The Trump Presidency – 2016

[NobodyHere]

At this point it's pretty likely that China will overtake the US in technology. Besides "borrowing" technology from the US look at the number of STEM graduates China is producing compared to the US.

Unfortunately I think it's more of a question of when than if.

[Edward64]

Article from South China Morning Post on the impact of the trade war to China. Take it for what its worth.

Ultimately saying that manufacturers are continuing to leave China and moving to other areas like Vietnam, Thailand etc.

I have to do more googling but it would seem that we should encourage more manufacturing to move to India and that region vs SE Asia. I don't see "made in India" tags and wonder if there is an opportunity there to help beef up India and strengthen that relationship. Probably because of infrastructure and availability of skills needed ...

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-e...e-2020-despite

Weeks after switching on the machines of a new production line near Bangkok, veteran manufacturer Larry Sloven has a quip for the stream of companies leaving China: “Elvis has left the building.”
:
:
This is a situation playing out in boardrooms around the world, as international companies accept the reality that the US-China phase one trade deal will not materially improve the lay of the land for their Chinese-based operations.

Rising labour and environmental costs, a head-spinning regulatory environment, the ever-looming threat of more and higher tariffs, along with a sharp increase in the perception of risk associated with living and working in China mean that the manufacturing exodus that began at the tail end of the last decade will continue well into this one.
:
:
As a direct result of trade war tariffs, China has fallen behind Mexico and Canada to become the US’ third largest trading partner. Before the trade war, it was number one.

Tariffs saw China’s trade in goods surplus with the US fall by 7.9 per cent in November, according to data released by the US Census Bureau on Tuesday. This was amid a 20.84 per cent fall in Chinese exports to the US from a year earlier, including items like cellphones. US purchases of Chinese goods are now at their lowest point since March 2013.
:
:
“For every foreign company that left China in 2019, there were two to three more seriously contemplating doing so and we expect more companies to leave China in 2020 than in 2019,” wrote Dan Harris, founder of Harris Bricken, an international law firm working extensively in China, in a blog post.

A director at a company supplying accessories to Apple – who spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the topic – said the US tech giant had told them that they should plan to leave China if they were to be kept on as a supplier, forcing them to scout for new production sites in Southeast Asia.
:
:
Consultant Evans said that the “first wave” of companies leaving China started moving 12 to 18 months ago, while the “second wave started mid-2019”.

A brief period of armistice in the US-China relationship is unlikely to stop more waves in the future, as foreign companies continue to wean themselves off the Chinese manufacturing dream that has helped shape the global economy for the past 30 years.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

At this point it's pretty likely that China will overtake the US in technology. Besides "borrowing" technology from the US look at the number of STEM graduates China is producing compared to the US.

Unfortunately I think it's more of a question of when than if.

China has surpassed US in some technology areas and adoption already. They are leading in 5G. They are not yet leading on AI. I do think we can significantly reduce their progress with some measures (admittedly going to be very controversial, not saying it'll be easy) and don't think all is lost.

Some examples, I'm sure there are many more:

1) Reform immigration. Assuming security concerns can be taken care of, let all the highly educated immigrate easily to the US, this includes Chinese, Indians, Israelis etc. whoever. Yes, get rid of dual citizenship.

2) Reduce or don't allow Chinese to study in our higher education institutions. Maybe undergraduate but focus on PhDs.

Immigration reform & education are probably the biggest bang for the buck for immediate results.

Other stuff:

3) Partner and strengthen relationships with countries that lean US and lean away from China e.g. India, majority of SEA. Give them incentives to continue working with US and away from China

4) Reduce incentives of US firms to work with China (may need to be a law). Yeah, the almighty buck is a strong incentive to do business with China but put in incentives and restrictions

5) There is a China bubble somewhere and we should try to and/or hope it bursts. In the 80's it was all about Japan Inc. buying up US properties. Then it popped and the lost decade because lost 2 decades and we don't worry about Japan as much anymore.

Is this protectionist? Yes, specifically to one country. Will prices increase? Yes in short term but it will stabilize some as manufacturing move to other places and new markets are opened to US businesses.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

1) Reform immigration. Assuming security concerns can be taken care of, let all the highly educated immigrate easily to the US, this includes Chinese, Indians, Israelis etc. whoever. Yes, get rid of dual citizenship.
.

Just curious why people that have higher education should have an easier path to citizenship than an equally qualified immigrant that was not able to complete a college degree? The work force needs unskilled labor too and why not focus on improving educational opportunities for those already here? And if I was told I had to relinquish my British citizenship I would tell the government to kiss my Limey ass.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Just curious why people that have higher education should have an easier path to citizenship than an equally qualified immigrant that was not able to complete a college degree? The work force needs unskilled labor too and why not focus on improving educational opportunities for those already here? And if I was told I had to relinquish my British citizenship I would tell the government to kiss my Limey ass.

People with higher education (e.g. PhD) should have an easier path because I believe it is a semi-zero sum game. "Brain drain" allows the US to get a country's best and brightest, it helps the US and hurts the other country. I'm all for the brightest talent coming over especially from China but honestly from anywhere.

