Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump's Orwellian Plan to Make America's Immigration System 'Merit Based'

He is trying to get foreign techies to self deport or not come at all.

President Trump insists that the changes to immigration law he's proposing in exchange for protecting DREAMers a nickname for those illegally brought toForeign StudentsAlexy Sukhuruzov Zuma via Newscom America as children—would make our country's immigration system, like Canada's, more merit-based.

That would be awesome if it were true. Unfortunately, it is a complete lie. In fact, it is like saying that kneecapping someone would make them a better sprinter.

It is true that Canada's immigration system, though not perfect, is far superior to America's in many respects. Canada admits the vast majority of foreigners based on a point system that gives more weight to those with college degrees, youth, job offers, and English or French speaking skills. Foreigners who earn the requisite points are granted permanent residency—along with their nuclear family members—within a matter of months.

That is a far cry from how things work in America. Here, most high-skilled foreigners have to go through a painfully arduous process to obtain green cards.

First, their employer has to undertake the frustrating and expensive process of sponsoring them for an H-1B visa. This involves entering their name in the annual visa lottery, which gets over twice as many entries as it has slots. Even if they are among the lucky who land the coveted visa, they have to wait for years to obtain their green cards. Wait times for Indian and Chinese tech workers are running close to 20 years currently. Why? Because every country gets the same fixed annual green card allowance. So a massive backlog has developed for countries that are major donors of technical talent to America. During much of this time, these tech workers are stuck in their jobs, because switching might push them to the back of the green card queue.

The upshot of all this is that on a per-capita basis, Canada admits more than twice as many immigrants as the United States. And even though its system is not family based per se, Canada's rate of family immigration is roughly identical to America's—about 2.0 and 2.5 family-based immigrants per 1,000 residents, respectively. But Canada admits 4.5 employment-based immigrants per year compared to America's meager 0.5 per 1,000 residents.

If Trump were truly using Canada as his inspiration, 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.

But Trump has proposed none of those things. His plan for making America's immigration system merit-based is by slashing family-based immigration.

Besides their nuclear family, Americans are now entitled to sponsor only their siblings, adult children, and parents — not their aunts, uncles, grandparents, and the rest. Siblings are afforded the lowest priority and take decades to process. Bringing parents into the country, by contrast, is not so hard—and definitely a bright spot in the American system compared to Canada. And so, of course, Trump is hellbent on eviscerating that by banning parents along with the other non-nuclear family members. All in all, he would cut legal family-based immigration by 40 percent without raising high-skilled immigration one iota.

But it gets worse.

Not only is Trump seeking no legislative fixes to liberalize America's high-skilled immigration program—contrary to the impression he gives when he harps about transforming America's system into a more merit-based one—he is actually backing a bill that would make the H-1B program practically unusable. A case in point is Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton's RAISE Act, which would require companies to pay foreign techies much more than market wages before being granted permission to hire them, basically pricing foreign talent out of the U.S. labor market.

And then there is Trump's regulatory assault on foreign tech workers. He is already contemplating scrapping the Bush-era STEM Opt program. This program gives foreign students in STEM fields three years after graduation to find employers that would sponsor them for H-1Bs and green cards. He is also eliminating work authorization for spouses of H-1Bs, which means that they would have to stay at home for all the years that it takes for their green cards to be processed—which can mean practically all of the productive years for Indian and Chinese spouses.

But none of this compares to the new red tape that Trump is wrapping around H-1B hopefuls. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has started issuing twice as many "requests for evidence" requiring employers to furnish more documentation to justify why they need a foreign-born worker for a job. And its denial rate has more than doubled from 7.7 percent of applications in 2016 to 17.6 percent in 2017. In one case, it denied the H-1B petition of a company that wanted to hire a Chinese student with a masters in business from Stanford, two law degrees, and four years of work experience at a "top international firm" in Hong Kong. In another instance, a company was asked to justify the visa petition for a rocket scientist!

