- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Sounds great. Might make the period longer than two weeks when bumped by a citizen. That's not very long.
They might need to move, for instance.
And I think ones participation in the program, working paying taxes, obeying the law, etc should count in ones consideration for citizenship. "Try outs" for new citizens. Not sure if that conflicts with the part about not giving preference. If its easier to come here to work under your plans, wouldn't that be a winnowing process?
I'm not sure of your reasoning on this point.
But that's just details.
You know. If elections were publicly funded, I bet we'd already have solutions to a lot of our problems. As it is, most of our legistlators spend most of their time begging for money and working for those who give it to them.
Thank you.
Blue:
Maybe. I'd nonetheless start by legislating two weeks and see whether that period is too long or too short and allow it to, after two years, be amended administratively rather than legislatively, the law stipulating, however, that the minimum period be one week.
Red:
- Yes, it does run counter to the "no preference" constraint my proposal contains.
- I understand why you (others?) might want to have it be that way, and maybe it should.
- My thinking is this:
- The goal of the "no preference clause" is to modify existing policy so as to close a gap in it by creating a win-win "playing field" for employers, permanent residents, citizens and migrants.
- There are various bases by which one can apply for permanent residency, and one of them is by way of employment. I don't desire that the provisions above alter the extant employment prioritization model.
- I wouldn't have wealthy foreigners using the provisions I've proposed to hasten or improve their chances of obtaining permanent residency, beyond the advantages they already have by dint of being wealthy to begin with.
Pink/Off-Topic:
Public funding of federal elections would abate a host of inefficient and inequitable behaviors extant in our electoral and policy making processes. That said, that's really beyond the scope of this thread.
Perhaps a two tier system. I have read that many illegals who work seasonally would prefer to go home in the off season.
So maybe a "no citizenship ever" type temporary worker visa and a second type that IS an "audition"?
I understand prioritizing skilled labor. But simply put, a lot of illegals do work Americans won't do for what it pays, even if it was minimum wage. Picking vegetables sucks. So some unskilled, "just labor" types are needed.
Are you thinking we'd get too many unskilled-never-going-to-be-skilled types? I'm still not sure what you are concerned about.
Red:
I realize that there appears to be work that Americans won't do. I have a problem with there being Americans of that mind; however, acknowledging that there is work that needs doing, if Americans won't do it, I'd yet see someone do it before I see business owners not thrive because nobody's doing it.
Blue:
No.
Pink:
What about my explication of what I had in mind do you not understand?
Teal:Its a miscommunication.
Lets try this.
It seems to me that you oppose any "credit" for immigrant workers who come here and do well. Obey the rules, work hard, even help out in their communities.
I read the primacy of skills link. I tend to agree. You I think will take the next part as meant.
I have concerns about those at the lower end of the intellect scale. A lot of the lower half. The world's economy is leaving them behind. Many simply weren't born with the chops to get a "good" job. Will never design software or logos or ad campaigns or anything not soon to fall to machines. It worries me. I feel for them. What does our future hold for them? Good, hardworking, dependable people who aren't profitable to employ.
And that carries over to the immigrants.
So that part of what you outline concerns me, but the rest seems fair and reasonable so I am positing that this part is as well, but I don't "Grok" your position yet.
And I'm sure Americans would do the work, just not for peanuts. My fathers family were migrant farm workers and sharecroppers. Its hard grinding work. The kind that breaks you down. You won't learn much to help you improve your lot doing it, beyond a work ethic and a will to do anything else. But if it paid OK people would do it. But that would drive food prices way up.
...
Teal:
That one comes to the US, works to fill roles American citizens and permanent residents refuse to fill, and then one returns to one's own country does not strike me as a reason to give one priority consideration for permanent residency status.
Red:
Elements of US immigration policy is this thread's topic.
The status you've noted (black bold) is somewhat concerning to me regarding American permanent residents and citizens. In the context of US immigration policy, it concerns me not regarding Americans or permanent residents, and especially not re: migrants who must or would return to their own countries.
In a foreign aid context -- which is a matter of foreign policy not immigration policy, which is domestic policy that pertains to foreigners upon their arrival in the US -- such things may concern me, and I may, in that context, be amenable to US largesse designed to ameliorate such individuals' plight(s), but I wouldn't at all support doing aso as a feature of US immigration policy.
To the extent the status you've noted exists among Americans and US permanent residents, policies other than immigration policy need to provide the means for managing/attenuating it.
Blue:
I think you imagine I have motives, perhaps some sort of social engineering ones, other than establishing coherent immigration policy that achieves ends other than those noted in my OPs (Part I and Part II). I don't.
That's the, as you put it, position. I wouldn't even call the above listed set of things a "position," for what they are is policy/behavioral outcomes I would see realized.
- I want a well publicised and easily understood immigration policy that:
- Encourages people to come legally to the US if they have a reason and authorization to do so
- Encourages people to leave when their reason and authorization ceases to exist
- Ensures Americans and permanent residents aren't denied jobs due to immigrants having them
- Ensures that employers have access to the labor they need to purchase
- Makes it, with high certainty of being so, unprofitable for employers to purchase unauthorized labor
Pink:
The noted behavior is economically obviously economically irrational. My proposals encourage rational behavior and dissuade, indeed penalize irrational behavior.
Tan:
More folks earning wages would have no consumer-adverse impact on domestic (grocery) food prices. Why?
No matter how much income one earns (in developed nations), one doesn't demand more food; one may, however, demand different foods, say, more beef and less chicken, or more prepared food and fewer commodity groceries. In economies with profound starvation, sure, a huge share of the population (>~25%) suddenly earning wages would increase, food prices because of the material increase in demand.
Further keeping US grocery food prices from changing due to wage increases is TANF, which serves to fix the quantity of food demanded. As you likely observe in your own behavior as well as from the above video groceries are inferior goods; thus even as US prepared food prices may increase, grocery prices won't materially do so; thus the normatively detrimental outcome related to rising food prices -- low income earners can't feed themselves -- fails to come to fruition.
OK. You are talking about what I fleeced to as "guest workers". We used to do that, not sure why we stopped.
As I said, a lot of illegals doing seasonal work, which includes construction and landscaping (which aren't really jobs Americans won't do) would prefer to go home in the off season. But they don't for obvious reasons.
So we are in agreement.
Your command of the language is impressive. Its pretty rare for me to need to re-read posts or ask for clarification. But I enjoy it!
....
Your command of the language is impressive. Its pretty rare for me to need to re-read posts or ask for clarification. But I enjoy it!
That's mighty generous of you to say in response to typo-laden post you quoted. I just reread it. I appreciate your being able to "read around" them. Props.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?