For unskilled labor, I've got multiple posts on holistic immigration reform which includes more guest workers. Devil is in the details of this but conceptually I agree we need more "legally" (e.g. south of the border).

Is this racist? No. Is it discriminatory? Yes.

On dual citizenship, I've got prior posts on this also. I immigrated and I took the oath. I personally feel if you take the oath to be naturalized and reaping the great benefits of this country, having a dual citizenship is incongruent to the oath and shouldn't be allowed (obviously the US government thinks otherwise). It says:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Yes, JPhillips has said China doesn't allow you to renounce their citizenship when you become US naturalized, but I think there is plenty we can do to enforce it if we choose to (e.g. let's cut up your passport, do not allow you to get a new Chinese passport etc.)

Also, I understand it goes both ways. US citizens naturalized in some other countries can hold dual citizenships. US citizens obviously benefit from being able to straddle dual citizenships and get the benefits (e.g. work in the other country). Nevertheless, it personally seems wrong to me.

[Galaril]

Best way to compete with China is to educate our own expel more with science, math and technology funding in the school systems. The main reason I regularly as an executive in cyber security have to pursue overseas applicants or outsource some roles or functions is there just aren’t enough (any) qualified US candidates. The ones that are qualified here in the US are mostly Indian and Chinese along with some from EU.

[Kodos]

More fodder for the Tesla/Elon Musk discussion.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/inves...lue/index.html

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Best way to compete with China is to educate our own expel more with science, math and technology funding in the school systems. The main reason I regularly as an executive in cyber security have to pursue overseas applicants or outsource some roles or functions is there just aren’t enough (any) qualified US candidates. The ones that are qualified here in the US are mostly Indian and Chinese along with some from EU.

It doesn't seem that we can fill all the needs organically/homegrown talent for whatever reason (e.g. lack of interest, demand for technology skills far outpaces supply etc.).

Would you want to give these specialized skills from India, China, EU etc. more quota slots, fast pass to naturalization or you think it should be organic growth? They may not be PhD's, and I know specialized skills are already given a preference but seems we can expand it significantly (... and also help remediate some SS and entitlement challenges).

[JPhillips]

Legal immigration is down 43% from 2016 and foreign grad schools students are down as well. This admin isn't interested in getting more educated immigrants, it wants to eliminate non-European immigration, or at least get as close to elimination as possible.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Do you honestly think anyones mind will be changed? Trumpers will scream it is fake news and their orange god will tell them we are getting rich off them. The rest of us already know the American consumer eats the cost.

This. In the end, Trump people only believe what the Great Leader tells them.



This plays into my fear of what is going to happen in this election. Following mass and unprecedented voter suppression throughout the country, Trump wins, and gains in the senate along with retaking the House. Once that happens, all safe-guards are gone, and Trump takes over the entire government. Who are what is going to stop him? Definitely not congress. A judicial system stuffed to the rim with Trumpist?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Legal immigration is down 43% from 2016 and foreign grad schools students are down as well. This admin isn't interested in getting more educated immigrants, it wants to eliminate non-European immigration, or at least get as close to elimination as possible.

Not saying they are thinking this in depth, one way to get more people coming out of schools for a particular job is to drive up the wage those jobs earn. If you can't get off shore talent, demand builds up and either employers will train or push schools to educate people to fill the role.

I think a major problem is that high schools and businesses do a lousy job advertising what jobs are out there to high school students. The last job fair I am familiar with where I am that was put on for students was 5 years ago. My kids loved it, but a lot of the jobs were basic service type. With the companies around here, it would have been great to have GE Aviation, Lockheed Martin, or someone like that talking to the kids about designing/building jet engines, etc.

Instead it was, insurance, real estate, sales, etc. As a result, neither of my kids have a clue of any jobs beyond what they see. I've pushed and pushed, but there is only so much you can do if the kid is being stubborn. My oldest wants to be a teacher so he can coach high school soccer, while my youngest wants to be a pharmacist. That job fits him. The older one is not cut out for teaching.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Legal immigration is down 43% from 2016 and foreign grad schools students are down as well. This admin isn't interested in getting more educated immigrants, it wants to eliminate non-European immigration, or at least get as close to elimination as possible.

Not going to deny that Miller has racist motives. Transforming to merit-based and decreasing family-based immigration is a pretty good idea to me.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national...gal-immigrants

The Trump administration has pushed for wholesale immigration reform aimed at decreasing family-based immigration and increasing merit-based immigration, but Congress has not acted on any such reform measures. Any bills aimed at reshuffling the legal immigration system would face almost impossible odds in the Democratic-controlled House.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Best way to compete with China is to educate our own expel more with science, math and technology funding in the school systems. The main reason I regularly as an executive in cyber security have to pursue overseas applicants or outsource some roles or functions is there just aren’t enough (any) qualified US candidates. The ones that are qualified here in the US are mostly Indian and Chinese along with some from EU.

