RSS
From the New York Times:
How Many Americans Would Pass an Immigration Test Endorsed by Trump?
By QUOCTRUNG BUI AUG. 23, 2017President Trump this month endorsed legislation that would effectively cut immigration to the United States by half. The bill, known as the Raise Act, would sharply reduce the share of people admitted through family ties and create a skills-based system that scores applicants on factors including age, education, income, job prospects and proficiency in English.
The Senate sponsors of the bill say their system, modeled on merit systems used by Canada and Australia, would make the United States more competitive.
This raises the question: How well would Americans do if put to this merit-based test? Ernie Tedeschi, an economist, calculated that about 2 percent of American citizens 18 or older would rack up the 30 points needed to be considered for a visa.
Unfortunately, the investment bonus points are pretty easy to attain, so 2% is an underestimate.
But, 2% sounds like a good goal.
This article is supposed to be shocking to everybody who believes in the Zeroth Amendment, but virtually nobody does, at least they don’t dare articulate it.
Personally, I took Canada’s immigration test back in 2001 and flunked:
Canada doesn’t want me
Monday, 3 September 2001 14:09 (ET)
By STEVE SAILER, UPI National CorrespondentLOS ANGELES (UPI) — Canada doesn’t want me. I just found out that, if necessary, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would bar me from immigrating into Canada. Why?
Because I’m just not good enough to be a Canadian.
With possible immigration reform much in the news in America, I decided to research Canada’s system for choosing immigrants. Perhaps America could learn something from its northern neighbor.
The Canadian government has a voracious appetite for new immigrants. The ruling Liberals intend to boost the legal immigration rate to 1 percent of the population annually, about three times the American rate. Despite that, I discovered, its official position is that the people currently living in Canada would find my joining them to be less of a blessing than a curse.
In 15 minutes, on the government’s “self-assessment worksheet” at Web site cic.gc.ca, I was able to learn that Canada’s considered judgment of me is, “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.”
On this nine-question test, a would-be immigrant to Canada must score a minimum of 60 points out of 100 to qualify to be interviewed by a visa officer.
It’s not that I particularly want to become a Canadian. I’m a loyal American, born and bred. I’ve only spent about six days in Canada in my life. From what I saw (mostly the insides of Holiday Inn Crowne Plazas), Canada seemed to be a fine country; one blessed with Holiday Inn Crowne Plazas every bit as nice as those in my native land. Still, I couldn’t resist the challenge. Was I man enough to be a Canadian?
I sat down to take the test. First, I found, you get 8 points just for having a pulse. “Hey, how hard can this be?” I said to my wife.
Then the test inquired into a series of important facts about oneself.
How old are you? I’m 42, which won me the maximum of 10 points for being in my immigrating prime. But not for long. I’ll soon enter a rapid decline. By age 49, I’ll get zero points.
How much schooling have you had? High school dropouts get zero; high school graduates, five; college grads 15; advanced degree holders 16.
Those two long years I spent getting an MBA have finally paid off! Chalk up 16 more points for me.
I’m rolling now, with a running total of 34 points.
Can you speak English and/or French fluently? I get nine points for English, but what about snagging those additional six for French? Perhaps they’d be a good sport and give me a few points just for trying to parlez la (le?) Francais? No. As anyone who has attempted to speak French has learned the hard way, trying isn’t good enough. You have to be able to “comprehend and communicate effectively on a range of general topics” — and that’s just to score three points.
So, I’m at 43 points by now.
Do you have a close relative in Canada? That’s worth five points. No. My wife helpfully pointed out that one of her Italian great-uncles stayed in Canada for a few months before he could arrange to sneak into the United States. I appreciated her suggestion, but didn’t think that would count.
Maybe I could talk one of my uncles into moving to Canada ahead of me. But what if he couldn’t qualify unless I moved to Canada ahead of him?
Thinking about this made my head hurt, so I moved on to the occupation questions.
Do you have a guaranteed job arranged in Canada? No. The closest I could come to that is to point out that last year I had a part-time job in Canada. Oddly enough, while I was living in Chicago, I was actually hired as a columnist by one of Toronto’s biggest newspapers, even though I haven’t been to Canada since 1994.
Unfortunately, I was fired almost immediately, probably because my awareness of Canadian culture was limited to knowing that it is intensely beaver-centric and that Wayne Gretzky is (was?) a hockey player.
How much formal education or training does your occupation require? To be frank, I’ve never noticed that journalism requires any. As irascible basketball coach Bobby Knight likes to point out to reporters, “Everybody learns to write by the second grade, but then most of us move on to other things.”
Yet, somebody has apparently hoodwinked the trusting Canadian authorities into awarding journalists 15 out of 18 points, the same as they give computer systems analysts and tree-service technicians.
Does Canada need more workers in your field? As a journalist, I only scored three out of 10. It would appear that Canada is quite capable of producing an ample supply of native know-it-alls and doesn’t need much help from abroad. Importing additional journalists is officially deemed less important to Canada’s well being than bringing in more blacksmiths (5 points), not to mention extra clinical perfusionists (10 points).
Whatever it is that clinical perfusionists do, Canada can’t seem to get enough of it. I tried to assure the authorities that if they admitted me — while I wouldn’t actually know how to clinically perfuse anybody (anything?) — I would definitely write hard-hitting editorials deploring the clinical perfusion shortage and demanding that Steps Must Be Taken. But there was no place on the form to indicate that.
Finally, how much work experience do you have in your trade? One year would get me two points; four or more years, eight. Unfortunately, I’ve only been a full-time journalist for 10 months. So, zero for me.
That didn’t seem fatal, since I already had 61 points. That exceeded (if barely) the minimum of 60 required to make it to the interview round.
Then I read the fine print. “If you do not [have at least one year’s experience], your application will be refused…”
“That’s ageist discrimination against people who didn’t know until they were 41 years old what they wanted to do when they grew up,” I raged.
My wife, a much-in-demand computer programmer, commiserated with me. Yet, she also seemed to be quietly gloating over her impressive score of 69. Or, perhaps, she was planning a better life for herself in Canada without her husband, that loser.
