Slashdot Mirror


Trump Says He Wants Skilled Migrants But Creates New Hurdles (apnews.com)

An anonymous reader shares an Associated Press report: It may be a while before President Donald Trump gets another chance at creating a new, "merit-based" immigration system, a keystone of his four-part plan that Congress rejected last month. In the meantime, his administration is busy making it harder, not easier, for skilled migrants to come work in the United States. The State Department has ended an Obama-era program to grant visas to foreign entrepreneurs who want to start companies in the United States. It is more aggressively scrutinizing visas to skilled workers from other countries. And it is contemplating ending a provision that allows spouses of those skilled workers to be employed in the U.S.

The administration and its backers contend it's trying to fix flaws in the existing, employer-centric skilled immigration system while advocating for a complete overhaul of America's immigration system. "The stuff that they're actually doing is not so much restricting skilled immigration as enforcing the law," said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports reducing immigration. "They're rolling back some of the extralegal measures that other administrations have taken." A primary avenue for skilled immigrants to enter the United States is the H1B visa for specialty workers, which is heavily used by the technology industry. About 85,000 visas are issued annually in a lottery system. Some critics argue they are a way for companies to avoid hiring U.S. citizens; Trump himself has said H1B recipients shouldn't even be considered skilled.
Further reading: On Easter Sunday, Trump threatens to end DACA and 'stop' NAFTA.

327 comments

  1. ...but creates new hurdles. by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good.

    1. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by gtall · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hmmmm...high id...while you are complaining about all those new potential Social Security and Medicare contributors, who do you figure will be paying for yours? Congress and the President have already decided we don't need no stinkin' tax revenue. Maybe you figure the SS trust fund will run dry in 2034. Ooops, no it is close to being at even (with inflows matching outflows) now since it is a pay as you go system. The trust fund is merely accounting. They will have to go to the general fund to fund SS recipients...oh...the one that is currently on course to a trillion dollar yearly deficit. And Medicare runs out of its receipts in about 2024. You won't needing medical care in your dotage. You can just die like a good poor Republican would do so the good rich Republicans can live on.

    2. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

      New hurdles to non-Nordics that is.

    3. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. No Scandinavians either. We need the ones we already have to go back.

    4. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

      You'll be pleased to hear that I've got no plans to come over and steal your job.

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    5. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal aliens don't pay social security tax. Try again.

    6. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by nomadic · · Score: 5, Informative
    7. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your plan for fixing Social Security involves getting someone else to pay for it, you've got problems. It's a lot like building a wall between the US and Mexico, and getting Mexico to pay for it.

      If we can't support Social Security and Medicare by paying for it ourselves, then it doesn't makes sense and we don't deserve it.

    8. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Good.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    9. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think he cares about social security? Why should he? By the time he retires, it will be part of history. If he hasn't saved on his own, he works til he drops.

      Social security is a perfect example why we can't trust politicians with our money. We can't even get them to reliably fund basic infrastructure maintenance without gross misappropriation of funds, so what makes you think they'll protect a huge chunk of money to be spent decades later by the owner?

    10. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If social security depends on immigration, then it is broken.

      Same goes for Medicare.

      Same goes for any segment of our economy.

    11. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      a flood of third world filth.

      Quite frankly, deporting people like you would make us a better country.

    12. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course he doesn't, nobody that makes more than 100K/yr does.

      By that logic, everyone that makes 100K/yr has their home to use as their piggy bank.

      However everyone who rents, and basically everyone who lives in Coastal California/Washington/NY/Maine/Florida can not.

      Trump is busy destroying every social safety net because the man is obsessed with destroying all of Obama's legacy. If Obama touched it, he wants it destroyed. Trump is little more than a racist clown, the very likes we were warned about in every film that features a "resistance"

      But you know what happens to the rich? See China/Taiwan. Except the US has no "taiwan" for it's rich people to hide out. Coming soon the People Republic of the United States. All property will be confiscated, the US dollar will be re-denominated to destroy eveyone's savings and send everyone back to parity. There is a term for this "Eat the Rich"

      The funny thing is that Trump seems to think he hasn't setup the very situation that "The Purge" films are based on. If "The Purge" was a reality, where one day a year you can basically go on a revenge spree, every single person in the upper 2% would be not last through the first one.

      What I hope happens is that come next presidential election, whoever replaces him doubles-down on destroying his legacy, starting by re-instating the "death tax" and set it at 100%.

    13. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by johanw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, ask the Indians how mass immigration worked out for them. They know how bad it is.

    14. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >All property will be confiscated

      But you'll be there with your freedom sticks to wage war. BIGLY.

    15. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You need far less social security when you do not flood your country with cheap labor. However, business will make less profit because of the higher wages they have to pay. It comes down to where you want the profits to go, either to the majority or the minority. If more profits are going to the majority in the form of wages then you have a much healthier populace. If wages are relatively low due to thousands of people applying for each job then you are going to have widespread depression among other side-effects. By the way, there never was a skills shortage.

    16. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by guruevi · · Score: 0

      Lol slashdot cuts the url at just the right length to know it's a partisan site.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    17. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Atlantic? Really? You might as well have cited Kos or the daily beast. Why not use CNN net time? Same biased shit.

    18. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So lets say they pay social security. How about what they actually cost the tax payer. Kids go to school? Yes. People get sick and go to emergency room without insurance? Yes. The list goes on. Again this is basically tax payers subsidizing corporations same as with any other minimum wage employee.

    19. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, America never benefited from immigration!

    20. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Bruha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Social security funds have been stolen. If they were allowed to sit and grow interest as intended then there wouldnâ(TM)t be an issue.

    21. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chances are you are not the type were worried about

    22. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if we did get 'them' to pay for our Social Security, what's to stop the funds from being stolen again? Maybe we should fix the real problem.

    23. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by murdocj · · Score: 1

      I PAID for social security, and I DAMN WELL am going to get what I paid for. Same for Medicare.

    24. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by AC-x · · Score: 2

      Except we're talking about legal H1B recipients, not illegal immigrants.

    25. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by AC-x · · Score: 1

      "we should have more people from Norway." - Trump, Jan 2018

    26. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right. As best can be accounted for, less than 2% of illegal immigrants pay any personal taxes at all, and less than half of those pay Social Security.

      Your laughably biased and deceptive article bent itself into a pretzel avoiding any numbers that expose the obvious truth, instead pretending that sales tax has fuck-all to do with federal income tax.

    27. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      says the Indian tech support guy!

    28. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lol slashdot cuts the url at just the right length to know it's a partisan site.

      Nitpicking at someone else's citation, while providing none of your own, is tantamount to admitting that you lost the argument.

    29. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Kids go to school? Yes.

      Schools are paid for with property tax, not social security taxes. Illegal aliens pay rent, which landlords use to pay property tax. So they are paying to educate their kids.

      The justification for public funding of education is that we all benefit from an educated populace. The children of many illegals were born in American, and are American citizens. They have just as much right to go to school are your kids do. Even for children not born here, we are all better off with them in school and learning.

    30. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if not, what are You going to do?

    31. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about all the people murdered by non-illegals? Are you saying itâ(TM)s justified because they paid taxes?

      Murder is murder, doesnâ(TM)t matter who did it or their residential circumstances. Your argument is a stupid one. Seems you did not benefit from the education system in question.

    32. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, you'll use up the Medicare and SS benefits you paid for in about 10 years after retirement. After that, we the people must fund your ass.

    33. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right...the man does not know what is he talking about...Norway is under populated to the point that they "need" immigration just to keep their basic services (transportation, health care, education, heavy industry...) going. So I'm sorry Mr. Trump, more people from Norway is a no go.

    34. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow wishing the burden of proof to be shifted to the other party really really hard, doesn't make it so.

      The statement was that illegal immigrants pay SS and taxes, now prove it, or STFU.

    35. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the point. Economy as an aggregate is never dependent on growth. Good economic systems allow growth. Instead the social security system insolvency is constantly tried to be fixed by growing outside the box -- getting new payers to the affordable health care system while trying to withdraw the services, or like in Europe pretending that mass immigration will help to pay more taxes to finance the pension bubble.

      Mass immigration has other reasons to support. Like the notion of human rights and the individual right to pursuit happiness and the right to a right respecting government.
      Under a right respecting government and under that only, can a person become a productive member of society. But this cant be turned upside down and exploited as a means to finance the inherently unstable wellfare programs, which are originally financed by the immoral practice of theft (taxes).

    36. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If half of your "wet dreams" comes to pass, the rich will transfer the money into other countries and leave the US behind.

      I think you've read too much socialist propaganda and watched too many purge movies.

    37. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If immigration depends on medicare and our social services, then the system is broken. Send them back.

    38. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Indians" weren't one homogeneous group, they lived in huts and spent most of the last few centuries trying to murder each other.

      This bullshit story of the noble savage is just that, bullshit.

      Did they get a bad deal, yes, but they aren't above criticism.

      Currently the few families that own/run casinos, don't share their wealth with their own tribes, so what does that tell you?

    39. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because we'd totally be convinced by his InfoWars article, which is the leftist equivalent you're defending. It would have been better to make no citations, and instead try to refute the simple truth that was stated.

      He didn't, because he couldn't, because it is obviously true... Even to brainwashed imbeciles like you, who just can't think of a good enough appeal to emotion that would make anyone simple enough second-guess themselves.

    40. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't kick citizen murderers out of the country, much as we'd like to. We can kick out illegal aliens (or prevent them from being here in the first place)...

      The dishonesty in your argument is laughable.

    41. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      If the funds were allowed to "sit" there, how do you think they would grow with interest? Interest is earned when you take the funds and loan them out, which is what we've done. The problem really is that it doesn't earn much interest because it's invested in US debt, which pays very low interest rates (it's considered very safe).

      What would have possibly solved the problem, if we could go back in time, is if the government had created a sovereign wealth fund and invested that money internationally. Same thing we do now, except higher risk which means higher return on average. Norway did that in the 90s and has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world now. They own over 1% of the entire world's stocks which is pretty crazy if you think about how small Norway is (about 5 million people).

    42. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he doesn't, nobody that makes more than 100K/yr does.

      What I hope happens is that come next presidential election, whoever replaces him doubles-down on destroying his legacy, starting by re-instating the "death tax" and set it at 100%.

      This is completely clueless. I guess 100k/yr sounds like a lot from the confines of your parent's basement. I wonder where you will live after they die and the government takes 100% of the assets they managed to save over the course of their lives after paying their taxes.

    43. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The children of many illegals were born in American, and are American citizens.

      Hopefully that will change one day. It's an artifact of the civil war and slavery, not a sane citizenship policy.

      Even for children not born here, we are all better off with them in school and learning.

      Nope, some of us are better off, but most of us suffer because of the decline in school quality as a disproportionate amount of resources are spent on things like ESL classes, the curriculum is dumbed down, and ridiculous amounts of time are wasted on testing and homework as we try to "figure out" why some groups (like very poor kids and kids who don't speak English) aren't keeping up.

    44. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Many native Americans would agree with you.

    45. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that partisan, in that it might pick stories that are left of center, but it is not fabricating them.

    46. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, business will make less profit because of the higher wages they have to pay.

      Why wouldn't they simply move production to where labor is cheap, or automate? Apparently that's why we can't have a living minimum wage. Why do economics only apply to liberal solutions and not regressive ones?

    47. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lovely. I've been paying in to social security for 11 years now. I'll be shocked if I ever get a penny out of it.

    48. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Atlantic? Really? You might as well have cited Kos or the daily beast. Why not use CNN net time? Same biased shit.

      I'm so tired of this, Anonymous Coward.

      If something is factually wrong in the article, point it out. State what is incorrect.

      Don't just say "The Atlantic is biased." Base that opinion on facts from the cited article. We'd have a lot more respect for this statement that way.

      When someone posts a Breitbart story it's usually pretty easy to find what's factually wrong in it. If The Atlantic is biased it should be the same here.

    49. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow wishing the burden of proof to be shifted to the other party really really hard, doesn't make it so.

      The statement was that illegal immigrants pay SS and taxes, now prove it, or STFU.

      https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

    50. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Maybe we could stick this funds into some type of boxes that will keep people's hands off them. Perhaps something that locks so it can't be easily opened. A lock box if you will.

    51. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Illegal aliens pay rent, which landlords use to pay property tax.

      Whereas American citizens, like the landlord, pay rent and taxes. So the illegals still aren't paying their share the way a citizen does.

      The justification for public funding of education is that we all benefit from an educated populace. The children of many illegals were born in American, and are American citizens. They have just as much right to go to school are your kids do. Even for children not born here, we are all better off with them in school and learning.

      Totally different argument, and I agree with this one.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    52. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone posts a Breitbart story it's usually pretty easy to find what's factually wrong in it.

      Yet you have never publicly done so. I do not care for Breitbart, but if you, and you have through your actions, hold people that disagree with you to a higher standard, your views will inevitably be the weaker.

    53. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but don't you see? if the URL contains 'undocumented immigrants' then it is biased and therefore cannot contain any factual information.

    54. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone posts a Breitbart story it's usually pretty easy to find what's factually wrong in it.

      Yet you have never publicly done so. I do not care for Breitbart, but if you, and you have through your actions, hold people that disagree with you to a higher standard, your views will inevitably be the weaker.

      You can't 'disagree' with facts*, well I suppose you can, but then you're an idiot.

      *I'm not saying they do/don't pay, but whichever it is, is a fact.

    55. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      America benefits from legal and skilled immigration. No country has ever benefited from illegal mass immigration of unskilled labor.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    56. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So 'citizen murderers' do not get any sort of punishment?

    57. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Currently the few families that own/run casinos, don't share their wealth with their own tribes, so what does that tell you?

      So...you're against people hoarding wealth and not distributing among the less fortunate?

    58. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Yet you have never publicly done so

      I do this all the time - Someone posts a Breitbart story and I read it and say "good point" or "these are the facts that are wrong in the article."

      That's how discourse works.

    59. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, I'm not waiting for my parents to die. We enjoy their company now and are not concerned by any inheritance to speak of. If there is anything left after their passing my family will use it to honor them in some way.

      They raised independent children who don't need their money or help. As someone that makes over 100k I don't plan on relying on social security to retire. Of course my father-in-law lost his change 5 years prior to his retirement and lost all of his savings. Thankfully he has social security which he uses to pay me a reduced rent instead of getting gouged by apartment complexes that kept upping his rent until he couldn't afford to pay it anymore. Now he actually has some savings and lives with us.

      We need social safety nets or a lot of problems become a whole lot worse. Anyone that honestly studies history would understand why social security was established in the first. If we could get Republicans to stop sabotaging it, we would most likely be fine.

