August 3, 2017

"This competitive application process will favor applicants who can speak English, financially support themselves and their families and demonstrate skills that will contribute to our economy."

"This legislation will not only restore our competitive edge in the 21st century, but it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between America and its citizens. This legislation demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first and that puts America first."

Said President Trump, supporting a bill introduced by Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, according to the NYT.

117 comments:

Lauderdale Vet said...

Hear, hear.

Curious George said...

Allahu akbar!

rehajm said...

In other words comparable to the inhumane immigration policies of Canada, Switzerland, Japan, Australia...

Rick said...

Choosing people who are more likely to integrate and contribute to America is racist.

Steve said...

Only those who can read English and comprehend the language, and know something of our history, could appreciate the sentiments of the Emma Lazarus poem, or of the meaning of liberty.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Long overdue. Both my in-laws are immigrants, one of them a genuine refugee who walked almost 200 miles in snow and freezing rain to escape persecution. They each went on to long careers in medicine, my F-i-L spending the last ten years of his practice running a small clinic in on of Chicago's toughest area -- out of gratitude for being allowed to come to America at all.

Meanwhile, in California, something like 80 percent of all immigrants since 2009 are on pubic benefits. Immigration for the last fifty years has been designed to increase the number of reliably-dependent Democrat voters as opposed to productive citizens committed to America and its ideals.

Ralph L said...

The only thing that might keep SS and Medicare from bankrupting the government is a large influx of youngish wealth-producing foreigners. A continuing "refugee" invasion of Europe may be our best hope. Washington is incapable of avoiding the demographic crisis.

Curious George said...

¿No habla inglés?

Adios!

iowan2 said...

I must have been miss informed all these years. I thought the law has always stated, that to become a citizen, you had to be able to read and write English? That has NOT been the case?

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

I don't think "most" means what the NY Times thinks it means.

"Surveys show most Americans believe legal immigration benefits the country. In a Gallup poll in January, 41 percent of Americans were satisfied with the overall level of immigration, 11 percentage points higher than the year before and the highest since the question was first asked in 2001. Still, 53 percent of Americans remained dissatisfied."

David Begley said...

Story in the Omaha this week. Pregnant woman from Nepal doesn't speak English. She goes to the hospital in labor but can't figure out where the OB and ER entrance is so she has the baby on the lawn. Baby is okay. Only a TV station reports that Mom wanted to be sure that she got baby's paperwork, that is, birth certificate. Citizenship.

No word as to how this woman from Nepal ended up in Nebraska.

Forget about White House chaos. Let's talk about language chaos.

The funny thing is that English is the official language of Nebraska per the Nebraska constitution. Meyers v. Nebraska.

Curious George said...

Now, NO ANCHOR BABIES.

Ralph L said...

Iowan2, this bill is about green card preferences, not citizenship.

The way to stop anchor babies is to deport the parent(s) when they try to get the birth certificate. Word will get out and they'll stop trying and some will stay home.

They can take the baby with them if they want to.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

I don't think "most" means what the NY Times thinks it means.

Where is the problem? Most can think that some amount of immigration benefits the country, while also believing that the current level is too high. Also note, from the numbers you quote, that some of the 53% dissatisfied might want higher levels than what we currently have.

rehajm said...

Where is the problem?

For one no data is provided to support the statement Surveys show most Americans believe legal immigration benefits the country. (Dis)Satisfaction over the quantity of immigration does not support a statement about the opinions of the benefits of immigration.

Bay Area Guy said...

Absolutely love it. A small breech in the tidal wave of multiculturalism.

Mark said...

So my great grandparents who came here would not be allowed to enter today.

I wonder if Melania would have passed this test.

No matter, now that we are thru that door let's slam it on the next people. Liberty!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

rehajm said...

For one no data is provided to support the statement...

Sorry, I should have been more specific. My question was not What is wrong with pretty much every NTY story published in my lifetime?

I was wondering what about the provided quote indicated that the NY Times did not know what the word "most" means.

Clyde said...

Good!

Ralph L said...

So my great grandparents who came here would not be allowed to enter today.
It isn't a blanket prohibition. You get X points for English, Y for skills, Z for high paying job lined up, C for being hot, then add them up to rank order people.

theribbonguy said...

The Blogger ad bot has no sense of irony or has a wicked sense of humor. How else to explain the immigration lawyer banner ad at the bottom of this post. It is a regional lawyer so not sure everybody can enjoy this.

Curious George said...

"Mark said...
So my great grandparents who came here would not be allowed to enter today.

I wonder if Melania would have passed this test.

No matter, now that we are thru that door let's slam it on the next people. Liberty!"

Great point Mark. Let's let every motherfucker who can get here, stay here. EVERY. FUCKING. ONE.