Groucho Marx said he’d never want to join a club that would have him. And, in a way, my rejection has made me appreciate the Canadian immigration system more. In contrast, the United States has no point system for choosing from among the millions of applications it gets from would-be immigrants each year.
This fundamental difference between the two countries’ immigration systems grows out of a philosophical disagreement over what the purpose of immigration should be. To a significantly greater extent than the United States, Canada tries to choose those applicants who possess the “human capital” to most benefit Canada as a whole.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Elinor Caplan explained, “Independent skilled immigrants (the largest single class of those admitted to Canada) are selected on the basis of their potential contribution to Canada’s economic and social well-being.”
Choosing immigrants wisely can make a big difference in the quality of life of current citizens. Support for the Canadian approach was uncovered by a National Academy of Sciences study of immigrants to America. It found that immigrants with below a high school education cost the country $90,000 net over their lifetimes, while those with the equivalent of a high school education cost the United States $30,000, but immigrants with a college education or more brought a net benefit to the nation of $100,000.
In contrast, the American government’s philosophy of immigration — to the extent that it actually has one — appears to be based far more on emotion than analysis.
James W. Ziglar, the Bush administration’s new head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified to the Senate in July that his “philosophy” was that America should continue to be “a magnet for the tired, the poor, the homeless, the tempest-tossed, the wretched refuse of teeming shores, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
While noble sounding, the American government’s refusal to adopt a point system or other pragmatic method for finding immigrants who would most benefit the public interest has meant that private interests do most of the choosing. Each year, the largest group of immigrants is allowed into America primarily because of nepotism. Under the massive “family reunification” system, their qualification is essentially that they are the relatives of permanent residents or citizens (usually immigrants themselves).
The next largest class of immigrants is those whom private employers sponsor because they can make a profit off their labor.
Yet, probably nothing illustrates America’s refusal to choose rationally than the little-known “Diversity Lottery.” Each year, the U.S. State Department randomly picks 55,000 lucky visa winners from 10 million applicants. This enormous number of applicants comes just from countries that don’t rank in the top 15 in providing immigrants to America. The goal of the program is to increase America’s ethnic diversity.
Yet, we could both bolster diversity and simultaneously benefit the American public directly simply by skimming from each nation’s applicants only the most promising. Instead, the government just relies on blind luck in picking immigrants.
The late congresswoman, Rep. Barbara Jordan, D-Texas, said that it is “both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest.” Canada seems to agree. The United States, however, seems to think that the distinguished stateswoman’s philosophy is discriminatory. Yet, if the government refuses to select among applicants, somebody still has to do the job. There are tens of millions more applicants each year than there are openings. Not surprisingly, special interests will be only too happy to continue to choose immigrants for us.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
This is a relatively new tack. The previous one, by former NYTer Catherine Rampell, was to argue that Trump himself wouldn’t get in under the RAISE Act.
He wouldn't need one. He was born in Queens, which last time I checked is in the United States.
I know, I know, we're supposed to ask "what if he needed one." It's like asking, "what if I were a woman," which I've done. My conclusion is always "then I wouldn't be me," so what's the point in asking?
If Trump hadn't been born here, he might need a Green Card. If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped.Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @TontoBubbaGoldstein
He wouldn't get a green card.He was flippin' born in New York City, New York State. To parents who were citizens. Jeezis peezis. I'm grateful to all of you who read this drek so I don't have to do anything but snarl and figure out how to circumlocute around the cuss words that leap to my tongue.
Why would I want to put myself to the test? I already live here.
Similarly, I don’t apply the rough test of admittance to my house faced by my friends or handimen, for instance. Whatever fine qualities everyone else in the world possesses, they lack the singular quality of being me. Me-ness is a very important consideration when it comes to access to my house, irrational as that may seem.
https://twitter.com/johnmac13/status/893534403883933697Replies: @guest, @Peripatetic commenter, @Jack Hanson, @Olorin
“Trump would not get a Green Card”
He wouldn’t need one. He was born in Queens, which last time I checked is in the United States.
I know, I know, we’re supposed to ask “what if he needed one.” It’s like asking, “what if I were a woman,” which I’ve done. My conclusion is always “then I wouldn’t be me,” so what’s the point in asking?
If Trump hadn’t been born here, he might need a Green Card. If a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its ass when it hopped.
Oh wait...never mind.
There they go again. The NYT demanding that actual, native-born Americans be thrown out to make more room for third-world immigrants.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/bret-stephens-in-nyt-wants-to-deport-americans-to-make-more-room-for-immigrants/
Demanding that your country be destroyed was, last time I checked, tantamount to treason.
The Lands of the Points (Australia, Canada) have or are mulling “values” tests. I don’t think I’ve seen any mainstream punditry saying this, but the objection does exist: But what about our intolerant conservative Christian homophobes? Our racists? Would they pass?
You can flip it around on “proposition nation” too: what if you don’t assent to the proposition?
The premise underlying these arguments is that there’s no right to pass your country down to your descendants. (Especially if your ancestors, um, “stole” it.)
Specifically, the part of the Zeroth Amendment that states that the right of anyone anywhere to claim the benefits of American citizenship exceed the rights of Americans to pass on this “asset” with its — what was it — “scarcity value” intact.
The Democratic Party is waging a war of genocidal demographic extermination against The Historic Native Born White American Working Class……
A key question the media never asks: What should the upper limit of the U.S.’s population should be? I’ve asked some leftists on twitter and they never answer. 400 million? 500 million? How about a billion? It seems to me that there are too many people in the U.S. as it is. I my idea world national parks would be quadrupled.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_IndiaReplies: @Comms, @anonymous, @bomag
A key question the media never asks: What should the upper limit of the U.S.’s population should be? I’ve asked some leftists on twitter and they never answer. 400 million? 500 million? How about a billion? It seems to me that there are too many people in the U.S. as it is. I my ideal world national parks would be quadrupled.
I have a variant of that. I got in a debate with a fairly famous leftist blogger over immigration enforcement. It started over some policy or another (drivers licenses for illegals, iirc). His claim was that he believed in enforcement but that denying them drovers licenses wouldn't help. So I asked if we should deny them in-state tuition at colleges? "That won't do any good, either." I proposed one or two other methods of enforcing our immigration laws and, wouldn't you know it, neither of those methods would do any good, either.