    60. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that claiming they pay into SS and will never reap the benefit is absurd. Anyone under the age of 47 was told pointedly not to expect anything in terms of SS. The feds robbed from SS back in the 80s and the likelihood it will be there for any of us is slim to none. I cannot feel sorry for an illegal paying into SS, citing he isn't going to receive benefits, since I will also never receive benefits. I can tell you what benefits they DO get that I don't. Aside from claiming 20 kids on a W-4 to avoid federal tax witholdings, they also get medicaide benefits and free healthcare which I do not. Additionally they live 3 families per rented unit, also a fire code violation, in order to send all their money back to Mexico (essentially a trade deficit). In addition to this the unclaimed income (sometimes to the tune of $30k a year) of cash payment for food services like selling tamales to other immigrants would have made them ineligible for the same free healthcare that they are receiving at my expense. Don't expect me to feel in the least bit sorry for any of this. If they were scraping their money together to live here permanantly I might care. Its evident by where all their money gets sent via Western Union, that they only tolerate US long enough to steal every benefit they can before moving back to their socialist fuckville they came from.

    61. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, read the first part again, and then a third time because you're slow.

    62. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in a 2013 report, "The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers," available at fairus.org, stated:

      "Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs â" some $84 billion â" are absorbed by state and local governmentsâ¦

      So they might pay some, but they cost us a fuck-ton more. Great argument ;)

    63. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'good' - sounds succinct.

      Now, I was wondering what exactly was 'good' ? Is it the fact that you get paid by the worrd by Comrade Putin ? In that case, 'good' does not pay as well as say, 'fantastic' or even 'awesome' .

      I guess you dont have the current russki to englisg dictionary ? Want us to send you one ?

            .

      Smooches.

    64. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the H1-B program gets curtailed to the point it can't harm Americans anymore.

    65. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the ones that are paid on the books, and they cost way more than they put in.

      FYI, the ones paid on the books, their employers are still committing a crime.

    66. Re: ...but creates new hurdles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People tend to riot in the streets now if a brown person receives justice.

    67. Re:...but creates new hurdles. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      You're going to stay at home and steal their job by making it an irrelevant and unprofitable thing to do? Good.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Good April Fools story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Almost had me there.

  3. TRUST NOTHING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FAKE NEWS

  4. Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    A xenophobic leopard ain't gonna change his xenophobic spots.

    1. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Dan667 · · Score: 3, Funny

      which is pretty hilarious as trump marries foreigners and has had a lot of anchor babies with them.

    2. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interesting! So since nearly every single country on this planet restricts immigration and makes getting a job nearly impossible without being a legal resident, does that mean the governments and leaders of each and every country are xenophobes?

      Or do you restrict your criticism to only major white countries. Just making sure you are not the racist one.

    3. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. You think theyâ(TM)re doing it for any other reason than they dislike or distrust people from different cultures?

      If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

    4. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you would pay extra taxes to pay for all that stuff you want and others don't.

      We have computers. We can have fine grained tax control easily.

      Oh you want open borders? YOU pay for it.

      Oh you want to give welfare to the lazy and useless? YOU pay for it.

      Time to stop making other people pay for your demands. Put your money where your mouth is.

    5. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but white foreigners.

    6. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a troll, it's a matter of extent of restrictions. The Trump administration announced an intent to relax restriction on skilled migrant labor, then does the opposite, due to an apparent impetus to reduce immigration overall.

    7. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy doesnâ(TM)t work like that, dipshit.

      You want to carve out your own little country-in-a-country, you go right ahead and try. Best of luck.

    8. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The illegal aliens are racists. They would rather live in a 60 percent white country than a 100 percent Mexican country.

    9. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just like a communist ain't gonna stop hammerin' and sicklin' his globalist agenda.

    10. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grandparent suggested a way you both can get what you want without agreeing on policy. You responded with insults. I guess we have to do this the traditional way: we make a law that forces everyone to follow a single policy. I would wish you good luck if you were not such a crude jerk.

    11. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting! So since nearly every single country on this planet restricts immigration and makes getting a job nearly impossible without being a legal resident, does that mean the governments and leaders of each and every country are xenophobes?

      Is it your assertion that we should do everything exactly like those countries you believe are not as good as us? Now that you've had your point put to you in such an explicit manner, do you now understand how pathetic you sounded?

    12. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Immigration is a lot like the war on drugs. Fighting it just creates more, even worse problems than it solves. Having a sensible policy that gives people a chance to immigrate legally and fairly, managed so that it doesn't adversely affect people already there, is good for everyone.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate this sort of article. Hard to know if April Fools or not... :-/

    14. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing, that's what were trying to do!

    15. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's amazing to me how nothing whatsoever counts as evidence against the xenophobia theory. It's almost like you guys use that as an excuse to attack anyone who doesn't give you what you want.

    16. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The illegal aliens are mostly from countries south of the Mexican border. Mexico only maintains a 'loose' southern border with the understanding that people who come north across it will keep going north and leave Mexico to enter the US. They have VERY strict laws that they enforce to keep illegal imigrants from taking jobs in Mexico.

      We should stop the illegals from crossing into the US. And people here illegally who came through Mexico should be dumped across the border to let Mexico deal with them.

    17. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But eurotrash.. ewww.

    18. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by quantaman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Interesting! So since nearly every single country on this planet restricts immigration and makes getting a job nearly impossible without being a legal resident, does that mean the governments and leaders of each and every country are xenophobes?

      Or do you restrict your criticism to only major white countries. Just making sure you are not the racist one.

      Motives matter.

      For instance wanting the finance industry to pay more taxes isn't racist.

      But wanting the finance industry to pay more taxes because I think they're a bunch of Jews who are controlling everything is racist.

      Similarly, managing immigration and foreign worker policy because you want to ensure smooth integration and avoid worker exploitation isn't racist.

      Doing those things because you want fewer Muslims and brown skinned people is racist.

      And the one thing we should know right now is that Trump is a racist.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    19. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to emigrate to Norway... Well Svalbard anyway.

    20. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by guruevi · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And the US has a great immigration policy, basically you have to be able to earn enough income in order to pay taxes (so 75k/y and up) or be somehow related to a US citizen (by birth or by marriage) and then you're very welcome in the US. I've done it, it's not hard, it takes about a half year to three years depending on your circumstances.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    21. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you idiots' goal is to "Make America Great Again," not "Make America like Everyone Else"?

      Racists and ignorant idiots think America is/was great despite its immigrant policies. More intelligent folk realize it is precisely those policies that Trump is changing that made America great. As a very loose measure, 40% of US Nobel prize winners were immigrants. Somehow, slacking off, waving your guns, and spitting at non-whites not looking like you isnt conducive to winning a medal.

    22. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the problem is indeed 'to have immigration that don't make it worse for those already there'.

      That means you have to reject a bunch of people. Creating exactly the same problems you get when rejecting all immigrants. You can't have what you want.

    23. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Difference between immigration and an invasion;
      Immigration; people come into a country to have a better life. They adopt the host countries flag, language and attitude.

      Invasion: people come into a weaker more compassionate country to prey on its weak peoples. They force the weaker people to assume the flag, attitud3s and language of the more virile conquering people.

      An invasion should always be opposed.

    24. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the cheap and greedy are going to be the cheap and greedy. This has nothing to do with the workers race and everything to do with the employers trying to cheat the system in order to get skilled labor for lower costs. While people used to listen to you when you got on your soap box and screamed racist but people are smart enough not to see through that cute game.

      Racist or not the system is being abused at the cost of our country. It's high time that someone had the guts to stand up to idiots using racism to protect their self interests.

    25. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Type44Q · · Score: 1, Troll

      You think theyÃ(TM)re doing it for any other reason than they dislike or distrust people from different cultures?

      Racism is entirely orthogonal to the sociopath's quest to obtain and secure power and influence; it is, however, extremely useful for controlling the thoughts and feelings of idiots of all races.

      Oh and by the way... you're dumber than fuck.

    26. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Immigration is a lot like the war on drugs.

      It's quite different. The demand for drugs comes from addicts. Punishing them is hard to do, since quite a number of them live in some of the worst environments imaginable to support their habit.

      Illegal immigration, however, is funded by businesses and wealthy people. These people live in good neighborhoods with nice houses and cars.

      The simple way to stop illegal immigration is to kill the demand: arrest their employers and seize their assets. Employers across the country will drop illegals like a hot potato and most will go home.

    27. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      For a country built on immigration in the relatively recent past, and where the employment route makes you an indentured servant, it doesn't seem that easy or fair.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      And also imports their parents, don't forget the chain immigration.

    29. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Trump, and fuck you for voting for him

    30. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The demand for drugs comes from addicts...., however, is funded by businesses and wealthy people."

      FTFY

    31. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not unlike all of the celebs who threatened to move to Canada should Trump win. Always it's about moving to a predominantly white country, rather than a mostly brown one to the South with a lower cost of living.

    32. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      which is pretty hilarious as trump marries foreigners and has had a lot of anchor babies with them.

      Not anchor babies. Trump is a natura lborn citizen, Trumps marries them, and gets their residency visas.

    33. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is pretty hilarious as trump marries foreigners and has had a lot of anchor babies with them.

      It is best to remember that motives are usually not just from column A. Sure Trump is a flat out racist scumbag at least to certain races. That much is patently obvious. Birthirism proved that beyond any doubt.

      He is also a grade A con man who is so full of shit it as to possibly be proof of the existence of a wormhole to the bullshit dimension. You have to also remember that he doesn't care about a great deal beyond the Trump brand. He can pretend to when he wheels and deals, but he could just as easily flip the deal on its side and do the opposite 30 minutes later.

      In some ways the fact that he has no true values makes him a little less dangerous. About the only thing he won't flip flop on is defending the Trump brand and protecting Trump, and there is where his response to Russia comes from.

      As near as I can tell Vladimir Putin scares the crap out of him. The guy has had his enemies killed with impunity, so Trump doesn't want to offend him. Also, if he admitted what is already know about the Russian efforts it would make him look bad, so all and all Trump's response, or lack thereof to Russia is perfectly non surprising. Whether or not there is blackmail material such as loans, pee tapes, or whatever, who knows.

      Did you see how he went along with expelling diplomats, likely because of the pressure to do so, but then immediately sent Putin a gift in the form of signalling he would get out of Syria and I believe already cancelled some kind of relief payment...?

      When all is said and done Trump probably wants to see his presidency succeed, since it would make Trump incorporated more valuable. Actually, it would probably be more correct to say he wants to make Trump incorporated more valuable and is using the presidency to that effect.

      Does he care about the wall? Nah, it played well in trials and he promised it allot so in order to avoid losing support he has to try to get it. If he cared about the wall he wouldn't have promised Mexico was going to pay for it so many times. The man is not stupid. He was playing suckers and they bought it. Unfortunately, while I'm not sure he expected to win, he did, and his lies are vast and wide and what is worse is if he abandons too many of them the rest of his base will flee, so we are stuck

      I half think he was expecting to lose, what with his threats about challenging a loss as certain cheating. He said all this while apparently colluding with the Russians on the Hillary email release and even asked for help publicly once. No, in the end I think he expected to lose, but to use the momentum to maybe get into Trump TV or something similar. Remember he is a bullshit artist. He would have no moral problems whatsoever with creating a propaganda channel to make Joseph Gobbles weep with envy. To an extent that is what Fox and some of the others have become anyway, hence all his hires from there.

      Maybe he is prehiring for his post presidency? Sure I'd imagine he admires how effective Fox propaganda is, but it isn't his propaganda. He probably thought he had something going with Birthirism. He probably figures well if people are really that stupid, well, there is money to be made.

      A true patriot would pay his taxes and be proud of his service. We didn't elect a patriot and that was our mistake for it even being close.

    34. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And an idiot will always be an idiot. Trump isn't even calling for the exact same immigration standards as say, Canada.

      This is why the left has failed and why the capitalist class has won. Idiots like this poster feed the flame of the working class turning to nationalism by making every sensible reform "racism".

    35. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ridiculous. No other country has these problems because employers who profit from slave labor go to jail.

      The demand for drugs is high across the board from all levels of society. The demand for slaves is not and never has been high. Even when slavery was legal.

    36. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the relative past that didn't have a social safety net. Immigration during the time you speak of amounted to "Welcome to America. If you can do it yourself, good job. If not you will die and no one cares."

      Indentured servant is also the route for citizens via student loans? What is the problem and how is that different for the average American? If you can't make it on your own you shouldn't be given access. Anyone granted citizenship is given many more privileges and rights than the cost and troubles from where they came from. Why else would they want to come here?

    37. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting! So since nearly every single country on this planet restricts immigration and makes getting a job nearly impossible without being a legal resident, does that mean the governments and leaders of each and every country are xenophobes?

      Or do you restrict your criticism to only major white countries. Just making sure you are not the racist one.

      I remember back during the election and all the "if Trump wins I'm moving to X" nonsense, those people never considered that X country that they admire actually restricts immigration and most likely wouldn't even let them in as they don't have any real in-demand skills.

    38. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He suggested no such thing. That’s not a reasonable idea. It’s not even an idea. It’s just mindless blather from an alt-right ignoramus, who doesn’t understand the first thing about how a democracy functions.

      Why should I give two fucks about being thoughtful about the feelings of such a clod?

    39. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...getting a job nearly impossible without being a legal resident...."
      Well these illegal immigrant could curb their appetite for work and move to Sweden where stupid citizens will feed them without requiring them doing any work.
      Working people is "a good thing".
      The tech industry could besides getting people onshore just outsource their operations, which will fit nicely with large corporations hiding their income form taxation in offshore schemes.

    40. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then stay in your own country... That's the point.

      We're full of people who can't or won't work to earn a living. It's over half of the population.

      Turning people away is not an act of cruelty to them. It's one of mercy to those living here who must suffer more to provide for others who aren't providing for themselves. We cannot keep doing it. It's literally killing us.

      We're not xenophobic. We're also not suicidal.

    41. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Muslim isn't a race, you fucking imbecile. It's a religious and political ideology. It is not above criticism, and it is demonstrably incompatible with a free society.

      I assume that the rest of what you said was also mindless bullshit and brainwashed sniveling white guilt, so I did not read it.

    42. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      74% of Nobel prize winners were Jewish, most of whom could happily and easily immigrate without any trouble.

      Literally none were Haitians.

      Go fuck yourself.

    43. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Let's cut to the chase, they are probably eyeing the Australian immigration system https://www.australia.gov.au/i..., like it and want to, hmmmm, crossgrade https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... to it (not going to make an up or down, distinction to that, no way, now how, not that I could give a fuck about the corporate funded SJWs doing their idiotic divide and weaken bullshit, the fake left, not the far left, the make the rest of the left look bad, fake left, fuck em, but it should be a democratic decision made by the majority of citizens). Of course the US will tweak it their way (making it less functional), rather than just copy some other countries system.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    44. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you stupid n1gger - go back to shitty Africa and evolve first.

    45. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please provide a comparison of white versus non-white countries and their imnigration policies? Please also include your definition of White seeing as the concept is pretty subjective.

      I'll anxiously be awaiting the results of this, particularly because your comments suggest you have already compiled this research

    46. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by gtall · · Score: 1

      Not to mention her chain migration parents....Oooooo, look el Presidente Tweetie, *immigrants*!! Go Crazy!!!

    47. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by gtall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trump probably is a racist, but that isn't why he's playing the racist card. He's playing it because his base is racist, and hence, he's playing them.

    48. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make more than 75k/y. Does this mean I am welcome? I am a high-skilled IT person.

      If I could get a visa I could easily make 200K/year in the US.