The Drill SGT said...

iowan2 said...
I must have been miss informed all these years. I thought the law has always stated, that to become a citizen, you had to be able to read and write English? That has NOT been the case?


In theory yes. The Bill is about green cards however.

But your point does absolutely raise the question about why ballots are not in English.

The federal government has long required election ballots in some U.S. jurisdictions to be printed in languages other than English, based on the number of voting-age citizens who live in those communities and have limited English skills and low education levels. New data from the Census Bureau show that 263 counties, cities and other jurisdictions in 29 states will now be subject to this requirement in future elections, a slight increase from five years ago.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/16/more-voters-will-have-access-to-non-english-ballots-in-the-next-election-cycle/

Angel-Dyne said...

It's interesting to see the open-borders zealots and their tools floundering in response to this. They have been so successful, for so long, in keeping "respectable" opinion on immigration restricted to Emma Lazarus schmaltz that they're unprepared for the adult discussion being forced on them.

They've got the money and the soapboxes, so I assume they'll eventually up their game from the vacuous, ahistorical "but but muh huddled masses" shtick that's worked so well for so long. In the meantime, prepare for screams of "nazi", "racist", and "nation of immigrants" from the cheap-labor lobbies and assorted ethnic hustlers to reach ear-splitting decibel range.

Limited blogger said...

Isn't this an issue where the science is settled?

Angel-Dyne said...

Mark: So my great grandparents who came here would not be allowed to enter today.

Mark, if you think that because the U.S. let your grandparents in, therefore the citizens of the U.S. cannot control or restrict immigration in their own interests ever again, you're not making an argument against immigration restriction. You're arguing that it was a really bad idea to let your grandparents in in the first place.

MayBee said...

What poem is on the monument to the Japanese interment camps?

MayBee said...

Anybody who quotes the poem on the Statue of Liberty as some kind of policy should be deported, no matter where they were born.

AReasonableMan said...

If Trump had not wasted most, if not all, of his very limited political capital trying to take health insurance from the poor in order to give the rich a tax break, immigration reform might have been a realistic goal. Now, not so much.

Virgil Hilts said...

Mark said "I wonder if Melania would have passed this test." Melania is fluent in five languages - Slovenian, English, French, Serbian and German. I thought most people knew that. Its not smart to assume that beautiful women are dumb. Melania is quite bright.

Tommy Duncan said...

The world has changed since the immigration surges of the past:

(1) Our continent is no longer "empty".
(2) Taxpayer funded welfare and social programs abound today. (Come to America for the freebies...)
(3) A failure to assimilate no longer leaves you isolated and vulnerable.

MayBee said...

AReasonableMan said...
If Trump had not wasted most, if not all, of his very limited political capital trying to take health insurance from the poor in order to give the rich a tax break, immigration reform might have been a realistic goal. Now, not so much.



It is nice to see the reporters Jim Acosta and Glenn Thrush try to ensure we can't have an honest conversation about this, either.

Bay Area Guy said...

If I were moving to a new country to permanently settle, say, Portugal or Senegal, I think I would take the time to learn how to speak Portuguese or Senegalese, wouldn't you?

If I were moving to Portugal or Senegal, simply to "get free stuff" and had no plans to assimilate, I would probably not be deemed an attractive candidate for a green card, wouldn't you agree?

Ralph L said...

In Miller's WH press briefing, he kept stressing the impact of low wage immigrants on the American poor. One reporter didn't know about supply and demand, but I guess that's common.
Raising the minimum wage won't reduce jobs, either.

Owen said...

MayBee: "What poem is on the monument to the Japanese interment [sic] camps?"

I think you mean "internment" camps, namely the ones set up by that famous Democrat, FDR.

The Japanese in WW2 *did* have "interment" camps, namely the ones where they tortured, starved and killed POWs and others, and then "interred" (buried) them.

What a difference a letter can make!

Ken B said...

http://www.workpermit.com/immigration/canada/canadian-immigration-points-calculator

MayBee said...

Owen- HahHahaha I both hate autocorrect and depend on it

Random Thought said...

It does sound very Canadian. From a NYT oped in June: "But Canada’s hospitable attitude is not innate; it is, rather, the product of very hardheaded government policies. Ever since the mid-1960s, the majority of immigrants to the country (about 65 percent in 2015) have been admitted on purely economic grounds, having been evaluated under a nine-point rubric that ignores their race, religion and ethnicity and instead looks at their age, education, job skills, language ability and other attributes that define their potential contribution to the national work force."

tcrosse said...

O Canada, O Mores.

Kate said...

"I wonder if Melania would have passed this test."

Don't be ridiculous. This bill wants high-wage earners. Even before she married The Donald and became a spousal acceptance she met the financial qualifications.

"It is nice to see the reporters Jim Acosta and Glenn Thrush try to ensure we can't have an honest conversation about this, either."

