H-1B visas

Trump's Bigly Lie that He'll Make America's Immigration System More Merit-Based Like Canada's

He has launched a two-front assault on high-skilled foreign talent


Debunking Trump's steady stream of bigly lies on immigration is a full time job.

One such lie is that the immigration reforms he is demanding in exchange for handing citizenship to Dreamers will make America's

Donkeyhoter via Foter.com

system more "merit based," like Canada's. But I note in my column at The Week, this is like saying that kneecapping someone will make them a better sprinter.

If Trump were serious about this goal, he would:

radically streamline the immigration process for high-skilled immigrants. He could skip the H-1B stage altogether and hand green cards to them directly, just as Canada does. Or at least "staple" greencards to the diplomas of foreign students graduating from American universities (as Mitt Romney once proposed) or to the job offers of foreigners. Or increase the annual quota of H-1Bs. Or scrap the per-country annual limit on green cards. Or at minimum give the unused green card quota of one country to others like India and China that send more talent to America.

Instead, Trump has launched a two-front assault on high-skilled immigrants. He wants to pass laws to cut off the future stream of high-skilled workers and he is using his regulatory powers to make it difficult for those already here to stay.

The administration's motive here is clear: Make life so uncertain and miserable for foreign tech workers that they'll think twice before opting to come to America—and the red tape so time-consuming and costly for employers that they would think twice before hiring them.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: Damning Audit Says Pentagon Cannot Account for $800 Million

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s like Michael Hihn is writing out her headlines in poop.

    1. Mr. Hanky is the new editor?

    2. Behold the bulshitting cyber-bully stalker!

      It’s like Michael Hihn is writing out her headlines in poop.

      The fact most Americans agree with the author is proof that she and I are almost guaranteed to sound the same when discussing this! Try this out chump

      Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants
      86% want citizenship for dreamers
      83%f for ALL illegals working here.
      ****63% of even TRUMP voters favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers

      You’re not ready for the adult table, sonny.

      /Hihnspeak < off >

      1. /Hihnspeak

        Had me going.

        I was wondering if Hihn got himself a sock puppet.

        1. I had wondered if I went overboard in my imitation.

  2. Here we go again!

  3. Big, ugly, lie . . .

    Blah, blah, blah . . . woof woof!

    Did I leave anything out, or did that get it about right?

    1. How many sanity points does it cost to get to the end of a Shikha article?

      The world may never know.

      1. I don’t know, I never read them. But the comments are always great!

        1. The comments are always better than the articles when Dalmia is involved. Mostly because there are a ton of different viewpoints getting discussed, and on occasion you actually get to see someone attempt to argue in favor of open borders in good faith, rather than merely Shikha’s shrieking “Evil racist bigots trying to make America white! You have to let us in or you’re evil!11!11!!!”

          1. and on occasion you actually get to see someone attempt to argue in favor of open borders in good faith

            I’d say you get to see lots of both sides arguing in good faith. Especially now that plenty of the open borders “You’re a racist! Mott-and-Bailey! Mott-and-Bailey!” zealots have calmed down or moved on.

            1. There’s certainly a lot more good faith in the comments than in the articles. And it’s wrong of me to let the sheer number of posts from a couple of commenters overshadow the general good arguing that goes on here from a lot more people who post in lower volume.

          2. “The comments are always better than the articles when Dalmia is involved. ”

            It’s the case with a majority of Reason articles these days.

        2. ditto that…

  4. So which immigration rules are acceptable? Everyone complains, few answers.

    1. I would like to see her lay out her vision for the future of American immigration policy and vetting (if any).

      1. It’s like… Kumbai man… With some world peace… and love!

        Just think of all the FEELZ we will have in our cultural Utopia flooded with people from shit hole countries.

      2. Her vision is specifically mentioned. It’s right after, “If Trump were serious about this goal, he would:”

        Many of the criticisms against the author are fair, but you both (JoeBlow and Frank White) are just dumb, or maybe illiterate?

