Immigration

[wufan]

Trump to change the green card process to merit (job, pay, language) based and eliminate extended family preference and diversity lottery. This only addresses two types of legal immigration. Illegal immigration was partially addressed by executive order to enforce the current law.

Not enough? Too much? Incorrect policy?

[SB Shock]

Does it really cut legal immigration in half?

[wufan]

Does it really cut legal immigration in half?

Idk. It does stop the chain migration of family member sponsorship. Allegedly if I get a green card via the work program, I can then sponsor my wife and children. My wife can sponsor her parents. Her parents can sponsor their child (sister-in-law of oringonal applicant), who can sponsor her husband, who can sponsor his parents, etc. apparently that is half of the legal immigrants according to Trump.

[ShoxMTXE]

If we had tougher immigration policies we wouldn’t have the current water tower issue that we’re facing right now.

[Play Angry]

Limiting to spouses and minor children will be a tough sell to the brain drain target group. Families are closely knit in those communities.

It will be interesting to see where this lands when the dust settles.

[I_Vector_Wu]

Well if "The Donald" wants the economy to grow at 3% or better he better re-think his rhetoric. Declining workforce participation (partly due to aging Boomers) and low birthrates will have a negative impact on the economy going forward. Additional improvements in productivity and tax cuts will only boost the economy so much.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-us-birth-rate-20170630-htmlstory.html

"In 2016, the total fertility rate for American women was 1,818 births per 1,000 women. That’s the lowest it has been since 1984.
In order for a generation to exactly replace itself, the total fertility rate needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women. The U.S. has been missing that mark since 1971 (though the country’s population has grown due to immigration)."

Like it or not, immigration is important to our economy.

https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2017/04/immigrants-are-essential-us-economic-growth-and-we-need-more-them

"On average, approximately 1 million immigrants have come to the United States each year for the past 25 years. They add directly to our GDP through work. Our foreign-born population is younger and more likely to be working than native-born Americans. They help rebalance what would otherwise be a quickly aging population that would have difficulty supporting Social Security and other older-age entitlements. The foreign born also play an important role in several sectors of the economy.

In January, the nonpartisan CBO projected that economic growth for the next 10 years would be about 2 percent per year. These modest projections assumed that immigration would continue at the rate of approximately 1 million persons per year and that there would be no mass out-migration (or deportation) of our foreign-born population. Without a continued influx of immigrants, the projected rate of GDP growth would be less than 2 percent. We believe the CBO projection would be reduced by 0.3 percent and possibly up to 0.5 percent per year if the 1 million annual immigrant number were reduced to zero."

Foot, meet gun.

[SB Shock]

Idk.

Well that is a important information to know on any plan. Western countries depend on immigration to maintain society due to declining birth rates (immigrants bring higher birth rates) Europe is already in trouble. Russia is dead. U.S. birth rates are are barely OK - but we just need a smart plan.

[wufan]

Well that is a important information to know on any plan. Western countries depend on immigration to maintain society due to declining birth rates (immigrants bring higher birth rates) Europe is already in trouble. Russia is dead. U.S. birth rates are are barely OK - but we just need a smart plan.

What I meant was that I hadn't looked at the number. I'm sure there are at least a couple of view points on the actual impact of the chain immigration. I haven't vetted any of them, and am unlikely to do so due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. Trump says half.

[Play Angry]

What I meant was that I hadn't looked at the number. I'm sure there are at least a couple of view points on the actual impact of the chain immigration. I haven't vetted any of them, and am unlikely to do so due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. Trump says half.

Let's take him at his word. Since the genesis of the topic is a proposal by Trump he claims will cut the inflow of legal migrants in half, do you think it is preferable to reduce legal immigration by 50%, and if so why? If this is not preferable, why not?

[wufan]

Well if "The Donald" wants the economy to grow at 3% or better he better re-think his rhetoric. Declining workforce participation (partly due to aging Boomers) and low birthrates will have a negative impact on the economy going forward. Additional improvements in productivity and tax cuts will only boost the economy so much.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-us-birth-rate-20170630-htmlstory.html

"In 2016, the total fertility rate for American women was 1,818 births per 1,000 women. That’s the lowest it has been since 1984.
In order for a generation to exactly replace itself, the total fertility rate needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women. The U.S. has been missing that mark since 1971 (though the country’s population has grown due to immigration)."

Like it or not, immigration is important to our economy.

https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2017/04/immigrants-are-essential-us-economic-growth-and-we-need-more-them

"On average, approximately 1 million immigrants have come to the United States each year for the past 25 years. They add directly to our GDP through work. Our foreign-born population is younger and more likely to be working than native-born Americans. They help rebalance what would otherwise be a quickly aging population that would have difficulty supporting Social Security and other older-age entitlements. The foreign born also play an important role in several sectors of the economy.

In January, the nonpartisan CBO projected that economic growth for the next 10 years would be about 2 percent per year. These modest projections assumed that immigration would continue at the rate of approximately 1 million persons per year and that there would be no mass out-migration (or deportation) of our foreign-born population. Without a continued influx of immigrants, the projected rate of GDP growth would be less than 2 percent. We believe the CBO projection would be reduced by 0.3 percent and possibly up to 0.5 percent per year if the 1 million annual immigrant number were reduced to zero."

