Immigration bill's demise suggests many are OK with status quo

[Ivaiting 0]

I was wondering if the people intending to migrate on merit basis (based on the new bill) would do so considering that they will have to be seperated from their family for the rest of their lives?

One of the reasons that most brilliant immigrants came to the US was that eventually they could aspire to live close to their family while building a successful career. Family based immigration has been the cornerstone of the values that the American society has been built on. Also, the immigrant's family members get educated and take up work that are intended to be filled up by immigrants on the guest worker or merit based immigration programs. Educating and employing people here in the US and providing them with skills required for the jobs which have no takers rather than bringing in people educated outside the US with little or no connection with family and society would be a better solution over time. Most social scientists would agree that family based communities have far lesser crime rates and are far better economically than communities with members disconnected to each other. Limits on 'chain migration' may be enforced by law either by readjusting the numbers or by working out methods by which beneficiaries of family based immigration are excluded from sponsoring other family members.

Most people (including me) are worried about the rising population in the US and the stress that it puts on the services sector, health care, welfare programs, schools and social benefit programs. A strong border and stringent rules on overstaying visitors may solve the problem of increasing illegal immigrant populations. The laws for the same are already there, but there is no will to enforce these laws. Strict enforcement of the law with severe penalties for employers who employ illegal aliens may also add as a deterent to illegal immigration.

A purely merit based immigration system will provide no incentive to intending immigrants who will eventually think only about going back to their native country. This will be a huge drain to the American economy as money and investments that would be spent here in the US will flow out now. Immigrants will want to invest in a country that they are more closely attached while their presence in the US would only be for the earning potential that it provides, thereby bleeding the economy.

Just my 2 cents!

I follow the law but am no law maker!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I know it's an unpopular view here on this site, but I think moving away from a family based immigration policy to an economic one makes sense to me.

Could you show me evidence that they had not already moved in that direction in the 1990's?

The priority dates on VisaBulletin certainly give me that impression.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Limits on 'chain migration' may be enforced by law either by readjusting the numbers or by working out methods by which beneficiaries of family based immigration are excluded from sponsoring other family members.

I don't disagree with much of what you say. But the quoted part worries me. Think about this or a second: You're essentially advocating the creation of a second class citizen - the naturalized citizen. What's next? They only get half a vote?

[Ivaiting 0]

Hmm.........Food for thought....................

I guess realignment of visa numbers would adequately guard against explosive increase in immigrant numbers. Curtailing privilages for certain citizens may not be a good idea afterall. Point taken...................ET-US2004!

[Caladan 19]

Couple thoughts:

1) Once again, deportation of millions of people is pretty unlikely because it's nearly fiscally impossible. So call it 'amnesty' or whatever you want, but any reasonable solution will allow them to stay.

2) Any restriction in the family-based visa class, imo, will kill the fiancé visa. The public perception of the fiancé visa isn't two people in love being reunited, but of some rich loser buying a desperate third-world girl off the Internet, or for some scheming foreigner to marry an American for the green card. That's not true, of course, but all it's going to take is a human interest story of someone who can't bring her aging mother to the United States while "This guy met a girl in person once, they communicate in broken English, and she's eligible for a green card."

3) Steven, I think you're underestimating how much of a draw for immigration it is to know that if you, the immigrant, make it in the U.S., you can make a better life for your whole family. I think one way we retain the world's talent is by making it an attractive place to settle, not just to study.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Couple thoughts:

1) Once again, deportation of millions of people is pretty unlikely because it's nearly fiscally impossible. So call it 'amnesty' or whatever you want, but any reasonable solution will allow them to stay.

2) Any restriction in the family-based visa class, imo, will kill the fiancé visa. The public perception of the fiancé visa isn't two people in love being reunited, but of some rich loser buying a desperate third-world girl off the Internet, or for some scheming foreigner to marry an American for the green card. That's not true, of course, but all it's going to take is a human interest story of someone who can't bring her aging mother to the United States while "This guy met a girl in person once, they communicate in broken English, and she's eligible for a green card."