So I put the ball in his court. "What policies do you think would work to enforce our immigration laws?"
Crickets.
These people are liars. Their real beliefs are so extreme they don't want to admit to them.
How about this proposal. A drug test to not only become a citizen, but to get any kind of visa as well. So many Americans have to take these tests to get and keep a job, why not?
Immigrant visas already require a medical.
Drug tests in the workplace are mostly a boondoggle to provide huge amounts of income to well-connected drug test providers. I suppose they may weed out some potential employees who might become a problem later on, and for certain job categories like airline pilot it would make sense to exclude people with a history of drug smuggling.
A huge percentage of born Americans use some kind of recreational or prescription drug, many of which are narcotics or other kinds of dependency forming drugs like benzodiazepines. If anything, a positive drug test would indicate that the immigrant would fit right in.
My wife, who is an immigrant, was recently asked as part of an interview for a life insurance policy if she had ever used marijuana. She responded (truthfully) "I don't know what that is, but I don't think so." How unamerican she is!Replies: @Name Withheld
What percentage of Harvard graduates from 1975 would be admitted if they reapplied today? What about University of Virginia graduates?
This was meant to be ridiculous, but now I am seriously wondering if they will start revoking degrees of dead people. Part of me hopes that they will. It is the sort of symbolic act (like the "Robert Lee" fiasco) that reveals to the world how insane the people in charge are, while being someone limited when it comes to actual negative consequences. I'd rather have them revoking degrees than destroying art (or worse). Activists could occupy themselves with debating the lists of dead white men who need their degrees revoked, and then they could police people who inadvertently refer to John Calhoun, say, as a Yale graduate
Do it the Chinese way: Use your vast blogging fortune to buy a house or condo or business of sufficient value to qualify you for an automatic invitation.
A: Set the max US population equal to world population.
It’s not entirely ludicrous, given the propensity to apply US law and jurisdiction pretty much to the globe.
I can’t tell whether they’re being disingenuous or whether they don’t understand the ideas of citizenship or a nation.
It seems to me that if you are a true believer in “proposition nation” and paperwork-Americanism, and you really view illegal visa overstayers from Karachi as equally American to 7th generation cattle ranchers from Kansas, then the logical conclusion is if there is a test for immigrants to come in well they’re no different from us so therefore the test applies to everyone born here too.
But I might be projecting too much logic onto them.
I’ve seen a lot of people post this stuff to Facebook with “guess i have to leave” or something and literally every single one of them I’ve thought “yeah we’d probably all be better off without you here.”
As all notions of loyalty go to the dustbin because they can't compete with the modern notion of Getting More Stuff Through Moolah, so perhaps do all notions of borders. This might seem bad for the stakeholders of the citizens, but clearly the citizens aren't the most important stakeholders here.
Amazon's use and burn strategy for employees, expanded to all people! Glorious world, glorious day!Replies: @AM
I will admit that it is true that a bunch of these young SJWish types probably do not understand it. They've never thought about it ... just reflexively think it's evil. Or course when it comes to *their* stuff the idea of ownership is very near and dear to them.
How many of your own biological children would pass the considerations you use to voluntarily adopt one…
How many of your family members would pass the criteria you use to pursue an interpersonal relationship with a stranger at will…
How many members of your household would pass the criteria you use to accept a paid lodger…
Of course, left out of all these articles which show up in the US, Britain and other places is the people writing them also complain about teaching the national history of those places anyway and have spectacularly succeeded. Is the man who doesn’t know of his inheritance forfeit it?
That’s the problem. No follow through. They promise to head to Canada and just get lazy on us.
I am in Canada now, and hear the CBC news each hour. Seems that some 6000 asylum seekers have crossed the border illegally into Quebec because they are afraid that DJT will deport them. The Canadian Prime Minister said that they will have to qualify like everyone else because “we always apply the rules and the laws that make Canada proud and strong”.
There are plenty of native-born Americans who are in the same boat, so I’m not sure what his point is.
The Times is attacking immigration restrictions using a modified selfishness/equality argument:
“You can’t do X/Y/Z, so how dare you demand that others do X/Y/Z to get the same benefits that you have?”
To which the proper response is: “I get the rights, obligations and benefits of an American simply due to my good fortune in being born American, as it should be.”
Alternatively, respond: “Are you saying that since I got citizenship as an ‘accident of birth’ and not due to ‘special qualification tests’, it would be fair that everyone else in the world should be equally entitled to citizenship.”
He wouldn't need one. He was born in Queens, which last time I checked is in the United States.
I know, I know, we're supposed to ask "what if he needed one." It's like asking, "what if I were a woman," which I've done. My conclusion is always "then I wouldn't be me," so what's the point in asking?
If Trump hadn't been born here, he might need a Green Card. If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped.Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @TontoBubbaGoldstein
He would get one by marriage. Simply advertise on Craigslist. Something like: “Billionaire divorcee with Kremlin penthouse and Black Sea resort, owns several golf courses, seeks new wife. Experience in this role not necessary. Would suit nubile Caucasian model, actress or similar with no kids yet. Must photograph well, know how to use knife and fork at formal dinners, or eat finger foods at McDonalds, and be born in US or naturalized citizen of US. Immigrants welcome, but non-citizens and illegals need not apply. Sorry, just a personal preference.
Put “Last Trump” in header to show you are not a gold digger.
Should do the trick.
The US already has almost as many people as India had in 1950.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
Apocryphal, but when asked of his battlefield losses, Napoleon said that a country can quickly raise up any number of people.
That seems to be missing in these debates. Our policy makers act like each and every person is a special and unique case that can't ever be replicated, thus they are worthy of maximum effort to succor and save. Not really the situation.Replies: @International Jew
This is where leftist constituencies collide. The same people who think the nation is overpopulated tend to be the same people who think closing the borders is a hate crime
.
Immigrant visas already require a medical.
Drug tests in the workplace are mostly a boondoggle to provide huge amounts of income to well-connected drug test providers. I suppose they may weed out some potential employees who might become a problem later on, and for certain job categories like airline pilot it would make sense to exclude people with a history of drug smuggling.