The cruelest blow of all is the new obstacle course the administration has erected for H-1Bs seeking simply to renew their visas every three years, something that used to be a relatively easy process. Now they will be forced to undergo the same exacting scrutiny as if they were applying for the first time. And if their visas are refused, they'd lose their jobs—which would mean that many of them would have to pack up and leave even if they've made lives here while waiting patiently for their green cards.

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.

Calling all this an effort to make America's immigration system merit-based is beyond Orwellian. The president should stop trying to fool the country and own up to his true designs.

This column was originally published in The Week

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.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But he does say he wants to make America's immigration system more merit-based.

    I would say his foreign wives were definitely merit-based.

  • Ecoli||

    I have no love for the H-1B program.

    I have known a few recipients of the H1 visa. They are bound to their employer, unable to change jobs in pursuit of a higher salary. The effect of that is to constrain wages of all in the same profession. Abolish it.

    If American firms need "techies" then the free market for their labor will fix any shortage. There are plenty of Americans capable of doing tech jobs.

  • JFree||

    I think the H1 program is cronyist crap too. But the GOP is gonna have to do a fuckload better than 'our immigration fix is to shut it all down and replace it with nothing'.

    Because the reality is that there are NOT plenty of Americans capable of doing tech jobs. There are fewer than 20,000 math/stats BS majors/year (compared to 25,000/year in 1970) - most of whom now are probably foreign students.

    In all STEM fields, there are roughly 550,000 graduates/year in the US (again - significantly foreign students) - compared to just under 5 million/year in China, 2.5 million in India, 550k in Russia, and 350k in Iran. Nor do we - or could we - have STEM degree alternatives as exist in Germany/Europe (via apprenticeships/etc) because our HS students suck in those subjects and our employers do not think long-term re skills development because they long ago stopped hiring 'long-term'.

  • Kivlor||

    I thought the market will take care of it? Isn't that the libertarian answer to all government subsidies?

  • rferris||

    YES, but our education system has little to nothing to do with the market.
    In Calif we have state college in a system of 23 colleges. Cal Poly SLO is a stem school and by itself is responsible for over 90% of all rejections that the system issues to incoming freshmen.
    So, the system endlessly tries to make Cal Poly like the other weak campuses instead of making the weak schools more like Poly.
    This is the opposite of what the market would do.
    If all of California's campuses turned out engineers and scientists like Cal Poly does it is doubtful we would need any skilled foreign labor.
    Alas, that will not happen.

  • JFree||

    CalSLO is just an example of extreme tracking/specialization (highly selective admissions of people who have already chosen STEM). It's very effective for what it does but it is not a solution to the problem we have.

    Nor is it even remotely similar to the market-based higher-education model (which was - admit everyone, take their money, teach them nothing, hand out diplomas) which was almost entirely a Wall St 'inspired' scam/fraud - which also solves no actual problem we have.

  • Mark22||

    CalSLO is just an example of extreme tracking/specialization (highly selective admissions of people who have already chosen STEM). It's very effective for what it does but it is not a solution to the problem we have.

    Can the education system turn the average 5'10" male into a competitive, world-class 6'8" basketball player? I suspect not. Well, the education system can't turn the average IQ 100 male into a competitive computer expert either. Height and IQ are both largely genetically determined, and neither ideology nor education is going to change that.

  • Presskh||

    There are plenty of people in this country with sufficient IQ's to learn and perform all of our STEM-related jobs. The problem is that employers do not want to pay salaries that would entice students to pursue these fields - they would rather import cheaper workers from India through the H1-B program. Why do you think medical schools have five times the number of applicants that will actually be admitted? Short answer - it's 99% because the profession pays very well.

  • Mark22||

    There are plenty of people in this country with sufficient IQ's to learn and perform all of our STEM-related jobs.

    First of all, STEM fields are not all alike: from biology to physics, there is more than one standard deviation in IQ even among graduates. And that only gives you a degree, it doesn't make you competitive. To be competitive in fields like computer science, you need to be better than the vast majority of people in the world.

    The idea that you can elevate average students to be competitive in areas like computer science through better financial incentives and education is ridiculous. It's the kind of stupid "blank slate" ideology that Marxists believe in.