Exactly. Make the cost to attend college much more affordable. Eliminate legacy admissions. Make it an actual merit-based like these other countries.

That'll never happen but it is such a simple solution.

Graduates in science, technology, engineering and maths in 2016. (millions)

China: 4.7
India: 2.6
US: 0.56
Russia: 0.56
Iran: 0.33

(WEF) pic.twitter.com/X6Eun1rpJ9

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) January 9, 2020

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not going to deny that Miller has racist motives. Transforming to merit-based and decreasing family-based immigration is a pretty good idea to me.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national...gal-immigrants

That's not what they're doing. They banned immigration from many countries that do better than the average American.

Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Syria immigrants all prosper much more than Americans in the education system. They beat the national average in both bachelor's degrees and advanced degrees (Libya and Iran over double it).

So if this was truly a "merit-based" system, you'd be pursuing immigrants from these countries. Not banning them.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not going to deny that Miller has racist motives. Transforming to merit-based and decreasing family-based immigration is a pretty good idea to me.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national...gal-immigrants

Not sure that policy based on racist motives is ever a good idea but that is just me.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's not what they're doing. They banned immigration from many countries that do better than the average American.

Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Syria immigrants all prosper much more than Americans in the education system. They beat the national average in both bachelor's degrees and advanced degrees (Libya and Iran over double it).

So if this was truly a "merit-based" system, you'd be pursuing immigrants from these countries. Not banning them.

That's not what merit-based immigration is.

Points-based immigration system - Wikipedia

A points-based immigration system is an immigration system where a noncitizen's eligibility to immigrate is (partly or wholly) determined by whether that noncitizen is able to score above a threshold number of points in a scoring system that might include such factors as education level, wealth, connection with the country, language fluency, existing job offer, or others.[1][2][3]

Points-based immigration systems are sometimes also referred to as merit-based immigration systems,[4][5] Countries that use points-based immigration systems may have other pathways for potential immigrants (such as immediate family, refugees, etc.), so that meeting the points threshold is not necessary for all immigrants. They may also have additional criteria that points-based immigrants need to satisfy, such as no criminal record or no involvement with terrorist organizations. Some countries that use points-based immigration systems are the United Kingdom (see main article), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.[3][2][6] Canada and Australia are the two countries with the most experience with the points-based system, and are often used as the comparison points when judging whether a country's immigration system is points-based.[5][2][7]:17[8]

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Not sure that policy based on racist motives is ever a good idea but that is just me.

The concept of merit based immigration itself is not based on racist motives (or at least not the ADL definition of racism). Ask Canada, UK, Australia.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The concept of merit based immigration itself is not based on racist motives (or at least not the ADL definition of racism). Ask Canada, UK, Australia.

There is no merit based immigration for the Muslim countries listed in the ban. A ban which looks to be expanding to even more countries.

President Donald Trump Preparing To Expand Travel Ban, Which Currently Bans Muslim Immigration

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The concept of merit based immigration itself is not based on racist motives (or at least not the ADL definition of racism). Ask Canada, UK, Australia.

The concept of merit based immigration in and of itself is not based on racist motives.But as YOU said, Stephen Miller has racist motives for pushing the policy. IMO that means his racist motives are at the very least part of the foundation of THIS specific policy.

Let's take another extreme example. Let's say Louis Farrakhan was coming up with the merit based immigration policy. We would all agree that his anti Semitic motives would not be a good basis for the policy, no? Or are you saying we should trust that Miller's or Farrakhan's motives won't come into play at all when it comes to coming up with the policy?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

The concept of merit based immigration in and of itself is not based on racist motives.But as YOU said, Stephen Miller has racist motives for pushing the policy. IMO that means his racist motives are at the very least part of the foundation of THIS specific policy.

Let's take another extreme example. Let's say Louis Farrakhan was coming up with the merit based immigration policy. We would all agree that his anti Semitic motives would not be a good basis for the policy, no? Or are you saying we should trust that Miller's or Farrakhan's motives won't come into play at all when it comes to coming up with the policy?

It's actually led by Kushner. Does that help alleviate the concern that this is a racist policy?

Donald Trump, Jared Kushner immigration proposal ignores Dreamers

President Donald Trump will propose a new immigration system that gives preference to high-skilled immigrants such as scientists and engineers in a proposal to address legal immigration on Thursday.

However, the plan deals only with legal immigration, not the 11 million undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. or the roughly 3.6 million "Dreamers" who were illegally brought into the country as minors.

The plan is certain to face resistance from lawmakers who believe it is more of a campaign document than a legislative proposal.

Developed by senior adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, the plan is designed to create a "merit-based" point system for people seeking to enter the U.S. – touching on Trump's longstanding argument that high-skilled immigrants should be prioritized – and moving away from the mostly family-based immigration system in place today.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Quote:

There is no merit based immigration for the Muslim countries listed in the ban. A ban which looks to be expanding to even more countries.

President Donald Trump Preparing To Expand Travel Ban, Which Currently Bans Muslim Immigration

I don't see how this relates to our current topic about merit-based vs family-based immigration and whether it is racist or not?