A huge percentage of born Americans use some kind of recreational or prescription drug, many of which are narcotics or other kinds of dependency forming drugs like benzodiazepines. If anything, a positive drug test would indicate that the immigrant would fit right in.
My wife, who is an immigrant, was recently asked as part of an interview for a life insurance policy if she had ever used marijuana. She responded (truthfully) “I don’t know what that is, but I don’t think so.” How unamerican she is!
A chemical drug test does not have these problems. Also, it should not just be given right before citizenship is granted. The person might have been living here a long time already before that medical exam. The drug test should be given before any visa is granted, and then again when a Green Card is granted.
It seems to me that if you are a true believer in "proposition nation" and paperwork-Americanism, and you really view illegal visa overstayers from Karachi as equally American to 7th generation cattle ranchers from Kansas, then the logical conclusion is if there is a test for immigrants to come in well they're no different from us so therefore the test applies to everyone born here too.
But I might be projecting too much logic onto them.
I've seen a lot of people post this stuff to Facebook with "guess i have to leave" or something and literally every single one of them I've thought "yeah we'd probably all be better off without you here."Replies: @Barnard, @Daniel Chieh, @AnotherDad, @International Jew
They don’t understand the ideas of citizenship or a nation. Being a 7th or 10th or 14th generation American is no different to them than someone who just got off the plane.
Immigrants helped build the US, okay but the US is now built. What we needed then is not what we need now. The population needs to be leveled off since no one wants to live in some anthill of 600M or 900M people. Import the third world, become the third world. There’s no advantage to becoming a third world slag heap. Cut off all immigration except from Europe; they look like us, are mostly responsible and are needed as a demographic counterbalance to the non-white domestic population.
There is a lot of BS in that meme. They weren't partners that were needed because without them nothing would have gotten done. Mostly they were pawns in the war between management and workers or cannon fodder for the military like in the Civil War.
https://urbanworkbench.com/latecomer-agreements/
Somewhat related here is
The Most Important Gif in the World:
sourced from here: https://www.populationpyramid.net/population_size_per_country/2017/
Didn’t Cuckdeau welcome a plane full of Syrian “refugees” with “let’s welcome the newest Canadians”? Presumably none of the people on the plane would have gotten as high a score as you on this evaluation.
I took the American test and scored 100%, thank God:
1) Tired? All the time.
2) Poor? Extremely.
3) Yearning to breathe free? Sometimes, but mostly I want free shit.
4) Wretched refuse? Well duh, just look at me.
5) Teeming shore? I was standing at the shores of the disgusting Great Salt Lake as I took the test, which is just teeming with brine flies.
So I submitted my test and was told I could be admitted. Just get in line behind 2 billion other people. Or become a coyote’s manwhore and I could cut in line and get in sooner. I’m still weighing my options but have bought a considerable amount of vaseline.
I believe this would qualify as a White Supremacist belief in the current year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_IndiaReplies: @Comms, @anonymous, @bomag
Indian demographics then and now represent a shocking trend to supplement the famous African population growth graph. At least they produced the Taj Mahal.
How many naturalized citizens of the US — all of whom took an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution — have voted in a way consistent with their oath?
What is the proper punishment for oath-breakers?
The approach to American immigration policy is, as you know, taught in all the greatest B schools and followed by all the richest billionaires.
“You have a product that can only be produced in limited quantities withiut significantly reducing the quality and demand for it. How should you price and market this product?
1) Keep the price high, volume low, and market only to customers who are respected and envied by others.
2) Produce in massive quantities anyway and give it away for practically nothing, largely to people who are illiterate, stubborn, and envied by no one.”
Obviously Mark Zuckerberg, whose strategy for growing Facebook was to start by opening it only to the most elite colleges and universities, would choose option #2.
It seems to me that if you are a true believer in "proposition nation" and paperwork-Americanism, and you really view illegal visa overstayers from Karachi as equally American to 7th generation cattle ranchers from Kansas, then the logical conclusion is if there is a test for immigrants to come in well they're no different from us so therefore the test applies to everyone born here too.
But I might be projecting too much logic onto them.
I've seen a lot of people post this stuff to Facebook with "guess i have to leave" or something and literally every single one of them I've thought "yeah we'd probably all be better off without you here."Replies: @Barnard, @Daniel Chieh, @AnotherDad, @International Jew
There’s another way to see this as the increasing and accelerating ramp of capitalism as its values override all traditional notions of blood and soil. If we go back thirty or forty years back, it was still seem as relatively reasonable that companies had a responsibility to their employees up to and including pensions; vice versa, employees were not expected to quit at the drop of a hat in order to pursue “new opportunities” which usually was just a byword for financial gain.
As all notions of loyalty go to the dustbin because they can’t compete with the modern notion of Getting More Stuff Through Moolah, so perhaps do all notions of borders. This might seem bad for the stakeholders of the citizens, but clearly the citizens aren’t the most important stakeholders here.
Amazon’s use and burn strategy for employees, expanded to all people! Glorious world, glorious day!
“A key question the media never asks: What should the upper limit of the U.S.’s population should be? I’ve asked some leftists on twitter and they never answer.”
I have a variant of that. I got in a debate with a fairly famous leftist blogger over immigration enforcement. It started over some policy or another (drivers licenses for illegals, iirc). His claim was that he believed in enforcement but that denying them drovers licenses wouldn’t help. So I asked if we should deny them in-state tuition at colleges? “That won’t do any good, either.” I proposed one or two other methods of enforcing our immigration laws and, wouldn’t you know it, neither of those methods would do any good, either.
So I put the ball in his court. “What policies do you think would work to enforce our immigration laws?”
Crickets.
These people are liars. Their real beliefs are so extreme they don’t want to admit to them.
https://twitter.com/johnmac13/status/893534403883933697Replies: @guest, @Peripatetic commenter, @Jack Hanson, @Olorin
Frankly, I suspect that what she wrote was simply full of bullshit claims.