      Under what visa can I enter then? I have never seen a visa which stated a dollar figure. I do know that I could invest one million dollars into the US to enter.

      Perhaps I am even so skilled to enter on the basis of being a special talent person, but I never tried that.

    49. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. We should always do the opposite from the rest of the world!

    50. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the rich that want easy immigration, so things certainly are not going your way here. You're the one who will get a hard time paying for their own things in a "Everyone on their own" scenario.

      For starters, healthcare benefits, which employers will gladly eliminate while the health industry sallivates.

    51. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Motives matter. ...
      And the one thing we should know right now is that Trump is a racist.

      IOW, nothing Trump does will be good enough because you can ascribe all evil motivations to him without evidence. Nothing will convince you or the dems from seeing Trump as anything but racist, sexist, xenophobe, transphobe, blah blah blah blah. Literally Hitler.

      Even if it was amnesty for all of DACA and their family. Obama had great motivations yet his policy was shite. Democrats do not want to solve DACA. They don't want to solve any problem because when they do have control and majority in all levels of government they piss on everyones face with shite like the ACA. They would rather elect someone like Obama who uses executive overreach to pass their agenda, because they sure as shite can't do it through congress and elections, and then sue anyone undoing that overreach because Literally Hitler racist sexist blah blah blah blah.

    52. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Having a sensible policy that gives people a chance to immigrate legally and fairly, managed so that it doesn't adversely affect people already there, is good for everyone.

      And what if that's not possible? What if we have to choose who it should be good for and who it should be bad for?

    53. Re:Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "durrr we have computers so we can magic". Am I really supposed to believe that's something a normal highly educated and technical slashdot poster would say?
      Russian shill

    54. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The employment route doesn't make you an indentured servant, H1B is not the only option.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    55. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the US has a great immigration policy, basically you have to be able to earn enough income in order to pay taxes (so 75k/y and up) or be somehow related to a US citizen (by birth or by marriage) and then you're very welcome in the US. I've done it, it's not hard, it takes about a half year to three years depending on your circumstances.

      Not sure what you mean by $75k/year meant. If you are talking about a green card process through employment base, then no the minimum is less than that. Also, you pay federal income taxes if you earn more than around $10k (assuming you are younger than 65 and not married) regardless you are on work permit or a citizen.

    56. Re: Xenophobes gonna xenophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make more than 75k/y. Does this mean I am welcome? I am a high-skilled IT person.

      If I could get a visa I could easily make 200K/year in the US.

      Under what visa can I enter then? I have never seen a visa which stated a dollar figure. I do know that I could invest one million dollars into the US to enter.

      Perhaps I am even so skilled to enter on the basis of being a special talent person, but I never tried that.

      Yes, there is a place/site where you can look for to see how much money you can earn at what position you are supposed to be working in the U.S. Also, don't overestimate yourself too much on salary comparison.

  5. Something is changing in our immigration system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    April Fools

  6. Well no kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We want people with actual skills and not the criminal rejects scraped off the shitholes.
    Just like every other country defines in their immigration policies!

    Why can't we?

    1. Re:Well no kidding. by gtall · · Score: 1

      Errr...because most of the illegal immigrants to the U.S. have a lower rate of criminal activity that the natives, and work like dogs so their kids can do better than they? We used to have an American Dream before knuckleheads like Trump decided the American Dream was only for white folk.

    2. Re: Well no kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your american dream was shattered during the civil rights movement aftermath of the 60's when the marxian notion of group consciousness and other post modern nonsense was eaten hooks and rods by the power hungry leaders of the black communities.
      The theories provided excuces and fed from envy. In the meanwhile the productive members of the society had to renew the production on a daily basis. A good excuse lasts forever.
      Of course an excuse is not psychologically rewarding and eats any true self esteem, which could only become as the reward from success and production.

    3. Re:Well no kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > before knuckleheads like Trump

      So the way you tell if people are brown or not is whether they have to earn a visa to work in USA or not? I think your perspective is bad, and I'm telling you this as a person who would have to earn a visa to work in USA if I wanted to.

    4. Re:Well no kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the eff is 'we', bubba ? Why would anyone care what a bunch of flyover country hicks think ?

  7. Employer Algorithm for keeping a deep tech bench by hwstar · · Score: 1

    if increased_h-1b_restrictions is True then:
    result = lobby_congress_to_get_rid_of_regulations()
    if result is False then:
    result = move_most_operations_overseas()
    if border_adjustment_tax is True then:
    result = initiate_second_business_plot()
    if result is False
    flee_country()

  8. He /says/ he wants them. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1, Insightful

    While he may say he wants skilled workers, the truth is that he's working toward isolationism because that is what his extremist political base wants. Furthermore, the president himself doesn't really have any real positions with the exception that he's great and wants praise. The only thing that matters to this eternally waffling president is his own ego.

    The real shame here is that a certain political party refused to even speak out against this farce of a president (much less impeach) and have now become the party of extremism as a result.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  9. In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words, Trump is looking for a new wife with such vital skills as "modeling" and "willing to have sex with an orange carrot with a flop of hair". You know, the sort of things you only find in America in porn stars and Playboy models.

    1. Re: In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stormy showed US sex is too expensive. Cheaper to outsource that

  10. What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If he cracks down on H1B abuse, that's a good thing in both the short and the long run, regardless of what the vested interests that are big media and big tech have to say on the subject. And given past reporting on the economics of H1B, it is fair to say that much of the program is abuse. Good on Trump.

    As to the rest of it...that's right: Congress needs to change the law in order for the law to be changed. I understand why this may come as unexpected news given the previous administration's looser interpretation of the separation of powers and big media's unabashed cheerleading of that loose interpretation but it is indeed the case that if we want merit-based immigration, then we need to change the law from what we have now to what we would like to have.

    Enforcing the letter of the existing laws to highlight their inadequacy is about the only thing the President can do to force the issue. That's what happened with terminating DACA. The lefties couldn't stomach actually having to vote on amnesty for an ever-changing and open-ended number of illegal immigrants so they sued in a friendly court where an Obama-appointed judge made the curious ruling that the Trump administration could not terminate DACA on the grounds of its illegality because only a court could find something illegal. We'll see what sort of contortions the left will make in their inevitable court challenge. Perhaps they will find a judge who is willing to rule that only even-numbered presidents may issue executive orders while odd-numbered presidents are obliged to keep on enforcing them, on the grounds that no one wants odd governance and an even-handed approach is more mathematically beautiful.

    1. Re:What ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sshhh! You're disagreeing with the paid lobbyists who are coming on this site to push their DNC line!

      Anyone disagreeing with paid internet propaganda is Hitler on a rainbow farting unicorn!!!

    2. Re:What ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's EO was written in a way that it couldn't be undone. Trump committed treason by deciding to illegally expel the immigrants. This will be one of the reasons he will be impeached and put in prison.

    3. Re: What ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot

    4. Re: What ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop crapflooding slashdot with nonsense.

    5. Re:What ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need H1B workers.
      The visa kids are the ones who have their name on patents, and have a stupidly disproportionate number of phd candidates among them.

    6. Re:What ever. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In one paragraph you complain about the president overstepping into the domain of the judicial branch.

      In the next you complain about a court preventing the president from overstepping into the domain of the judicial branch.

      That's some impressive doublethink.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:What ever. by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Informative

      > You need H1B workers.

      No we don't.

      > The visa kids are the ones who have their name on patents, and have a stupidly disproportionate number of phd candidates among them

      No they are not. We already have the O-1 visa for the exceptional talented.

    8. Re:What ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except there is no doublethink. It's an explicit constitutional power granted to the legislature to make naturalization law. DACA was put in place by the executive, which is an abuse of executive power. The judiciary doesn't have this power either, and overruling a return to the law of the land is an abuse of judicial power. Two wrongs don't make a right here, no matter how ethical or moral you think it does. If people want DACA, it is up to the Congress to grant that. Trump is well within his powers to resume enforcement, and it's a reasonable move to tell Congress to get its ass in gear to come up with a solution, whether that means enacting DACA as enforced under the Obama administration or coming up with an alternative solution.

    9. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      You ought to learn how American government is meant to work before you try to accuse people of hypocrisy when they explain how it should work.

      It doesn't work like it does in Britain where there are no real boundaries between lawmaking, law enforcement, and the judiciary, and the whole thing is duct tape, bailing wire, and tradition. We have a Constitution that delineates the bounds of authority of different branches of government and is deliberately set up to require broad consensus before major changes in policy like immigration law may be adopted. That's a feature, not a bug.

      People who treat it as a bug do not have the law on their side. Obama treated it as a bug because for all the fake news about his skill as an orator, he was terrible at consensus building. Trump does not seem to be that good at it either, but to his credit he is pulling back on some of Obama's overreach instead of doubling down on it.

    10. Re: What ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AmiMojo, don't you have an acid attack or knife fight to get to?

      Throwing a lot of stones for living in such a large glass Mosque.

    11. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      and is deliberately set up to require broad consensus before major changes in policy like immigration law may be adopted.

      Many laws grant the President a broad discretion of powers, and so he creates administrative agencies (by executive order) to exercise those powers. Those agencies change the rules now and then; sometimes, the President orders them to change the rules.

      What is within the power granted to the Executive and not mandated the specific duty of the Executive may or may not be done by the Executive, and so the Executive may set policy. Some laws say "The Attorney General shall...", others simply specify what shall be--leaving it to the Chief Executive to order into existence whatever satisfies the described circumstance.

      The President can, in fact, make major policy changes.

    12. Re:What ever. by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      I've been watching politics since I was about 12. Trump, despite being a repugnant individual, has been the only one to have the balls to touch trade or H1B and other immigration issues ever. At this point, it would take a LOT for me not to vote for him again, if nothing else I'd do it just to watch all the news media and far left burst into tears again, and I'm not even a right-winger: just a fan of karma. I don't give a fuck how much pussy he's grabbed if he can keep out the foreigner flood. I've had enough of this shit, already.

    13. Re:What ever. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      DACA was put in place by the executive, which is an abuse of executive power.

      Congress doesn't grant the executive unlimited funds. Therefore the executive has to prioritize how to use those funds. That would include, for example, deprioritizing the deportation of law-abiding immigrants who have been here since early childhood without proper documentation.

    14. Re:What ever. by Guybrush_T · · Score: 1

      Before anything, I agree the H1B system has been abused, flooded and denatured by Indian companies for too long, which was actually preventing companies from hiring really talented individuals.

      But O-1 have many problems as well. You can get an O-1 as an average/low PhD thanks to a couple of empty research papers, but you cannot hire a 10 year experienced expert in any domain. So O-1 are not going to fill the need for skilled persons in the US. Not for skill, not for numbers.

      The ONLY way to distinguish skilled from non-skilled is by filtering on how much salary the company is willing to pay. Only problem is, the bay area will get the most part of it, but maybe it's not that bad since unemployment is worse elsewhere. It seems to be becoming part of the decision process anyway so maybe we're getting there.

    15. Re: What ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crapflooding bots don't care if you're polite about asking them to stop.

    16. Re:What ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry that your chronic unemployment and inability to form meaningful personal relationships have caused you to flood /. message boards with gibberish about immigration and visas. I hope your parents have enough financial resources to afford quality mental health treatments. May I suggest that you start groveling on 'gofundme' in case you need funds ?

      In other news, you still are a very important member of the Order of the Knights of Douchebaggery. Congratulations.

      Hugs and kisses.

    17. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      You are correct. However, prioritization is a long way from handing out residence and work permits with zero authority to do so found anywhere in the United States Code. That scenario is more akin to handing out blank drivers licenses for 16 year olds to fill out themselves because there are only a finite number of slots to schedule a driving test.

    18. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Congress can write the law any way it likes, but it can't delegate all of its authority away. Congress gave Bill Clinton a line-item veto by legislation. The courts found that law to be constitutional on the grounds that the executive is only empowered by the Constitution to either sign/ignore or veto a bill and send it back with a reason why, not to sign a fraction of it, and a line-item veto deviates too far from that to be allowed to be instituted by legislation and not an amendment.

      Either way, that wasn't the situation with DACA. The executive was not empowered by existing law to give out work and residency permits to illegals the way Obama did.

    19. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      I'm looking for a second job. Which troll farm do you work for and how does one apply?

    20. Re:What ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah yes - where the exceptionally untalented people in at uscis decide who is exceptionally talented vs merely highly skilled. good luck with that.

    21. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The supreme court actually had found all deferred action programs within the bounds of the law in prior cases, and the Executive took advantage of that.

    22. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Citation please? DACA never made its way to the supreme court. DAPA was shot down by a circuit court, if I remember correctly, and the same cast of characters that challenged DAPA were about to challenge DACA before Trump terminated it.

    23. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      DAPA was shot down by a circuit court and the Supreme Court split 4-4 on it with no opinion.

      Interesting... I can't find prior rulings on deferred action programs at this time. There have been a great many. Someone did sue the Clinton administration and lose, and on pretty good grounds.

      The fun part is people complain about these rules and assert that they're at odds with the law, and we often just pass laws making these rules the law. I've encountered people on the campaign trail that tell me that's stupid and I need to focus on enforcing the law; I point out that enforcing the law is the Judicial's problem, executing it is the Executives, and that the job I'm going for is making the law--which means when I say it's fine and several hundred others in the room nod in agreement, that is the law.

      Good catch, though. I'm working off fourth-hand information in this case, and should seek better sources.

    24. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      If I'm reading your second link correctly, that was about neglecting to allocate resources, for which prioritization is a defense. You still haven't told me why you think handing out de-facto visas to people is the same as prioritization of limited resources.

      You're also a bit fuzzy on the distinction between executing the law and enforcing it. The cops who arrest you for breaking a law passed by the legislature are "enforcing" it as much as the judge who sentences you to stand in the stocks in the center of town for punishment.

    25. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If the law gives the Executive the power to take an action, the Executive has broad discretion.

      If the law specifies that a certain condition shall illicit a certain action, the Executive is bound.

      The law gets odd because it essentially gives power to the Executive and the Judiciary. For example: a State law against riding a dirt bike in the street can result in a fine, imprisonment, and seizure of property. The Executive has already created the State DOT, and the State DOT is now bound to include these laws as regulation. That means the DOT certifies certain things for road use, and may not certify those things--and so those things are illegal to operate on the road. The DOT could road-certify your dirt bike and the police couldn't take an action against you; however, the law prohibits the Executive from doing that.

      So here's the thing: the Police are the executive, but also have discretion because the law does not specify a "must arrest" offense. The Prosecutor isn't required to prosecute.

      We could give you a warning and tell you to walk the damned thing home. The Prosecutor could decline to arraign you because he thinks you're not a menace and you seem reasonable enough that prosecution will make things worse. The Courts have to rule on law (the Prosecutor has a huge amount of power), and are limited to what penalty they may apply.

      Police don't deport immigrants.

      We have a special enforcement unit called Immigration and Customs Enforcement for this. ICE has been created by the execution of our immigration and customs laws, so to provide the Executive wit the capacity to enforce them.