[Edward64]

Here's more info on the plan/proposal:

“Merit-Based� Immigration: Trump Proposal Would Dramatically Revamp Immigrant Selection Criteria, But with Modest Effects on Numbers | migrationpolicy.org

At its core, however, the proposal developed by Trump senior advisor Jared Kushner seeks to move the United States away from a system that is predominantly family based and toward one that favors applicants with desirable labor-market attributes, to be selected using a points system.
:
:
In this selection system, applicants would be allotted points for:

1. youth
2. having a valuable skill
3. having an offer of employment
4. having an advanced degree
5. planning to create jobs
6. earning higher wages.

New immigrants would also need to demonstrate financial self-sufficiency, learn English, and pass a civics exam prior to admission.

These seem reasonable to me except for maybe "earning higher wages" (whatever that means).

As of fiscal year (FY) 2017, 12 percent of new legal permanent residents gained that status through an employment-based category, while 66 percent did so through family sponsorship. An additional 16 percent received humanitarian visas (mainly refugees, asylees, special Afghan and Iraqi immigrants, and certain victims of crime), and 5 percent gained their status through the diversity category.

The Trump proposal seeks to invert this breakdown. Under the proposed plan, 57 percent of immigrants would gain status through economic streams, 33 percent through family ties, and 10 percent for humanitarian reasons (see Figure 1). The diversity stream would be eliminated.

I don't know the optimal mix but suggest only 12% on employment based is too low and we should move to higher.


This proposal was "dead on arrival" because it did not offer a DACA solution. I didn't see anything on guest workers either. I think it has a good foundation to work from and hopefully something will be done after 2020 elections.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It doesn't seem that we can fill all the needs organically/homegrown talent for whatever reason (e.g. lack of interest, demand for technology skills far outpaces supply etc.).

Would you want to give these specialized skills from India, China, EU etc. more quota slots, fast pass to naturalization or you think it should be organic growth? They may not be PhD's, and I know specialized skills are already given a preference but seems we can expand it significantly (... and also help remediate some SS and entitlement challenges).

It could be organic homegrown if more kids at all economic levels got the proper education early like in these other countries. In the end, the roles I am speaking about are $100-$150k salary jobs that the people from other countries have a technology BS degree and many have a Masters and some with PhDs too.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It's actually led by Kushner. Does that help alleviate the concern that this is a racist policy?

Donald Trump, Jared Kushner immigration proposal ignores Dreamers

Are Kushner's motives aligned with Miller's?

I honestly don't know. Miller's views on immigration have been out there for all to see and judge. Kushner could have the completely opposite viewpoint. I don't know. I do know the administration has made it perfectly clear what they feel the proper immigrant looks like. And yes, they have articulated a preferred race of those immigrants. I don't know if that is because they believe that one is "superior" to others or they just rather see one race for aesthetic reasons. I honestly don't care. Based on that, I am not sure why I would expect any immigration proposal that comes from this administration not to reflect the views that they have expressed whether it is led by Kushner, Miller or anyone else.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Are Kushner's motives aligned with Miller's?

I honestly don't know. Miller's views on immigration have been out there for all to see and judge. Kushner could have the completely opposite viewpoint. I don't know.

I googled "Kushner racist". In 3 pages, I found

-- Accusations he is a slum lord
-- Accused of being a racist because of his proposed Palestinian-Israeli peace proposal
-- Defending his FIL against accusations of racism (e.g. birther stuff)

So no, I think we give him the benefit of doubt unless there's reported systemic pattern of ADL defined racism.

I do know the administration has made it perfectly clear what they feel the proper immigrant looks like. And yes, they have articulated a preferred race of those immigrants. I don't know if that is because they believe that one is "superior" to others or they just rather see one race for aesthetic reasons. I honestly don't care. Based on that, I am not sure why I would expect any immigration proposal that comes from this administration not to reflect the views that they have expressed whether it is led by Kushner, Miller or anyone else.

I see Racism different from Bigotry/Prejudice & Discrimination.

I say I care whether "they believe one is superior to others" because that is racist and I would have to find some very strong justification to knowingly support it (and I can't think of one but never say never). And racism is specific to race and not religion (arguably, being Jewish is a generally accepted exception).

However, if a policy is prejudicial or discriminates, I would ask if it makes sense or if there is some context, and I could see myself supporting or agreeing to it.

The merit-base immigration proposal is not racist but definitely discriminates.

(I would add that the report that I linked to on Kushner's merit based immigration proposal said that Chinese and Indians will most likely benefit because they are more likely to have those "merits")

[JPhillips]

I'm a little surprised that the Iranians are owning up to shooting down the airliner.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm a little surprised that the Iranians are owning up to shooting down the airliner.

I'm guessing they knew continued denial when/if the wreckage was examined would be futile. Investigators would come to that conclusion quickly.

I do wonder if they knew about this mistake that night and that is what muted their response some.