        1. Few read the articles. Only true libertarians, such as OBL.

        2. I read other arguments where she rails on Trump for trying to support a more Canadian / Australian form of immigration by promoting merit based immigration. Now she is railing on Trump for not being merit based enough?

          This is called disingenuousness and arguing in bad faith.

          By the way, since when is it “the libertarian position” to actively hector the Imperial Presidency to pass their favored pet projects?

          1. By pass I mean decree as in Executive Order to dispel any confusion.

          2. So she did give answers, you just didn’t like them (found them contrary to other positions you claim she has held)? So your original comment claiming that she gave none is disingenuous.

            1. You act like this was written in a vacuum and she has not published countless other hyperbolic screeds. There is nothing serious in this article at all.

              1. Feel free to rationalize your hyperbolic comments by criticizing the author. If she writes bad, that means you should too!

    2. So which immigration rules are acceptable? Everyone complains, few answers.

      None. There can be no immigration rules whatsoever, because the Constitution doesn’t grant the power to regulate immigration to the Federal Government. Article 1 Section 9 only refers to slaves. Sure, slaves can’t “migrate” and can only be imported, since they’re property, but we can’t let basic Logic, English, History, or the intent of the Founders get in the way with our need to turn America into a third world hellhole.

      Very Truly Yours,
      Dalmia, Hihn, Leo, et al

      1. Still waiting for you to show where A1S9C1 has ever been applied to immigration in case law.

        Oh and you forgot to add Judge Andrew Nepalitano to your list.

        1. It’s never been litigated, therefore it’s not in the Constitution. That’s a good one dude.

          Here’s a thought: It took over 200 years of being a nation for someone crazy enough to argue this nonsense to arise. People argued over free speech. People argued over the 2nd Amendment. But this was taken for granted to the point that even the lefties didn’t touch it for the entirety of our nation’s history, and they still haven’t done so.

          1. There have been plenty of cases litigated to the Supreme court on the issue of immigration. In not a single one of them has it centered around A1S9C1.

  5. Debunking Trump’s steady stream of bigly lies on immigration is a full time job.

    For you, I’m sure it is. “Debunking”, anyway…

  6. Perhaps as an experiment, Dalmia should try to legally immigrate to Canada and report on the hoops she has to jump through in order to do so. As I understand, it is far more difficult than immigrating to the US. And they even keep close tabs on you for years after immigrating.

    1. Actually, it’s easier, at least it was for a single guy I know who isn’t a sports star or anything similar. He gave up on the US and got in to Canada.

      1. As far as I know, if you can demonstrate you’re useful and not a waste and have some cash, you’re in. To what they degree of its difficulty, I can’t say.

        I do know if you just want to come and figure things out, it may not be so easy as I learned through someone from South America we knew. She kept trying but Canada kept saying no. And quite frankly, I think they got it right on that file.

        I just don’t know. I didn’t immigrate to Canada. I was born into this pile of hockey playing, hootch sipping, Doug Henning worshipping colonial hosers.

      2. I think that part of this is that the waiting list is just shorter. There’s a lot less people clamoring to get into the Great White North than into the US.

        1. Absolutely. I always remind Canadians we don’t have a Mexican immigration issue/problem. Lucky us.

          1. But those polar bears are always trying to slip through that Great White North border.

            Cooo, loo, coo, coo, coo, coo, coo, coooo!
            Cooo, loo, coo, coo, coo, coo, coo, coooo!

            Take off! To the Great White North!
            Take off! It’s a beauty way to go
            Take off! To the Great White North!

  7. One big problem with the desire to have a “merit-based” immigration system is, who decides what constitutes “merited”? Politicians? Top Men?

    1. I don’t like the “merit” nonsense either, for that reason and because of the likelihood that America can use motivated people who aren’t H-1B geniuses too.

    2. Good point.

      I think you should be able to juggle live squirrels and be able to recite a limerick of your choice while masturbating.

      1. There once was a man from Nantucket….
        long story short, he didn’t need to jiggle live squirrels OR masturbate.

