Quote:Trump says he wants immigrants 'who speak English' and won't 'collect welfare' Trump, who promised during his election campaign to reform the immigration system, argued that the bill, called the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, would replace "our low-skilled [immigration] system with a points-based system."
"They're not going to come in and immediately go and collect welfare," he said.
Under a 1996 welfare reform bill signed by President Clinton, legal immigrants are already barred from receiving government benefits for five years or longer. Some exceptions include children and human trafficking victims who allowed to collect certain benefits.
The RAISE Act would establish a point-based system for issuing green cards and would give more points to people who are highly skilled — which, Trump suggested, would reduce the number of immigrants receiving government benefits.
"For some people, they may think that's a symbol of America's virtue and generosity," Cotton said of the current immigration system. "I think it's a symbol we're not committed to working-class Americans. We need to change that."
Trump, along the same lines, said the new legislation would lead to higher pay for American workers and "help ensure that newcomers to our wonderful country will be assimilated, will succeed and will achieve the American dream."
According to the Department of Homeland Security, 1,051,031 immigrants gained permanent residency in the United States in 2015.
It's unclear when the Senate may take up the new legislation. The initial immigration reform bill was opposed by some Republicans and business groups and has been stalled in the Senate.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has already criticized the measure, saying it would hurt his state's economy.
Some immigration reform advocates also disagree with the idea that the RAISE Act would contribute to better wages.
"This bill slashes overall legal immigration by 50 percent -- the biggest reductions in a century -- which would severely harm the economy and actually depress wages for Americans," said Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, an immigration reform advocacy group founded by
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and others in the tech industry.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also expressed doubt that the RAISE Act would improve the employment landscape.
"The goal of moving to a more skills-based immigration system that meets the diverse needs of our economy is a good one and one long championed by the Chamber," Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration, and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce said. "But dramatically reducing overall immigration levels won’t raise the standard of living for Americans. In fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite, making it harder for businesses, communities, and our overall economy to grow, prosper, and create jobs for American workers."
But, other groups that want stricter immigration laws have expressed support for the new legislation. NumbersUSA president Roy Beck said in a statement that the RAISE Act "will do more than any other action to fulfill President Trump's promises as a candidate to create an immigration system that puts the interests of American workers first."
Sen. Perdue, R-Georgia, also rejected criticism of the proposed legislation. He said he does not believe the RAISE Act would unfairly discriminate against Latino workers, who accounted for 48.3 percent of the foreign-born labor force in 2016 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"I don't see that that's well founded at all," Perdue said. “What this does is let everyone compete individually."
Besides Trump saying HE will do things that the law already does I'll leave this gem from a good friend of mine concerning Trump "protecting the American worker" with this proposal:
Quote:Maybe I am understanding this all wrong?
We are going to stop the flow of unskilled workers so that Americans can have those low wage jobs and allow skilled English speaking workers to come in and have our skilled higher paying jobs?
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
I don't necessarily like the plan, but it makes some sense if you want to draw the line somewhere. The issue is the idea that he thinks it protects jobs. That is simply lip service to the "working class", but logically as pointed out it makes no sense. If your only letting in more skilled immigrants then you are hurting your middle class more than helping them.
(08-03-2017, 09:15 AM)Au165 Wrote: I don't necessarily like the plan, but it makes some sense if you want to draw the line somewhere. The issue is the idea that he thinks it protects jobs. That is simply lip service to the "working class", but logically as pointed out it makes no sense. If your only letting in more skilled immigrants then you are hurting your middle class more than helping them.
And I think their argument that "speaking English" is a requirement for citizenship means nothing. They can learn English and become a citizen, that should be obvious. That is not a logical reason to tie it to immigration.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
I'm never a fan of skill qualifications for immigrants. Give me the person who will take whatever job they can get with the hope that they can work their way to something bigger.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(08-03-2017, 09:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I think their argument that "speaking English" is a requirement for citizenship means nothing. They can learn English and become a citizen, that should be obvious. That is not a logical reason to tie it to immigration.
If your looking for least resistance into assimilation, what they are going for, then being able to speak English from the start would be the best way to do it. Like I said I don't agree with it, but it makes more logical sense that speaking English is a reasonable expectation than saying those very same highly skilled English speaking immigrants won't be taking jobs. To be fair it is technically already a requirement, but there is a waiver. There is also a language requirement for citizenship in most countries, so it really isn't radical.