Another Conquistador American screwing with our laws:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/activist-judge-appointed-obama-blocks-texas-voter-id-law-second-time/
https://twitter.com/johnmac13/status/893534403883933697Replies: @guest, @Peripatetic commenter, @Jack Hanson, @Olorin
And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.
So Quoctrung Bui now has a job at the New York Times. Hmmmm. Our Liberal Jewish friends might want to ponder that the high-status NYT jobs you always thought were the birthright of your little Jacob’s and Hannah’s are increasingly going to people like Mr. Bui. And eventually, as he rises in the ranks Mr. Bui is going to practice precisely the same ethnic nepotism that let you take over the Times in the first place, and out you go.
So please, Liberal Jewish friends, stop the open borders propaganda. For Jacob and Hannah’s sake.
See this post by Norm Matloff where he exposes the deceit of Washington Post on this issue.
https://normsaysno.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/under-the-raise-act-there-would-be-no-raise-act/
The Best Eclipse Ever!
The whole point of immigration, in theory, is to benefit the native population. It isn’t to provide “fairness” to the global populace at large. We should do what benefits us, not them. In that light, what does it matter if native-born Americans could or could not pass a test?
Not only in immigration, but in all areas, societies must discriminate between superior individuals and inferior individuals, and make sure that standing is in proportion to merit. Failure to do this is the root of all the evil consequences of egalitarian and progressive policies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_IndiaReplies: @Comms, @anonymous, @bomag
The US has more people than any other nation in history not named India or China.
I remember some years back that The Economist was hoping for 1 billion by 2100 (dead serious with that number). Their main argument was not economic however, they wanted this number so that China could not challenge the US ruling the world. The fact that the US having 1 billion people from all over the world would then be like the world and not be stable or unified, did not cross The Economists thoughts.
So Trump is responsible for the failure of our public education system – an education system that has been controlled by liberals for the past 50 years? Only 2% would pass? Wow – we really do need vouchers.
Also think of all the leftist that WONT exist because of vouchers, tried of winning yet?
It seems to me that if you are a true believer in "proposition nation" and paperwork-Americanism, and you really view illegal visa overstayers from Karachi as equally American to 7th generation cattle ranchers from Kansas, then the logical conclusion is if there is a test for immigrants to come in well they're no different from us so therefore the test applies to everyone born here too.
But I might be projecting too much logic onto them.
I've seen a lot of people post this stuff to Facebook with "guess i have to leave" or something and literally every single one of them I've thought "yeah we'd probably all be better off without you here."Replies: @Barnard, @Daniel Chieh, @AnotherDad, @International Jew
Oh I think plenty of the savvier ones understand it just fine–they just don’t *like* it.
I will admit that it is true that a bunch of these young SJWish types probably do not understand it. They’ve never thought about it … just reflexively think it’s evil. Or course when it comes to *their* stuff the idea of ownership is very near and dear to them.
Here’s a question for the NYT:
How many people who bought houses in Brooklyn 20 years ago could afford to buy those same houses now? If the answer is “not many,” does that mean we should force all Brooklynites to sell their homes at 1997 prices?
And at least 4,000 of those illegal aliens will be getting a Canadian welfare check next week. Now you’ll be getting a lot more with that incentive to move to Canada. Here’s the link: http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/migrants-to-receive-welfare-payment-pending-case-review-report
If I weren’t a native-born American, the US wouldn’t need to import me. Why should that bother me?
I read a comment from one of the columnists at Bloomberg a couple of years ago that used the same logic. They said we shouldn’t fall any further behind China in terms of total population and lax immigration policy was the best way to increase the population. This policy causing or contributing to any social problems wasn’t even a consideration.
Immigrants helped build the US
There is a lot of BS in that meme. They weren’t partners that were needed because without them nothing would have gotten done. Mostly they were pawns in the war between management and workers or cannon fodder for the military like in the Civil War.
It seems to me that if you are a true believer in "proposition nation" and paperwork-Americanism, and you really view illegal visa overstayers from Karachi as equally American to 7th generation cattle ranchers from Kansas, then the logical conclusion is if there is a test for immigrants to come in well they're no different from us so therefore the test applies to everyone born here too.
But I might be projecting too much logic onto them.
I've seen a lot of people post this stuff to Facebook with "guess i have to leave" or something and literally every single one of them I've thought "yeah we'd probably all be better off without you here."Replies: @Barnard, @Daniel Chieh, @AnotherDad, @International Jew
If they were sincere, and thought it through, they’d quickly realize that if such a system were ever applied to American citizens, the outcome would show, um, disparate impact.
Jesus I usually hate having to point this out but this NYT article doesn’t understand Bayes Theorem.
Someone should write something sometime about the trend of journalists inventing their own insane metrics/statistics etc and also often getting basic calculations wrong on top of that. Just like saying Hillary Clinton had a 99.99% chance of winning something she didn’t, as made up by a journalist with no peer review or really any professionalism at all.
The correct estimate (even as this is a hypothetical policy with fuzzy details anyway) is that around 10% of the current US population would qualify based on the “ordinary” criteria alone. Millionaires able to buy their way (speaking English+investing 1M+ basically guarantees meeting the immigration points cutoff) and a few other categories may be at least another 10%.
So 20% or more of the current US population would be eligible to immigrate, and really that’s a higher proportion of adults because young children on their own of course meet none of the criteria.
Anyway, it’s clear they based their calculations on some ridiculous multiplication that ignored the factors they are looking at aren’t independent.
For this immigration rubric, about 20%+ of the native-born population is in the age range to score sufficient points, 95% or more of all those native-born speak English well enough for maximum points, and 40-50% have either a college degree or job/household income or combination of the two to score sufficient points to make the final cutoff. So for the vague estimate, there are about 80 million native-born”millenials” as commonly reported and maybe 35 million would be eligible to immigrate.
What the journalists did wrong was to take estimates for the total population, like so, and just multiply them:
~20% of the population is the right age
~20% of the population has college degrees
~50% of the population has sufficient income
~75% of the population speaks English fluently
But these are all correlated with each other! 1-year old infants don’t have jobs, college degrees, etc. but are part of the total US population. The above numbers are all just about correct but can’t just be multiplied together to get an estimate that only 2% of the population would attain these immigration points. (Of course college degrees and income and English proficiency etc are all correlated with each other too)
As all notions of loyalty go to the dustbin because they can't compete with the modern notion of Getting More Stuff Through Moolah, so perhaps do all notions of borders. This might seem bad for the stakeholders of the citizens, but clearly the citizens aren't the most important stakeholders here.