I agree, although I think for different reasons. A real question exists: are we to only give green cards to the elite class? Are we still a country that welcomes blue collar people? (The higher your wage potential, the more points you're awarded, the more likely to be accepted.) But Acosta and the rest are so busy seeing racism in the shadowy corners (while practicing an abhorrent racism with no self-awareness) that we'll never see the question asked properly.

Unknown said...

Bigly covfefe!

Angel-Dyne said...

MayBee: Anybody who quotes the poem on the Statue of Liberty as some kind of policy should be deported, no matter where they were born.

Via trebuchet.

David Begley said...

Starting today the Dems and MSM start up the "we are a nation of immigrants" narrative as parroted by Jim Acosta yesterday.

That, of course, ignores:

1. Those immigrants were all legal.

2. The continent was empty.

3. The big assimilation mandate; including learning English.

4. No social welfare programs then.

Times change but the Democrat party needs new voters as it has no other messag other than diversity.

Ralph L said...

5. The economy was growing yugely, if not steadily.

Mark said...

'2. The continent was empty.'

Tell that to the tribes we removed from their land.

Matthew Sablan said...

As long as this isn't reducing our immigration provided to those seeking political or humanitarian asylum, I'm at least open to the idea.

Michael K said...

"Mark"

So my great grandparents who came here would not be allowed to enter today.

I wonder if Melania would have passed this test.

No matter, now that we are thru that door let's slam it on the next people. Liberty!


Were they on welfare after arriving ?

Melania only speaks five languages. Isn't that enough ?

Poor guy. If you knew any history, you would know the Frontier close 115 years ago. After that, and with the welfare state, we had to be a little more selective. And we were from 1920 until Ted Kennedy opened the doors in 1965.

Ken B said...

>>
'2. The continent was empty.'

Tell that to the tribes we removed from their land.
<<

Interesting that you would cite that to argue for more unrestricted immigration. "We should have more immigration! Look what it did for the Shawnee!"

traditionalguy said...

Sounds remarkably like Canada's immigration rules. They Make Canada First every chance they get.

Unknown said...

"As long as this isn't reducing our immigration provided to those seeking political or humanitarian asylum, I'm at least open to the idea."

Syrian refugees?

Michael K said...

Mark, knowing no history, does not know that the presence of even a few Europeans brought diseases the Amerindians had been isolated from for 10,000 years.

The Indians died of smallpox and measles and other diseases because they were genetically isolated since crossing from Asia.

When the Spanish got to Indian villages in the southwest, they were often empty, the diseases having traveled faster than the soldiers.

One reason Mexicans and Indians have more diabetes and less tolerance for alcohol is probably the absence of wheat cultivation during that 10,000 years. East Asians also have less alcohol tolerance for similar reasons but it is manifest more as the "alcohol flush" which affects many Chinese.

You really should try to learn some history and science,.

Angel-Dyne said...

Kate: A real question exists: are we to only give green cards to the elite class? Are we still a country that welcomes blue collar people? (The higher your wage potential, the more points you're awarded, the more likely to be accepted.) But Acosta and the rest are so busy seeing racism in the shadowy corners (while practicing an abhorrent racism with no self-awareness) that we'll never see the question asked properly.

Very good question. "Points" immigration is an improvement on what we have now, but it still ignores concrete cultural issues that absolutely do matter for social capital and citizens' quality of life. These things were perfectly well-understood, and discussed explicitly, in the "bad old days" before the fuck-Western-civ "diversity" party got into full swing.

Though the Overton window has been slightly shifted here, that whole area of debate is still pretty much taboo, and will only be fought with proxy issues. I don't think that will change, and I don't think "points" immigration is going to slow our ongoing cultural fracturing, unless it's accompanied by a very sharp restriction in numbers.

Michael said...

ARM" ....trying to take health insurance from the poor in order to give the rich a tax break"
Do you honestly believe that the object of health care reform was to give the rich a tax break? That the entire exercise was to offer up some piddling tax savings to the "rich?" Could you lay out what the dollar savings would be for a typical "rich" person had the reform passed and taken effect? Do you have the slightest notion of what the "tax break" would equate to for a "rich" person?

Matthew Sablan said...

Actual Syrian refugees should be considered; how you determine who that is is where the political fight should happen as opposed to a firm "Yes to all/no to all" decision.

Michael said...

I always taunt my lefty friends by telling them I am perfectly happy if we adopt the immigration policy of either Canada or Mexico and ask them to take their pick. You cannot sail into Mexico and set up shop without asking permission. It can't be done because they will give you the heave ho the minute you are caught. And, btw leftie pals, you buy your own food in Mexican prisons.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"No matter, now that we are thru that door let's slam it on the next people. Liberty!"