[Edward64]

Okay, let's put this to bed and move on. The House did their job and the Senate will not confirm. At this stage its up to the public to really decide in Nov 2020.

Pelosi ends standoff with Senate Republicans over impeachment articles - POLITICO

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Friday she will send the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate next week, ending a heated standoff with Republicans over the terms of the impeachment trial.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I see Racism different from Bigotry/Prejudice & Discrimination.

You keep making this distinction and I don't understand why. Since the ADL is the definition of record here, I will ask my previous question in this way.

If the basis of a policy stems from the author's "belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics." or it results in "Prejudice and/or discrimination against people based on the social construction of race." in a way that "differences in physical characteristics (e.g. skin color, hair texture, eye shape) are used to support a system of inequities.", why would you support said policy under any context if you are against racism?

A merit based program is not inherently racist. It could be if it is based on "the belief that another person is less than human — because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person." Much of the talk and actions that have come from this administration regarding immigrants from say Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean stands in stark contrast when compare with the talk/actions with immigrants from say Norway, Given that I don't expect anyone to stand at a podium on national TV and explicit state a hatred of a particular race. I think it is fair to question what a merit based system would be based on that talk and those actions.

What is Racism? | ADL

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/fi...tion-terms.pdf

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

You keep making this distinction and I don't understand why. Since the ADL is the definition of record here, I will ask my previous question in this way.

Yes, the ADL definition is the one I am going by. I believe others on this board have a much broader definition of what racism is so its good to level-set between us.

If the basis of a policy stems from the author's "belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics." or it results in "Prejudice and/or discrimination against people based on the social construction of race." in a way that "differences in physical characteristics (e.g. skin color, hair texture, eye shape) are used to support a system of inequities.", why would you support said policy under any context if you are against racism?

Both quotes are ADL definition of racism.

The ADL definition of discrimination and prejudice are:

DISCRIMINATION: The denial of justice and fair treatment by both individuals and institutions in
many arenas, including employment, education, housing, banking and political rights.
Discrimination is an action that can follow prejudicial thinking.

PREJUDICE: Prejudging or making a decision about a person or group of people without sufficient
knowledge. Prejudicial thinking is frequently based on stereotypes.

Race could be a factor in examples of discrimination & prejudice but I see both as being much broader e.g. it includes a bunch of other things beside just race.

Hence, I cannot see justification for racism (discrimination & prejudice based on race or belief that my race is superior) but I can see several rationale for discrimination & prejudice other than race e.g. country of origin, religion etc. When I say rationale in this context, I means its understandable and I'm personally neutral/okay with it/not okay with it

A merit based program is not inherently racist. It could be if it is based on "the belief that another person is less than human — because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person."

I agree a merit based program is not inherently racist. And I see no evidence Kushner's plan is based on "belief that another person ... etc."

Much of the talk and actions that have come from this administration regarding immigrants from say Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean stands in stark contrast when compare with the talk/actions with immigrants from say Norway, Given that I don't expect anyone to stand at a podium on national TV and explicit state a hatred of a particular race. I think it is fair to question what a merit based system would be based on that talk and those actions.

I don't disagree that Trump/Miller has said many racist things. I also believe that they have said many things that are prejudicial and discriminatory outside of race.

The link I provided on the details of the merit based program says that Chinese and Indians immigrants would benefit most because they have the "merits" to check off.

I assume Kushner knows this. If this is so, is this really a racist policy? Or is it discriminatory towards the better educated, more wealth?

[miami_fan]

So you are saying that they are racist and ...? Um, okay? But we are discussing whether it could be racist or not. I will others to discuss whether it could be prejudice or discriminatory in other ways. .

I linked the ADL's page titled What is Racism on purpose as it does provide the ADL's context to the singular definition.

Racism has existed throughout human history. It may be defined as the hatred of one person by another — or the belief that another person is less than human — because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person. It has influenced wars, slavery, the formation of nations, and legal codes

If we are going to use the ADL as the authority, it would be best to use in the context they intended.

The link I provided on the details of the merit based program says that Chinese and Indians immigrants would benefit most because they have the "merits" to check off.

I assume Kushner knows this. If this is so, is this really a racist policy? Or is it discriminatory towards the better educated, more wealth?

Again, I don't know. Is there already a preference for more Chinese and Indian immigrants as opposed to immigrants that are not of Chinese or Indian descent? Are we less likely to bring in better educated more wealthy people from backgrounds compared to those of Chinese and Indian backgrounds? Are we doing this with intent? Are we operating under the myth of the model minority?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, by ADL definition and context, the answer would be yes.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

So you are saying that they are racist and ...? Um, okay? But we are discussing whether it could be racist or not. I will others to discuss whether it could be prejudice or discriminatory in other ways.

I'm not sure what you mean, what is "they are racist"?

I am saying those 2 quotes you presented are the ADL definitions of racism and they are the definition we should use. Not sure if that is what you mean.