    Why do you think medical schools have five times the number of applicants that will actually be admitted? Short answer - it's 99% because the profession pays very well.

    Short answer: because the medical profession is an artificial monopoly where people of average intelligence can make very high salaries, and they can maintain that monopoly because it's a service that needs to be performed in person (for now).

  • Mark22||

    But the GOP is gonna have to do a fuckload better than 'our immigration fix is to shut it all down and replace it with nothing'.

    If we put 1.8 million "dreamers" into the immigration pipeline, that will pretty much "shut it all down" for years to come anyway. So, we have plenty of time to develop a merit based system while those people work their way through our current system.

    Nor do we - or could we - have STEM degree alternatives as exist in Germany/Europe (via apprenticeships/etc)

    There are no serious "STEM degree alternatives" in Europe. Some countries simply count blue collar apprenticeships as if they were STEM degrees in order to look more educated. But a turd by any other name still stinks.

    because our HS students suck in those subjects

    No more than HS students in many other developed nations.

  • damikesc||

    We used to be able to do aptitude tests to see if somebody without a college degree was capable of certain work...but those were outlawed as being "racist" as well.

  • JFree||

    Some countries simply count blue collar apprenticeships as if they were STEM degrees in order to look more educated. But a turd by any other name still stinks.

    No they don't. They just have very highly tracked education systems - separated by class at an early age - so there is no way for a kid to move from say Realschule to Gymnasium once they have been assigned to a track. That tracking completely drives university acceptance/degrees (ie 'degrees') - but not employers so much. Germany's mittelstand are centered around apprenticeship (including from Gymnasium) and 'dual-study' as the entry point. It is as I said an ALTERNATIVE to STEM degrees acquired at the student's own initiative prior to employment. And it can only happen there because they have 3% turnover rates - vs 50-100% at US hi-tech

  • Mark22||

    No they don't. They just have very highly tracked education systems

    Well, yes they do: Germany started counting various forms of job training as if it were a university degrees.

    separated by class at an early age - so there is no way for a kid to move from say Realschule to Gymnasium once they have been assigned to a track.

    That hasn't been the case in decades; in addition, there is little selectivity anymore, with 50% of students attending the Gymnasium now (up from 5% in the 50's).

    Germany's mittelstand are centered around apprenticeship (including from Gymnasium) and 'dual-study' as the entry point. It is as I said an ALTERNATIVE to STEM degrees acquired at the student's own initiative prior to employment.

    Well, yes, the two are alternatives to each other, in the sense that both can lead to earning a livelihood; otherwise, they teach different things to different people with different objectives.

    And it can only happen there because they have 3% turnover rates - vs 50-100% at US hi-tech

    The low turnover rates are simple to explain: firing employees is very hard, so companies are stuck with bad workers and reluctant to hire workers. The resulting labor market is not pretty.

    Now, what was your point? If you think there is anything we should emulate about the German system, you have failed to make your case so far.

  • JFree||

    in addition, there is little selectivity anymore, with 50% of students attending the Gymnasium now (up from 5% in the 50's)

    Fewer than 30% attend Gymnasium and it is still the top 30% selected at age 12 or so.

    they teach different things to different people with different objectives.

    So what. Maybe more companies would benefit by hiring while in school and then training to do what that company needs and/or what the employees are good at - rather than hire people with generic off-the-shelf degrees designed by a generic academic.

    The low turnover rates are simple to explain: firing employees is very hard, so companies are stuck with bad workers and reluctant to hire workers.

    You are an ideological idiot. For the mittelstand, those low turnover rates are a choice that you choose not to comprehend. Here's one mittelstand example - https://www.polyclip.com/us/ - a 50%+ global market share of the metal clipping machines for the ends of sausages with 800 patents. You think they would have prospered by finding degreed sausage clip engineers from universities - in some other country with a different labor market? Or this - http://www.mennekes.de - largest mfr of enamelled magnet wire - founded by one of those master craftsmen.

    These companies hate firing people they've spent money training or losing them to poachers - which is one reason most are in small semirural towns.

