brightest from all over the world part of our ecosystem instead of a
> competing one. It's a deliberate brain drain.

You misspelled "richest", because that's actually the goal. We're getting
tepid, moderately talented but quite wealthy Elon Musks. Once, we were
significantly better at the "brain drain" and it showed during WW2. And
perhaps that's for the best, because the circumstances that lead to the
genuine brain drains of WW2 were quite dire.

> It leaves the low-skill workers where they are, unable to compete job by job
> but also bereft of any leadership that would enable them to compete industry
> by industry.

But at the end of the day, the notion that the folks you are leaving behind
are not essential to society as a whole is a capitalist dogma not supported by
reality. The idea that society isn't built on essential but socially dismissed
and denigrated labor like construction, cleaning , and even sex work is a
fantasty. It's the Victorian desire to have a "dumb waiter" all over again,
only on a much larger scale. And this myth largely persists because western
industrialists imagine a fantasy world in which Taiwan and China are full of
magic robots and not millions of skilled (and socially oppressed) humans.

> It's unfair - one might even say cruel - to them, but global fairness is not
> a goal.

Indeed. The goal is to realize Burke's dream and roll back every social
contract change post-French Revolution. I'm well read on the capitalist ethos.

> It's an effective way to promote Trump's and KirinDave's goal of propping up
> uneducated Americans' wages.

Trump's goal is to prop up the wages of under-educated Americans? What? The
man and his party's policies have rendered over half of the farmers in America
desperate, directly threatened the livelihood of many American manufacturing
workers with his pointless tariffs, and outright declared war on American
unions. He is as anti-worker as they come. The fact that you think otherwise
is a reflection of the phenomenal branding engine.

> I just happen to think that's a lousy goal, not least because it's not
> sustainable. The longer we put it off, the worse the eventual result will
> be.

I'm not sure what you're advocating at all. The completely abandonment and
disenfranchisement of every skilled laborer that doesn't meet your definition
of "educated?" The radical purging or forced labor of anyone who doesn't meet
specific economic or physical standards? Many US States already do that via
their justice system. Does that not already satisfy you?

If you want to talk about unsustainable systems, we need only look at the
current political environment in America, where voters are so disenfranchised,
misinformed and manipulated that a toxic hyperindustrialst grifter can hold
power just because folks are so pissed at the status quo that hope of massive
disruption is all they can hold on to.

Eventually, folks are gonna stop believing in all the delays. Already,
fascists interests in the US are gathering people who've hit that breaking
point and organizing them to point at perceived enemies. Already, we see
people who question truths known and trivially observable for thousands of
years because they're so convinced the entire system is out to get them.
Already, folks know that their punishments for challenging the rule of law are
only truly enforced towards the poor and the forgotten.

~~~
notacoward
> The completely abandonment and disenfranchisement of every skilled laborer
> that doesn't meet your definition of "educated?

You complain about strawmen, then launch a straw giant like that? What I
actually believe is that we should do more to help people get on a path to a
stable, well paying, fulfilling job. Education can be part of that. A living
wage can be part of that. Universal health insurance can be a part of that.
Even unions can be part of that (but perhaps not in their current corrupt/co-
opted form). But discrimination and exclusion can't. Not for long, and not on
a global scale. If you also oppose discrimination and exclusion, why are you
trying so hard to pick a fight here?

~~~
KirinDave
> You complain about strawmen, then launch a straw giant like that?

This was more a rhetorical "obviously this is false" statement than a genuine
articulation of your position.

> If you also oppose discrimination and exclusion, why are you trying so hard
> to pick a fight here?

You're the one accusing me of... I am not even sure anymore. Of somehow
aligning with the current US president over inflating wages which you do like
but you don't like but you do think should be done but maybe not because it's
not sustainable.

I get the impression you have not carefully formulated an articulate form of
your beliefs and then tried to convey it to others. I showed this conversation
to a few other folks just to see if I've got a blind spot. I didn't discover
one, sadly, because they agreed that it seems like you're arguing against
yourself at least as much as you're expressing antipathy towards whatever
ideas you think I have.

The only thing I "discriminate" against (besides my sorting algorithms ;) is
the notion of hyper-concentration of capital into individuals.

------
robbrit
For once, I think that Trump is actually taking something in the right
direction. With a few tweaks that make Democrats happy, this will actually be
a net-positive over the current lottery-based system. Hopefully they overhaul
the green card process too.

It's a pain to see a senior engineer from India or China have to go home
because their 6 years of H-1B are up.

------
avocado4
This is dead on arrival in Congress.

------
burlesona
That article didn’t really spell out any details, but coming from Trump I
doubt the details are good.

That said, I’ve always thought there was a glaring hole in our immigration
policy, which is that people who come and earn a degree in the US should have
an easy option to stay and work and become citizens if they would like.

It seems crazy to me that we’re investing a ton in the people who come here
for higher education and then making it difficult for them to stay here and
use the skills and education they acquired.

~~~
sonnyblarney
" people who come and earn a degree in the US should have an easy option to
stay and work and become citizens if they would like."

No, this would immediately put Universities in the business of selling
citizenship. Of course they'd probably love that. Though foreign student
exports have doubled in the last few years, it'd grow even faster as a source
of revenue for them.

The criteria for admissions in many undergrad/graduate programs is really not
that high, and some schools are not very expensive at all.

"we’re investing a ton in the people who come here"

When foreign students pay tuition that's an _export_ for the US, it's not so
much 'the US investing in them' (though I understand many are on scholarships,
and the institutions get indirect funding).

There are 1.1 Million foreign students in the US, and it's a $42 Billion
dollar export [1]. That's quite a lot of money (and quite a lot of people).

Surely, under a 'merit based system' foreign students should get a bunch of
'points' towards the system, but a broad points-based system is by far better
than a 'buy your undergrad/citizenship' program.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/magazine/one-of-
americas-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/magazine/one-of-americas-
most-vital-exports-education-never-goes-abroad-but-it-still-faces-
threats.html)

~~~
mac01021
> The criteria for admissions in many undergrad/graduate programs is really
> not that high, and some schools are not very expensive at all.

We could, at the same time, make standards a lot higher to obtain a student
visa in the first place.

I for one have no problem making it extremely hard to get a student visa or an
H1. But it seems to me rather unfair to allow someone to build a life here for
6 or 8 years and then deport them.

In general, a system where only the most promising individuals are awarded
immigrant visas, and where it is extremely difficult and unpleasant to reside
here as an illegal immigrant, but where anyone who has resided here for a
given number if years (legally or otherwise) is automatically a permanent
resident, might be a marked improvement over the current system. Almost all
new immigrants would be economic assets, would not drive down wages for
working class citizens. And at the same time the problem of the "dreamers"
already here will be solved.

------
jorblumesea
As the article pointed out, no dreamer compromise so it will never pass the
house. It is likely useful for uniting the fractured Republican base, but
that's about it.

~~~
WillPostForFood
Democrats can add a dreamer compromise and then pass it and see what happens.
White House has signaled many times they are willing to do something for the
dreamers in exchange for something.

~~~
larkost
The White House may have signaled that, but so far when presented with actual
compromises the President has always aggressively rejected them. This is one
of the areas that people use to show that the White House staff and the
President are not actually on the same page.