Amazon's use and burn strategy for employees, expanded to all people! Glorious world, glorious day!Replies: @AM
In fairness, pensions were invented during the WWII (for the most part, they exist earlier) to circumvent wage controls during the war. After, it was seen as a great way to prevent employee churn and depress wages.
The retirement age of 65 in the 20th century was roughly the age an average Westerner could be expected to encounter their first heart attack, stroke, or major cancer and die soon after.
Companies said “leave your old age to us” when looking at their actuary tables, they knew there really wasn’t one to speak of for the average person. Everyone’s wages were lowered but the company didn’t pay out very much, maybe 2-7 years for a typical retiree and then a few health odd balls, nothing more.
Modern medicine stepped in and now someone who makes it to 65 can roughly expect to make it to 80 in okay health, with it’s support.
20 year vacations at the end of someone’s life was never the historical norm for the masses. It’s quite likely that the youngest boomers will find the money runs dry, as retirement funds are actually paid out of the productivity of those still working. The clock is counting down on how many retirees we can support.
If you want employment that’s truly cradle to grave in terms of worker protection, the best options are serfdom or slavery. (I’m not joking.) Anything else requires an employer to take on the care of all sorts of people who not actually producing for the company but taking on the risk of them walking away with company knowledge at any time. A current employee’s family is bad enough…but paying them and their spouse and their medical costs for 20 years of non-work? Tough to plan for I think.
I just returned from our fly in trip to northern Canada. We flew from Toronto To Thunder Bay, Ontario, then drove farther north to Armstrong Station and then flew on a float plane to Whitewater Lake. We drove through/by the Gull River Indian reservation, an area of abject poverty and flew over thousands of acres of scrub pines and small lakes. Lots of nothingness in Canada. On our lay over in Thunder Bay I bought the local paper. Three anti Trump articles, NAFTA, you know and a Garrison Kiellor op-ed Trump hit piece. Everything I did in Canada I could do in the States. Maybe next time I discover fishing in Montana.
"You can't do X/Y/Z, so how dare you demand that others do X/Y/Z to get the same benefits that you have?"
To which the proper response is: "I get the rights, obligations and benefits of an American simply due to my good fortune in being born American, as it should be."
Alternatively, respond: "Are you saying that since I got citizenship as an ‘accident of birth' and not due to 'special qualification tests', it would be fair that everyone else in the world should be equally entitled to citizenship."Replies: @Anonymous
The good fortune to be born American, that wouldn’t be such a good fortune without it being so arranged that Americans can labor for their fortunate offspring rather than randoms.
The idea of inheritance — or of laboring to provide one — is what’s missing.
But doesn’t it make you proud to see Lady Liberty expropriate your nation and apportion it to huddled masses, to each according to their refuseness?
Immigrant visas already require a medical.
Drug tests in the workplace are mostly a boondoggle to provide huge amounts of income to well-connected drug test providers. I suppose they may weed out some potential employees who might become a problem later on, and for certain job categories like airline pilot it would make sense to exclude people with a history of drug smuggling.
A huge percentage of born Americans use some kind of recreational or prescription drug, many of which are narcotics or other kinds of dependency forming drugs like benzodiazepines. If anything, a positive drug test would indicate that the immigrant would fit right in.
My wife, who is an immigrant, was recently asked as part of an interview for a life insurance policy if she had ever used marijuana. She responded (truthfully) "I don't know what that is, but I don't think so." How unamerican she is!Replies: @Name Withheld
Well, I would point out the obvious flaw in this is that they can lie, and the doctors may not report it. After all, does the Gov’t report any stats on people not allowed in because of this.
A chemical drug test does not have these problems. Also, it should not just be given right before citizenship is granted. The person might have been living here a long time already before that medical exam. The drug test should be given before any visa is granted, and then again when a Green Card is granted.
An excellent point. Obviously, their degrees should be revoked. If some white man earned a degree from an institution that did not have enough women or blacks (or any women or blacks), this was obviously a sign that he was admitted using unfair criteria. It doesn’t matter if he might have gotten in fairly. The fact is that he didn’t. And since he didn’t deserve to get in, his admission should be revoked. And if he was never admitted, that means he couldn’t have earned a legitimate degree, so his degree should be revoked.
This was meant to be ridiculous, but now I am seriously wondering if they will start revoking degrees of dead people. Part of me hopes that they will. It is the sort of symbolic act (like the “Robert Lee” fiasco) that reveals to the world how insane the people in charge are, while being someone limited when it comes to actual negative consequences. I’d rather have them revoking degrees than destroying art (or worse). Activists could occupy themselves with debating the lists of dead white men who need their degrees revoked, and then they could police people who inadvertently refer to John Calhoun, say, as a Yale graduate
I believe we should only have immigration of those who can earn above a cutoff that well into UMC, like $100K or $120K.
BUT, above that cutoff, we should take in an unlimited number.
Realistically, immigration would still be under 1 million/year. But about 50% will be Asian (almost none will be black or browner Hispanics)…
Wow.....What a waste...The poor children.
"And NOTHING of value was lost!".
Their whole premise is wrong.
They think it is odd that a nation should want immigrants who outperform natives.
I claim that that should be the #1 premise of immigration, period.
Every immigrant should be someone who is likely to be a Top 10% or Top 20% earner.
After Trump won the presidency the Canadian immigration site was knocked out by barrage of liberal Americans who wanted to move to Canada.
It was fun to see liberals realize that Canada had tough immigration rules and they didn’t qualify.
Question for other iSteve readers:
I have intentionally avoided reading about Russia issues since the election. However, I have a co-worker who goes on about it endlessly, especially about the Christopher Steele dossier.
Does anyone have a link to a website with an evenhanded, detailed, and comprehensive overview of the Russia issues? Or, does anyone know a blog or news source that gives frequent but non-hysterical coverage of the issues?