  • Mark22||

    Fewer than 30% attend Gymnasium and it is still the top 30% selected at age 12 or so.

    I'm sorry, but repeating false statements doesn't make the true. About 50% of students receive the Abitur, and that is largely a parental choice these days.

    So what. Maybe more companies would benefit by hiring while in school and then training to do what that company needs and/or what the employees are good at

    I'm sure it does benefit companies, since university degrees are a waste of time for people who aren't cut out for it. But you claimed that apprenticeships are an "alternative to" STEM degrees, in the sense that they prepare people for the same degrees more efficiently, and that's wrong.

  • Mark22||

    Sorry, I meant: "But you claimed that apprenticeships are an "alternative to" STEM degrees, in the sense that they prepare people for the same kind of jobs more efficiently, and that's wrong."

    Germany's apprenticeship program will never produce a strong high tech industry. In fact, even Germany's universities fail to do so.

  • JFree||

    repeating false statements doesn't make the true. About 50% of students receive the Abitur, and that is largely a parental choice

    Conflating Abitur (a test) w Gym (a school) doesn't make them the same thing. Apprentices past a certain stage are allowed to take the Abitur so that they can then enroll in Uni coursework. That doesn't mean they went to Gym - which remains - selective track at age 12 or so.

    you claimed that apprenticeships are an "alternative to" STEM degrees, in the sense that they prepare people for the same kind of jobs more efficiently

    I never claimed anything about efficiency. It's an alternative. No equivalent in the US but comparable to leaving HS, getting a technical job, and then taking courses part-time while still working and getting promoted to more skilled work - rather than graduating then 4-yr fulltime study to first degree then work. Maybe you can't imagine that possibility but that's your failure.

    Germany is a great country for people whose life's ambition is to live in a small down...while getting fat on said sausages and beer.

    And there's a lot of people who would prefer not to incur student loan debt, not have to continually look for scam 'tech startups' with vague promises of stock options, in a place where they have to pay 50% of their income on rent, and to have time off for themselves. Different strokes.

  • Mark22||

    Conflating Abitur (a test) w Gym (a school) doesn't make them the same thing. Apprentices past a certain stage are allowed to take the Abitur so that they can then enroll in Uni coursework.

    Well, so let's not quibble about different numbers (actually, you don't have any numbers, you just keep waving your hands), and get to the main point: an apprenticeship qualifies people for university.

    I never claimed anything about efficiency. It's an alternative.

    No, you didn't and don't claim anything at all. You simply wave your hands and remain vague. As I was saying: I think apprenticeships are a great choice for individuals and companies. But let's be clear why they are a great choice: they are a great choice because most of the population isn't cut out for working in STEM fields and hence ought to learn something simpler.

    Now, you hide behind weasel words, but what that means is that apprenticeships are not an "alternative to" a university degree, they are simply a completely different kind of education for completely different kinds of jobs.

  • Mark22||

    For the mittelstand, those low turnover rates are a choice that you choose not to comprehend.

    I'm sure these choices are great for "sausage end clip makers" to be able to permanently lock up skilled engineers. Barriers to labor mobility are excellent for employers; they simply are not so good for employees or for society as a whole.

    You are an ideological idiot.

    No, we are in full agreement, actually: Germany is a great country for people whose life's ambition is to live in a small down and spend their brain power on the manufacture of little metal sausage clips, while getting fat on said sausages and beer. That is pretty much the essence of German culture and German engineering, and it's probably the best country in the world for that kind of lifestyle.

    I just hope the US will never turn itself into that kind of country.

  • JFree||

    I'm sure these choices are great for "sausage end clip makers" to be able to permanently lock up skilled engineers.

    Well looks like we now agree that the young can get to the same place in the end. And fact is, Germany (and esp Europe) has its own STEM shortages - so those employees aren't really 'locked up' at all. They're just not perpetually looking for greener grass - by their own choice.