    3. I don’t really have any particular fondness for Canada’s “points” system, personally.

      But it seems strange to claim there’s some ‘problematic’ aspect to the merit-system w/o actually knowing what it is. Look it up

      something worth considering –

      there is no such thing as a truly neutral and impartial immigration system. Every system, including one modeled on some ‘open borders’ principles, would end up having bare-minimum discriminatory criteria. it is unavoidable.

      our current system discriminates. every system discriminates. that’s what makes them ‘systems’.

      even if there were no requirement other than “show your ID”… what forms of ID are approved?, what issuers were recognized?… what penalties for fraudulent ID? … and so on and so on.

      in any case, if you’re ignorant of Canada’s ‘points’ system, details are above. i encourage people to look into the State department’s own discriminatory criteria for refugees as well

      e.g. particularly the misconception that refugee programs around the world are about ‘resettling’ people. they’re not. historically, the programs were designed to provide temporary aid to people who eventually returned to their home countries. it has varied depending on origins and conflicts – but in most cases, ‘more than half’ of refugees were repatriated.

      1. Of course any system discriminates. So what is the solution? Who should be the ones making the judgment about who comes in and who doesn’t? IN GENERAL, it shouldn’t be some central bureaucracy full of Top Men. To the extent that there has to be some centralized system, it should have as light of a footprint as utterly possible, and leave free individuals to make the vast majority of decisions they would like to make. Just like libertarians would approach any other problem involving government force. Immigration is no exception. We all agree that there should be, say, laws against theft, but these laws should be narrowly written and narrowly enforced so that they do not wind up criminalizing, or even deterring, otherwise harmless behavior. Same thing with immigration. We all agree that obvious terrorists shouldn’t be let in, but we shouldn’t have entry requirements that are so picayune that they wind up hassling obvious non-terrorists from coming in. I disagree with having a standard of “marketable skills”. There is nothing wrong, illegal or criminal with having “non-marketable skills”.

        1. “what should be”

          i’d find your chinstroking about normative ideals more interesting if you actually bothered to first learn “what is”.

    4. Merit-based is the common practice in most of the world. It’s market-based typically.

      You need to show a marketable skill or training, and/or have enough assets to demonstrate no need to work. And everyone knows what ‘marketable’ is….
      College degree in STEM, almost no problem anywhere. Credentialed in a trade, like HVAC repair, almost no problem anywhere. Degree in Sumerian History….ya better have a job already lined up or they’ll laugh in your face and kick you to the curb.

      1. ” And everyone knows what ‘marketable’ is….”

        Not really. Why should it be up to some central bureaucracy to decide these things?

        1. Because Republicans like small govt except when govt control is required to keep out the people they find deplorable. Or they like free markets, so long as they don’t extend past imaginary lines. Or they like freedom when it’s bestowed upon people who were born on the same side as the imaginary line.

          1. Defending rights entails defending borders

            1. No argument here. I’m ok with defending the borders from terrorists and criminals from crossing. I’m not ok with defending the borders from people who are freely looking for work or to engage in commerce in the US, or to join or see their families.

    5. It is true that ANY system will be flawed to high heaven. It’s government after all!

      But here’s the thing: People who decry not importing uneducated immigrants as not letting the market decide are delusional. NO it’s not the market, but we have some pretty clear indicators on where the market is for that type of person… It’s oversupplied.

      The fact is that the USA can’t even employ the native born low education people we have now. So while I don’t KNOW exactly the magical perfect number of low wage workers we need… I do know that it is fewer than we presently have!

      Every Somali Uber driver, or Mexican dish washer could be an unemployed black guy or white trash dude off of welfare. If our own high school graduates are not “educated enough,” as we’re constantly reminded by pols, then how is an illegal Mexican with an 8th grade education (this is avg education level) or a Somali who probably doesn’t even have that???

      They’re not. They’re only useful for incredibly low rent gigs, and are a net tax drain on everybody else because they pay in less than they use in basic services, just like the native poor. Indian tech guys are net tax payers and actually have job skills the future needs. We’re only going to need fewer and fewer low skill jobs as the 21st century wears on.