Yeah, let's swamp the lifeboat and all drown together. Stupid and unserious beyond belief.

Fernandinande said...

"Seinfeld on Wretched Refuseism" (0:51 long)

Give us your bad drivers.

AReasonableMan said...

Why bother with the tax cut if it was so 'piddling'? And only an uninformed person does not know that those tax cuts were to be the precursor to larger planned tax cuts that required reductions in medicaid spending in order to be implemented under the Byrd rule.

The entire purpose of the recent 'health care reform' was tax cuts for the rich. It was a pathetic waste of political capital. Immigration reform or corporate tax reform were both more 'doable' projects but Ryan wanted those tax cuts for the rich. Sometimes you get what you deserve.

Fernandinande said...

Michael said...
And, btw leftie pals, you buy your own food in Mexican prisons.


My sorta-rich Mexican friend says he would rather be arrested in Mexico than in the U.S. because in Mexico you just bribe some people and you're done.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Are we still a country that welcomes blue collar people?

I think it would depend on how badly they are needed.

Michael said...

Arm
so, in short, you have no idea of the average tax savings for a rich person that would have resulted from the plan. Not a clue. Give me the number. You won't because you can't.

Mike Sylwester said...

This improvement of our immigration policy will help our President Trump win the Rust Belt states again in the 2020 election.

The Democrat Party's strategy to win back under-employed Rust Belt voters is to advocate the establishment of sanctuary cities for illegal aliens.

Even though today's illegal aliens compete against under-employed blue-collar citizens for available jobs in the Rust Belt, today's illegal aliens eventually will become future voters for Democrat politicians. That is the Democrat Party's political calculation.

We will see how this all works out when the Rust Belt votes in 2020.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Tell that to the tribes we removed from their land.

So your point is? The new arrivals should start killing the people already here so that they can take the land?

brylun said...

George Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Curious George said...

"Mark said...
'2. The continent was empty.'

Tell that to the tribes we removed from their land."

Doubling down on dumb, eh? You own property? Give it back.

Caligula said...

"If Trump had not wasted most, if not all, of his very limited political capital trying to take health insurance from the poor in order to give the rich a tax break, immigration reform might have been a realistic goal. Now, not so much."

Meaning, Trump is a buffoon (or worse) and therefore it's unreasonable for the USA to have immigration policies that favor the interests of the United States over the priorities of would-be imnmigrants?

Is it really unreasonable to assert that countries permit and sometimes even encourage immigration because it benefits the host state (and if it also benefits the immigrants that's good, but that's not why it's permitted and encouraged?

So OK, sometimes Trump acts badly and that orange hair and everything, but if he's just a buffoon then why is it that Trump is the first U.S. president to promote such an obvious and sensible immigration reform in decades?

"making 21st policy in accord with late-19th century poetry makes no sense." -- Rich Lowry,
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/02/immigration-stephen-miller-jim-acosta-trump-215451

Larry J said...

My wife and I met in college. She was a foreign student. When we married, we went to the immigration office so she could apply for her green card (which isn't green). We had to sign a lot of paperwork, as was expected. One of the clauses on the paperwork was the statement that if we had to apply for any form of public assistance for any reason, she would be deported. It didn't matter if I (a US citizen) was severely injured in an accident, if we applied for benefits, she would have to leave. That was in 1983. I guess that clause was not enforced or was eliminated some time after we signed the paperwork. When she was going through the naturalization process to become a citizen about 5 years later, all of the paperwork, tests, and interviews were in English. Perhaps that has changed as well.

Many other countries already have immigration rules like this one. Other than admitting refugees in a genuine crisis, why should the US be expected to allow in people who will be a public burden from day one?

Mike Sylwester said...

"Mark said...
So my great grandparents who came here would not be allowed to enter today.

Were your grandparents from Europe?

How easy is it to immigrate from Europe now?

My grandparents and great-grandparents came from Germany. It is extremely difficult for Germans to immigrate to the USA now.

In contrast, it's easy to immigrate from Guatemala. You just take your children to the US border, walk up to a border guard and say that your family is fleeing from Guatemala gangs.

Then the US Government settles your family in an apartment in a mostly-Republican state and enrolls your children in the local school. Then you just wait for a few years and become a US citizen.

Europeans do not have that option for immigrating to the USA.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Left's immigration policy is ludicrously transparent. Come here, don't assimilate, get on welfare, and vote Democrat (wink, wink), so we can feel good about celebrating diversity.

Hey - it worked in California.

tcrosse said...

My heartwarming immigrant story.
Milwaukee, 1943. An FBI guy visits my Grandma, who came over from Germany as a girl in the 1890's, because she's an enemy alien. Grandma protests that because she married my
Socts-Irish Grandpa in 1903 that makes her an American, right ? Wrong, says the Fed. Grandpa snuck in from Canada, and in spite of having registered for the draft in both world wars, voted, and paid taxes, never got naturalized. Upshot: Grandpa gets naturalized in 1944, Grandma in 1945.