I'm trying a new approach to Trump topics. I am going to look for some positives in things to try and give a more balanced starting point for discussion.
(08-03-2017, 09:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: If your looking for least resistance into assimilation, what they are going for, then being able to speak English from the start would be the best way to do it. Like I said I don't agree with it, but it makes more logical sense that speaking English is a reasonable expectation than saying those very same highly skilled English speaking immigrants won't be taking jobs. To be fair it is technically already a requirement, but there is a waiver. There is also a language requirement for citizenship in most countries, so it really isn't radical.
I'm trying a new approach to Trump topics. I am going to look for some positives in things to try and give a more balanced starting point for discussion.
Anyone who is coming here for a job probably already knows the language, correct.
And it is a requirement for citizenship.
But the Administration's argument that saying all immigrants need to speak English to come here is radical.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(08-03-2017, 09:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: Anyone who is coming here for a job probably already knows the language, correct.
And it is a requirement for citizenship.
But the Administration's argument that saying all immigrants need to speak English to come here is radical.
You have to speak English to enter the U.K. and they aren't the only ones to have a language requirement, as I pointed out you need to do it already for citizenship in the U.S. . Really the language thing is a red herring for the 50% reduction in admittance numbers.
This plan will lose support of many ag producing states. Go into a tobacco field, soy bean field, western cattle farm, etc., and the majority of workers are migrant labor. Most of them don't speak English and don't really need to, they're here two-four months doing work Americans won't do (and as someone who has cut tobacco, you've got to have a strong work ethic to do it 8-12 hours a day in the heat making $10.60 an hour).
Agriculture is still one of our biggest exports. This will make it much harder to find labor. But I wonder what it will do to ag subsidies.
This liberal CNN "reporter" Jim Acosta a piece of work.
This was a press conference. He's supposed to be asking questions, instead he engages in a debate as one would running for office.
Completely embarrassing himself believing the Statue of Liberty was placed there to welcome immigrants... among other things.
Miller patronizes Acosta by referencing his "statue of liberty law" lol.
Apparently when everyone was saying we had to go after violent criminals and those that weren't going through the proper channels it meant we had to go after people with traffic violations and people trying to go through the proper channels.
The ideas aren't 100% bad. Nothing wrong with wanting high-skilled people to come here. But slashing legal immigration like this will be more detrimental than anything.
This is a point or merit system. Being able to speak English gets you points. I'm not certain that the inability to speak English is an automatic disqualification. Perhaps it is, but until we learn how this point system works will we then be able to critique it.
Side note, I was at a family function for my girlfriend's family and one of her uncles was bitching about going to the bank and seeing an option for "Spanish." And I said "...So you took all your money out of that bank and put it in one that doesn't cater to Spanish-speaking customers, right?"
I said it with enough goofy inflection that no one got too upset with me. Ah well, we just want the government to save us from the ease of making bad decisions, eh?
(08-03-2017, 07:39 PM)Vlad Wrote: This is a point or merit system. Being able to speak English gets you points. I'm not certain that the inability to speak English is an automatic disqualification. Perhaps it is, but until we learn how this point system works will we then be able to critique it.
MAGA baby.
I should be clear that this is just another idea thrown against the wall by the POTUS in the hopes that it will stick enough to make the base think he actually did something. But I don't think it will be instituted. At least not any time soon.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
When TV news viewers saw Trump adviser Stephen Miller accuse Jim Acosta of harboring a “cosmopolitan bias” during Wednesday’s news conference, they might have wondered whether he was accusing the CNN White House reporter of an excessive fondness for the cocktail made famous on “Sex and the City.” It’s a term that’s seldom been heard in American political discourse. But to supporters of the Miller-Bannon worldview, it was a cause for celebration. Breitbart, where Steve Bannon reigned before becoming Trump’s chief political strategist, trumpeted Miller’s “evisceration” of Acosta and put the term in its headline. So did white nationalist Richard Spencer, who hailed Miller’s dust-up with Acosta as “a triumph.”
Why does it matter? Because it reflects a central premise of one key element of President Donald Trump’s constituency—a premise with a dark past and an unsettling present.