Again, I don't know. Is there already a preference for more Chinese and Indian immigrants as opposed to immigrants that are not of Chinese or Indian descent? Are we less likely to bring in better educated more wealthy people from backgrounds compared to those of Chinese and Indian backgrounds? Are we doing this with intent? Are we operating under the myth of the model minority?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, by ADL definition and context, the answer would be yes.

I don't think so. The merit-based criteria doesn't talk about race. They are based on:

In this selection system, applicants would be allotted points for:

youth
having a valuable skill
having an offer of employment
having an advanced degree
planning to create jobs
earning higher wages.

[PilotMan]

Haven't we played this game with Edward before?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not sure what you mean, what is "they are racist"?

I am saying those 2 quotes you presented are the ADL definitions of racism and they are the definition we should use. Not sure if that is what you mean.



I don't think so. The merit-based criteria doesn't talk about race. They are based on:

But the authors of the article were able to infer based on that criteria and researching historical data, the race of people who would most benefit from it and the race of people who would be hurt the most by it. You have identified that the administration (in this case Kushner I guess) knows the former. I believe based on their words and actions that they are more concerned with the latter.

[JPhillips]

It's like you're looking at the one perfect facet of a terribly flawed gemstone. You have to look at immigration policy as a whole to understand the intentions, and when you do that, it's clear this admin wants to limit or eliminate immigration for non-European peoples.

Hezbollah provides healthcare for the poor in Lebanon, but that doesn't mean they aren't anti-Jew. Don't zoom in so far that you can't see what the picture is about.

[PilotMan]

I just want to know why nobody talks about other minority sects and groups (besides latin americans and refugees) within the US, who have been here for multiple generations, when they complain about not being able to integrate like real Americans.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

But the authors of the article were able to infer based on that criteria and researching historical data, the race of people who would most benefit from it and the race of people who would be hurt the most by it. You have identified that the administration (in this case Kushner I guess) knows the former. I believe based on their words and actions that they are more concerned with the latter.

Is Chinese a race, is India a race? The article refers to them as "national origins".

You say "race" and I say "country of origin" is more appropriate.

Specifically per your last sentence assuming Kushner "words and actions" shows he is a racist, I don't think that has been established.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's like you're looking at the one perfect facet of a terribly flawed gemstone. You have to look at immigration policy as a whole to understand the intentions, and when you do that, it's clear this admin wants to limit or eliminate immigration for non-European peoples.

Sorry, I don't see it. The article below states merit based will be more beneficial to Chinese and Indians ... in the context of national origin, not race.

“Merit-Based� Immigration: Trump Proposal Would Dramatically Revamp Immigrant Selection Criteria, But with Modest Effects on Numbers | migrationpolicy.org

If the Trump proposal were to become law, it could make significant changes to immigrant flows in some respects and minimal changes in others. Examined through the lens of national origins, the points system seems likely to favor Indian and Chinese immigrants, who dominate employment-based immigration channels even now. For these two immigrant groups, proposed cuts to arrivals through family-sponsored categories could potentially be offset by increases in those granted admission through the employment stream.

The argument that Trump & Kushner wants to "limit or eliminate" non-white (or based on race) immigration is contradicted by above.

A better argument IMO is they want to "limit or eliminate" the number of less educated, less wealthy, non-immediate family members. I think this is valid.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I just want to know why nobody talks about other minority sects and groups (besides latin americans and refugees) within the US, who have been here for multiple generations, when they complain about not being able to integrate like real Americans.

At least on this board, there was a lot of discussions about immigrant integration. I believe everyone pretty much believed that 2nd generation immigrants (e.g. born in the US, their parents were 1st generation) assimilated pretty well into the US.

Where we differed was I said let's not waste quota slots on initial first generation immigrants if they did not show the willingness to assimilate (exceptions granted for some groups like older people). The hypothetical was a woman immigrant who insisted on wearing a burqa in the US. My "unpopular" view was give her visa slot to someone who really wanted to integrate.

What was the discussion point you were concerned about?

[PilotMan]

My point was not really directed at who should be coming in, but instead at the arguments that I hear regarding which groups that aren't integrating and how they aren't really worthy Americans, and how they don't really want to be Americans and that is why they shouldn't be let in.


Point being you have numerous groups and sects, some large, some small, who have been in this country for multiple generations, and who have no interest in 'integration' by that same definition. One could argue that because they have been here for so long, they are, they just keep to themselves, or their traditions, and that makes it ok, but really, it's because they are descendants from familiar places, and they don't really harm anyone, and just want to live their lives, whatever. It's one of the most hypocritical arguments there is.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sorry, I don't see it. The article below states merit based will be more beneficial to Chinese and Indians ... in the context of national origin, not race.

“Merit-Based� Immigration: Trump Proposal Would Dramatically Revamp Immigrant Selection Criteria, But with Modest Effects on Numbers | migrationpolicy.org


The argument that Trump & Kushner wants to "limit or eliminate" non-white (or based on race) immigration is contradicted by above.

A better argument IMO is they want to "limit or eliminate" the number of less educated, less wealthy, non-immediate family members. I think this is valid.