      I distinguish execution and enforcement as a matter of policy: the Executive--the President (or whomever the law grants power) and the Enforcement Agencies create rules which fit into the power granted and the actions mandated by the law. You must X, you have the power to Y. To execute, you create agencies with procedures which absolutely achieve X and do not exceed the power of Y. Everything within that scope is up to the discretion of the Executive.

      Enforcement involves actually carrying the law out to its conclusion. Without execution, you can't enforce. We now have the ICE agency, with ICE rules, with ICE agents, who can now take action within the scope of ICE rules against those who violate the law which ICE is intended to execute. When a person commits an offense against the law, ICE takes enforcement action against that offense.

      If you think about that for a while, you reach an interesting conclusion: if the law does not include complete, air-tight language that a thing SHALL be an offense, the penalty SHALL be as specified, and a person committing the offense SHALL be arrested, SHALL be prosecuted, and SHALL be subject to the penalty if found guilty of the offense, then the law is not directly enforceable. A law which leaves any span of discretion must be executed by creating those refined rules, which are then enforced.

      Think about when the FCC enforced Net Neutrality rules. Congress didn't pass a law for that; it gave the FCC those powers long ago, and the FCC never used them in that capacity. Then it did. The President didn't even have to issue an executive order. Now we've decided we like these rules, and want to restrict the Executive from failing to enforce them; so we will write a law (eventually), the Executive will execute the law, and those rules will become fixed once again and illegal to repeal. The FCC will thereafter be required to enforce those rules.

      My understanding of immigration law is it doesn't require all action in all cases, but only gives the Executive the power of action. Note that it doesn't give the Executive the power to provide visas in excess of the legislative limits, so the Executive might be allowed to give "de-facto visas" as you put it by simply not enforcing--and can enforce the hell out of the law if you need to leave.

      Amusingl

    26. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Well that's all well and good, and I might even agree with some (but not all, see below) of your analysis. But there's a difference between a "de facto" visa as in not deporting, and a "pseudo-de jure" visa of an actual document issued by ICE that says you're allowed to be here for a certain period of time and allowed to work during that period. I don't see how one can ever be interpreted to be equivalent to the other, even with whatever leeway there might be in the law.

      Which gets us back to the first point: laws can never be airtight. Then they would look even less like plain English and even more like computer code. Yet we still have an understanding that "rule of law" should mean that the law means what it says. We short-circuit some of the complexity by aiming to have fewer laws with the expectation that personal freedom and personal responsibility take up the slack.

      But with immigration law, there is a binary. You're either here with authorization grounded in law written by Congress per its powers under Article I Section 8 or you aren't.

    27. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      And now I read through some of your campaign webpage.

      First, you're doubly lucky I'm a Republican and don't live in your state or your district, because you have no way of losing my vote.

      Second: points awarded for being quantitative or making the effort to be.

      Points deducted for identifying the problem to ten decimal places but then asserting the solution lies off in the clouds and "needs research" without actually proposing something resembling a specific solution or a description of the shape of a specific solution or even an avenue of approach to getting a specific solution.
      Blunt assessment from a RightwingNutjob: that gives the illusion of depth, and the illusion of analysis, without achieving depth, or analysis, or giving me a reason to agree with whatever your final proposed solution may be. I'm talking about your guns platform on your website. I'm also talking about your post. See my other reply.

    28. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      there's a difference between a "de facto" visa as in not deporting, and a "pseudo-de jure" visa of an actual document issued by ICE that says you're allowed to be here for a certain period of time and allowed to work during that period.

      True. There's also the third approach (DACA) of giving people an official status that promises softer action and making said softer action policy, which again requires the law to not force a policy of must-act. The fourth approach, of course, is to automatically extend visas: we don't have a problem with you, your visa turns into a green card (permanent). That won't work for illegal entry; it works for the situation where we gave you a 6-month working period and there's no practical reason we'd benefit from terminating your work visa, but red tape is stupid and causes problems. Cut the Gordian knot.

      But with immigration law, there is a binary. You're either here with authorization grounded in law written by Congress per its powers under Article I Section 8 or you aren't.

      Actually, there isn't. The only immigration clause in the Constitution is possibly the last clause of Article 1, Section 8:

      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

      The generic "make laws" clause. The Constitution considered people coming to be citizens, but never considered people just ... coming here. Weird, huh? The Commerce Clause gives us a catch-all: immigrants (and trade) affect interstate and foreign commerce. The damned thing could have just said "it is the duty of Congress to ensure the good health of the Economy of the United States" but they had to go and write something over which people could argue, and then nobody cared to argue about it anyway.

      As with all laws, however, Congress puts forth a legislative policy, and the Executive executes this by forming Executive policy. That has to fit within the Legislative policy. It's no different than any other law, such as that governing the DEA, FDA, or FCC.

    29. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Points deducted for identifying the problem to ten decimal places but then asserting the solution lies off in the clouds and "needs research" without actually proposing something resembling a specific solution

      I do that now and then. I don't like taking action when there is data lacking. That means I tend to put the brakes on when people are just flailing about, but also tend to push for real examination of a problem before we bring a solution.

      I'm not about to pretend to have all the answers. An understanding of the meta-problem, yes; a final solution, absolutely not.

      A Republican can't win my district--although I'm worried about the new challenger. I'm taking the General election seriously, even though the common convention is to break open the champagne after the Primary and congratulate ourselves on winning our Congressional seats.

      The new guy claims his political experience includes being a member of Maryland's Continental Congress. Yes, you read that right.

    30. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1
      You're joking, right? Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:

      To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States

    31. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's the text of the Constitution. It says that Congress has the power to establish a uniform rule determining how people are conferred citizenship. You have to take the impact of migration--simple residence of non-citizens, and their consumption and labor--as a factor in commerce to find authority of Congress to regulate immigration.

      You didn't think a person with a green card was naturalized, did you?

    32. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      You're claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to decide who may or may not reside on the territory of the United States unless it's got something to do with interstate commerce?

      Where in the Constitution or in case law does it say the authority to allow people to come is rooted in commerce? Implicit in the idea of uniform naturalization and control and disposition of federal lands, and in conducting international relations (also a power of Congress) and having a military is the idea that you have a border and you guard it.

      Long story short dude, you're falling into a trap of thinking "I disagree with you" or "I don't like your idea" is the same thing as "Your idea is illegal." That's not the case with border enforcement and immigration law.

      The other possibility is that you're really just about open borders and no immigration restrictions (which is a position I understand, but do not agree with), but you're trying to lawyer your way around having to admit it by invoking artificial (as in, an artifice, made-up by you) vagueness and non-existent constraints on the power of the federal government to make and enforce immigration laws, a power delegated to the federal government with the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788 and that has not been amended away in 230 years.

      To take your example, Green Cards are issued as a stepping-stone to naturalization and are part of naturalization laws passed by Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. If Congress had no authority to make naturalization law, it would not have the authority to make laws about issuing green cards or work visas, nor would it have the authority to pass laws directing the executive to kick people out for not having those documents.

    33. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, further points awarded for taking the time to talk to the other side. More politicians should do that.

    34. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Implicit in the idea of uniform naturalization and control and disposition of federal lands, and in conducting international relations (also a power of Congress) and having a military is the idea that you have a border and you guard it.

      Uh, no. Naturalization is citizenship. You're not "naturalized" if you have a green card; you're authorized to be present. Ask CIS:

      Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

      Emphasis mine. Requirements for naturalization:

      You May Qualify for Naturalization if:

      You have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years and meet all other eligibility requirements, please visit our Path to Citizenship page for more information.

      Permanent resident (green card: you can stay here forever) but you're not naturalized.

      Green Cards are issued as a stepping-stone to naturalization and are part of naturalization laws passed by Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.

      You mean the Immigration and Naturalization Act?

      If Congress had no authority to make naturalization law, it would not have the authority to make laws about issuing green cards or work visas, nor would it have the authority to pass laws directing the executive to kick people out for not having those documents.

      Actually, the laws prohibit people from giving immigrants jobs and housing (affecting commerce), and give the Executive the authority to remove dangerous unauthorized immigrants.

      Let's ask a lawyer, since I'm just making shit up here and really have nfc what I'm talking about.

      The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization." By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship. The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.

      Inherent sovereign power...makes sense.

      In the earliest cases, the Court looked to the federal power over foreign commerce. The Commerce Clause in Article I, 8, clause 3, of the United States Constitution provides Congress with the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." The Supreme Court in the Passenger Cases (Sup.Ct.1849) invoked the Commerce Clause to ban the levy of fees upon foreigners wishing to disembark at state ports. The Court invalidated state immigration fees even though Congress had yet to implement any relevant federal regulations.

      Interesting. State fees to control immigration are unconstitutional.

      The Naturalization Clause in Article I, 8, clause 4, has served as an argument for federal control over immigration. The dissent in the Passenger Cases rejected this argument. Passenger Cases (Sup.Ct.1849). As mentioned earlier, the Naturalization Clause's granting of power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" concerns decisions about citizenship rather than immigration generally.

      Specifically

    35. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's a sore spot. My district is like 30% Republican? I represent them, too; and I have already committed to completely ignoring their objections to my policies. That happens when you're a policymaker: people all have their own wants, and you try to strike a balance. Project Stakeholder Management and the whole requirements and scope management thing are all based on maximizing stakeholder outcomes even though some wants directly conflict.

      The best I have, based on long experience, is to understand their need. People have concerns, they have pains, they have problems. They might have a policy they want that they're not going to get; if you resolve their problem, that's usually good enough--and it's your responsibility, anyway.

      I spoke with a fellow who used to burn half a tonne of coal every day to heat his 20,000 square foot factory. That's not to run the forge; that's just to keep warm in the winter. It cost him $1,000/month.

      When Obama's new regulations went in, he couldn't afford to switch. Cleaner gas cost him $5,000/month. He wasn't sitting on tons and tons of profits in that small factory.

      I suggested we should have identified this problem early by getting public input and speaking with impacted stakeholders, and then passed new subsidies during the rule update. Solar over parking lot is actually cheap and enormously efficient. By providing a subsidy to install a large amount of on-site solar PV capacity and a commercial-scale geothermal heat pump installation, we could have massively offset his new costs. A GSHP on that scale will have a COP of 5 to 6, meaning a $6 million PV installation will generate, at 3/5 of its peak output, enough power to provide the heat of 2.7 tonnes of coal every hour.

      That's actually not a large installation.

      The excess power, of course, goes back into the grid; and if he comes up short, he can burn a little natural gas. His furnace is enormous, and his excess power generation will offset coal, oil, and natural gas electricity, so we're not actually burning more natural gas every time he fires up on a cloudy day; we're just burning it elsewhere. On the other hand, on a cloudy day he might just pay for heat pump electricity, and then feed it back to the grid on a sunny day to turn the meter backwards.

      So, a coal-burning Republican factory manager has a need. I can fill that need. Not by letting him burn more coal in dirty, aging furnaces, but like I said: I'm not here to give you everything you want; I'm here to make sure you're represented. The above represents this man's need.

      I'm not sure if that makes me more or less liberal than today's liberals.

    36. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Glad we cleared that up. Now that we agree that Congress does have the authority to allow or deny people entry, and given that we agree that uncontrolled mass migration is not a good thing, we can move on to how it is you think it's possible for "us" (presumably US and Canada) to "fix" Mexico. In my reading of history, the United States and its allies have only managed to "fix" two or three countries in the 240-some years we've been an independent nation. In each instance, it was at the point of a gun, and despite the gleaming beacons of civilizations that the successes have become, we're not even batting .500 here.

    37. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      we can move on to how it is you think it's possible for "us" (presumably US and Canada) to "fix" Mexico.

      Well, the sharing of technology helps. So do some international treaties. Right now, they expend about 10x as much labor per unit of agricultural production as the US, for example; correcting for this would cost comparatively-little, whereas Mexico is quite capable of farming some foods we consume in large quantities but which grow poorly here (thus have a high cost). That would also reduce costs for the US, increasing our own wealth.

      It works both ways, however: we have lead-acid battery recycling factories in Texas with strong environmental controls; many recyclers ship those batteries 50 miles away to Mexico, where people hack them open with axes. They have a lot of chemical spill, lead poisoning, and polluted land and air around these factories. Requiring environmental controls and better working conditions would push this forward, but raise costs of the outsourced service closer to domestic costs.

      Americans have been enjoying lower-cost cars by performing a lot of final assembly of engines and transmissions in Mexico, although we do most of the work here in the US in total. That has helped to build up Mexico's economy as well, while enabling American manufacturers to compete in the global market and sell more cars to Europe.

      Agriculture accounts for roughly 51% of Mexican employment, versus under 2% in the US (although 30% of US jobs function as some sort of input to agriculture, such as shipping, chemical, steel manufacture, etc.--so, John Deere and friends). Agriculture in the US is 6 times the size of Mexico's entire economy.

      This will increase the need for energy; and of course Mexico has plenty of land to install solar panels. Reducing the cost of their agricultural operations frees up economic resources for construction of a better energy infrastructure.

      It's not something you can whip up overnight, but it's doable with little input cost and large returns to the US.

    38. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      I see. You seem to think purely in economic terms. It took the United States over 150 years to industrialize and urbanize. The culture grew up with the technology and the technology grew with the culture. You can't believe it's possible to just plop down intellectual property in a place and have it go from agrarian to post-industrial in a single generation without massively negative social consequences. And that's not even counting the erosion to our economy that will accompany it. NAFTA was good for some, but it was really really bad for others.

      And "giving" anything to anyone for free is contrary to our cultural values as well as our economic interest. We tend to believe that things should be earned and that the people who earned them have a right to benefit from them.

    39. Re:What ever. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You can't believe it's possible to just plop down intellectual property in a place and have it go from agrarian to post-industrial in a single generation without massively negative social consequences.

      Well, only in India, where that's exactly what happened with rice.

      that's not even counting the erosion to our economy that will accompany it.

      That argument was already commented on in 1944.

      There are people who burrow through our Nation like unseeing moles, and attempt to spread the suspicion that if other Nations are encouraged to raise their standards of living, our own American standard of living must of necessity be depressed.

      The fact is the very contrary. It has been shown time and again that if the standard of living of any country goes up, so does its purchasing power- and that such a rise encourages a better standard of living in neighboring countries with whom it trades.

      Then there was some babbling about common sense, which is a stupid and broken argument; the empirical argument is correct, but "common sense" is arbitrarily wrong and thoughtless.

      "giving" anything to anyone for free is contrary to our cultural values as well as our economic interest. We tend to believe that things should be earned and that the people who earned them have a right to benefit from them.

      United We Stand, Divided We Fall; or, in layman's terms: do for yourself and let America burn.

      Wait, no, that's not what that--or any other core belief of the American ideal--means. It means we work together to be stronger.

      The only thing I really care about is the diminishing of suffering and the stabilization and strengthening of the economy. Strong welfare reduces the instability of both business and individuals, and reduces the costs in our economy which strip away the wealth of good working men. A nation without a working social and economic safety net has a less-prosperous economy because it must spend a great deal on containing the harms brought by the progress which makes us wealthier, and thus expends the labor of the hard worker on this rather than on achieving a higher standard-of-living.

