appeal to logic trumps your appeal to experts. logically, a larger total labor supply yields a unit cost of labor less than a smaller total labor supply
To me their intentions and motivations are irrelevant, I care about what the results would be. I don't think that lowering the number of unskilled immigrants that come into the country every year would be a bad thing so I can't think that doing so would be bad no matter what secretly motivated it. When you get wrapped up in motivations rather than focusing on what something actually is then you end up attacking WHO did something as opposed to attacking WHAT is actually being done.....which is a fallacy.
Reasonable point. To me, I think it's a bit easy to say, "Hey, I'm already here, and so is my family- why should I care about letting anyone else in?" I"m not saying that is your sentiment, but I'm sure there's quite a few who feel that way. As for whether lowering the number of unskilled immigrants is a good or bad thing, that would depend on one's interpretation of unskilled. As far as the language requirement, I'd have to see historically whether this has been a requirement or not- if so, then we can't fault them for introducing it- if it's a brand-new requirement, then, I'm sorry, but there's absolutely a racial element to it. I don't know enough to comment definitively, so I will refrain from more comments until I am more educated about it.
How about we do this- we ship out all the Texas Rangers fans and replace them with immigrants- no matter what background the immigrants have, they'll certainly be an upgrade in this situation.
When there is one standard for everyone, it's not "racial" to require people to speak English. Language is not a race. It doesn't benefit an Italian over a Mexican. In both examples, the person would have to learn a second language. Now you can say that the person with better education holds and advantage over the uneducated person, but that's not racial in any way. An educated Nigerian is going to hold the advantage over an uneducated Russian.
It isn't a zero sum game and low skilled Americans will still have low skills.... The bigger issue is that too many Americans just aren't hirable.
And it likely won't get passed... perhaps not even brought up for a vote. Trump ran it out there either to distract from bad news or to shore up the base (white non-college educated whose numbers are slipping re: latest Q poll). Sorta curious how Ted Cruz and Mario Rubio speak to this as both senators have parents that were immigrants (and I am pretty sure Cruz's dad didn't speak English upon arrival).
We need to keep in mind that the language and skill requirements are not the only aspect of this bill. Greatly limiting what family members can come is a much greater problem. I will use my own family as an example. My grandfather died in the mid 70's in Taiwan my grandmother then came to the US to follow the eldest of her children who had settled in Minnesota. Along with her also came with her youngest children including the youngest son who was only in grade school then. Those children went on to state universities here in American, became very successful including becoming a Silicon Valley entrepeneur and a high tech executive in Minnesota. They went on to have families with children of their own who are also on their way to success. My grandma didn't speak English and never really learned it. My two young uncles were only students who didn't yet have any skills. They were able to come here because the immigration laws allowed for immigrants to bring their extended family if the RAISE Act had been in place then none of that would've happened. My family's story isn't unusual nor exceptional there are millions of immigrant families out there with the same story. Even if my grandmother never directly contributed to the economy of this country while using health care her descendents have and continue to greatly contribute to the wealth of this country. This bill only looks at things through a narrow zero sum shortsighted view. It only looks at an immediate return and protection of a narrow class of workers. The success and vitality of this country never came from that sort of thinking.
The bill passes as currently written? Sure, don't know how tip jar bets work, and as someone paying two daughters through college my bet amount may seem meager but would $10 work?
I don't think the bill will need more than one vote. I am not versed enough to know if the current version will be the one voted on but I am sure he won't have to change much.
Except it isn't actually logic. The supply is only true if all potential employees want every job out there. Not every applicant wants or is willing to do every low skilled job. Furthermore, even though the jobs are called low skills, certain people are still better for certain jobs so the demand for the workers isn't equal either. Secondly, it's not an appeal to experts, it's an appeal to actual evidence and studies that were done. So again the studies have reached conclusions based on research and data. Which leaves us with the following possibilities... 1. The law of supply and demand you are talking about doesn't apply in this situation. 2. These studies which do show that there isn't a significant negative impact on the wages and availability of low-skilled labor jobs as a result of low skilled immigrants are studies that disprove the "ironclad" law of supply and demand.
A while back I explained that low skilled immigrant workers actually tend to increase the earnings of low skilled US workers. I explained it in a grotesquely simplistic manner, thinking, erroneously, apparently, that he would be able to understand it. Unsurprisingly, he prefers to ignore, no, deny facts that compete with his preferred narrative.
Again, what has the historical standard been? Were the European immigrants required to speak English?
That's not terribly relevant to now though. How things were hundreds of years ago when the nation had a tiny population and essentially no social programs can't be compared to today where the country has no population shortage and a the nation spends more than half of their budget on entitlement programs. Given the circumstances, you can afford to be a bit more picky about who you let in and give preference to better candidates over unskilled candidates who don't even speak the language. Is it racist of Canadians to require a certain level of proficiency with either the French or English language (reading, writing, and speaking) in order to become a Canadian citizen?
all else being equal is a fantasy.... communism doesn't look too bad on paper, then human got involved