Ray said...

Trump is shattering another Overton window - immigration.

Should help the GOP in the mid terms.

Hope it changes the current h1b system of serfdom.

mockturtle said...

BTW, Stephen Miller was master of the presser yesterday. Let's have more!

Fernandinande said...

MayBee said...
Anybody who quotes the poem on the Statue of Liberty as some kind of policy should be deported, no matter where they were born.


"Think Progress" has a hilarious article which appears to claim that if you have more than a superficial knowledge of that poem and its history, then you just might be a "white-nationalist" - "Ignorance Is Bliss, Knowledge Is Racist"

Mike Sylwester said...

"Mark said...
So my great grandparents who came here would not be allowed to enter today.

Imagine that in 2017 a German (replace with your grandfather's nationality) works as a truck driver (replace with your grandfather's job) and does not speak English and does not have any relatives or even acquaintances resident in the USA.

So, this German truck driver decides to immigrate to the USA now -- just like your grandfather decided to do a hundred years ago.

Will this German truck driver -- who does not speak English and does not have any relatives or even acquaintances here -- be allowed to immigrate?

No, he will **NOT** be allowed to immigrate to the USA from Germany (or from whichever European country where your grandfather had lived).

Fabi said...

"Tell that to the tribes we removed from their land."

I'd like to see the chain of title that backs that claim.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fabi said...

"...in order to give the rich a tax break..."

Those rich people on the coasts, ARM?

Chuck said...

Caligula started with this quote:

"If Trump had not wasted most, if not all, of his very limited political capital trying to take health insurance from the poor in order to give the rich a tax break, immigration reform might have been a realistic goal. Now, not so much."

Good quote. I agree with it, wholeheartedly. And I like the sound of the Cotton-Perdue bill. I think Trump will find a lot of Republican Congressional support on immigration. Even a lot of never-Trumpers will agree with Trump on this.

But then Caligula goes on:

Meaning, Trump is a buffoon (or worse) and therefore it's unreasonable for the USA to have immigration policies that favor the interests of the United States over the priorities of would-be imnmigrants?

Is it really unreasonable to assert that countries permit and sometimes even encourage immigration because it benefits the host state (and if it also benefits the immigrants that's good, but that's not why it's permitted and encouraged?

So OK, sometimes Trump acts badly and that orange hair and everything, but if he's just a buffoon then why is it that Trump is the first U.S. president to promote such an obvious and sensible immigration reform in decades?

Well, this idea came out of a group of Senators working on their own outside of the White House. Trump has some nutty anti-immigration ideas; this was a serious program that Trump will naturally like, but it wasn't "his." Trump has a few clever anti-immigration hawks in the discussion; Jeff Sessions and his former aide Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon chief among them.

The reason that no president has proposed something like this in decades is because Clinton and Obama would never propose it under any circumstances, and because Bush 43 was a war president and would never have gotten anything like it through the Senate.

I doubt that Trump will get 60 votes in the Senate. I think that Republicans are using this bill as messaging for the 2018 midterms.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I doubt that Trump will get 60 votes in the Senate. I think that Republicans are using this bill as messaging for the 2018 midterms.

Well, yes.

Unknown said...

I presume Mark wants more immigrants like Salvador Diaz-Garcia, the illegal immigrant DREAMER from Seattle that raped two girls in one day, biting the ear off of one, breaking most of her teeth, breaking her jaw, and so forth. The other girl was 14. Or maybe that 20 times deported rapist in Portland; the one that the police let go instead of telling immigration and then he raped a 64 year old lady.

The big discussion in these sanctuary cities is whether or not to let them go again, or maybe deport them. Maybe. Or maybe the judges will let the criminals go out through the judges chambers so they can avoid immigration and go rape more people. I'm sure Mark would love to let these people go. After all, they are doing the raping that Americans won't do! And we all know that American citizens need to be raped and murdered by Democrat constituents with no fear of punishment in these "sanctuary" cities.

Right Mark?

--Vance

Chuck said...

Mind you, Ron; I'd vote for the bill if I were in Congress.

But the point about how Trump won't get 60 votes goes to Trump's own bluster about this stuff; he has been boasting about what "he" would get done. That he was the great negotiator, the guy with the massive mandate and huge electoral win. He would build a wall. He would create a great health care system. He would end illegal immigration.

No normal GOP president/candidate would make claims that couldn't possibly be delivered, but Trump does.

sunsong said...

Sick!

John said...

Agree with this 100%. Good on President Trump and Sen Cotton.

I do think we should use English in the US and we should be an English speaking country. NOT bilingual.