      The same is true of trade: a neighbor with a stronger industrial base behind a product of which they are better-capable of producing can trade to us for a lower price, thus enriching America as a whole and the people within it. It is difficult to achieve this in isolation, while working hard just to squeeze the meager means into the minimum needed to survive, with little left over to progress.

      Of course I am not unfamiliar with people who claim to be ready to pay $10,000 more each year in taxes--a full 5% or more of their own income--for the assurance that none of "their" money will go to "someone who hasn't earned it". It strikes me as highly-unusual that a person would be willing to take a step downward toward poverty, to live a much-less-well-off lifestyle, simply to ensure the next person over is similarly miserable.

    40. Re:What ever. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      I thought I had reached you but I see I was mistaken. All the good stuff you're talking about isn't for free. It is hard, and in my opinion nearly impossible, to achieve all the good without incentivizing a lot of bad behavior or giving away a lot of future potential prosperity for the benefit of a little fleeting and illusory comfort today. If the factories all move to Mexico, then yes you have cheaper stuff in the stores. But you've also put a lot of good working men out of a job and more importantly you've incentivized the money and the intellectual property to keep going to Mexico so that you've not only given up today's jobs, you've also given up tomorrow's jobs and you've given up on the ability to make your own stuff in the future. The fact that it's damn near impossible to find a good dress shirt made in this country for any price is shameful, no matter how cheap the Guatemalan stuff in the Walmart is. We can't clothe ourselves. That's not a situation that's worth aiming for.

  11. USA doesn't want skilled workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a look at the requirements to immigrate for a job. The USA doesn't care if you were a rocket surgeon for 40 years if you don't have a degree.

    If you have no experience expect living at home for 20 years on welfare and taking university for 4 years for basket weaving, though, USA welcomes your complete ineptitude at managing to hold a job.

    1. Re:USA doesn't want skilled workers by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Cite? Immigration laws and regulations tend to be very particular about what kind of degree you need. And even STEM PhDs can be turned down if they don't have the right skillset/publication record.

    2. Re:USA doesn't want skilled workers by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Nobody is a "rocket surgeon". At some point you have to admit that a university degree is an IQ test.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    3. Re:USA doesn't want skilled workers by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

      The vast majority of H1B workers are far from exceptional.

      Why does the H1B specifically allow replacing an American worker, with a cheaper H1B?

    4. Re:USA doesn't want skilled workers by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      That the problem.
      All the US gov system does if anything is consider if the person wanting work in the USA is "university" educated.
      Another nation prints out "rocket surgeon" qualifications after 3 years at their low cost national university.
      All the ads in the US media for "rocket surgeon" not getting filled? Thats how US brands sneak in their cheap workers legally.
      The US gov accepts that "rocket surgeon" is part of another nations educational system with further question. That the USA is totally lacking in skilled "rocket surgeons"
      . A low cost worker from a low wage nation walks into the USA to a waiting job.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re: USA doesn't want skilled workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dubious. Have you ever sponsored and hired an H-1B?
      I have a feeling you donâ(TM)t know anything about the industry.

    6. Re: USA doesn't want skilled workers by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC its all in the wording of the ads and how long the job was not filled in the USA.
      Show the US gov you cant get a US worker and its time to bring in a low cost worker from another part of the world.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:USA doesn't want skilled workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No this is not true. No i won't find a citation because I'm right.

    8. Re:USA doesn't want skilled workers by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Because we could just leave them in India or Germany and tell them to build it and upload it to the SFTP server. They wouldn't pay their taxes to the US Government, they wouldn't spend their wage at US small business restaurants, and we'd have more money flowing out.

      I don't believe a trade deficit is a bad thing; that doesn't mean I don't see the economic difference between money being spent locally and money being spent importing something that costs exactly the same price either way. Imports are only good for your economy when they're significantly-cheaper than paying local labor to do the same thing.

      That should allow you to ask the next question; although you can spend a little time thinking on it to make sure you need somebody else to answer it for you. I might or might not have all the answers, so you might have to ask someone else.

    9. Re:USA doesn't want skilled workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're firmly committed to a race-to-the-bottom by allowing cheap labor in, with the spectre of indentured servitude along with it. Much of the money is sent back to their home countries anyway, and not as much in local shops.

      Wages for workers have been stagnant for decades, what is your plan for that? Import more H1B and give employers even more leverage to undermine unions?

  12. Nope by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    Trump wants to make it harder for low skilled temporary workers to come the United States. Trump wants to make it easier for high skilled immigrants to come to the United States... which is something different.

  13. There have to be a lot of hurdles... by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The amount of capital B, grade A Bullshit you have to deal with with screening Americans is bad enough. The amount of fraud you get from the developing world is just unbelievable. "Why yes, I have 20 years of experience with writing Hadoop applications in Go with a UI written in Rust."

    Oh really, it say you graduated from a diploma mill 3 years ago...

  14. Fix H1B Visas by rossz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Currently, H1B visas are being abused by the employers. They have, effectively, a slave. Complain, get fired, lose your visa. It's a simple fix. Tie the H1B visa to the worker, not to the company. Make it easy for the visa holder to change jobs. It shouldn't be any more difficult than updating an online form with new employment information. This will eliminate the worst of the abusers. One other change I would make. H1B visa holders should be barred from working for a contracting company.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:Fix H1B Visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banning contracting companies could cause problems for someone fresh off the boat with no connections in this country. Connections that could let someone in the door for an interview at the very least. Contracting companies will allow some H1Bs to get jobs and prove themselves to a company they are placed with. With understanding being they'll get hired on with full benefits if they are what the company is looking for.

      How about allow contracting firms but mandate they rotate H1B to another company after a month if they don't get hired on. This ensures companies who get H1Bs from firms are using the system for intended purpose. Companies doesn't want to train a new guy only to have him or her leave after a month. But that one month should be enough time for companies to decide if they want to hire a H1B for a full time position.

      Another limitation for contracting firms should be max they can take from H1Bs. Set it so that they can only skim 20% max from what they are getting paid by companies.

    2. Re: Fix H1B Visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is that people get the job first, and then immigrate. No one should be fresh off a boat looking for work under this system, so making that approach harder is fine.

    3. Re:Fix H1B Visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An even simpler fix. End the system entirely. If the employer wants those skills in their employees they can find a way to cultivate them from the hundreds of qualified workers they turn down because they can get Habib cheaper. Send Habib back to his country so that he can build a better world there too.

      Immigration is the "quick fix". People leave their countries in search of a better life somewhere else and things never get fixed in their countries. Workers in the countries that those immigrants move to are sometimes displaced or wages are pressured down by large communities of immigrants. Immigration is the ultimate in selfishness where people abandon their own countries in search for a better deal.

      There's nothing stopping the Indians from creating their own products and services and companies. Some have even though their product is cheap labor. Build something else rather than being the international labor whores that they are.

    4. Re: Fix H1B Visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about no? Who says we have to go out of way to create entry for foreign workers? No such right exists.

      As far as your naive contractor rotation scheme. I'll create 60 contracting company shells and rotate my slaves every 30 days. Now what? Same shit.

      Let's just do what the rest of the world does and say "no, you can't come here just because you feel like it, you have to be married to a citizen for 10 years AND have real skills we need otherwise go fuck yourself". Works that way or something very similar in most countries. Why do we have to do any differently?

    5. Re:Fix H1B Visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assumption number 1:
      it is the responsibility of the employer to cultivate a skill set of workers in their country

      Companies are in it for the money. That's it. They have no morality, and no societal obligation. If they have, they are overtaken by ones who have none, as these things are not cost-efficient. And countries which force morality on their companies lower their competitive capabilities in comparison to foreign ones.

      Assumption number 2:
      people leave their countries for good

      This is obviously not true. Whereas some people do that, they often come back after several years -- often richer, if not in money then in experience they could not have gotten at home. Following a good example learned abroad is one of the reasons why countries benefit from expats.

    6. Re:Fix H1B Visas by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      One more change: Add a minimum wage, say above $100,000 per year, and entitle them to Citizenship after 2 years. If they are worth that money then they are clearly a good deal for America and should be kept. You could even get rid of the limited numbers and lottery, since you'd only be importing "Valuable" people.

    7. Re:Fix H1B Visas by hey! · · Score: 1

      This assumes that companies have no alternatives but to cultivate American workers if they can't import the skills. This is especially untrue since the Internet -- it's easier than ever to offshore jobs.

      Somewhere between the idea that expanding H1B as it is is the only way to increase the talent pool in the US and the notion it has no potential usefulness is the truth. If the US wants to continue to be a world leader in technology, it has to do both. Why? Because the US has only 5% of the world's population. Even if we have two or three times our share of talent, that's not enough to dominate innovation in the long term.

      Here's a bit of history that people who haven't lived through it might not know: US tech dominance in the mid 20th century was built on a combination of US workers and top European talent. When I went to MIT in the early 80s, many of the top professors were WW2 refugees -- Jews or politically undesirable intellectuals who fled the Axis countries before the war, and talented people to came to the US while Europe was still rebuilding in the 1950s. And of course a few people like Werner von Braun -- an outright Nazi who was just too useful to punish.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Fix H1B Visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      great to see some thinking outside the box rather than knee jerk reactions for once.

      you would have to allow them to change jobs easily with a simple LCA app from their new company accompanied by proof their current H1B status - need to ensure the new job still meets the criteria for a h1b position. if they were to become unemployed at any stage, the existing condition to leave the country within 2 weeks should remain.

    9. Re:Fix H1B Visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies are in it for the money. That's it. They have no morality, and no societal obligation. If they have, they are overtaken by ones who have none, as these things are not cost-efficient. And countries which force morality on their companies lower their competitive capabilities in comparison to foreign ones.

      Actually, there's a lot of evidence that integrity makes a company more successful in the long run. It builds better long term customer relationships and gives free long term marketing by the customers through word-of-mouth - both of which are something most marketing types would kill for (heh, heh). It increases the likelihood that employees think about the good of the company as well as their own good - provided they are treated right. It helps avoid the problem of ending up with mostly sociopaths in the executive ranks, which plagues a lot of companies - and creates all kinds of inefficiency as they fight each other for more power - and screw the employees for marginal gains, creating all kinds of long term problems - instead of doing their jobs (this is an especially big problem with large corporations, as it is easy in such a setting for executives to get out of touch with their organization and live entirely in a fantasy world). Finally, you save a lot on legal expenses - and you are more likely to have juries find in your favour if you do have to go to court.

      The net effect is increased efficiency over the long term. Also, from a pricing strategy perspective, you can play in more lucrative markets that return much higher profits.

      All this is something that has to be periodically re-learned by executives - and by the owners of corporations. People have to learn how to think long term, unlike the politicians. Also, it has to be done right: there can't be double standards for executives and employees. Too many companies go for the illusion of integrity, rather than the reality.

      Certain Asian nations are having a lot of problems right now with perceived quality issues in their products caused by lack of integrity, which is causing many Americans to seek out other suppliers of goods and services. Quality issues make products cost more in the long run as they have to be replaced frequently, which costs both time and money - that tends to permanently drive customers away from a business or even ALL businesses from a culture, AND it creates long term negative marketing for that business (word of mouth). There's a lot of lost business that these Asian companies are forsaking by the cumulative history of many bad decisions.

      Many business textbooks discuss these topics and provide references. Companies like L.L. Bean are an interesting example of a company that has been successful over the long term on the basis of good quality products, as are certain Japanese auto-makers.

  15. Good. Make those hurdles higher! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foreigners need not apply. We already have enough talented people here who are in need of better jobs.

  16. Liberal position by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Furthermore, the president himself doesn't really have any real positions with the exception that he's great and wants praise.

    So you're saying that he didn't make his position clear about immigration before the election? Or after the election? You're saying he didn't sit down with Pelosi and Schumer to try to work out a deal? You're saying he didn't send a 70-point immigration wish-list to congress right before the Omnibus bill?

    That's pretty hilarious.

    While he may say he wants skilled workers, the truth is that he's working toward isolationism because that is what his extremist political base wants.

    You're making shit up. The truth is... you're making shit up.

    This is a standard liberal practice - just make shit up about the other side and then say how bad that shit is.

    If you're so against what Trump is doing, tell us what we *should* be doing!

    What is the Liberal position on immigration, and how will that position benefit America?

    1. Re:Liberal position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're saying he didn't sit down with Pelosi and Schumer to try to work out a deal?

      Is that the deal he worked out and then reneged on the next morning? Because if that's how you are framing your argument, you need to find a new one.

    2. Re:Liberal position by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      citation needed

    3. Re: Liberal position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a standard conservative practice - just make shit up about the other side and then say how bad that shit is.

      FTFY. HTH. HAND.

      If you're so against what Trump is doing, tell us what we *should* be doing!

      Remember how Obama handled things?

      No, not the fabricated hysteria of Trump's rhetoric, the reality of a focused, effective policy that didn't claim that everybody needed to be deported, but was instead targeted and particular.

      What is the Liberal position on immigration, and how will that position benefit America?

      Remember that bipartisan bill Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan buried?

    4. Re:Liberal position by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The GP is saying that Trump's only position is to pander to his base, with stunts like the wish list drempt up by his staff. Staff who he later fired.

      If you need to be obtuse and create a straw man then it seems you actually know this to be true.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Liberal position by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      You're talking about dreamers. The liberal position on dreamers is that they should get to stay. The conservative position on dreamers is also that they should get to stay.

    6. Re:Liberal position by bayankaran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is the Liberal position on immigration, and how will that position benefit America?

      Birth rates are declining in the West as a whole. (Look at Europe, Russia and the classic case of Japan.) Even some of the states in India have stabilized. For economy to keep growing you need more consumers. Immigration helps that. (Unless you want folks of your own skin color.) Any counter argument about jobs being lost - at least today you have the least unemployment in decades.

      May be you can make a case about "when automation comes they immigrants will be a financial burden". I guess a huge subset of the population will require some sort of UBI.

      Canada has a sensible (you can call it progressive as well) immigration policy. They take in 1% of their population - about 350K migrants - an year. (I was a Canadian immigrant once, now an American immigrant.) For an American immigrant, your primary identity is of an American, and that's the whole point of United States of America.

      --
      Tat Tvam Asi
    7. Re:Liberal position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/09/schumer-pelosi-say-trumps-immigration-demands-cant-be-serious.html
      "The top Democrats in the Senate and House criticized those terms, saying they strayed from the outlines of a deal they discussed with Trump last month. Democrats had said Trump would not insist on border wall funding in an agreement to shield roughly 800,000 young immigrants from deportation. "

    8. Re:Liberal position by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're saying that he didn't make his position clear about immigration before the election? Or after the election?

      Correct because he doesn't have a position. What he has is the position of playing to whatever his base wants.

      You're saying he didn't sit down with Pelosi and Schumer to try to work out a deal?

      No, he didn't. What he did was sit down with Schumer and work to not make a deal to so that the government would shut down. He then proceeded to message that Democrat didn't care and the government shutdown was entirely their doing. He even bragged that he was going to do that back in September.

      You're saying he didn't send a 70-point immigration wish-list to congress right before the Omnibus bill?