So what is a “cosmopolitan”? It’s a cousin to “elitist,” but with a more sinister undertone. It’s a way of branding people or movements that are unmoored to the traditions and beliefs of a nation, and identify more with like-minded people regardless of their nationality. (In this sense, the revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine might have been an early American cosmopolitan, when he declared: “The world is my country; all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”). In the eyes of their foes, “cosmopolitans” tend to cluster in the universities, the arts and in urban centers, where familiarity with diversity makes for a high comfort level with “untraditional” ideas and lives.
For a nationalist, these are fighting words. Your country is your country; your fellow citizens are your brethren; and your country’s traditions—religious and otherwise— should be yours. A nation whose people—especially influential people—develop other ties undermine national strength, and must be repudiated.
One reason why “cosmopolitan” is an unnerving term is that it was the key to an attempt by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin to purge the culture of dissident voices. In a 1946 speech, he deplored works in which “the positive Soviet hero is derided and inferior before all things foreign and cosmopolitanism that we all fought against from the time of Lenin, characteristic of the political leftovers, is many times applauded.” It was part of a yearslong campaigned aimed at writers, theater critics, scientists and others who were connected with “bourgeois Western influences.” Not so incidentally, many of these “cosmopolitans” were Jewish, and official Soviet propaganda for a time devoted significant energy into “unmasking” the Jewish identities of writers who published under pseudonyms.
What makes this history relevant is that, all across Europe, nationalist political figures are still making the same kinds of arguments—usually but not always stripped of blatant anti-Semitism—to constrict the flow of ideas and the boundaries of free political expression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, for example, has more and more embraced this idea that unpatriotic forces threaten the nation. As Foreign Policy put it in 2014:
“The new theme of Russian politics [is] the conflation of loyalty to the Kremlin with patriotism. It says much that dissidents at home, from journalists failing to toe the official line to protesters on the streets, are castigated either as outright ‘foreign agents’ (every movement, charity, or organization accepting foreign money must register itself as such) or else as unknowing victims and vectors of external contamination — contamination, that is, from the West, whose cosmopolitanism and immorality Putin has come to see as an increasing threat to Russia’s identity.”
That same notion has characterized the politics of the former Soviet bloc. In Hungary, the president of its Parliament has repeatedly denounced his political opponents as “people without a country,” loyal only to values like freedom, contemptuous of tradition and religion.
Its prime minister, Viktor Orban, has openly advocated for “illiberal democracy” and launched a campaign against the Jewish financier and philanthropist George Soros. In Poland, the reigning Law and Justice Party sees the nation besieged by dangerous influences. An article last year in World Press succinctly summarized the situation:
“In the party’s propaganda the country is in ruins, its economy robbed blind by international capital, while the foreign ownership of some newspapers and other types of mass media outlets made Poland into a colony, infecting Poles’ minds with rootless cosmopolitanism. … What is at stake is Polish Christian national values that must be protected at all cost, namely the linguistic and religious homogeneity of the country. Only Poles should reside in Poland, and a proper Pole must be a Polish-speaking Catholic.”
In one form or another, such sentiments have been at play in the politics of the Netherlands, Germany, France, and (in less blatant form) in the Brexit vote in Great Britain last year.
And they undergirded much of Trump’s campaign. One of its central premises was that “globalists,” regardless of ideology or party, were undermining American interests—by bringing low-skilled workers to our shores, by building factories in other lands, by letting international financial institutions grow rich while hollowing out American cities and towns.
“We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon,” Trump said in his inaugural address. “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be—always—America First.”
To be clear: Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller would angrily wave away any suggestion that they are echoing the sentiments of anti-democratic political movements, much less anti-Semitic dog whistles. But there is no evading the unhappy reality that to label someone a “cosmopolitan” carries with it a clear implication that there is something less patriotic, less loyal … someone who is not a “real American.”
So maybe the next time Miller wants to duel with an obstreperous reporter, he might consider going back to “elitist”—that’s a real homegrown insult.
I thought that was a "weird" term to throw out there. But given Miller's style I just chalked it up to a talking point he wanted to get out. Turns out I was right.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(08-06-2017, 09:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: Well, you learn something new everyday.
I thought that was a "weird" term to throw out there. But given Miller's style I just chalked it up to a talking point he wanted to get out. Turns out I was right.
Oh another dog whistle directed at nobody because nobody would have any idea of this history.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