Thank you.
They think it is odd that a nation should want immigrants who outperform natives.
I claim that that should be the #1 premise of immigration, period.
Every immigrant should be someone who is likely to be a Top 10% or Top 20% earner.Replies: @Anonymous, @anonymous
What’s with this fetish for importing market-dominant minorities?
He wouldn't need one. He was born in Queens, which last time I checked is in the United States.
I know, I know, we're supposed to ask "what if he needed one." It's like asking, "what if I were a woman," which I've done. My conclusion is always "then I wouldn't be me," so what's the point in asking?
If Trump hadn't been born here, he might need a Green Card. If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped.Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @TontoBubbaGoldstein
Of course, if he wasn’t born in the US…he couldn’t be POTUS.
Oh wait…never mind.
Trump derangement syndrome is real.
Also think of all the leftist that WONT exist because of vouchers, tried of winning yet?
BUT, above that cutoff, we should take in an unlimited number.
Realistically, immigration would still be under 1 million/year. But about 50% will be Asian (almost none will be black or browner Hispanics)...Replies: @Henry Bowman
“Realistically, immigration would still be under 1 million/year. But about 50% will be Asian (almost none will be black or browner Hispanics)…”
Wow…..What a waste…The poor children.
“And NOTHING of value was lost!”.
Considering all of the hype about coding and getting women to code, I’m surprised that you never mention this.
This also explains how your family earns a living.
It's the problem with coding in general. It's a combination of troubleshooting, linear and mathematical thinking, and geekiness that is relatively rare even in men. People can take classes in coding, but you can't really make them into programmers unless they've got the talent already there to be developed.
Maybe we should start enacting latecomer fees?
https://urbanworkbench.com/latecomer-agreements/
They think it is odd that a nation should want immigrants who outperform natives.
I claim that that should be the #1 premise of immigration, period.
Every immigrant should be someone who is likely to be a Top 10% or Top 20% earner.Replies: @Anonymous, @anonymous
Actually Western nations should refrain from all immigration of non-Western peoples, especially that of talented non-Westerners.
Taking the very talented harms the source nations and thus hinders their chance at economic growth. Just like taking the natural resources of nations a century ago is now deemed wrong and denounced as colonialism, taking the human resources of those nations today is just as wrong and is in fact a form of colonialism.
Since no more than a few percentage points of the non-European world will ever be able to move to the West, it is better to allow those nations to keep their human capital and develop their own economies. Otherwise billions of people will be stuck in non-Western nations, devoid of their top talent and destined to remain underdeveloped and impoverished.
The West should be left to sink or swim with its own human capital and should not be allowed to raid other parts of the world for talent.
Plus, there are many countries where the system does not make good use of talent. Those individuals' dreams are obstructed in their home countries. This is not just some Asian countries, but even smart people from Russia or even France.Replies: @AM, @Autochthon
The test was passed by our ancestors who built this place up from nothing. We don’t have to pass a test, we have birthright membership. Same as pretty much every other citizen of every other country on earth, so why would we even have this issue? What has the Somali goat herder or Syrian carbomber done for the US?
I also like Poul Anderson's short take on it in the book "The Van Rijn Method"
I disagree. It is not zero sum.
Plus, there are many countries where the system does not make good use of talent. Those individuals’ dreams are obstructed in their home countries. This is not just some Asian countries, but even smart people from Russia or even France.
But skimming the best of other people's nations in no way affects us or them. Also, there's nothing better for a country that does not make good use of human capital than to what they do have pulled completely from the local talent and gene pool.
Because, you know, not zero sum game for reasons that will be articulated very soon.
Also, think of how many "I'm not a racist" Pokemon candies one can collect for generously employing the inhabitants of other nations while depressing wages here. It's a miracle of endless and costless virtue combined with utter indifference to neighbors, the nation's next generation, and other countries.
Lena Dunham and Miley Cyrus both promised to leave the US but for some reason neither has left yet.
This also explains how your family earns a living.Replies: @AM
If Mr. Sailer is married to a woman who codes, then he knows they’re sort of born and not made, which is why Google’s hang wringing is divorced from reality BS.
It’s the problem with coding in general. It’s a combination of troubleshooting, linear and mathematical thinking, and geekiness that is relatively rare even in men. People can take classes in coding, but you can’t really make them into programmers unless they’ve got the talent already there to be developed.
Plus, there are many countries where the system does not make good use of talent. Those individuals' dreams are obstructed in their home countries. This is not just some Asian countries, but even smart people from Russia or even France.Replies: @AM, @Autochthon
It’s not a zero sum game because I say it’s not. Reality bends to my very will. Sure, there are finite amount of people on the planet. Sure, there are finite amount of people with any God given talent, including technical and business skills.
But skimming the best of other people’s nations in no way affects us or them. Also, there’s nothing better for a country that does not make good use of human capital than to what they do have pulled completely from the local talent and gene pool.
Because, you know, not zero sum game for reasons that will be articulated very soon.
Also, think of how many “I’m not a racist” Pokemon candies one can collect for generously employing the inhabitants of other nations while depressing wages here. It’s a miracle of endless and costless virtue combined with utter indifference to neighbors, the nation’s next generation, and other countries.
Decreasing immigration to 500-600k a year along with a more rigorous selection process would go a long way to slowing the demographic transformation of the US. The number of Europeans coming would probably stay the same, though they would likely make up 16 percent of immigrants as opposed to the current 8 -9 percent.
In terms of Canada, I can tell you from experience living in a high immigration area, that there is a huge disconnect between many of the immigrants one would expect to find with a supposedly stringent system and what you see on the ground. Each tribe has their own fiefdom and there’s very little social cohesion, except when it comes to some sports and tv shows. Many can barely speak English, so I’m not sure how they are able to accrue so many points. When I asked my Vietnamese friend (born in Canada) what his opinion was on the elementary school union removing John A MacDonald’s name from schools for politically correct reasons, he was rather indifferent but said he guess it would be ok.
