Since Trump’s days as a candidate running to win the nomination for the Republican Party, Trump has said that the US needs greater legal immigration. Libertarians living in echo chambers have discerned that all moving about of people is ‘legal’.
Trump has advocated for a more robust approach to immigration to allow for many more people to enter into the process of immigrating.
There is a difference between being unchecked entrance into the US and then a process to weed out with background checks.
Again, in 2016, Trump talked about increasing legal immigration because ‘a growing economy will need more people’.
Exactly, this is just one of many times that Trump talks about increasing legal immigration and the second time he proposes that every graduate in America stay working in America.
Trump seems to think it as a way to steal talent from Europe, India and China. Not because Trump believes in the net benefits of immigration, but because he sees it as a zero-sum game; e.g. if we don't have the best AI engineers, then China does.
Uummmm….. he didn’t advocate for only highly skilled workers, albeit that it is where he sought the greatest increase for the reasons you stated.
He did advocate for increased legal immigration of low skilled workers, as well. He said that for our economy to grow significantly as he expected it to, that we needed a large increase of immigration.
He has a lot of fans who are low-IQ, low-info voters, many of whom just hate foreigners and people who can't pass a paper-bag test. But it wouldn't matter, since they have no-one else to go to who matters and most don't read snd won't notice anyway.
He also has a lot of high-IQ, high-info racist voters who are either deluded into thinking he's some sort of messiah, or accelerationists whose only priority is to move the Overton Window, and they'd be far more hurt. But they're far smaller and less powerful than the nonracist high-IQ, high-info voters, so no one cares what they think.
Trump was President for 4 years. If he is so much for legal immigration, in what way has he used his executive power to make it easier for people to immigrate legally?
Congress sets the law. Is there existing law which the executive branch could have used to move legal immigration quotas higher?
As was the bargaining for dreamers. Trump couldn’t act on it alone. He was dealing with Majority leaders for legalizing ‘dreamers ‘ in exchange for greater security funding. Congress has to appropriate funds.
As an obvious example, the US immigration authorities has for years interpreted the law (which is at best vague on this subject, and likely against congressional intent) as including the families of green card recipients against the green card quota. This - once again - is something on which the law can be interpreted othyerwise, and it's highly likely that Congress has intended the families of GC recipients to not be so included. Simply directing the relevant agencies to adopt the interpretation that Green Card recipients' families not be included in the quota would have freed up over 200,000 green cards per year. I observe that this has not happened.
Any US bureaucracy has dozens, hundreds of avenues in which there is leeway in the interpretation of the law, which is exactly what allows the Executive to act. Yet the Executive has not acted.
Trump had no problems directing the executive to interpret the laws in as necessary for his agenda when it suited him. To a great degree this is part of the power of the President. (The abolition of Chevron deference doesn't abolish this entirely.) Obviously Trump didn't have any problem doing this to direct NDAA funding to be used to build Ze Wall, or to ban bump stocks. Weird, this.
I repeat…. Donald Trump has advocated for increasing legal immigration and speeding up the process for entry since 2016. He has said, on many occasions that the US needs increased immigration. But, that it should be done via processing, background checks, etc.
A similar policy has inspired immigration backlash in Canada. I think fixing the housing situation and getting more housing built is necessary to do alongside it.
Yes, the housing is really the problem; I've seen very little hostility to immigration per se in Canada, but strains on housing and, to a lesser extent, public services are the key issues.
Basically Canada did that since approximately 2000 (not quite, but STEM students get preferential treatment). My daughter was given a social insurance card upon arrival, two year citizenship path if employed in Canada upon graduation, and immigrant status for my wife and I if we applied. It was very different to how foreign students were treated thirty years prior when I went to university there.
Now the government blames the housing shortage on immigrants.
Had came here to make the same points. Sad that the Canadian government didn’t factor in the infrastructure it needed to build to adjust for the population growth.
More than not factoring in infrastructure, they actually made it harder to develop the infrastructure than it was before. They signed on to the climate hysteria instead of being rational about resource allocation, and this is what caused the housing shortage and extreme price hikes.
This is just one of many times that Trump talks about increasing legal immigration and the second time he proposes that every graduate in America stay working in America.
Trump seems to think it as a way to steal talent from Europe, India and China. Not because Trump believes in the net benefits of immigration, but because he sees it as a zero-sum game; e.g. if we don't have the best AI engineers, then China does.
As per other commenters, this is essentially what happens in the UK for the last few years already and is part of why the Conservatives are about to get exterminated.