That's exactly my point. You can't single out one aspect that may not be racist and say that the Trump immigration policy isn't racist. You have to look at all facets of it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Is Chinese a race, is India a race? The article refers to them as "national origins".

You say "race" and I say "country of origin" is more appropriate.

Specifically per your last sentence assuming Kushner "words and actions" shows he is a racist, I don't think that has been established.

dola

Race doesn't exist and is a social construct designed to enforce superiority.

But , yes, historically, in the U.S., Chinese has been defined as a race and Indian has as well.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

Race doesn't exist and is a social construct designed to enforce superiority.

But , yes, historically, in the U.S., Chinese has been defined as a race and Indian has as well.

This comment was in response to the article I provided a link to. The article says Kushner's program will benefit the Chinese and Indians in the context of national origin, not race.

Therefore, is the program discriminatory based on country of origin? or racist based on skin color or like?

If the Trump proposal were to become law, it could make significant changes to immigrant flows in some respects and minimal changes in others. Examined through the lens of national origins, the points system seems likely to favor Indian and Chinese immigrants, who dominate employment-based immigration channels even now. For these two immigrant groups, proposed cuts to arrivals through family-sponsored categories could potentially be offset by increases in those granted admission through the employment stream.

Here's ADL definition of race

RACE: Refers to the categories into which society places individuals on the basis of physical characteristics (such as skin color, hair type, facial form and eye shape). Though many believe that race is determined by biology, it is now widely accepted that this classification system was in fact
created for social and political reasons.

There are actually more genetic and biological differences within the racial groups defined by society than between different groups

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Is Chinese a race, is India a race? The article refers to them as "national origins".

You say "race" and I say "country of origin" is more appropriate.

Specifically per your last sentence assuming Kushner "words and actions" shows he is a racist, I don't think that has been established.

1) What JPhillips said.

2) I went with the terminology that the ADL, the agreed upon authority, had on its racism webpage. This included place of birth.

3) I did not call Kushner a racist. I already said that I don't know if he is a racist or not. In fact, I left open the possibility that he has a completely opposite viewpoint. This is what I said

You have identified that the administration (in this case Kushner I guess) knows the former. I believe based on their words and actions that they are more concerned with the latter.

To clarify, I believe the administration is more concerned with making sure this part happens...

Immigration from other current top origin countries, such as Mexico and Vietnam, could potentially see more significant drops, despite any small gains made in the economic stream.

...then they are with making sure this part happens.

Examined through the lens of national origins, the points system seems likely to favor Indian and Chinese immigrants, who dominate employment-based immigration channels even now.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's exactly my point. You can't single out one aspect that may not be racist and say that the Trump immigration policy isn't racist. You have to look at all facets of it.

We have been talking about merit-based immigration proposal and saying that is or not racist. When I answered your question, I wasn't thinking beyond that.

[Edward64]

2) I went with the terminology that the ADL, the agreed upon authority, had on its racism webpage. This included place of birth

.
Your quote from ADL is below. Is the merit based proposal based on "hatred of one person" or "belief that another person is less than human" because of "place of birth"?

If you don't use the criteria of "hatred" or "less than human" and only use the criteria of "place of birth" then the definition of racism is very broad (too broad IMO).

It may be defined as the hatred of one person by another — or the belief that another person is less than human — because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person.

3) I did not call Kushner a racist. I already said that I don't know if he is a racist or not. In fact, I left open the possibility that he has a completely opposite viewpoint. This is what I said

Okay.

To clarify, I believe the administration is more concerned with making sure this part happens...

...then they are with making sure this part happens.

That is the likely result of the merit based immigration proposal and I agree it is discriminatory vs racist.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

.
Your quote from ADL is below. Is the merit based proposal based on "hatred of one person" or "belief that another person is less than human" because of "place of birth"?

If you don't use the criteria of "hatred" or "less than human" and only use the criteria of "place of birth" then the definition of racism is very broad (too broad IMO).


Okay.



That is the likely result of the merit based immigration proposal and I agree it is discriminatory vs racist.

This just brings us right back to the beginning of the conversation. If it is based on racist motives (your words, not mine), then yes it is a racist proposal IMO.

The administration (because the proposal comes from the administration not specifically Kushner) has said and done things that fit the ADL's view of racism including things that paint certain immigrants groups as less than human. I believe calling them "animals" fits the bill, no? Or are you going to argue that was just discriminatory as well?

Will there be "Insert Racial Group" allowed or "Insert Racial Group" not allowed signs at the immigration offices? No, there will not.

Is the administration going to explicitly say we do or don't want "Insert Racial Group" in the USA on their proposal? No, but that is me giving them the benefit of the doubt.

But if that is the only evidence of racism you are willing to accept when it comes to this immigration proposal, then your view of racism is more limited than the ADL definition you keep quoting and ignores the historical context of racism that the ADL provides

The likely results of the proposal:

-reduces the number of high skilled occupational slots available to natives (I thought we wanted to keep these jobs for native Americans?)