  8. Trump Trots Out Canada’s Obsolete Immigration Policy For America
    Merit-based immigration is economically obtuse
    Shikha Dalmia|Mar. 1, 2017 1:40 pm

    1. “This is poo here in my hand. What I do with it is fling it really hard at the walll and…”

  9. Why can’t it be lowlife scumbagettas like Dipshit Dalmia who get killed by a drunken illegal instead of innocent football players?

  10. “Or scrap the per-country annual limit on green cards.”

    This, so much this. It is utterly stupid to have nationality-based quotas for green cards.

    1. No, it isn’t.


    2. IF it were all skills based, one could theoretically remove caps. A doctor from Saudi Arabia will probably be as good as a doctor from India and all that… I mean ones kid is more likely to try to blow you up than the other, but it’s pretty rare anyway.

      But as is, without skills taken into account… It’s not entirely unreasonable.

  11. Another article to skip right to the comments and never read what Shikha wrote.

    She could have wrote the best article on the benefits of Libertarianism…. na, sometimes I say crazy things.

    1. On this we can agree. She is the absolute worst person to write a principled argument supporting immigration.

      1. Ever wonder why they have her doing it then?

        I think it’s because they all know they don’t have a leg to stand on.

        1. That would be some “n”th D Chess to publicly act like you are for open borders. Then get a person like Shikha to write all your articles supporting said position with utter nonsense. The end result is the open border position is undermined and you get your secret way but can still attend cosmo parties.

          1. LOL You know I never considered that! It is entirely possible though. Reason has enough contributors where I am positive at least a couple must be sensible on immigration. If Nick is really a hard core restrictionist in sheeps clothing that’d crack me up! LOL

  12. We should definitely streamline the immigration process. An immigrant should get citizenship within 2 or 3 years of arriving in America.

    Granting citizenship to foreigners from American universities is an interesting idea. I have some reservations, because I know how bad our university system is. However, Israel grants citizenship to converts to Judaism, and our universities are the system for teaching people how to be American, so this system should work for the USA.

    1. ” our universities are the system for teaching people how to be American, so this system should work for the USA.”

      Our universities are indoctrination camps of the Progressive Theocracy

      Any degree with “Studies” in the name should qualify for instant deportation.

      1. College graduate is to Progressive as Yeshiva graduate is to Israeli Judaism.

  13. A thought occurred to me. An American cannot keep collecting disability payments if he moves out of the country. This means we can tie the collection of benefits to the country an American lives it. Why that people born between 1945 and 1965 must live in Mexico to collect Social Security retirement benefits? A fixed income in American dollars goes farther in Mexico, and they’re already many people willing to work as health care aides and housekeepers for older Americans in Mexico.

    1. Why not legislate that people born between 1945 and 1965 must move to Mexico to collect Social Security retirement benefits?

      (Darn Google voice recognition for mobile phones. Who the heck is programming these algorithms for Google?)

      1. What in God’s name are you blathering about?
        -Jeffrey Lebowski

  14. The similarity between the premises of open borders and the socialist concept of man is eerie. Both rely on the same Progressive beliefs in the interchangeability of men and the ability to make perfect men.

    Unfortunately, man is flawed and unable to be perfected. Neither are men cogs to be interchanged at random with impunity. The Soviets tried with the New Soviet Man and found out the truth. When reality rejected them, they lashed out in tremendous violence, murdering millions sure that once rid of the troublemakers they would have their utopia.

    The modern progressive has not given up this theory. Now, if we just open the door to all men they will be made perfect by breathing the pure air of America. Their sins will be cast away. They will shed their traditions, superstitions, culture and preferences without resistance and America will be made better by their presence.

    When they succeed in achieving that great mass migration, and they find out that indeed people are not interchangeable, and that they do not abandon their pasts let alone their genetic predispositions so easily, what will they do I wonder? I think it will drive them mad, and like their ideological predecessors, they will lash out quite violently.

    1. So everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a socialist?

      Socialists have never tried to limit freedom of association or movement in the past, have they?

