Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by oragator1, Jan 11, 2018.
Your visits (which you refuse to expound on) have nothing to do with easily available data.
you're right. I missed one more classic
which you then walked back in a matter of minutes....
On the same page
You do live in their country. They are immigrants to the US. This country belongs to them just as much as it does to you.
Were you "given" food, shelter, and a job? Or did you earn it?
The question wasn't how does one go about learning. The question is about the government making someone do something.
Imagine the notion that we'd
Why would they need to expound on anything for you to pick apart? I can only speak to my experience and as best I know there's no "Shithole Quotient."
And that's all besides the point anyway. 1) the president shouldn't be saying this and 2) he shouldn't be showing preference to "Norway" over "shithole" countries. And if you can't read the message there your head is in the sand.
The reality is if Obama crapped the bed half as bad as Trump did this year you'd be ballistic. And this is coming from someone who is not particularly enamored with Obama.
Norway is number one on the world human development index. It has nothing to do with race.
Again, you guys are scared to admit that merit based immigration without the national quotas Democrats are trying to preserve would favor disadvantaged countries. There are meritorious people in every nation, so the question of motivation to emigrate will be the largest factor. People in great countries would be significantly less motivated to emigrate than are people in crappy countries.
What do you mean by "merit?" Define the term.
Often, new immigrants do jobs that other people do not do. One reason for Lindsey Graham's views is that South Carolina is a service state. It needs immigrants for service jobs.
Some years ago, Alabama decided to do Joe Arpaio style immigration enforcement. Farmers could not get people to work farms.
So, who gets in? Who does not? And, what will be the effect on the economy?
There already is a program for exceptional immigrants to get visas.
Every third world nation has an elite educated in America, and that elite should be welcomed here if they would like to stay, all things being equal. The point is that immigration in the future should be structured to benefit the US, and having the majority of immigrants being unskilled workers needing substantial state support does not benefit the US. Although it obviously benefits the Democratic party. Or should I call it the Democratic plantation.
quote="Minister_of_Information, post: 10235760, member: 3575"]Every third world nation has an elite educated in America, and that elite should be welcomed here if they would like to stay, all things being equal. The point is that immigration in the future should be structured to benefit the US, and having the majority of immigrants being unskilled workers needing substantial state support does not benefit the US. Although it obviously benefits the Democratic party. Or should I call it the Democratic plantation.[/quote]
Elite, educated people can get into the country to jobs now anyway under exceptional immigrant visas and other programs.
So, when we only accept elite immigrants, who will do the jobs that unskilled immigrants or new immigrants currently do that US citizens generally do not want too? Picking crops on farms? Cooks? Dish washers? Housekeeping in service industries? Etc. What is the effect on business and the US economy if we get rid of these people?
I am not sure how having immigrants who cannot vote benefits the Democratic party, or what the "Democratic Plantation" is, so I am not going to respond to your comment. But, I recognize it for what it is.
And this a photo taken in rural Kentucky, not atypical of Appalachia or dissimilar from areas in the Mississippi delta (minus the snow).
And yet, their immigrants to the US obtain fewer college degrees than those from Africa. So why should we want them instead of the Sub-Saharan immigrants?
Sounds like you're arguing for a merit based system, instead of the country quotas Democrats are trying to save. I'm glad we agree.
I am actually not. But why would arguing against Sub-Saharan African immigrants in favor of less educated Norwegians be an argument for merit-based systems?
As I've said many times on this thread, merit based immigration will automatically favor underdeveloped countries. And the quota system favored by Democrats appears to rest on the racist assumption that people from underdeveloped nations cannot compete with people from the developed world, despite the statistics you've just trotted out.
But I'm curious. Are you making a serious assertion that Norwegians as a group are less educated than sub Saharan Africans? Or do you understand the phenomenon whereby more sub Saharan Africans per capita obtain degrees in the US than do Norwegians without me explaining it to you?
Not really. That requires a set of pretty dubious assumptions.
This is a neat trick. So Trump specifically chooses to compare Sub-Saharan African immigrants, with higher degree obtainment, to Norwegian immigrants, with lower degree obtainment despite trying to make the point exactly opposite to the empirical data, but it is racist to point out that it is offensive and racist that he chose that ordering, despite the fact that it doesn't match the empirical evidence? Yeah, that doesn't follow.
Norweigian immigrants in the US are. Empirically. And that is who Trump wants instead of the Sub-Saharan Africans that we do take.
So if they obtain degrees in the US, how would they be eligible for merit-based systems, given that they wouldn't have had the degrees entering?
Right. Like the dubious assumption that significantly fewer Norwegians per capita are interested in immigrating to the US than are sub Saharan Africans as a group.
You are of course dissembling, as you have yet to dispute Norway's global human development index, while deliberately limiting the conversation to what happens to people the US. There can be no doubt that Norwegians are among the very most educated and productive people on earth by any measure. Naturally Norwegians are better served in their home country and have no need to travel to the US for their education, compared to sub Saharan Africans. In addition, Norwegians are noted for their technical and engineering expertise in a number of important industrial sectors. Indeed my company employs a number of Norwegian expatriates in various senior technical positions. So no, it is quite clear that Norwegians are one of if not the best example of a group of people ready to contribute at a very high level to any economy. It wouldn't matter if they were purple. Attracting these kinds of people -- whatever their origin or ethnicity -- is a great net benefit to our nation.
Student visas have never been connected to immigration quotas, and presumably would remain totally separate from the regular immigration system. Indeed a return to the home country is an explicit condition of most student visas. What will change is the lack of enforcement that has turned these student visas into a pathway for illegal immigration. Once educated and legally returned to their home countries, these newly educated prospective immigrants would of course have a massive leg up in any merit based immigration system. So no, I'm quite comfortable with my argument that a quota less system will be both more fair to everyone including the US taxpayer, and strongly in favor of immigrants from underdeveloped countries.