Here's the link to the USA Today article on the new "immigration
criteria bill" that has recently gone into the Senate for debate.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-20-immigration-plan_N.htm
__________________________________________________________________
"'Of the more than 1.2 million people who immigrated last year, fewer
than 13% were admitted based on job skills. The [new] Senate bill
would change the equation to set aside about one-third of
the immigration slots each year for people who earn admission based
on a points system designed to measure their ability to succeed in
the economy.
'The [new] system would give an advantage to those people who are
highly educated, have skills that are in demand in the USA, have
worked here, have relatives here and are fluent in English.'"
__________________________________________________________________
I feel somewhat neutral on the bill, seeing as I have no knowledge on
how effective the search for the "more advantageous" immigrants
would be, but I suppose it has potential.
So, on to the debate. Do you support the proposed bill? Why or why
not? What do you think the criteria should be immigration into the
U.S.? How large a factor should family connections play in deciding
immigration status (also addressed in the article)?
Originally posted by wittywonkaThe family connection thing is probably a good idea. Having family here would give an immigrant a great head start. The point system also sounds solid (though it is politics, so who knows how it will be used)
Here's the link to the USA Today article on the new "immigration
criteria bill" that has recently gone into the Senate for debate.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-20-immigration-plan_N.htm
__________________________________________________________________
"'Of the more than 1.2 million people who immigrated last year, fewer
than ...[text shortened]... mily connections play in deciding
immigration status (also addressed in the article)?
The part I don't like us the Z visa. Its basically amnesty, but they say its not cuz the alien has to pay a fine. It also, if I understand correctly, gets them out of all back taxes. I'm pretty sure a lot of Americans would like a sweet deal like that.
If all illegal immigrants were summarily expelled from the U.S. tomorrow, the economy would plunge into a deep recession. The business sector knows this full well, which is why not even the Republicans are proposing simply "throwing them all into the ocean". Now the trick for Corporate America and its Washington puppets is to have the cake and eat it too, as in: "How can we look like we're being tough on immigration (to appease fascists and rednecks who might vote) while at the same time retaining a vast pool of exploitable labor (to appease non-outsourceable Big Businesses that depend on domestic wage-slaves)...? And while we're at it, can we in any way gouge immigrants of their cash -- say, $5000 or so -- to ensure they stay trapped in a cycle of poverty and desperation?"
Originally posted by wittywonkaDo you support the proposed bill?
Here's the link to the USA Today article on the new "immigration
criteria bill" that has recently gone into the Senate for debate.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-20-immigration-plan_N.htm
__________________________________________________________________
"'Of the more than 1.2 million people who immigrated last year, fewer
than ...[text shortened]... mily connections play in deciding
immigration status (also addressed in the article)?
No
Why or why not?
It doesn't address closing the border or the problem with all the Mexican nationals sitting in U.S. prisons (one estimate said they cost California taxpayers $1 billion annually; I would guess that they cost the taxpayers of other border states like Arizona, Texas and Florida just as much). This must take place before anything meaningful can transpire. The current Senate bill is far too complex and too unenforceable and would cause the ruination of the country as an inassimilable group would put overwhelming pressure on already stressed communities, social programs, law enforcement agencies, the environment, schools and hospital waiting rooms. The Republicans want this because it means more profits; Democrats want this because they see it as a way to hoodwink a whole new class of voters and thus ensure that the United States becomes socialist without obstruct, since most of these new "Americans" would sell their Constitutional rights for a breakfast burrito. I have a far simpler solution: Why not instead cut off the social benefits, including public schools, free lunch programs, Medicare, etc.? Then the illegal immigrants would stop coming.
What do you think the criteria should be immigration into the
U.S.?
Any immigrant to the United States:
Must want to become an American.
Must speak English.
Have graduated high school.
Have marketable skills.
Have contacts and an employer waiting.
Have enough funds to sustain themselves for the first six months.
How large a factor should family connections play in deciding
immigration status (also addressed in the article)?
Very small. Mexicans have very large extended families. Chain immigration resulting from amnesty for the 12-26 million illegals already living in the United States could explode that number to 80-120 million more as an endless parade of brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, aunts and uncles migrate northward.