  • Mark22||

    So in your bizarro fantasy world, Germany has a STEM shortage because all its smartest minds freely choose to move to some rural hovel where they spend their life engineering sausage clips. Dream on. Germany's STEM shortage actually has the same roots as America's: people smart enough to do well in STEM are rare and the only way to increase their supply is to compete for them. This used to be compounded by stifling labor market restrictions, though Germany loosened those somewhat in the 2000s and has been doing somewhat better as a result, though not as well as the US.

    In your bizarro world, the the US should emulate the German model, offering students both free college educations and a government regulated apprenticeship system. That's just silly. A simpler and better solution is to stop subsidizing college educations in the US, which means that students will naturally choose more apprenticeships.

  • BambiB||

    The legitimate application of H-1B is to recruit a very few extremely highly-skilled specialists - the Watson and Crick of genetic research, the Alexander Graham Bell of communications or the Albert Einstein of modern physics.

    American students don't go into STEM fields because there is (presently) no future. If you're going to import less-skilled competitors to take the jobs, and STEM grads wind up living in their parents' basement, what intelligent young person would sweat the blood it takes to earn a degree in Electrical Engineering? The H-1B program is importing outsourcing. We need some sort of program to ensure the availability of Nobel Prize winners - but the H-1B program is mostly about beating down income levels and importing cheap labor.

    The solution is simple: Require every company pay a $100,000 per year fee per H-1B visa to a fund which may be used by Americans pursuing STEM degrees. Use the fund to awards scholarships.

    This approach would

    1) Decrease the motivation to import outsourcing,
    2) Ensure that industry can still hire specialists with exceptional skills,
    3) Promote investment in growing America's STEM education pool,
    4) Encourage students to enter a field with a future.
    5) Lower the barrier to higher education for gifted students.

    The only losers in all of this would be foreign workers and companies that use H-1B primarily as a source of cheap labor. The biggest winners would be American citizens.

  • Rhywun||

    Before we all start flinging mud, can I just get out of the way how much I hate the word "techie"? It's like calling a Star Trek fan a "Trekkie".

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Or referring to a connoisseur of fine eats as a "foodie."

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Real Talk, as someone who loves cooking and experimenting with new recipes: if you refer to me as a foodie, i will go upside your head with a Le Creuset lid, and that means exactly whatever you think it means.

  • silver.||

    Tell me how to become more motivated to cook new things. I've recently recieved a bunch of beautiful pots and pans, and it's a damn waste to only make spaghetti with them.

    This has already strayed way off topic, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be a 200-comment shitshow of ad hominems.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Tell me how to become more motivated to cook new things.

    Remain single.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I had a girl over for dinner once and she liked my curry so much she married me. TRUE STORY.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    How does your wife feel about this?

  • mad_kalak||

    ooooh, good one! lol

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Being bored of spaghetti is a good place to start. Try looking up recipes for things you've enjoyed at restaurants, and pay attention to what each seasoning brings to the dish, and what they taste like together. Don't be afraid to mix sweet with savory or spicy. Use a lot more salt than you think you should - that's what makes things taste good. If you have the opportunity to watch a decent chef work, pay attention (i worked in a fine kitchen for a couple of months after college and it was mind-blowing). Basically, don't be scared of trying new things.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Try Kenji's recipes. This dude is a culinary genius.

  • Cavadus||

    > Tell me how to become more motivated to cook new things.

    Wanna get laid? Cook food.*

    I just go to Food Network and look up stuff sometimes. I'm a lot Italian and grew up with that food so I started my journey of cooking-to-get-laid with stuff from Giada de Laurentis, Michael Chiarello, and Mario Batali.

    Eventually blasting death metal and cooking became a real hobby of mine that I enjoy very much to this day.

    *I bagged my wife by cooking for her.

  • silver.||

    There are two people in this thread who cooked their way into bed.

    Excellent recommendations. Thanks all-around.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    After this post, I now finally like you.

  • Zeb||

    It means you spend too much money on cookware?

    I mean, Le Creuset is really good stuff, but I'm not paying that much so some French commie can take 3 hour wine breaks.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    IT WAS A GIFT, ZEBULON.

  • Zeb||

    I'd suggest that you should also do the same to anyone who calls themselves a foodie.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Well, yeah. In my experience, anyone who self-applies the term "foodie" really means "i saved a lot of recipes on Pinterest."