So even if it were all true, expect it to only last until the next election, the backlash would be monumental. (Not that I expect politicians to deliver on their promises or to resist deeply entrenched interests).
Aren’t American universities already suffering enough from everybody trying to repurpose them for completely off-mission goals? I’d like to expand legal immigration! But turning universities into the gatekeepers sounds like it could have terrible side effects.
Trump was President for 4 years. If he is so much for legal immigration, in what way has he used his executive power to make it easier for people to immigrate legally?
I have family in Toronto and this is basically the Canadian immigration system.
Punjab literally has billboards advertising college mills. Honestly it's a win - win - win for everyone. Canadians get cheaper labor, Punjabis get to not live in Punjab, and colleges get a funding stream.
Green cards already come with a lot of restrictions on availability of welfare.
Even with no welfare programmes accessible at all, the green cards would still be a good deal.
Btw, I think Mitt Romney was talking about income taxes only? To pay no taxes at all, you'd have to somehow not buy anything that has a sales tax on it.
Before income taxes were introduced, 100% of your country paid no income taxes at all. But I'm not sure that says a lot.
Btw, taxing-and-spending are pretty inefficient, so don't expect all of taxation to add up to all benefits received. (Budget deficits and surpluses complicate the discussion further.)
But surely after a couple of years at an American college, most of them would become communists.
(Ho Ho!)
Since Trump’s days as a candidate running to win the nomination for the Republican Party, Trump has said that the US needs greater legal immigration. Libertarians living in echo chambers have discerned that all moving about of people is ‘legal’.
Trump has advocated for a more robust approach to immigration to allow for many more people to enter into the process of immigrating.
There is a difference between being unchecked entrance into the US and then a process to weed out with background checks.
Again, in 2016, Trump talked about increasing legal immigration because ‘a growing economy will need more people’.
Exactly, this is just one of many times that Trump talks about increasing legal immigration and the second time he proposes that every graduate in America stay working in America.
Trump seems to think it as a way to steal talent from Europe, India and China. Not because Trump believes in the net benefits of immigration, but because he sees it as a zero-sum game; e.g. if we don't have the best AI engineers, then China does.
Uummmm….. he didn’t advocate for only highly skilled workers, albeit that it is where he sought the greatest increase for the reasons you stated.
He did advocate for increased legal immigration of low skilled workers, as well. He said that for our economy to grow significantly as he expected it to, that we needed a large increase of immigration.
He has a lot of fans who are low-IQ, low-info voters, many of whom just hate foreigners and people who can't pass a paper-bag test. But it wouldn't matter, since they have no-one else to go to who matters and most don't read snd won't notice anyway.
He also has a lot of high-IQ, high-info racist voters who are either deluded into thinking he's some sort of messiah, or accelerationists whose only priority is to move the Overton Window, and they'd be far more hurt. But they're far smaller and less powerful than the nonracist high-IQ, high-info voters, so no one cares what they think.
Smh…… comment is a low IQ rant filled with misnomers and ad hominem for the purposes of fulfilling your wish to be hateful.
Go read a book, meditate, find peace in your soul, and drink a tea with chamomile.
Your comment is for pew sitters filled with rage as tv tells you to be upset and angry. Turn off the tv and think for yourself.
Trump was President for 4 years. If he is so much for legal immigration, in what way has he used his executive power to make it easier for people to immigrate legally?
Congress sets the law. Is there existing law which the executive branch could have used to move legal immigration quotas higher?
As was the bargaining for dreamers. Trump couldn’t act on it alone. He was dealing with Majority leaders for legalizing ‘dreamers ‘ in exchange for greater security funding. Congress has to appropriate funds.
As an obvious example, the US immigration authorities has for years interpreted the law (which is at best vague on this subject, and likely against congressional intent) as including the families of green card recipients against the green card quota. This - once again - is something on which the law can be interpreted othyerwise, and it's highly likely that Congress has intended the families of GC recipients to not be so included. Simply directing the relevant agencies to adopt the interpretation that Green Card recipients' families not be included in the quota would have freed up over 200,000 green cards per year. I observe that this has not happened.
Any US bureaucracy has dozens, hundreds of avenues in which there is leeway in the interpretation of the law, which is exactly what allows the Executive to act. Yet the Executive has not acted.
Good example!
Why not do as other admins have done and just interpret it to fit suit his own want?
Not acting on such an ability to interpret a vague legislation to one’s own will could be done, as we have seen with the Biden admin.
Going forward, such reinterpretations won’t be allowed with Chevron being overturned.