      He sent a wish list but he really doesn't care one way or the other, as long as it's what his extreme-right base wants. If they were insisting on amnesty for all illegal immigrants then he would have sent a wish list about that.

      You're making shit up. The truth is... you're making shit up.

      I'd be laughing if this wasn't such a serious situation. Our president is a malignant narcissist and doctors have been trying to warn you.

      This is a standard liberal practice - just make shit up about the other side and then say how bad that shit is.

      Now that is rich. If you look at the situation objectively then you would see that the White House is in chaos and our president is guilty of many very serious felonies. There isn't a special council appointed when everything is fine.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    9. Re: Liberal position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sniveling Democrat known for lying lied about something?!

      Shocking!

    10. Re:Liberal position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The truth is... you're making shit up.

      This is a standard liberal practice - just make shit up about the other side

      I like how you twisted the discussion to be us vs them. The other side. We're us and you're them and our politics is pure team sport. Party first country second, Putin is proud.

    11. Re:Liberal position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the deal that Trump offered that gave the Democrats everything they wanted (amnesty for daca) and they still said no. That deal from "last month"?

      Trump: Daca amnesty + what I want to reform of immigration to fix the issue of daca happening again.
      Dems: No. that's racist.
      Month Later.
      Trump: Less of what I want + some of what you want (daca renewal).
      Dems: No. You xenophobe.

      Tell me again why the democrats hold the moral ground on this? They continually back away from sensible deals to help DACA recipients yet they would rather use DACA as a club to virtue signal during election years.

    12. Re:Liberal position by gtall · · Score: 1

      Playing to an easily played base isn't carrying any real positions. It's just playing to an easily deceived base.

      What about el Presidente Tweetie's pregnant trade war is it that you do not understand? It and limits on immigration are merely the first steps.

      The liberal position on immigration is the welcome people who WANT TO COME TO THE COUNTRY AND WORK HARD. It is what most immigrants do, legal or illegal. What's so hard to understand about that?

    13. Re:Liberal position by gtall · · Score: 1

      Really? Where are the conservatives out there demanding a fix for the Dreamers? Do we see them on FOX? No. Do we see them in Congress? No. The problem here is the Conservatives are ducking for cover lest they be forced into either saying (1) the Dreamers get to stay and piss off their allegedly Christian base, or (2) tell the Dreamers to go and show us in precise terms that the Conservatives have hearts of stone.

    14. Re:Liberal position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you've been sleeping for the last 200+ years. In a representative constitutional republic your elected officials are supposed to "play to what their base wants". Its supposed to work that way. Congratulations you have just found out that the system is working. Its sad that people like you are so used to your elected officials doing what they want that when you get one that actually does what his voter base wants it seems strange and wrong to you.

    15. Re:Liberal position by stdarg · · Score: 1

      What's the problem with sending dreamers home? Don't you think it would do their countries some good?

    16. Re:Liberal position by stdarg · · Score: 1

      For economy to keep growing you need more consumers.

      No you don't, there are ways for economies to grow besides increasing the number of warm bodies. But it's really begging the question, because nobody wants absolute growth, they want per capita growth.

    17. Re:Liberal position by stdarg · · Score: 1

      You do understand that most people support their party because they think that party's platform is what's best for the country...

    18. Re:Liberal position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like a thing with every administration since Nixon....

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor

    19. Re:Liberal position by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What is the Liberal position on immigration, and how will that position benefit America?

      It's all over the place.

      Liberals want to support the humanitarian side--we want to protect people who have been here long, integrated with our society, and would be harmed by deportation--as a general rule. We also want to keep those programs which provide a place for people to go when fleeing humanitarian crisis (saving lives).

      The rest is economics, and liberals are divided. I have a fairly well-developed economic position, and would like to start with some background.

      I'd like to first point out that immigration and trade are similar: in trade, the labor is physically in another nation, rather than here. Immigration has one special advantage: the local consumption driven by that labor is in our own nation, directly. A bunch of immigrant workers might import Chinese clothes, but they aren't eating at a Chinese McDonalds.

      Population doesn't simply double every generation, or otherwise grow. There's an economic carry capacity: as you scale, you also scale labor needs, and so population grows and nothing changes. When you hit carry capacity for producing a particular good or service, you require more labor per unit.

      As an example: raising production from 500,000 units to 1,000,000 units may require doubling the number of working hours in total (1M = 500k * 2). Raising production from 1,000,000 to 1,100,000 may require 1.15x as much labor (10% more production, 15% more labor) or such.

      That causes financial pressure as population expands, which largely discourages family growth. Poorer and middle-class families have fewer financial resources and either decide they can't afford children or they have children and then fail to care for them and so they die. Population numbers for an entire economic unit (generally a nation or the world) show this trend, although individual families will bob above and below the trend (i.e. you can get really big welfare families sometimes, but your welfare system can't provide enough to force your total population to grow beyond your economic capacity--it's physically-impossible).

      Okay, what's all this mean?

      Immigrants who have been here for a while (even several months) no longer have a real impact on our economy. We have a fast-response system (length of college tenure, variations in age of retirement, work visa program) and a slow-response system (birth and death rate) to adjust labor force, and the fast-response system integrates working immigrants rapidly. Removing them would cause a back-fill with new American labor--either earlier transition from college to the workforce or later retirement.

      That capacity is limited. It's bigger than our inflow, but it's not infinite.

      2/3 of all unauthorized immigrants are visa overstays. That means they're here, they're working, we've integrated them, and then it's time for them to leave and they don't. That has approximately zero economic impact.

      The remainder are illegal border crossings.

      Even with the illegal border crossings and the unauthorized immigrants, we have incredibly-low unemployment rates at this time, and pull around 300,000 new authorized workers into the nation every year.

      We're doing pretty well.

      My position should be obvious in some part.

      First, the immigrants who have been here for a year or so and are working are equivalent to any other working American. The only argument to eject them is a social argument: person A doesn't have a job (there's going to be unemployment even with zero immigrants) and believes person B is less of a human being and so has fewer human rights, thus should move to the back of the bus. Such an isolationist policy will eventually exhaust our sacrificial immigrant population, leaving us with many persons A who have nobody left to mug for their employment.

      Thus we should seek to extend these visa overstays, perhaps grantin

    20. Re:Liberal position by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      And yet Congress (controlled by "conservatives") won't put that position into law.

    21. Re:Liberal position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building up Mexico may help a bit with immigration, but it doesn't address why people already immigrate through Mexico to reach the US. Hitching our immigration policy with extremely liberal Canada is likewise less than ideal.

      We can improve Mexico's situation simply by ending our drug war, and reducing profits for the cartels that funds insurgency. A stable and less crime-ridden Mexico is more likely to attract investment.

      Improving farm automation reduces the need for unskilled labor, and the resulting permanent underclass, so we would be better off promoting research.

      I'm so glad you might replace Cummings.

    22. Re:Liberal position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP is saying that Trump's only position is to pander to his base

      In other words, GP is telling Trump what Trump is thinking

      You know, the thing you complain about those right wing anti-feminists trolls do it to you.

      the wish list drempt up by his staff. Staff who he later fired.

      If he fired that staff later, that would be evidence that Trump actually agrees with the wish list himself aka has a position contrary to what GP says. Besides, he could have fired the staff for some other reason unrelated to the wish list. We don't know what Trump was/is thinking, especially if, under the GP's view, Trump has no concrete position, then we can't take any of his stated reasons at face value.

      For you to bring this up as some kind of issue would mean that YOU are assuming what Trump is thinking aka you're telling Trump what he's thinking.

      Which is again, the thing you complain about when other people do it to you.

    23. Re:Liberal position by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The Democrats want to continue with their own flavor of Benghazi ('Impeachment') so need no big issues resolved before November.

  17. "Merit Based" is obvious BS by GrimSavant · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We should have already figured out well by now that the rhetoric around "merit-based immigration" was total bullshit when coming from Trump and his camp, it's a relic from the parts of the America right that aren't so virulently xenophobic and who used to have sway.

    Really, this is what the "shithole" comments should have made perfectly clear. The problem with that wasn't that he used naughty language, it's that he didn't want people immigrating from "shitholes", but instead more coming from say, Norway. Doesn't matter if the "shitholes" have skilled people who want out and we could pick up in a brain drain, they are from of one of "those places" with too many of "those people".

    He doesn't want to just clamp down on illegal immigration, he wants to clamp down on legal immigration too, and deport as much as he can get away with as a bonus. It doesn't do the rest of us much good to play doublespeak games with white supremacists like Stephen Miller.

    1. Re: "Merit Based" is obvious BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many of the âoeshitholeâ places Mr. Trump is referring to, the best jobs are in the government. Their best and brightest arenâ(TM)t making their countries better by science and engineering. It is by sucking like leeches in the government

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:Good. Make those hurdles higher! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build walls around all states!

  20. Foreign worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's true there are many new obstacles now since mr Trump. For example, mandatory interviews for greencard even though some applicants may be doing the job for 10 years. Tons of other checks and delays.

    But we persevere and win. In the end, I believe it's a win-win for everybody. You get extra talent, we get extra money.

    1. Re:Foreign worker by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Thats the way it should be ain any normal nation AC.
      Entering the USA should be for the world best.
      People who can offer the USA something useful and then return back to their own nations when done.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  21. Re:Employer Algorithm for keeping a deep tech benc by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 2

    IndentationError: expected an indented block

    --
    sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
  22. Meanwhile by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Stop the lies. End all immigration.

    Don't tell Trump this. His businesses hire lots of immigrants, legal and otherwise.

    https://www.vox.com/2018/2/13/...

    "A Vox analysis of hiring records for seasonal workers at three Trump properties in New York and Florida revealed that only one out of 144 jobs went to a US worker from 2016 to the end of 2017. Foreign guest workers with H-2B visas got the rest. The H-2B visa program allows seasonal, non-agricultural employers — like hotels and ski resorts — to hire foreign workers when they can’t find American ones. The Trump administration temporarily expanded this guest-worker program in 2017 while restricting other avenues of legal immigration, including the H-1B program for high-skilled workers."

    [Note: this article is from last month]

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vox? They're like the Fox News of the left. They loudly proclaim their leftist bias.

      Try again.

      It's no wonder you come off as such an ignorant clown in most of your posts. You think propaganda like Vox is actual news and fact.

    2. Re: Meanwhile by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is that? 2 paragraphs of bullshit, im sure all of those companys are going to go out of business. its hard not to call you names with this level of low.

    4. Re: Meanwhile by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      what is that? 2 paragraphs of bullshi

      Try again.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL you actually linked a Vox article as a retort?

      Wait, wait... Let me get my National Enquirer link to counter... Mm here it is, right under the article on Michael Jackson's Bat Boy Slave.

    6. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Immigrants want to come here to work, but companies want to hire them at slaves wages to REPLACE Americans and DEPRESS current wages.

      Find a Vox article to disprove me, I dare you!

    7. Re:Meanwhile by jwhyche · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Vox isn't a credible source. Come back when you have a reliable source.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    8. Re:Meanwhile by wolfemi1 · · Score: 2

      The Vox isn't a credible source. Come back when you have a reliable source.

      This crap gets modded +5 Insightful?

      Has Slashdot always been right-wing biased and I didn't notice?

  23. Of course by quonset · · Score: 1, Troll

    The State Department has ended an Obama-era program to grant visas to foreign entrepreneurs who want to start companies in the United States.

    Because Obama did it. Someone who wanted bright, energetic people who wanted to better themselves and their community must be stopped. Especially since Obama wanted them to come to this country.

    Meanwhile, we'll continue to allow the EB-5 visa program to remain even though it is essentially the same thing. The only difference is with EB-5, the money would flow to family members in this corrupt administration.

    1. Re:Of course by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Someone who wanted bright, energetic people who wanted to better themselves and their community must be stopped.

      The countries those people come to the US from need them, too. We need to stop the brain drain of the most talented people from the rest of the world to the US. It's only fair to the economies of the rest of the world.

    2. Re:Of course by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > The State Department has ended an Obama-era program to grant visas to foreign entrepreneurs who want to start companies in the United States.

      The companies those entrepreneurs start are staffing companies. Those staffing companies specialize in bringing over visa workers to take US jobs.

      Staffing companies do not actually create jobs, they are just middle-men.

    3. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By restricting the ability for foreign rich to come here and make investments, Trump is telling China their dollars are going to be completely worthless except for buying US Imports unless they open their mainland to free trade. Who else is going to buy up the Glut of US Dollars knowing full well the only way to spend them is either by passing them onto a sucker or by buying from the US?

      By doing that, he's making it politically impossible for the Chinese government to close themselves and their country off from foreign influence. I'll remind you China is militarizing as fast as they can figure out how to, and they are acting aggressively towards their neighbors so their leadership has their sights set on expansion. An easy way to win a war early on is to tie the two countries together economically so its too costly to start one for both sides.

    4. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The State Department has ended an Obama-era program to grant visas to foreign entrepreneurs who want to start companies in the United States.

      The companies those entrepreneurs start are staffing companies. Those staffing companies specialize in bringing over visa workers to take US jobs.

      Staffing companies do not actually create jobs, they are just middle-men.

      Wrong, if this was true Trump would fix the program allowing the workers to come over first. We can conclude that Trump needs immigrant workers.

    5. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EB-5 is a "green card" and has a much higher bar for capital requirements.

      On the other hand, there is the E-1 non-immigrant visa, which has a much lower bar for capital requirements and is not a "green card". It gives you four or five years to start a business. If after that time the business is successful, you can then apply for a "green card" to become a permanent resident.

    6. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The State Department has ended an Obama-era program to grant visas to foreign entrepreneurs who want to start companies in the United States.

      The companies those entrepreneurs start are staffing companies. Those staffing companies specialize in bringing over visa workers to take US jobs.

      I know of an even worse case. The guy that owns the Orlando City SC team in MLS (Major League Soccer) is a Brazilian who I think is now a US citizen. He built a stadium for his team at a cost of roughly $200 to $250 million. The stadium employs perhaps 100 or so employees, many of whom make wages close to minimum wage. The owner sold shares in his stadium as an "investment" for $500,000 and it technically somehow met the qualification for this crazy Obama-era program as "starting jobs". None of these "investors" hired a single employee and all they did was enable the guy who built the stadium to lower his cost of doing so. But there are currently quite a few Brazilian families in the USA who have green cards through this scheme/scam. It was reported he marketed this idea in China too. So basically a rich guy started selling green cards to people who didn't do anything to increase American employment in reality and nobody in the Obama or Trump administrations had any problems with this. I'm pretty sure that the investors program was never intended to work that way when it was created.

  24. Consider the Wisdom of Douglas Adams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It might not even have made much difference to them if they'd known exactly how much power the President of the Galaxy actually wielded: none at all. Only six people in the Galaxy knew that the job of the Galactic President was not to wield power but to attract attention away from it. "

    1. Re:Consider the Wisdom of Douglas Adams by mink · · Score: 1

      It is vitally important that the wrong lizard does not get elected.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  25. At what point will employers say Fts, and move on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already see it some companies moving on, or at least encouraging their citizens to return. Given that we just gave away to US companies a license to export money and never return (territorial tax system), it's hard to imagine a company wanting to expand here at the moment, too much termoil and uncertainty (risk). while I agree a merit based system would be good, it could have been handled better. Create a new program that encourages that and then phase out sponsor ship program. Hard cutting this way created unnecessary uncertainty. (btw, the UK they're running into this problem right now, they have negative immigration.)