  • Brett Bellmore||

    When I self-apply it, I generally mean, "I make my own stock from kitchen scraps, and have once made strudel from scratch, but never again."

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You ain't have to call yourself a "foodie," though. Have some self-respect!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I have no problem with the term "foodie," and I use the term myself. What I do have a problem with, though, is people that DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN USE AND MENTION, Sixth Son of Jacob!!!

  • Zeb||

    I know all about the difference between use and mention, thank-you. I even know how to use quotation marks properly, but it's usually just too cumbersome.

  • Aloysious||

    *flings mud at Rhywun^

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    No flirting!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yeah man, I can relate... Being a Trekkie techie myself! I am SUCH a "Trekkie techie" myself, I have been reading entire books (written in Klingon, no less) about the geology and biology of the home planet of the Wookies, for example.

    I guess that also makes me a "Wookie Bookie"!!!

    (Anyone for some nooky with a "Wookie Bookie"?!?!)

    (Asking "for a friend"!)

  • SQRLSY One||

    I have been playing "hooky" from my work, while writing about all these troubles-with-tribbles, and with the lack of nooky for Wookie bookies...

    But... Did you also know that there's a kind of fish called a "snook"? If they live in a stream by a rook (AKA, castle), and you catch some of them, and you are hungry, then you are going to need a...

    "Rook brook snook cook book!"

  • Rhywun||

    Are you having another "episode"?

  • Zeb||

    I thought it was all one episode.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yeah man, a certain kind of nunnery-thingee is known as a "cloister", like the "Ephrata Cloister", for example, see http://ephratacloister.org/ … Now if you spring a leak in the roof of such a thing, and the danged thing gets SOOO wet, one of the few uses left for it, will be, to raise oysters, it will become a…

    "Moister Oyster Cloister"
    And then some hell-bent real estate agent gets so hung up on trying to sell it (or "time shares" of it) to unwilling buyers, he becomes a…

    "Moister Oyster Cloister Foister"
    And someone gets SOOO sick and tired of said real estate agent, such that he advocates "hang him high!", then the advocate of hanging becomes a…

    "Moister Oyster Cloister Foister Hoister!"

  • SQRLSY One||

    OK, yes, I can just BARELY see, this might just be getting a TINY bit annoying, to some folks...

    I guess that might make me a...

    "Moister Oyster Cloister Foister Hoister Annoyster!"

  • SQRLSY One||

    If'n "Dr. Seuss" could make money with "muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle
    bottle paddle battle" twaddle...

    See "Fox in Sox"...

    "When beetles fight these battles in a bottle with their paddles
    and the bottle's on a poodle and the poodle's eating noodles...
    ...they call this a muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle
    bottle paddle battle."

    Then I should be rollin' in the dough, man!!!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Clinton's Testimony according to Dr. Seuss
    I did not do it in a car
    I did not do it in a bar
    I did not do it in the dark
    I did not do it in the park
    I did not do it on a date
    I did not ever fornicate
    I did not do it at a dance
    I did not do it in her pants
    I did not get beyond first base
    I did not do it in her face
    I never did it in a bed
    If you think that, you've been misled
    I did not do it with a groan
    I did not do it on the phone
    I did not cause her dress to stain
    I never boinked Saddam Hussein
    I did not do it with a whip
    I never fondled Linda Tripp
    I never acted really silly
    With volunteers like Kathleen Willey
    There was one time, with Margaret Thatcher
    I chased her 'round, but could not catch her
    No kinky stuff, not on your life
    I wouldn't, even with my wife
    And Gennifer Flowers' tale of woes
    Was paid for by my right-wing foes
    And Paula Jones, and those State Troopers
    Are just a bunch of party poopers
    I did not ask my friends to lie
    I did not hang them out to dry
    I did not do it last November
    But if I did, I don't remember
    I did not do it in the hall
    I could have, but I don't recall
    I never did it in my study
    I never did it with my dog, Buddy