I am saying that trump has throughout his run for president and as president stated the need for greatly increased legal
Immigration with a preference for skilled labor. He did include the low skill (agricultural) but prioritized skilled.
Trump had no problems directing the executive to interpret the laws in as necessary for his agenda when it suited him. To a great degree this is part of the power of the President. (The abolition of Chevron deference doesn't abolish this entirely.) Obviously Trump didn't have any problem doing this to direct NDAA funding to be used to build Ze Wall, or to ban bump stocks. Weird, this.
I repeat…. Donald Trump has advocated for increasing legal immigration and speeding up the process for entry since 2016. He has said, on many occasions that the US needs increased immigration. But, that it should be done via processing, background checks, etc.
I'm doing a master's degree in Germany because tuition is 300 euros a semester.
If doing it in America, guaranteed me a green card, I'd drop out, and gladly pay $50,000 USD to do my master's in America.
A similar policy has inspired immigration backlash in Canada. I think fixing the housing situation and getting more housing built is necessary to do alongside it.
Yes, the housing is really the problem; I've seen very little hostility to immigration per se in Canada, but strains on housing and, to a lesser extent, public services are the key issues.
Trump said about the same thing in 2015.
Basically Canada did that since approximately 2000 (not quite, but STEM students get preferential treatment). My daughter was given a social insurance card upon arrival, two year citizenship path if employed in Canada upon graduation, and immigrant status for my wife and I if we applied. It was very different to how foreign students were treated thirty years prior when I went to university there.
Now the government blames the housing shortage on immigrants.
Had came here to make the same points. Sad that the Canadian government didn’t factor in the infrastructure it needed to build to adjust for the population growth.
More than not factoring in infrastructure, they actually made it harder to develop the infrastructure than it was before. They signed on to the climate hysteria instead of being rational about resource allocation, and this is what caused the housing shortage and extreme price hikes.
Immigrants didn't cause Canada to stop building houses. That was the watetmelon environmentalists, who are a plague upon the Free World.
What about the NIMBYs?
This is just one of many times that Trump talks about increasing legal immigration and the second time he proposes that every graduate in America stay working in America.
Trump seems to think it as a way to steal talent from Europe, India and China. Not because Trump believes in the net benefits of immigration, but because he sees it as a zero-sum game; e.g. if we don't have the best AI engineers, then China does.
"If I believed Trump was in earnest, I’d even consider voting for him."
And for every new vote gained by such a harebrained scheme, ten current ones would be lost. Open borders is for losers.
Trump is an inveterate liar who will say anything to anyone and forget it the day after to the extent it suits his purposes.
As per other commenters, this is essentially what happens in the UK for the last few years already and is part of why the Conservatives are about to get exterminated.
So even if it were all true, expect it to only last until the next election, the backlash would be monumental. (Not that I expect politicians to deliver on their promises or to resist deeply entrenched interests).
Well, Trump won't care about the next election, unless he manages to abolish term limits.
Aren’t American universities already suffering enough from everybody trying to repurpose them for completely off-mission goals? I’d like to expand legal immigration! But turning universities into the gatekeepers sounds like it could have terrible side effects.
Small loss, really.
I'm starting to think you may actually be brain-damaged
Trump was President for 4 years. If he is so much for legal immigration, in what way has he used his executive power to make it easier for people to immigrate legally?
I have family in Toronto and this is basically the Canadian immigration system.
Punjab literally has billboards advertising college mills. Honestly it's a win - win - win for everyone. Canadians get cheaper labor, Punjabis get to not live in Punjab, and colleges get a funding stream.
What percentage of the world population would be a "public charge"? It's not negligible. Probably more than half, no?
Why?
Most Americans get more in transfers than they pay in taxes. After all, as Mitt Romney could tell you, like half the country doesn't pay taxes at all.
Green cards already come with a lot of restrictions on availability of welfare.
Even with no welfare programmes accessible at all, the green cards would still be a good deal.
Btw, I think Mitt Romney was talking about income taxes only? To pay no taxes at all, you'd have to somehow not buy anything that has a sales tax on it.
Before income taxes were introduced, 100% of your country paid no income taxes at all. But I'm not sure that says a lot.
Btw, taxing-and-spending are pretty inefficient, so don't expect all of taxation to add up to all benefits received. (Budget deficits and surpluses complicate the discussion further.)
This would mostly jack up the credential inflation. With so many college grads floating around, you won't be able to be a waiter without a degree.
Seems to be a price worth paying.