  26. Re:Employer Algorithm for keeping a deep tech benc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What shitty language gives that error?

  27. Re:Employer Algorithm for keeping a deep tech benc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=IndentationError%3A+expected+an+indented+block

  28. Re:Can we be honest for a minute by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > The whole idea if merit based immigration is based on the false racist assumption that somehow those classified as belonging to a White race are superior

    No it is not. Please stop lying.

  29. This is just pro H1B propaganda by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Informative

    The H1B program is designed to replace Americans with cheaper offshore workers.

    Unlike most visas, the H1B specifically allows companies to replace Americans with cheaper H1Bs, even if the American worker is doing a good job.

    The program is a complete scam.

    1. Re:This is just pro H1B propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The H1B program is designed to replace Americans with cheaper offshore workers.

      Unlike most visas, the H1B specifically allows companies to replace Americans with cheaper H1Bs, even if the American worker is doing a good job.

      The program is a complete scam.

      Your post really makes no constructive suggestions.

      Cancelling the skilled visa program altogether is essentially the same as arguing to end all immigration to the USA entirely!

      Watch your economy tank if that happens.

      Pretty much every country has similar types of skilled visa programs. They all differ on how they are implemented.

    2. Re:This is just pro H1B propaganda by SysEngineer · · Score: 1
      H-1B workers cause lower wages. https://www.nber.org/papers/w2...

      The H1B program is designed to replace Americans with cheaper offshore workers.

      Got a citation for that? Or is it just more racist bullshit from the likes of Breitbart, Fox News, etc.?

      Employers have used a work-around which clearly goes against the intent of H1B visas: fire the Americans and outsource their jobs to contracting companies that use mostly H1B employees. IMHO, this practice should not be legal.

      Can you cite a case where Americans were directly replaced by H1B workers?

    3. Re:This is just pro H1B propaganda by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Firstly, that paper didn't address my point that there is no evidence that the H1B program is "designed to replace Americans with cheaper offshore workers" rather than my point that employers use a work-around that has that effect. A work-around that I believe should be addressed.

      Secondly, you should read on a bit further on the page you cited:

      On the other hand, complements in production benefited substantially from immigration, and immigration also lowered prices and raised the output of IT goods by between 1.9% and 2.5%, thus benefiting consumers.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:This is just pro H1B propaganda by Zakharevich1988 · · Score: 2

      There is a slight bit of misinformation here. Most anti H1B people think all H1B's == the types working in sweatshops like Infosys. There are workers on that visa in places like Google,Facebook and many start-ups where : 1) The foreign worker has to pass multiple rounds of technical interviews just like an American hire. Whereas the interviews in H1B abuse sweatshops like Infosys are a complete joke. 2) The foreign worker in these places is paid 6 figure salaries which correspond to the highest bracket for entry level wages in tech in that area, the American worker at the entry level at these places gets the exact same pay. For people like these H1B's make sense, for people like the ones at Infosys , no it doesn't. I saw your comment on the O-1 visa in this thread, and I'd like to say O-1's are very, very hard to get, and if we went by that then it be just very few people coming in to the US. What Trump seems to be doing is wanting to eliminate the Infosys types workers that are coming in droves on the H1B visa. The money these companies put in into lobbying is making it harder to make any reasonable changes to the program and these companies are responsible for things like Disney workers losing their jobs to H1B's. There have been some positive changes recently like mass issues of RFE's to companies to prove to USCIS that the job indeed requires specialization and is paying top dollar, since most of the sweatshops type H1B's I see are paid 60000-65000$ compared to H1B's in top companies being paid 120,000-150,000$. A lot of the companies who are unable to pay top dollar have stopped hiring H1B's as result, since USCIS is demanding a lot of paperwork to approve or extend an H1B visa. I talked to an Indian worker at a well known Silicon Valley company about this last month , he welcomed it saying "It's good for people like me because we are truly skilled workers and makes immigration easier for us, since companies that abuse H1B's have completely clogged up work based immigration in the US".

    5. Re:This is just pro H1B propaganda by Walter+White · · Score: 5, Informative

      Got a citation for that? Or is it just more racist bullshit from the likes of Breitbart, Fox News, etc.?

      Disney did that on a large scale. That they forced the employees they were firing to train their replacements was particularly galling. The same thing likely happens frequently on a smaller scale that does not make the headlines.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    6. Re:This is just pro H1B propaganda by whoever57 · · Score: 0

      Do people not read anything any more?

      Firstly: Daily Mail. Not a good idea to cite this if you dislike being shown to be wrong.

      Secondly:
      This page makes it clear that the Disney actions do not describe the type of action that I challenged Walterbyrd to cite.

      In the Disney case, Disney fired the IT employees and contracted their work out to a company that brings in lots of H1B employees. So Disney did not directly replace Americans with H1Bs. Disney used loophole that needs to be fixed.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:This is just pro H1B propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And you would fix that "loophole" by eliminating or curtailing the H1B program.

      H1B is only supposed to be used to fulfill a need when there is no qualified American. Disney had qualified Americans doing the job, they outsourced it to a contractor who hired H1Bs instead of hiring the displaced former Disney employees who were obviously qualified to do the work.

    8. Re:This is just pro H1B propaganda by ohnonononono · · Score: 0

      Disney is 100% run by jews, after all

    9. Re:This is just pro H1B propaganda by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, Infosys is starting to put in development centers around the country, where they will hire US citizens with decent pay and benefits. They're doing that specifically because they don't trust the old business model to keep working. One of the very few things I think Trump did right.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:This is just pro H1B propaganda by Zakharevich1988 · · Score: 1

      Yes they started this in 2017, right after they and TCS were investigated by USCIS in 2016 for visa fraud. The should have been slammed hard but suspiciously at the same time the chairman of the group that owns TCS made a multi-million dollar donation to Carnegie Mellon(when the IIT's in his own country could use the money way more than a university with billions in endowment) and a few weeks after this all charges were dropped, stinks of lobbying and $$'s being thrown around. Basically their asses were lit on fire after Trump got elected and they knew they had to change somewhat, hence Infosys began US hiring(they pay is okay not great tbh) and that very year the number of H1B's being filed got reduced by 40,000, some say they'll file for even lesser H1B's in 2018.

  30. Japan by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    that's all i want to say as a supportive example.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:Japan by Zakharevich1988 · · Score: 0

      Japan is a shitty example. It's a country that had a national isolation policy for centuries, forbidding trade and contact with the foreign world. They want to keep their homogenous aspect of Japanese culture which is a leftover from their past and that's why immigration there is so darn hard.

    2. Re:Japan by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      that's all i want to say as a supportive example.

      A better example is North Sentinel Island. They REALLY don't like immigrants.

    3. Re:Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supportive of what? The idea that racists want tight immigration to maintain ethnic homogeneity even at the expense of decades (or more) of cultural and economic stagnation?

  31. Partner jobs are critical to skilled migration by nicolaiplum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most significant part of this is an intent to prevent spouses from working.

    The most common reason for failure (i.e. return to origin country) of expatriation or immigration of skilled workers is the partner being unhappy. For people from most developed countries, their husband or wife also expects a career - the time of househusbands or even housewives living on a one income family and being happy about that is over. In academia, this is known as the two-body problem: if you hire an academic from another country, there are two bodies to please, not just one.

    So if Trump makes it impossible to get a work permit for a spouse when a highly skilled migrant moves to the USA, all those from countries where men and women have approximate equality will just not come. Try telling your partner you're moving to different country for a great professional opportunity but they can't work when they're there, so they have to give up their career and can't start another job or another occupation. It won't go well for most of you, and that's particularly true if you're higher skilled and globally mobile because such people tend to have partners or spouses who are also higher skilled and globally mobile.

    Of course, this won't discourage people who are in large company H1B visa schemes used to supply more generic mid-skilled workers for contracts in the USA, especially as they are usually younger and less likely to have spouses and children.

    But the university professors, top engineering talent, top management talent - that will all go "My wife can't work? My husband has to lose his career? No thanks - I'll take that job in another country instead." Trump won't understand or even notice, but universities, tech corporations, engineering corporations, and even orchestras will notice.

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
    1. Re:Partner jobs are critical to skilled migration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The H1B program has been abused by the outsourcing companies, most of all the Indian ones. The statistics show that quite clearly. They have been systematically gaming the system, flooding the system with applications knowing that only a small percentage will get approved. They then pay the new immigrants a pittance, and undercut local staff to get them fired. It is disgusting and frankly needed to be stopped. The other problem is that it then prevents other companies or organizations with more legitimate reasons (including the engineering corporations, orchestras etc..) from getting any H1Bs because the Tatas and HCLs have gummed up the whole system with their corrupt practices. Trump has changed the rules to force higher salaries to be paid, which I think is entirely fair and should go some way towards fixing this. If there is a shortage of locals in some technical area, then paying more to bring an immigrant seems fine to me. Paying less and firing the local is not OK because in that case there is obviously no shortage. Just a pack of lies being told by greedy people.

      I'm from the UK, and I got an H1B 25 years ago. But I have a Bachelors, Masters and was paid more than the locals. I did not take anyone's job or get anyone fired. I stayed 18 months and relocated to Japan afterwards. That seems like a fair outcome for everyone.

    2. Re:Partner jobs are critical to skilled migration by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Expatriates returning to their homes is what expatriation IS. It's not immigration.

      By removing these perverse incentives to hire foreigners, companies and universities and orchestras will be forced to hire Americans instead. Oh my, what a tragedy, I can see why you're all broken up over it. This is entirely consistent with Trump's "Buy American, Hire American" agenda.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Partner jobs are critical to skilled migration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is the job in the US must be so enticing that the spouse is willing to give up their career until the couple decide to stay and apply for/receive green cards. If they're both of the caliber you're describing, merit-based immigration would work in their favor instead of the current lottery system where they could wait an untold number of years until their number is picked.

      If the person you want to hire isn't worth the level of pay to make their spouse happy sitting idle, are they really that unique in the world, or are you being lazy on finding someone with equivalent skills who is already able to work in the US? Or would an O-1 visa (extraordinary ability in arts/sciences/education/business) be appropriate instead of an H1B visa? If you want a world-renowned cardiologist or professor, you don't hire them on H1B using some sketchy middle-man, you bring them on an O-1A. The same goes for orchestra performers, they're O-2B as an artist. And O-2 visas are available when the spouse assists the O-1 visa holder in his/her work, or the O-3 visa allows a spouse to receive an education in lieu of work.

    4. Re:Partner jobs are critical to skilled migration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if Trump makes it impossible to get a work permit for a spouse when a highly skilled migrant moves to the USA, all those from countries where men and women have approximate equality will just not come.

      Literally all of western Europe does that to US migrants for an extended period of time. That is one of the many reasons why top US talent rarely moves abroad.

      Why do Americans have to sacrifice more of their own well-being for others while also being held to a higher standard?

      It's far past time the US government should concern itself with US citizens before other peoples.

  32. Great post - should be modded up! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Great post! A clear point shored up by verifiable facts, a clean suggestion of policy, and reference to a working example.

    I would mod that up in a heartbeat - please continue to post on slashdot, we need more people like you!

  33. What Stephen Miller wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump doesn't really want anything except positive publicity and praise from Fox and Friends (and everyone else is Fake News, so he doesn't have to re-evaluate his position in light of negative criticism).

    But Stephen Miller and his ilk are xenophobic and isolationist. They claim to want "highly skilled" immigrants at the top of the field, but they really want to just slow down all immigration to a crawl. For example, they made it mandatory that everyone who is applying for a Employer Based green card has to go through an interview. This category of green cards has historically had extremely low fraud rates (unlike, say, the marriage based category). Now even a top researcher or faculty member applying under EB-1 (top priority green cards) is having their application delayed by more than (in my case) one year and counting.

    Similarly, the H-1B renewals: they now are re-evaluated from scratch for every renewal, even though nothing in the position, job responsibilities, or location has changed. Rather than enforce higher standards for the initial application (which I'd be fine with), they are just making it more burdensome to renew an existing H-1B. All of this is just to slow down the process.

    Make no mistake: the only goal is to slow down LEGAL immigration of skilled workers. Miller doesn't want top talent - he wants to keep all immigrants out.

  34. Why pay taxes for schools, when H-1B are cheaper by SysEngineer · · Score: 2

    Teachers in West Virginia went on strike, teachers in Oklahoma and Kentucky are going to strike because they do not get paid enough. Companies want more profit so they push for reduced taxes and lower wages. This removes a tax base for paying teachers.

    It is cheaper to hire workers from with $8000 university degrees and no student loans than to pay taxes to support education.

    The H-1B program was started in 1996 as a temporary solution for tech shortages. 22 years later there is still a tech work shortage because America schools are getting the funding they need to produce low cost education for the young people in America.

  35. Re:Can we be honest for a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is amazing people like this exist.

  36. That won't fix anything by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    it'll marginally raise the wages but it won't eliminate the main reason companies want H1-Bs: zero training. They don't even have to maintain the school system anymore. Other countries do it for them. Worse, those countries churn out employees with highly specialized skills. When tech changes those employees either fall by the wayside or they work 90/hr/week on their own time/dime to keep their skills current.

    You'd need to increase the cost of an H1-B by a factor of 5-10x to account for the full scope of training (well funded and subsidized high schools and colleges, continual uptraining during working hours, extra employees to cover while you're out training, etc, etc).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That won't fix anything by swb · · Score: 1

      How do we know how great their training is?

      If I was just screening Americans for a position today, I'd have to worry about a bunch of vendor certifications and whether they were useful or just empty treadmilling, past experience, and possibly educational background (which grows less relevant with experience). That's a whole minefield of bullshit, and various levels of lying about skills and experience, some of which is standard puffery, some of which is deliberate dishonesty.

      With foreign workers? I have no good idea on how to vet them. I feel like everyone involved in foreign employment has an incentive to lie and very little way to have their statements verified. Plus employers are usually willing to believe what they're told because these employees are cheaper and I'm sure they been told of their compliance and work ethic.

      American companies have already zeroed out their cost for training for the most part anyway. They demand employees with years of experience and routinely dump anyone who doesn't have whatever skill they look for this week.

    2. Re:That won't fix anything by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      We have all kinds of problems with both American and foreign workers. Those problems stopped when we brought in project managers who didn't tolerate the backwards, broken way we manage projects.

      All bureaucracy should facilitate, not impede. Bureaucracy typically either fails to facilitate (too little red tape) or impedes (too much red tape--see: THE IRS). PMI is essentially an organization tasked with the ongoing study of making bureaucracy efficient; there are, however, a lot of really bad project managers.

    3. Re:That won't fix anything by swb · · Score: 1

      I have worked with PMI certified managers and its been a mixed bag. The best one was probably not going to "get very far' because he wasn't "management material" but he kept projects going and dealt with stall issues better than the other two. The ideal project manager from a project perspective.