  • SQRLSY One||

    I never did it to Sox, the cat
    I might have-once-with Arafat
    I never did it in a hurry
    I never groped Betty Currie
    There was no sex at Arlington
    There was no sex on Air Force One
    I might have copped a little feel
    And then endeavored to conceal
    But never did these things so lewd
    At least, not ever in the nude
    These things to which I have confessed
    They do not count, if we stayed dressed
    It never happened with cigar
    I never dated Mrs. Starr
    I did not know this little sin
    Would be retold on CNN
    I broke some rules my Mama taught me
    I tried to hide, but now you've caught me
    But I implore, I do beseech
    Do not condemn, do not impeach
    I might have got a little tail
    But never, never did inhale

    There was a computer animation of Bill Clinton as Cat-in-the-Hat, reciting the above poetry. I have a copy, but it won't play any more (Op. Syses upgrades), and I can't find it on You-Tube, or anywhere else…

    BONUS points for anyone who can find ANY kind of video link to the above poetry slam!!!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Jesus.

  • silver.||

    The SQRLSY one is going HAM today.

    Honestly, I had a tenth of that creative energy, I'd be happy.

  • The_Hoser||

    Well done, but not on the level of "over-the-shoulder boulder holder."

  • ||

    Since you started, I'd like to rant against the phrase 'visible minority.' Can we just do away with it already?

  • Rhywun||

    Be careful what you wish for.

  • Zeb||

    I think that's one of those Canadian things that Americans aren't generally familiar with. It's kind of like "protected class" in US anti-discrimination, no?

  • ||

    Something like that.

    I thought it was used in the US too.

  • Rhywun||

    Nope. That is a Canadianism.

  • vek||

    I believe visible minority is used not only in Canada, but at least the whole Anglosphere outside of America. I've seen it in UK articles.

    Basically it seems to mean colored people... In otherwords minorities that you can spot with your eye, AKA not Poles/Russians/White foreigners or Jews (although people with good Jewdar can usually spot them!).

  • Nuwanda||

    I suspect it's purposely designed to confuse the issue so foreign Trekkies can be admitted under a merit-based system.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Photo caption contest...I'll start-
    "Bukkake scene take 2"

  • Rhywun||

    "Ten minutes later, their Dreams were crushed when they didn't find any green cards stapled to their diplomas"

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    "Pictured (l-r): Mohammed, Mohammed, Ahmed, Ahmed, Ahmed, Breanna, Mohammed, Ahmed, Mohammed, Mohammed)"

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The guy to the right of Breanna is Mehmet, shitlord.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Dr. Oz?

  • hpearce||

    I am very skeptical on Reason's "reasoning" when it come to immigration given their past support for open borders which is based on the concept that all public property is public to the world - a socialist view in my mind..

  • Nyarlarrythotep||

    So you're bothered by the scope of users of public property being widened to include all people, rather than just citizens, or residents, or similar. You think it's socialist only when it's widened?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Awesome username.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Is this a sockpuppet or an algo? Citation? Neither the LP platform nor Reason push "open borders". The expletive is just another GO-Pee "n-word" shibboleth like "free trade" for a revenue tariff or "legalizing beer" for not shooting and robbing people over superstitious pseudoscience, or "baby killing" for the very idea of women having self-ownership and individual rights.

  • vek||

    Reason, more than the LP, pushes ideas veeery close to open borders though. Far more open than any nation in the worlds public thinks is a good idea, and for good reasons.

    Assimilation and cultural issues are real. They cause huge problems, like wars a lot of the time. Then there are economic repercussions, especially in welfare states. All of the utopian delusion in the world will not make an illiterate Mexican the same as an Indian with a Comp Sci PHD or whatever. One is a net tax drain (like all native born poor), the other will be a huge net tax payer and boon to the economy in general. Plus 1000 other reasons people have issues with mass immigration. I've taken to modding an Obama quote:

    "If you like your country, you can keep it!" - Progressives/open border libertarians

    It is just as big a lie as the original, and anybody with any sense or ability to read statistics can tell you as much.