3) Steven, I think you're underestimating how much of a draw for immigration it is to know that if you, the immigrant, make it in the U.S., you can make a better life for your whole family. I think one way we retain the world's talent is by making it an attractive place to settle, not just to study.

My point was that if the number of immigrants coming into this country is a concern (I happen to think it isn't) then it's more practical to focus the attention on granting visas based on labor trends. I think in the larger scope of global economics, migration will have a continuous ebb and flow to where populations of immigrants will never be big problem.

[Ivaiting 0]

Hi Steven & Jinky

Don't you think granting LPR status based on labor trends (especially when it involves low skilled workers) is a short term measure? Isn't it better to train people with the necessary skills right here in the US? This approach will further neglect what needs to be done at the grassroots level - which is bolster the US education system and give incentives to people ready to take up careers in those fields with severe employee shortages. Importing cheap labor from abroad only puts further stress on the entire system. Also, keep in mind that once these immigrants become citizens they are no more cheap labor! Again reverting back to my old argument - it is not a permanent solution. (As to why the folks in Washington are persistent - Big corporations pull the strings (even purse strings!) - I assume they want to maximize profits in the short term and don’t care what happens to the country in the long term)

Regarding highly skilled workers my belief is that to truly attract the best talent in the world you have to provide them with enough security not only for themselves, but for their entire family. Highly skilled workers command competing salaries in most parts of the world now. The one reason why they have been drawn to the US is because they believed that they could build a good life not only for themselves but for their entire family. Complete repeal of the family based immigration system will only result in turning away brilliant people.

Enforcement of the law (aka securing the borders, strict employee verification and employer penalties) and judicious lowering of immigrant numbers will bring the growth in immigrant population down which the Government seems reluctant to do.

Hi Caladan

That's exactly my point! You don't attract talent by a system which isolates people from their families. Reagrding the Amnesty plea................ my take is - if the laws had been properly implemented in the first place, we wouldn't have to deal with this problem now! The President seems to think that securing the border is linked to............deciding who comes in and who stays out (changing immigration law)!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hi Steven & Jinky

Don't you think granting LPR status based on labor trends (especially when it involves low skilled workers) is a short term measure? Isn't it better to train people with the necessary skills right here in the US?

I used to lean more towards protectionism, but in this global economy, it's like trying to close the barnyard after all the cattle have left. We have experienced a huge exodus of manufacturing jobs as an example and they're not coming back any time soon. I think a more pragmatic approach is to accept global economics but work towards fair trade and labor practices. I just read where Ireland is trying to lure skilled foreign workers - this is a global issue and we've got to find creative ways to work within a global economy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I used to lean more towards protectionism, but in this global economy, it's like trying to close the barnyard after all the cattle have left. We have experienced a huge exodus of manufacturing jobs as an example and they're not coming back any time soon. I think a more pragmatic approach is to accept global economics but work towards fair trade and labor practices. I just read where Ireland is trying to lure skilled foreign workers - this is a global issue and we've got to find creative ways to work within a global economy.

1) How is this amnesty bill doing anything at all to address fair trade and labor practices?

2) Ireland isn't just throwing the floodgates open or rewarding scores of illegal migrants. Ireland currently has the strongest growing economy in Western Europe or at least ranks very high in the top range. They're in need of skilled labor so they're trying to attract the right individuals. That's a smart approach which, if taken here, I would have no problem supporting (as long as it doesn't go at the expense of family unity). Again, the amnesty bill in Congress isn't doing much in that direction either.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I used to lean more towards protectionism, but in this global economy, it's like trying to close the barnyard after all the cattle have left. We have experienced a huge exodus of manufacturing jobs as an example and they're not coming back any time soon. I think a more pragmatic approach is to accept global economics but work towards fair trade and labor practices. I just read where Ireland is trying to lure skilled foreign workers - this is a global issue and we've got to find creative ways to work within a global economy.