      The worst one was just a resume padder and a schmoozer who didn't track projects well and often added out of scope work because it helped her schmoozing.

      The current one is pretty good at project management, but is often too invested in embedding herself in organizational decsionmaking which causes her to detatch from project details. This is acceptable on smaller projects, but on larger projects it makes her seem uninformed.

    4. Re:That won't fix anything by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Organizational decision making can put projects at risk. Project management is actually pretty easy to digest, but kind of bland; your best bet is to drop $250 on RMC Project's CAPM Exam Prep kit and a copy of the PMBOK 5e. CAPM Exam Prep lists the section of the PMBOK 5e related to the topic at hand under each heading, which lets you cross-reference without having to digest the entire PMBOK all at once (it's not entertaining).

      I got certified in about 2 months of independent study.

      It gives you a good understanding of everything involved with managing projects, a lot of tools for planning, and a way to specifically deal with your project manager when they don't function well.

      Adding out-of-scope work is broken. Adding out-of-scope work for a perceived benefit is called "gold plating": delivering the project (scope) with unimportant (out-of-scope) extra stuff tacked on (gold plating). Project managers are supposed to stop you from doing that.

    5. Re:That won't fix anything by swb · · Score: 1

      I feel like we do a marginal job on enforcing project scope. The actual engineers hate to tell clients when something is legitimately out of scope because we bear the brunt for bad project planning (suddenly we're tainted by it). PMs often can't communicate the technical reasons why X is out of scope, and the sales people just want to give it away to keep the customer happy.

      But I'm not sure this is a PM problem than a general capitalism problem of contract scope and enforcement in a dynamic environment.

    6. Re:That won't fix anything by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Poor stakeholder management and an organizational structure that doesn't involve the PM into the process before it's sold. It's fixable, but it requires the organization to not put on the face of "Our customers are complete retards and have no idea how anything works" and be willing to stand up and look like professionals.

      You have an organization in which customers are assumed to not tolerate questions. "I need X Y Z" "... can we do that? ... ok. YES we can sell you X Y Z! Leave it to us! We r smart! U PAY NOW!" A more-professional organization will identify that they can do X Y Z, then sit with the customer and go over the 2-minute explanation of their engagement process: they bring in a project manager and an engineer, they work out the precise requirements to ensure we're delivering the product you need, and then work out the basic project charter and plan. The customer is given the full project plan to review so they're aware of what's being done, what's not being done, how long it will take, and so forth.

      Some organizations are filled with people who immediately cry that customers will give them a deer-in-headlights stare and wander away like lost children. The truth is customers like this kind of professional assurance. They like being involved. They like seeing that you are dedicated to ensuring they're getting what they expect and that the job is done right. They like knowing they're the most important factor in this project's success.

      My organization just hired a new project manager who does not tolerate our purchasing habits. We've gotten terrible results by simply telling contracted firms to produce a thing, then waiting for them to deliver that thing. The process I describe above is what he's moving us toward: if they can't deliver a competent project plan and work with us each step of the way to ensure they're producing the product we need, we go somewhere else.

      Our habit has developed from purchasing the lowest-priced thing we can find and ignoring all other aspects. Even then, everybody pointed out that whoever offered this kind of strong customer engagement was probably the better bid, "but too expensive". Spend $250k but the $300k option is too expensive. Seriously. What you get is a shambling pile of horse shit that costs you $2 million in lost productivity over the next three years, and then you bail out and look for another vendor to build another thing that works.

  37. You say that like it is a good thing by GrimSavant · · Score: 1

    Having populations sitting around and unable to integrate with the country they are in or find legal livelihoods is a problem in a lot of places, and lots of them handle it a whole lot worse than the US does. Unfortunately, the AC above seems to want to use that as an excuse, and makes it pretty obvious that he's bomb throwing by reaching for the phrase "major white countries," which is not the least bit subtle. Also unfortunately, it looks like the Breitbart crowd has taken over moderation duties, as they would be the folks sympethetic towards this sort of "insight".

    One of the worst manifestations of this problem is stateless people, which still exist even in places like Europe, even if they shouldn't by their own laws. Obviously it is also huge problem in the Middle East, and has been a compounding problem for a long time in large part due to the various wars dating back at least to the mid 20th-century wars against the Israelis and continuing to today with the Libyan and Syrian wars displacing large numbers of people as refugees.

    Again unfortunately, the answer for this sort of problem that the alt-right and Trump folks seem to provide is the essentially the answer for the homeless that is routinely and roundly mocked on South Park: just send them elsewhere!

  38. It's not just xenophobia by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    there's been a lot of job losses to immigration. Yes, immigrants contribute heavily to the economy, but unless you own your own business employing those immigrants you're not benefiting from that. Now with our supply side economic system. Maybe if we had single payer healthcare, a fully funded social security and a proper safety net you'd there's be a point. But for the vast majority of native born workers the immigrants don't help, they hurt.

    Ignoring that fact is what got Trump into the Whitehouse. It's why the Dems keep losing seats (1000 in the last 8 years) in all major government races. Right now both parties are heavily in favor of whatever helps the mega corps most. That means supply side economics, low taxes, war profiteering and cuts to social services.

    All of these things mean a winner take all economy where the only determining factor in your quality of life is your job. And therefore anything that gets in the way of a good job is pretty much the worst thing ever. It's a twisted system to be sure, but we're not accomplishing anything by failing to acknowledge the reality of it and writing people off as xenophobes.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's not just xenophobia by gtall · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It turns out elder care relies heavily on immigrants. Now would you say Granny and Jed, hiring immigrants are somehow running their own business?

  39. What's funny is that article by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    points out that they've contributed billions but may never reap the benefits. Just like everybody in this country...

    Seriously, if you want people to stop fighting immigration you need to make it so that some of the wealth they generate makes it into their hands too. Right no immigrants contribute a lot to the economy but all that wealth winds up concentrated at the top.

    What I"m saying is this: Kicking the immigrants out will hurt a sector of the economy that your average Trump voter is completely isolated from (Wallstreet mostly). Meanwhile their entire quality of life is dependent on getting jobs. Fewer immigrants means more demand for their labor. That's just supply and demand. They're making a perfectly rational decision given a completely irrational world.

    tl;dr. Fix our screwed up supply side economic system or expect more twisted distortions like this.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: What's funny is that article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, the economic system is broken, but it has little to do with supply. In fact I challenge you to describe any economic system anywhere in the universe not based on supply or production.

      The economy is broken because an increasing amount of the participants do not contribute, they do not produce but instead pull services from the economy and the social order without returning back anything. The consequences in the social order is an increased amount of perceived injustice and anger. And rightfully so.

      Example one: central banks who claim to supply the living blood aka money to the system without which the system is said to collapse. Example two: politicians who serve a multitude of interest groups to hand out services as rights.

    2. Re: What's funny is that article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those you name taking more than they give are the "supply side" that the grandparent post talked of. IOW it's the wealthy and powerful who prate on about how it's not their fault, it's "supply and demand!" that their workers get fucked over. Funny that there's no problem with the massive oversupply of management hopefuls dropping wages....

  40. Re:Good. Make those hurdles higher! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Works for me. Let's start with California.

  41. He's had a year to do it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    so I don't think he'll be doing it, so no worries there. But there's an easy solution to the problem you raised: Pay an H1-B 5x-10x the prevailing wage. If they really do have skills critical to the company that no American has or can be trained to have in a reasonable time then that's not a bad deal. It needs to be that high or the money savings from zero training and the ability to work them longer hours maintain the imbalance.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:He's had a year to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there's an easy solution to the problem you raised: Pay an H1-B 5x-10x the prevailing wage.

      My husband becoming a money sink instead of just a highly skilled worker with a matching wage will encourage his employer to replace him with 20 local monkeys. I'd be even less happy to kill my career if his employment is such a cost to his employer that I can't hope for it to last more than a few years.

  42. Re:Can we be honest for a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're so certain it's a false racist assumption that the White race is superior, why would merit based immigration bother you? According to you, all races have equal merit. If that's true, what's your problem with merit based immigration?

  43. heaps of people want to move to africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see billions of people willing to migrate to safe, prosperous and fun Africa where no racism exists.

  44. welcome to australian law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He just wants to copy Australian laws, which I dont see you saying are racist do you?
    I dare you, go on, tell the Australians they are racists MOFOs, where they have a LARGE migrant population.

    1. Re: welcome to australian law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aussie here. Trying to migrate into US and right now it's tough. Australians are quite racist, but after travelling the globe, so is everyone.
      We have brutal debates over immigration same as y'all going through right now.

  45. Falling empite turn inward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happens with all fallen empire in history. As soon as they cease to look outward and forward, but inward "get those barbare/wisigoth/immigrant out" and backward "good old time/1950 were better" then it looks like a sign of forthcoming failing and falling.

  46. not nearly every single country by aepervius · · Score: 1

    If you look at the western hemisphere, the US has the most restrictive, the most slow immigration process, and particularly make it very hard to be a political/war refugee.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  47. go mexico, land of illegals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GO Mexico https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/mexico-aids-easter-invasion-of-over-1-000-illegals-into-us
    Breaking their own laws and international laws.

    Id like to see 5m Venezuelans go to mexico.......... oh sorry, they wouldnt even go there to such a shit hole, no matter how bad Venezula gets.

    Oh and just because you disagree with a prez, doesnt mean you have to impeach them, you idiot, you dont even know what the word means.
    Muwahhhhhhhhhh I dont like this, lets impeach him, muwahhhhhhhhhhh cry cry cry, wheres my pot from mexico.

  48. Sounds like good news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for us in Canada. To all skilled migrants who can't get to the US, please consider going just a bit further North. We'll be happy to have you.

  49. I have a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will be more than happy to welcome an undocumented immigrant into my country if in exchange I can send one of you self righteous left wing types out of the country. That way we could do a 1 for 1 exchange.

    Unlike the self important bleeding heart types most immigrants are not so open minded and accepting that they will feed foreigners while their own children starve. We have had it too good for too long in the USA so people have lost their sense of self preservation to the point that they can only see good in someone that really just wants to kill them. Most immigrants are not like that.

    I think it would be a net benefit for all parties involved. The open borders types would get some badly needed street smarts after living in El Salvador for a few years, and the USA could become a nation again. I am sure that the newly minted citizens would be happy enforcing border security if it means that you would not be coming back and taking their jobs.

    How about it

  50. Re:Can we be honest for a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It most certainly is. The whole reason for the immigration debate is the fear that the so called White population in the US is losing it's majority. Why pretend?

  51. Re:Can we be honest for a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. There are actually are some of us that see the truth. The right singers come up with every excuse in the book for why immigrants that don't fit their vision of White people should be denied. They are just afraid to tell the truth because they know most good people will turn on them.

      Instead they keep trying to come up with more nonsense that doesn't fit reality. They tried the so called merit based route until they realized that not all highly skilled people are White and not all White people are highly skilled. This assumption was based on their racist views of sioerioritiy that doesn't quite match reality.

    So instead of conceding or being honest about their intentions they try to create new ways of gaming the law. It's all a bunch of lies. The law has nothing to do with anything. They break the laws all the time.

  52. Re:Employer Algorithm for keeping a deep tech benc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again Shitty Language.

  53. I was H1-B for a year. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I wouldn't come to the States for love nor money

    (As an aside, the h1-B application process was asinine; a metric ton of questions and requirements with no relation to reality or sanity. The actual practical upshot was that only people who really wanted to come would come because it was just too much hassle otherwise. It had *nothing* to do with skills or the economy, regardless of intent. It was farcical.)

    Had a great time, worked very hard, didn't get much money - was paid just fine, but taxes in NYC are astronomical. *No one* makes much money.

    Now with TSA as it is, and the police as they are, and the Government as it is, and the NSA and FBI as they are, it's a country I would not risk going to.

    I felt this way some time before Trump turned up - it wasn't due to him.

    At most you could say he is a further manifestation of the same processes.

    I'm mid-forties and I make about 1000 USD a day contracting.

    Skilled labour, very productive, worth a mint to my employer; but that's actually irrelevant - and this is the crucial point - if he wants to hire me, *then it's his business and his buiness alone*. That's what freedom is. No one else has *ANY* right to take freedom away from him.

    The actual outcome of measures taken by the State are never the outcomes intended, or expected, or even *expectable*. The best thing the State can do is get out of the way.

  54. Re:Can we be honest for a minute by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

    What is interesting about this debate is that Canada, who many would assume is more open and accepting of immigrants, has the exact merit-based system so many in the US want. It's points based, and unless you have good education and lots of $$$, it's going to take you a long time to immigrate there.

    The sad part is so many on the left in Canada would lambaste the US for their politics but don't understand their own immigration laws. DJT isn't more anti-immigration, it's levelling the playing field in many instances.

    And you are correct, the racism argument is utterly wrong, but hey, everything is called racist nowadays. I would call those mud slingers the true 'deplorables' for trolling emotions on what needs to be a level headed conversation and debate.

  55. Most Trump voters can't afford senior care by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    for their parents, even at immigrant prices. They're relying on Medicare or family members or just plain hoping for the best that their parents don't wind up dead. Send the immigrants away and maybe they can afford it when they get new, better paying jobs. But even if they can't they're no worse off than they were before.

    This is the problem with abandoning your working class. It creates warped incentives like this. As Trump put it, "What da ya got to lose?". The answer for a _lot_ of rust belters is nothing, nothing whatsoever.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  56. When the pols have taken trillions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in what way is it the fault of social security being drawn down by the needy that is at fault for a shortfall: the trillions taken to "pay for" the bush era tax cuts are why the social security is not able to pay out. Grow the fuck up, moron.

    1. Re:When the pols have taken trillions by stdarg · · Score: 1

      in what way is it the fault of social security being drawn down by the needy that is at fault for a shortfall: the trillions taken to "pay for" the bush era tax cuts are why the social security is not able to pay out.

      Eh you're anon, but if you misunderstood maybe others did too. I didn't say there were too many needy people. I didn't say taxes weren't high enough, or were too high.

      I said it wasn't invested well and earns a low rate of return. If it had been invested aggressively from the beginning, we would own a pretty large portion of the world. China would be working for our needy, rather than us borrowing from China. Germany and Japan's cars would be paying for our retirees.

      I guess you don't understand how earning a return on investment works or something. A lot of people are ignorant about it.

      Grow the fuck up, moron.

      Oh you got me! I'm the young naive one here lol.

  57. Re:Can we be honest for a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? The racist argument is wrong?

    Even after Big Giant Orange Head said he didn't want people from "shithole countries"? Even after BGOH suggested that immigrants from Norway would be welcome? Even after BGOH called Mexicans murderers and rapists, though a few might not be?

    BGOH wants skilled white, non-Muslim immigrants. That is a racist policy, attitude and position.

    It's sad when simply quoting BGOH isn't accepted as fact. Go ahead, submit some of your Alt-Facts (aka Lies) as evidence to the contrary. Oh right, there are is no evidence, "Mainstream Media" makes everything up, so evidence no longer exists, not even as a concept.

    Talk about self-serving bullshit.