OTOH, I do think everyone should speak at least 1 other language. I remember my cousin, who graduated from Hopkins in about 69 as an electrical engineer, was required to be able to speak, understand and read and write German fluently. This was so he could read German engineering papers. This was a general requirement.

Virginia, where I graduated HS in 66, required a language to graduate. Don't know if they still do. What about other states?

I would also point out that the first amendment allows us to speak whatever language we wish. Even a synthetic language like encryption. It does not require the govt to listen to us. I see no need for govt to speak any language, provide any forms etc in any language other than English. (With a few exceptions, of course.)

John Henry

MayBee said...

agree, although I think for different reasons. A real question exists: are we to only give green cards to the elite class? Are we still a country that welcomes blue collar people? (The higher your wage potential, the more points you're awarded, the more likely to be accepted.) But Acosta and the rest are so busy seeing racism in the shadowy corners (while practicing an abhorrent racism with no self-awareness) that we'll never see the question asked properly.

Actually the same reasons!

We need to be able to talk about issues in a way other than "If you do this it's because you are racist or want to kill people".
Which is what we've got going on right now. Immigration (like health insurance) is a really complicated issue and there won't/can't be only winners. If we want good policy, we have to have a real discussion. But that didn't happen on healthcare, and it seems the reporters in the White House want to make sure it doesn't happen with immigration.

William said...

I recently read a biography of Benjamin Franklin. Franklin expressed some antipathy towards the German immigrants in Pennsylvania. He didn't think their loyalty could be counted on in the French & Indian War. The issue became moot when the Indians started massacring the German settlers, but there was a time when the German settlers felt that it wasn't their war....,,,,If America is a nation of immigrants, it is also a nation of anti-immigrants. That poem by Emma Lazarus represents the point of view of only one sector of America. Just about all immigrants have faced some amount of hostility. Consider it hazing. If you don't want the hazing, don't join the fraternity.

Angel-Dyne said...

mockturtle: BTW, Stephen Miller was master of the presser yesterday. Let's have more!

To you and me Miller was just talking sense, and we had a good larf at the landed-fish flailing of the Lazarenes. The progs, on the other hand, are convinced that Acosta "OMG pwned that nazifascisthitlerracistwhitenationalist Miller", and are in full hysterical meltdown over Miller having blasphemed against Founding Father Emma Lazarus, who wrote that "huddled masses" stuff that's in the U.S. Constitution, and anyway WHAT ABOUT THE NATIVE AMERICANS AND YOUR GRANDFATHER WAS AN IMMIGRANT, TOO, BIGOT. (You know the drill.)

Wonder how Average Joe sees it.

Ken B said...

"Are we still a country that welcomes blue collar people?"

Hillary doesn't even want the ones we have. The level of contempt and disdain aimed at blue collar workers is precisely why Trump won. They are the main losers in mass low skill immigration.

eric said...

The interesting thing about this bill is that most of it can be accomplished without actually having a bill.

I don't think people realize just how tough immigration law is. You don't get innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the person knocking at the door. Unless you're already here, you can be denied entry for almost anything. And you aren't provided a lawyer if you don't like the decision not to let you in.

It's an impossible hurdle to overcome if we want it to be. Not thru Congress but thru policy.

As it stands today, when you are making entry into the USA, you have to prove you aren't in one of the categories of removable non immigrants.

How could you possibly prove that if the Immigration officer decided you shouldn't come in?

I realize this law is dealing with immigrants and not non-immigrants. However, a very large number of our immigrants first enter the country as non immigrants.

It's going to be an interesting few years as these things slowly change from the past 20 years I've been working immigration.

AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
Those rich people on the coasts, ARM?


Why, yes, thank you. Thank you for your efforts. It is a shame that no immigration or corporate tax reform will now happen, but I do appreciate your sacrifice on behalf of the bank accounts of myself and my fellow coasters.

bgates said...

I doubt that Trump will get 60 votes in the Senate.

Me too, especially because nobody votes on Trump in the Senate.

I can't imagine that quote was about the subject of Althouse's post; after all, "this idea came out of a group of Senators working on their own outside of the White House....this was a serious program that Trump will naturally like, but it wasn't "his.""

pacwest said...

"No normal GOP president/candidate would make claims that couldn't possibly be delivered, but Trump does."

It is to laugh! Politicians (GOP or otherwise) have been promising the undeliverable since, well, forever.

Mark said...

Vance, I have never made such an argument.

The fact that you are trying to claim I said something I didn't shows that you both have no argument and are not discussing here in good faith.

Why don't you and Bannon go suck your own cocks together.

bgates said...

So my great grandparents who came here would not be allowed to enter today.

Your political party is committed to the fundamental transformation of the country into something that would be unrecognizable to your great grandparents.

bgates said...

Tell that to the tribes we removed from their land.

