Hi dragonwriter, no worries about the mis-post I completely understand. Thank you for taking the time to post a reply.
I've read the article (although I don't put much weight in CNN's reporting) so I went straight to the copy of the bill (http://static.politico.com/ad/1b/a981934c4278bfef730dc51b341...) and then read some commentary on it from both sides of the political spectrum.
Okay so... firstly the assertion that limits to illegal immigration impacts pathways for legal immigration. I'm sorry but I'm still not fully convinced that this example shows your assertion to be the case. I concede however that it cannot be ruled out--so basically I'm still reserving judgement on this point and now that I'm aware of it I will definitely be keeping an eye out for any new data.
So why reserve judgement? Well you specifically said, "Anti-immigrant policies, including ones sold on rhetoric about illegal immigration, often include changes to reduce levels of legal immigration or erect new cosrs (sic) and/or procedural obstacles to it, so that people who were legal immigrants under the old system would be prevented or discouraged from legal immigration under the new system."
The RAISE Act is an entirely separate proposed piece of legislation and therefore it does not hold as a clear example of cause and effect. You could use abduction and say that the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the resulting political climate post his win has brought immigration as a whole into the spotlight, therefore there is a likelihood for a reduction immigration, including previously legal forms of immigration. While I would agree with that line of reasoning I would still reserve calling it a truth and I wouldn't adopt it into my belief structure as I generally hold out for cause and effect reasoning based on verifiable facts before accepting something as a 'truth'.
As to the RAISE Act itself, I think it actually sounds rather sensible. In essence they want to shift more towards entry through work merit as in, prioritising those with education and qualifications, similar to the points system in Canada and Australia. That means cutting back significantly on the low skill migrants and removing the diversity visa completely.
Would this hurt the number of people who go on to make a billion dollar company? I doubt it... I'm sure those people would go through the system legally and would be able to do so on merit. Would this hurt the average American? Personally I believe that it wouldn't... in fact I think it would help the 97.3 million Americans who fall into a low-income category, defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level (source: 2010 US Census).
If considering the effect the RAISE Act would have through the lens of supply and demand economics... less low skilled labour (due to a reduction of low skilled legal immigrants) would lead to more supply of low skilled job openings (which would need to be filled by the existing American workforce).
I should think that any government must consider the impact of legislation would have on low income households and the country's poverty line. In my mind there is no greater social program than a job and that Sir Thomas Browne's words ring true:
"But how shall we expect charity towards others, when we are uncharitable to ourselves? 'Charity begins at home,' is the voice of the world;".
As to the 'reduce legal family immigration', the RAISE Act retain immigration preference for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. It would eliminate preferences for the extended adult family members including:
• Adult parents of U.S. citizens
• Adult siblings of U.S. citizens
• Unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens
• Married adult children of U.S. citizens, and
• Unmarried adult children of legal permanent residents.
I don't see how this is unfair. I get that immigration rights would cover your immediate family unit--especially minors--but why should it automatically cover adult children when they could apply under the same merit based system as other adults?
I've read the article (although I don't put much weight in CNN's reporting) so I went straight to the copy of the bill (http://static.politico.com/ad/1b/a981934c4278bfef730dc51b341...) and then read some commentary on it from both sides of the political spectrum.
Okay so... firstly the assertion that limits to illegal immigration impacts pathways for legal immigration. I'm sorry but I'm still not fully convinced that this example shows your assertion to be the case. I concede however that it cannot be ruled out--so basically I'm still reserving judgement on this point and now that I'm aware of it I will definitely be keeping an eye out for any new data.
So why reserve judgement? Well you specifically said, "Anti-immigrant policies, including ones sold on rhetoric about illegal immigration, often include changes to reduce levels of legal immigration or erect new cosrs (sic) and/or procedural obstacles to it, so that people who were legal immigrants under the old system would be prevented or discouraged from legal immigration under the new system."
The RAISE Act is an entirely separate proposed piece of legislation and therefore it does not hold as a clear example of cause and effect. You could use abduction and say that the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the resulting political climate post his win has brought immigration as a whole into the spotlight, therefore there is a likelihood for a reduction immigration, including previously legal forms of immigration. While I would agree with that line of reasoning I would still reserve calling it a truth and I wouldn't adopt it into my belief structure as I generally hold out for cause and effect reasoning based on verifiable facts before accepting something as a 'truth'.
As to the RAISE Act itself, I think it actually sounds rather sensible. In essence they want to shift more towards entry through work merit as in, prioritising those with education and qualifications, similar to the points system in Canada and Australia. That means cutting back significantly on the low skill migrants and removing the diversity visa completely.
Would this hurt the number of people who go on to make a billion dollar company? I doubt it... I'm sure those people would go through the system legally and would be able to do so on merit. Would this hurt the average American? Personally I believe that it wouldn't... in fact I think it would help the 97.3 million Americans who fall into a low-income category, defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level (source: 2010 US Census).
If considering the effect the RAISE Act would have through the lens of supply and demand economics... less low skilled labour (due to a reduction of low skilled legal immigrants) would lead to more supply of low skilled job openings (which would need to be filled by the existing American workforce).
I should think that any government must consider the impact of legislation would have on low income households and the country's poverty line. In my mind there is no greater social program than a job and that Sir Thomas Browne's words ring true:
"But how shall we expect charity towards others, when we are uncharitable to ourselves? 'Charity begins at home,' is the voice of the world;".
As to the 'reduce legal family immigration', the RAISE Act retain immigration preference for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. It would eliminate preferences for the extended adult family members including:
• Adult parents of U.S. citizens
• Adult siblings of U.S. citizens
• Unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens
• Married adult children of U.S. citizens, and
• Unmarried adult children of legal permanent residents.
I don't see how this is unfair. I get that immigration rights would cover your immediate family unit--especially minors--but why should it automatically cover adult children when they could apply under the same merit based system as other adults?