-"does not address the needs of lower-skilled ones (such as agriculture, health and elder care, and service-sector jobs)—areas where research has shown persistent and growing demand for workers that is unmet by the native-born population." (guess who are generally doing these jobs now?)

- just so happen to keep more of the groups the administration called "animals" out

I believe the last result is more important to this administration that the other two.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

This just brings us right back to the beginning of the conversation. If it is based on racist motives (your words, not mine), then yes it is a racist proposal IMO.

The administration (because the proposal comes from the administration not specifically Kushner) has said and done things that fit the ADL's view of racism including things that paint certain immigrants groups as less than human. I believe calling them "animals" fits the bill, no? Or are you going to argue that was just discriminatory as well?

Articles I've read gives Kushner credit. I am sure Trump had input and veto over whatever Kushner came up with but unless there is evidence elsewhere, I think we should assume its Kusher's but influenced by Trump. My guess is if Trump was the main writer, it wouldn't read as reasonable, it would read "racist" to me. This is obviously open to debate.

Yes, it comes back to the main point. Was it based on racist motives (e.g. superior race, hatred) or more on what skills do we want to bring into the country. I think the latter.

But if that is the only evidence of racism you are willing to accept when it comes to this immigration proposal, then your view of racism is more limited than the ADL definition you keep quoting and ignores the historical context of racism that the ADL provides

I'm not sure I understand "only evidence of racism you are willing to accept when it comes to this immigration proposal"?

This discussion began when I said we should encourage more higher educated to immigrate. It then evolved into the merit-based immigration proposal. You and I then discussed whether specifically merit-based immigration proposal was racist vs discriminatory.

There are other aspects such as the Muslim ban or the Wall. And I'll be glad to discuss those with you, but I was just focused on this merit-based proposal.

The likely results of the proposal:

-reduces the number of high skilled occupational slots available to natives (I thought we wanted to keep these jobs for native Americans?)

Possibly, I think its arguable if it reduces the number of high skilled occupations slots available to natives. As Galariel stated, specifically for his technical area of security, there's not enough STEM supply to meet demand.

Re: the comment on keeping these jobs for native Americans. I'm going to assume you are saying that is what Trump says (vs Kushner). There's no way anyone can defend what Trump says because we all know he jumps around and there are contradictions & inconsistencies. We have to keep to what we know of Kushner's merit based immigration proposal.

-"does not address the needs of lower-skilled ones (such as agriculture, health and elder care, and service-sector jobs)—areas where research has shown persistent and growing demand for workers that is unmet by the native-born population." (guess who are generally doing these jobs now?)

Yes, I agree. One of my comments early in this discussion is below. The merit-based immigration proposal is not as holistic/comprehensive as I would have liked. With that said, anything is better than nothing re: attracting foreign talent IMO (my earlier post on China said I would love to do a brain drain from China to US).

This proposal was "dead on arrival" because it did not offer a DACA solution. I didn't see anything on guest workers either. I think it has a good foundation to work from and hopefully something will be done after 2020 elections.

- just so happen to keep more of the groups the administration called "animals" out

I googled on this and I believe you are referring to Trump saying undocumented immigrants are "animals". He has obviously said many other things and I can't defend his (or Miller's statements).

That in itself does not invalidate the worthiness of merit-based immigration (vs family based) as other countries do this also (e.g. Canada, UK and Australia as examples).

I believe the last result is more important to this administration that the other two.

This is likely true. Trump is campaigning against illegal immigration and he knows that resonates with his base. However, you are comparing that with Kushner's "legal" immigration policy which is more merit-based vs family based.



So 2 questions to you

1) Do you believe Kushner's merit-base immigration policy and moving away from more family-base is racist per ADL definitions? I believe you have said you don't know but if you had to pick yes or no based on all the discussion we had and links presented, your best guess ... is it more racist or is it more discriminatory/prejudicial?

2) What immigration policies, not related to this merit-based discussion we are having, do you believe is racist?

Of the top of my head, I can think of 2 possibles. They are (1) Muslim ban (currently more travel than immigration I think but we can assume it extends to immigration) or (2) the illegal immigration south of the border. Is there anything else policy wise (vs one of Trump's flippant statements).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Haven't we played this game with Edward before?

In general yes. Two differences:

1) MF is agreeing to the ADL definition of racism whereas in the prior conversation with others, we never got to an agreement on what racism is, so making progress and I personally feel this conversation is more productive

2) This discussion is using a real use-case scenario of merit-based immigration proposal by Kushner. This gives us some new content to discuss

[Edward64]

I'm not complaining and there is some satisfaction in hearing the often used phrase turned on its creators, but TBH I'm surprised and don't really understand why the protests.

Sure people are upset but I would think Iranians would understand the context it was a mistake due to heightened tensions, we're sorry and responsible parties will be held accountable.

Or is this just good timing and a good excuse to continue to vent from prior months?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/11/middl...ane/index.html

In video posted on social media, protesters chanted for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to step down and for those responsible for downing the plane to be prosecuted. "Death to the dictator," some chanted.
In one video, demonstrators chanted, "Khamenei have shame. Leave the country."