      1. Some have even erected walls with limited success, but maximum control 🙂

      2. Every socialist is a socialist though.

      3. I didn’t say everyone that disagrees with me is a socialist. Read what I said Leo. I said that the socialists and the modern open borders position comes from the same assumptions about humanity. That they have a common thread. That the similarities in this part of their eschatology is eerie. I then went on to say that I think the modern progressive open borders types will go on to do what the Marxists did in the SU when their plan failed: lash out violently and kill millions to create their utopia.

        Having a common trait does not make 2 things the same.

        (Although I would not be surprised if there aren’t a lot of open borders people that are Marxists.)

        1. Says the person arguing for the statist position. It’s almost laughable to step back and look at you arguing for central planning for the movement of peoples and then see you use the term Marxist like you know what it means.

        2. I’ve noted this myself long ago. In the simplest terms, communism ignores human nature, just as the theory of the utopian multicultural society ignores human nature. If you ignore human nature, and the lessons that history has to offer (namely that race, religion, and cultural clashes are the most likely cause of wars) then you are doomed to screw the pooch.

          Leo, I get the nonsense argument that the government won’t “regulate” immigration perfectly. Nobody that I know thinks it will… BUT the question is, when there are obvious existential threats to our civilization, should we not at least attempt to do whatever half baked measures we can?

          Not a single group other than white males consistently supports limited government in any way. Cubans exiles are the only exception. Logic follows that this will continue, hence more immigrants more state. You don’t have to like the way reality is, but only a fool ignores it. If I have to choose between open borders and throwing every other freedom under the bus, I’m going to go with controlling immigration thank you.

  15. “Debunking Trump’s steady stream of bigly lies on immigration is a full time job.”

    Lying about Trump’s immigration plans, and Open Borders generally, does seem to be a full time job for Shikha.

    Merit based does not mean more high tech workers. Could mean less. But it means the people we *do* let in, will be let in based on their merit *to* Americans.

    Shikha’s lying hysterics are just pathetic, as is the fact that Reason keeps publishing her dishonest tripe.

    My guess is that they can’t get anyone else willing to make a living writing articles to prop up Open Borders, because other writers have enough pride and intelligence not to make a career of such a loser argument.

    They all want Open Borders, but they also know they just don’t have an argument for it. So they leave it to Shikha.

    1. They’re not sending their best.

  16. I’ll note the fervently pro-open borders Reason site here doesn’t seem to have any H1-B Visa types writing here.


  17. Ugh. So he wants to can basically all unskilled immigration. That’s good. He also wants to make more legal immigrants even more skills based. Good. But he wants to taper down on temporary worker stuff. That’s so so to bad.

    Basically the argument is that he’s not strong enough on improving high skill immigration. The fact that he wants to cut all unskilled, and keep skilled about the same, is not the same as him eviscerating high skilled immigration. It’s keeping it the same!

    All I know is that if we keep up at current trends, or god forbid increase unskilled immigration, all your fucking morons who think it’s a good idea will be eating your words someday. 40 years from now you’ll be lying saying “Yeah, I knew it was a bad idea to import all these unskilled people… I totally tried to tell ’em, but nobody listened.” Because it will be such an obvious shit show nobody will be able to deny it anymore. If we manage to cut it and save the country, you’ll be decrying how we stopped such an amazing thing that could have been, not even realizing we were the ones who saved our civilization from utter destruction.

    1. You people need to accept that ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE.

      Average Hispanic income in USA is something like $32K. Average Indian is $106K or so.

      You don’t see a difference in outcomes between these two groups??? One is a net tax drain on the middle class and wealthy, the other is a net positive easing the tax burden on everybody else. You import 1 million of the first group and you have billions in tax burdens added to native born. You import a million of the Indians and everybodies taxes can be lowered!

      We’re the USA, not Nigeria. We can pick and choose nothing but the best. We could actually improve our country by only allowing in above average people. This will improve the lives of native born at all levels of society. If we import bellow average people, it burdens everyone. It may not be a market solution, but it’s a solution I can get behind!

      You have to choose: Principles, or practical outcomes. I choose principles on many small issues, but I choose practical outcomes here because this could become an existential problem.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.