I dream of an America that would let in my immigrant ancestors, and immediately blame them for complicity in genocide.

rehajm said...

Your political party is committed to the fundamental transformation of the country into something that would be unrecognizable to your great grandparents.

They might recognize it as just like the place they were trying to flee.

tcrosse said...

The Province of Québec has its own immigration service, and greatly favours those who speak French. Sick !

Angel-Dyne said...

John Henry: OTOH, I do think everyone should speak at least 1 other language.

As a rule, most people who don't have to use another language, don't learn another language. And nobody learns another language without sustained opportunity (or rather, sustained obligation) to use it.

Speaking more than one language is always nice, but as a rule people learn languages because they need to, because it's actually useful to the conduct of their daily life.

When your cousin graduated Hopkins it was a professional necessity for an electrical engineer to be able to read scientific papers in German. Nowadays the papers he would need to read are probably published in English. All the schools I attended had foreign language requirements, and the vast majority of the require-ees would never, ever learn to actually speak or read those languages, no matter how many semesters they spent "learning" them.

Very, very few people acquire a foreign language out of a desire to become more cultured and educated people. (Educated, cultured parents may see to it that their young children become fluent in other languages that are not of immediate or practical use, but that is not the same thing.) Americans in general will stop being monolingual if and when their lives or careers require them to. If it becomes expedient for a large chunk of the population, it will either be acquired naturally (by constant interaction with foreign speakers), or helped along by American schools changing the idiotic practice of introducing foreign languages only after kids have grown past the age of easy, natural language acquisition.

Mac McConnell said...

"No normal GOP president/candidate would make claims that couldn't possibly be delivered"

Presidents have always done it. Hows that Social Security Privatization coming along, the list is endless. Trump got lied to by the GOPe chickshits like the rest of us.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"I doubt that Trump will get 60 votes in the Senate. I think that Republicans are using this bill as messaging for the 2018 midterms"

Absolutely. Draw this out, let the MSM fall into hysterics about it, make it central to the ideological debate (rather than the thorny issues of taxes and healthcare), force Red State Dems to vote against it, and enjoy your continuing majority! This is a gift that the Left has freely offered and cannot withdraw. The GOP would be foolish not to open it. Again and again.

If the Left had had the self-discipline to let Trump's 90-day moratorium ride, it would have been long expired by now and they would have gained a little high ground in the immigration debate. Too late now.

Michael K said...

Virginia, where I graduated HS in 66, required a language to graduate. Don't know if they still do. What about other states?

Engineering did not require another language when I graduated.

I kind of wish they did. I had Latin in high school, which was not too practical by then,.

Angel-Dyne said...

Mark: Vance, I have never made such an argument.

The fact that you are trying to claim I said something I didn't shows that you both have no argument and are not discussing here in good faith.


I don't think anybody whose "arguments" against immigration restriction are limited to "muh immigrant grandfather" is in a position to cavil about the quality of other poster's inferences.

Jeff said...

Immigrants, particularly legal immigrants, obtain welfare benefits at a much higher rate than natives do. Even though most immigrants are not eligible for welfare when they arrive, once they start having children here, they become eligible because their children are native citizens.
Most natives resent this. It feels like we are importing freeloaders and being played for suckers by immigrants who come here to have subsidized children.

The bill tries to alleviate this problem by favoring immigrants who are less likely to later get welfare benefits. But it may not work very well. Even though college-educated immigrants go on welfare less often than do less educated immigrants, they still do so at higher rates than comparably-educated natives. The welfare magnet is real.

It would seem more sensible to just attack the problem directly. Make immigrants ineligible for all transfer programs whether they have children or not. (In fairness, if we make immigrants ineligible for Social Security benefits, we should also exempt them from Social Security taxes as well.) Immigrant children would still be eligible for public schooling.

The part of this bill that no one is talking about is the overall reduction in numbers. Cutting them in half is pretty significant, and it gives the lie to all those people who say they only oppose illegal immigration, not legal immigration. If you support cutting legal immigration in half, you pretty clearly are anti-immigrant, and you can expect to lose a lot of votes from ethnic groups that have a high percentage of recent immigrants.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

No normal GOP president/candidate would make claims that couldn't possibly be delivered, but Trump does.

Chuck, why do you say these nonsensical things?

No politician has supported legislation that he thinks won't pass, but will please his base and force his opponents to take an unpopular stance? Of course not! That would be crazy!

Oh, and how about that vote on appealing Obamacare the other day. One could get the idea that some Republican politicians who claimed to be against it when they knew repealing it was impossible might have been disassembling. But of course, that can't be. Its unpossible.

Bay Area Guy said...

No normal GOP president/candidate would make claims that couldn't possibly be delivered, but Trump does

"Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES."
-- President George HW Bush (1988).

mockturtle said...

tcrosse reports: The Province of Québec has its own immigration service, and greatly favours those who speak French. Sick !