Plus, there are many countries where the system does not make good use of talent. Those individuals' dreams are obstructed in their home countries. This is not just some Asian countries, but even smart people from Russia or even France.Replies: @AM, @Autochthon
I don’t care. No American should. Who are these people to me? Their dreams were obstructed? Oh, well,’in that case….
Overpopulation and invasion are obstructing my dreams, and most other Americans’ dreams. It’s our country. My occupation of my job and home and my relationship with my wife obstruct others who would surely like to have my income, residence, or matrimonial affections. I don’t care. If I come home and someone is in my living room accosting my wife, he has to go back.
Why is the concept so difficult for you? And if your ilk are indeed so very wrenched that somewhere, someone may have it worse because he is not in what used to be the U.S.A., leave. Go to France, Russia, China, Guatemala, or some such place to make room for Pepe le Pieu, Ivan Drago, General Tsao, and Speedy Gonzalez. Do it, you selfish hater, you: their dreams are being obstructed by you!
Americans are generous by nature. Particularly the right. Not the left (which you are part of, as WN is a left-wing ideology that believes in left-wing economics).
If you ever wonder why your ideology doesn't gain traction with successful white people, this is a clue.Replies: @Autochthon
My in-laws once provided me the opportunity to obtain citizenship in their Eastern European country. They had done all the groundwork and had everything all set for me. All I had to do was sit down and answer some questions from a bright, young woman at their consulate in their mother tongue.
I failed miserably.
Of course, I didn’t even want any citizenship other than mine, the greatest one on Earth, the one that I inherited from 350 years of ancestors in America. I didn’t bother to study up and improve my rudimentary language skills. (I really didn’t want this, because I don’t believe in dual citizenship. How can you play for more than one team? I am loyal to one only.)
I was only going through the motions out of politeness, but my failure made clear something we here know about Eastern Europeans: they are much wiser and tougher than westerners now with regard to the value of their homelands. They know who they are, and they know who is not them.
I couldn’t speak their language well enough, and God bless them, they refused me. I salute them.
Now, I know we in the US supposedly have some requirements for citizenship (my wife satisfied those years ago) but doesn’t it seem like the people running our world are doing everything they can to cheapen everything to the point that anybody who can fog a mirror can get in and take what our ancestors bequeathed to us?
At about 100% per generation.
The estate is the entire republic.Replies: @bomag
Read the story of Esau in the Old Testament, it totally agrees with you.
I also like Poul Anderson’s short take on it in the book “The Van Rijn Method”
https://twitter.com/johnmac13/status/893534403883933697Replies: @guest, @Peripatetic commenter, @Jack Hanson, @Olorin
No, you’re right, WaPo honker.
He wouldn’t get a green card.
He was flippin’ born in New York City, New York State.
To parents who were citizens.
Jeezis peezis. I’m grateful to all of you who read this drek so I don’t have to do anything but snarl and figure out how to circumlocute around the cuss words that leap to my tongue.
Their position is a sort of estate tax.
At about 100% per generation.
The estate is the entire republic.
Bush wanted an "ownership nation". Too bad he didn't really mean it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_IndiaReplies: @Comms, @anonymous, @bomag
Very much a point worth noting.
Apocryphal, but when asked of his battlefield losses, Napoleon said that a country can quickly raise up any number of people.
That seems to be missing in these debates. Our policy makers act like each and every person is a special and unique case that can’t ever be replicated, thus they are worthy of maximum effort to succor and save. Not really the situation.
Napoleon Bonaparte, sheesh, killed off a generation of Frenchmen, but they're still not pulling down his statues (yet).
Whoever best utilizes genetic engineering will rule the world in 2100. Population size won’t matter nearly as much. 1 billion people in the U.S. would of course be a catastrophe.
At about 100% per generation.
The estate is the entire republic.Replies: @bomag
Which turns the citizens into renters.
Bush wanted an “ownership nation”. Too bad he didn’t really mean it.
That is why you, like all White Trashionalists, are un-American.
Americans are generous by nature. Particularly the right. Not the left (which you are part of, as WN is a left-wing ideology that believes in left-wing economics).
If you ever wonder why your ideology doesn’t gain traction with successful white people, this is a clue.
The Most Important Gif in the World:
https://i.redd.it/ga9btbblynhz.gif
sourced from here: https://www.populationpyramid.net/population_size_per_country/2017/Replies: @Anon
This is superb – great for those on whom numbers and graphs are lost
Americans are generous by nature. Particularly the right. Not the left (which you are part of, as WN is a left-wing ideology that believes in left-wing economics).
If you ever wonder why your ideology doesn't gain traction with successful white people, this is a clue.Replies: @Autochthon
– What is my ideology?
– Please define “White Trashionalism,” and how I am a part of it, in the context of this ideology.
– I’m pretty successful by most definitions of that term, and my ideology (which may or may not be what you have decided it is) has a lot of traction with me, and plenty of similarly successful people: both those I know personally and those who are famous, public persons.
The USA was a better country with 100MM than 200MM and better with 200MM than 300MM. We should be aiming at a long term return to 100MM.
First we need to stop immigration. We should be paying recent arrivals and involuntary immigrants (reparations!) to return home if they’re in any way dissatisfied. Then we should let birth rates drop. When we hit 100MM, we can always get birth rates back up to stability.
Also, more national parks would be great. Trump’s Interior Sec’y Ryan Zinke is releasing a report suggesting that we should close beautiful and historic national monuments and turn them over to oil and coal companies. It’s sick and wrong. We need two parties that compete to protect more of our natural and historic heritage, not two that compete to destroy them faster.
Apocryphal, but when asked of his battlefield losses, Napoleon said that a country can quickly raise up any number of people.
That seems to be missing in these debates. Our policy makers act like each and every person is a special and unique case that can't ever be replicated, thus they are worthy of maximum effort to succor and save. Not really the situation.Replies: @International Jew
As it happens, Napoleon was wrong. France was a demographic juggernaut when he took over — half of Europe’s population and a high rate of growth. But in the century after Napoleon, it hit the brakes. Previously underpopulated Germany overtook it and all the others caught up somewhat.
Napoleon Bonaparte, sheesh, killed off a generation of Frenchmen, but they’re still not pulling down his statues (yet).