Foot, meet gun.

The GDP growth projections around immigration are based on the output of the new immigrants. If you bring in new immigrants that have a higher per capita GDP, that would make up for the loss of individuals. That's the goal of the legislation; to bring in the best and brightest, which should correlate to a higher per capita GDP amongst immigrants.

The idea that Trump is selling is that if you let in fewer unskilled laborers, then companies will be forced to increase the wages for those positions in order to attract non-immigrant workers (no more "dey took er jobs!" rhetoric), and that highly skilled/intelligent immigrants will create innovation, which is the best way to increase GDP in a free market society. If you can't innovate, then you have to add population. If you add population, those people should be productive. A lack of productivity would reduce your per capita GDP, and there is a reasonable argument that if a worker is sponsoring his parents, that the parents would not be productive.

[wufan]

Let's take him at his word. Since the genesis of the topic is a proposal by Trump he claims will cut the inflow of legal migrants in half, do you think it is preferable to reduce legal immigration by 50%, and if so why? If this is not preferable, why not?

I don't know what the magic number is, nor is the decrease in immigration a specific topic that I have a particular opinion on. I'm more interested in ensuring that we bring in people that are productive. This legislation would seem to make sense in that regard.

[shockmonster]

I don't know what the magic number is, nor is the decrease in immigration a specific topic that I have a particular opinion on. I'm more interested in ensuring that we bring in people that are productive. This legislation would seem to make sense in that regard.

An additional point on legal green card holding immigrants is that they are eligible for many welfare programs. Thus, another argument for bringing in higher skilled, more educated, legal immigrants instead of lower skilled, low wage immigrants that take wages down.

[wufan]

An additional point on legal green card holding immigrants is that they are eligible for many welfare programs. Thus, another argument for bringing in higher skilled, more educated, legal immigrants instead of lower skilled, low wage immigrants that take wages down.

That's the argument, and it makes sense to me on the surface. I don't have the background on this to make any additional arguments for or against the argument and am hoping to learn something from those that do on both sides.

[Play Angry]

If we can cherry-pick enough (relatively) rich, well-educated immigrants with skills that are marketable in our economy without decreasing the population replacement these inflows provide, that is a home run.

Most of the prospective immigrants who are immediate net-positives are able to access the market under the status quo through EB-5 and work authorizations that convert into permanent residency. It would be different if there were millions of doctors and engineers who could pass muster at the level required for American employment in their fields and they were being turned away en masse in favor of the troglodytes. Those rich, well-educated immigrants also reproduce at much lower levels than their lower-class peers (as discussed by others above, this carries positives (consumption) and negatives (additional expenditures from government benefit programs)) and mitigate our declining birth rates to a much lesser degree.

The net impact IMO is that this juices the numbers for those coming in by a pretty decent amount, but most of that is effected by turning away the middle and lower ends of the applicant spectrum rather than grabbing more super immigrants. I also remain skeptical that the applicant pool at the top will not be diluted significantly by eliminating parents and children of the age of majority - these folks aren't coming from Spain or Canada, they are coming from places like India where the nuclear unit is larger and much more closely knit. A terrific portion of those that came in during the brain drain era would have never applied had their parents/brothers/sisters been unable to tag along.

We will see. I expect this will get the crap beat out of it in committee debates and we'll see a much more watered down version.

[wufan]

If we can cherry-pick enough (relatively) rich, well-educated immigrants with skills that are marketable in our economy without decreasing the population replacement these inflows provide, that is a home run.

Most of the prospective immigrants who are immediate net-positives are able to access the market under the status quo through EB-5 and work authorizations that convert into permanent residency. It would be different if there were millions of doctors and engineers who could pass muster at the level required for American employment in their fields and they were being turned away en masse in favor of the troglodytes. Those rich, well-educated immigrants also reproduce at much lower levels than their lower-class peers (as discussed by others above, this carries positives (consumption) and negatives (additional expenditures from government benefit programs)) and mitigate our declining birth rates to a much lesser degree.

The net impact IMO is that this juices the numbers for those coming in by a pretty decent amount, but most of that is effected by turning away the middle and lower ends of the applicant spectrum rather than grabbing more super immigrants. I also remain skeptical that the applicant pool at the top will not be diluted significantly by eliminating parents and children of the age of majority - these folks aren't coming from Spain or Canada, they are coming from places like India where the nuclear unit is larger and much more closely knit. A terrific portion of those that came in during the brain drain era would have never applied had their parents/brothers/sisters been unable to tag along.

We will see. I expect this will get the crap beat out of it in committee debates and we'll see a much more watered down version.

A fella from India that worked for me through the H1B program ended up resigning to head home and take care of his parents. He and his brother were both trying to get green cards in the US and his brother had a better opportunity (not sure why). His parents said that someone has to come home and take care of us until we can all come over together. Kuldeep volunteered.

He was a pharmacist in India, and had achieved a masters degree in the US. He was overqualified for the position he had, but was very good at it. Immigration is a complex issue, and I have a great deal of empathy for Kuldeep.