And are consequently up to their oreilles in Haitian immigrants.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"Speaking more than one language is always nice, but as a rule people learn languages because they need to, because it's actually useful to the conduct of their daily life. "

Exactly so. The reason Europeans tend to be multilingual is because it's not only more practical for, say, a Spanish bed and breakfast owner in Cordoba than it is for a B & B owner in Kansas City, it's easier. The Spaniard is not only more prone to meet and interact with travelers who speak many different tongues, it is also easier for him to travel to France or Italy or Germany or England himself to immense himself in the language he is trying to speak. If you are a Dutch native, you are practically forced to learn languages, because very, very few people outside your own small country speak it. I studied French and German in school and got good grades but I would have a difficult time trying to make myself understandable in France and Germany because it has been years since I’ve had occasion to speak – or to try to speak – in either tongue. Most Americans do not have the means to do junior years abroad in order to master a language. Heck, most do not have the means to take the family over to Europe for a 2 week tour, although it’s more common now than it used to be. They book their ski vacations for Colorado, not Switzerland. If you live outside major urban centers, you have to work hard at keeping up verbal foreign language skills here (with the exception of Mexican Spanish) , in a way most Europeans do not. Keeping up with reading and writing is easier to do because of the Internet (and before that because of foreign language newspapers and novels).

mockturtle said...

Good work, exiled!

Angel-Dyne said...

Jeff: Cutting them in half is pretty significant, and it gives the lie to all those people who say they only oppose illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

Yeah, I find the "what part of ILLEGAL don't you understand?" mantra annoying. Immigration levels are too high, period. Though there are certainly people who are anti-illegal immigration who favor high levels of legal immigration. I don't agree with them, but they're not all liars, Jeff.

If you support cutting legal immigration in half, you pretty clearly are anti-immigrant...

[Rolls eyes]. Clearly, people who prefer only half a million immigrants a year to the 1 million+ we now have are clearly anti-immigrant. I think the numbers should be cut even more for the time being, so clearly I am "anti-immigrant", whatever the hell that means. (I guess it's something bad, like I hate people who want to come to this country, just because.)

...and you can expect to lose a lot of votes from ethnic groups that have a high percentage of recent immigrants.

Probably true. But if the votes of "recent immigrants" are motivated by ethnic nepotism (or any other type of group nepotism), and it's necessary to pander to them in the formation of immigration policy, then it's time to ditch all the pissing and moaning about "nativists" and "white nationalists", and whining about "dog-whistling" to whites. If it's OK for one citizen to want more of "his kind" around, and to pander to him for his vote, then it's OK for other citizens to want the same thing, and to pander to them for votes.

readering said...

We should merge the US with Canada. Lots of English speakers at a stroke.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feste said...

Yawn.

9800.2

Per year average.

98,002 across a decade. 98,002 = “The projections cited by the sponsors said legal immigration would decrease to 637,960 after a year and to 539,958 after a decade.”

“ ... In throwing his weight behind a bill, Mr. Trump ...”

Weight? What weight? Trump has weight? Since when did Trump have weight ?

Or, an attempt to gain weight ?

Bootstrapping legislation not even his own?

Whence boosterism?

Feste said...

“In Search of Common Values amid Large-Scale Immigrant Integration Pressure”

Migration Policy Institute

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/search-common-values-amid-large-scale-immigrant-integration-pressures

“Drawing on examples of values-based conflicts, legislation, arbitration, and compromise from across Europe, this report explores the tradeoffs policymakers face as they seek to define and promote shared values.

Key lessons learned include ...”

rich hahn said...

Mark said...

So my great grandparents who came here would not be allowed to enter today.

When your grandparents came, the US needed relatively unskilled labor.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"Bootstrapping legislation not even his own?"

It's what Presidents do. Or did you think they were actually writing bills?

SukieTawdry said...

I like Sen. Cotton very much. Some people say he lacks charisma. I don't care about charisma. I like this proposed legislation. The Senate won't. At least it won't in sufficient numbers.

There are 263 jurisdictions in 29 states that are required by the federal government to make ballots available in one or more languages other than English. In Los Angeles, you can get ballots in Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Tagalog, Thai, Vietnamese and, oh yeah, English. In France, you can get a ballot in...French. Of course, the United States as a whole does not have an official language although some states do. Maybe we need one. (The UK doesn't have an official language either which strikes me as odd.)

Jim at said...

"No matter, now that we are thru that door let's slam it on the next people. Liberty!"

Put them up at your place, son.
All of them.

Every, last one of them.

Walk the walk.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Put them up at your place, son.
All of them.

Every, last one of them.

naw, just the recidivist felons. his place isn't that big.