1) How is this amnesty bill doing anything at all to address fair trade and labor practices?

2) Ireland isn't just throwing the floodgates open or rewarding scores of illegal migrants. Ireland currently has the strongest growing economy in Western Europe or at least ranks very high in the top range. They're in need of skilled labor so they're trying to attract the right individuals. That's a smart approach which, if taken here, I would have no problem supporting (as long as it doesn't go at the expense of family unity). Again, the amnesty bill in Congress isn't doing much in that direction either.

1) Not sure I follow you - I never made that claim. I was answering a question directed at my previous post.

2) I never suggested throwing the floodgates open for immigration. I suggested that we find creative ways to address labor trends in this country.

What's your proposal for remedying the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I used to lean more towards protectionism, but in this global economy, it's like trying to close the barnyard after all the cattle have left. We have experienced a huge exodus of manufacturing jobs as an example and they're not coming back any time soon. I think a more pragmatic approach is to accept global economics but work towards fair trade and labor practices. I just read where Ireland is trying to lure skilled foreign workers - this is a global issue and we've got to find creative ways to work within a global economy.

1) How is this amnesty bill doing anything at all to address fair trade and labor practices?

2) Ireland isn't just throwing the floodgates open or rewarding scores of illegal migrants. Ireland currently has the strongest growing economy in Western Europe or at least ranks very high in the top range. They're in need of skilled labor so they're trying to attract the right individuals. That's a smart approach which, if taken here, I would have no problem supporting (as long as it doesn't go at the expense of family unity). Again, the amnesty bill in Congress isn't doing much in that direction either.

1) Not sure I follow you - I never made that claim. I was answering a question directed at my previous post.

2) I never suggested throwing the floodgates open for immigration. I suggested that we find creative ways to address labor trends in this country.

What's your proposal for remedying the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas?

1) I thought we're discussing the amnesty bill in this thread. My bad.

2) You're supporting to formally immigrate upwards of 12 million people via one Congressional act regardless of their skills and qualifications. I should be ashamed for equating that to throwing the floodgates open. We do get to select who immigrates after all: those that chose to disregard the laws of our land. Great choice!

Bringing in millions of unskilled and low skilled workers won't address the problem of the demise of manufacturing jobs in the US. Those new immigrants will, if anything, compete with those displaced by the loss of those jobs. It's a double whammy for America's blue collar workers. Their jobs go overseas and those that could work those jobs overseas come here to compete with those same workers over what's left. Seems wrong to me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bringing in millions of unskilled and low skilled workers won't address the problem of the demise of manufacturing jobs in the US. Those new immigrants will, if anything, compete with those displaced by the loss of those jobs. It's a double whammy for America's blue collar workers. Their jobs go overseas and those that could work those jobs overseas come here to compete with those same workers over what's left. Seems wrong to me.

So you're satisfied with a labor market shift from manufacturing jobs to low-end jobs so long as those jobs are filled with Americans?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bringing in millions of unskilled and low skilled workers won't address the problem of the demise of manufacturing jobs in the US. Those new immigrants will, if anything, compete with those displaced by the loss of those jobs. It's a double whammy for America's blue collar workers. Their jobs go overseas and those that could work those jobs overseas come here to compete with those same workers over what's left. Seems wrong to me.

So you're satisfied with a labor market shift from manufacturing jobs to low-end jobs so long as those jobs are filled with Americans?

Some will be able to move up into positions that require additional skills and / or education. And others won't be able to do that. It's the latter that I'd rather see left with an option to take a step back than to end up in total despair. And if they weren't competing with a flood of lower paid illegals or lower paid unskilled laborers, they might just stand a chance of making a half way decent wage in those jobs.

That aside, the influx of millions of low and unskilled workers is not exactly preventing the shift in the job market. Rather, it seems that it would be accelerating it. Else, we would have no need for the millions of low and unskilled workers we're looking to import.

Edited June 14, 2007 by ET-US2004