  • Zeb||

    But anti-immigration reasoning is based on an assumption that all private property is in some sense collectively controlled, which is an even more socialist view.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    But probably more of a real world view, you must admit.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, probably.

  • Kivlor||

    Only for some of the people arguing against immigration. Many of us are not basing it in any such assumption.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Definitely missing the Orwellian aspect here. Your complaint appears to be that in seeking to make our immigration system merit based, Trump is actually going too far in the direction of a purely merit based system, by reducing the family unification, and dumping the lottery system.

    You're entitled to your policy preferences, of course.

    But attacking as Orwellian his describing his immigration policy as "merit based" on the basis that it's too merit based?

    That's kind of Orwellian, no?

  • JP88||

    She also casually says DREAMers is a "nickname," when it could be more accurately describe as an Orwellian term. Newspeak for illegal immigrants brought here by their parents is calling them DREAMers.

  • Mark22||

    I think it's pretty obvious Shikha just doesn't know what terms like "Orwellian" actually means, she just uses them because they have negative connotations. I wouldn't be surprised if she complains about bad service in a restaurant by saying "I've been waiting for the menu for 20 minutes; service in this restaurant is truly Orwellian".

    Throughout her writing, Shikha keeps proving that she isn't very smart and isn't very educated.

  • vek||

    She probably hasn't even read any Orwell! I've only read 1984, an essay or two, and some quotes... But that's enough to give me a leg up on her apparently!

  • gclancy51||

    If any libertarian website knew who Orwell really was they definitely wouldn't use his name as an adjective.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Ironically, the residents of communities that would benefit most from immigration -- those on the wrong end of "bright flight," losing the smart and ambitious young people to campuses and modern, successful cities for generations -- and that consequently and vividly need the injection of entrepreneurship, motivation, education, tolerance, optimism, and skill that immigrants could provide are the Americans who argue most ardently against immigration.

    Of course, they didn't arrange their current positions with sound judgment, admirable conduct, or strong character.

  • mad_kalak||

    But you would so casually deprive the home country of the presumed talents of the immigrant though?

  • Mark22||

    and that consequently and vividly need the injection of entrepreneurship, motivation, education, tolerance, optimism, and skill that immigrants could provide

    They certainly need it, but they aren't going to get it from DREAMers.

    Of course, they didn't arrange their current positions with sound judgment, admirable conduct, or strong character.

    Neither did people like Shikha or Pelosi. In fact both of those acquired their current wealth and status in the traditional female way: from their husbands.

  • vek||

    How exactly are half illiterate Mexicans going to do any of that either genius???

    Avg Mexican American income is like 32K a year or some shit. Basically their AVERAGE is about as horrible as the stupidest, most worthless white trash that most white people wouldn't even piss on... The low end of Mexicans are of course far worse than that.

    Hence we need merit based if ANYTHING decent is to come about from immigration. Keep in mind I say this as a part beaner/wetback/spick myself! I'm just calling it like it is man. Mexican doctors are fine... But we don't need more janitors.

  • Cloudbuster||

    You know, you can just read the headline and know it's going to be Dalmia.

  • silver.||

    She's certainly consistent.

  • vek||

    This is cheating too, I was hoping it'd be a new piece to shit on. She created a mini article linking to this article the other day already! So it's crap AND a scam!

  • Hank Phillips||

    I am relieved the article has nothing to do with Hitler's brain. That IS what comes to mind when the topic is "improving Republican immigration policy."

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Anyway, what's the complaint about proposing to get rid of H1B? It's modern serfdom!

    Companies import foreigners to displace American workers, only the new employees are trapped in an arrangement where, if they cease being employed by that company, they're subject to deportation. Sure, it's possible to change employers, but you're not guaranteed you get to stay if you do that, the new employer has to petition for you all over again.

    The net result is employees who are tied to a particular employer, and at much more risk if they try to change jobs than a regular visa holder would be.

  • Flyby||

    I think her point Brett is that a better solution would be to allow those H1B'ers to become the candidates for merit based immigration, replacing the slots that today are used for chain migration, lottery, and other unskilled candidates who are not a net benefit to the country. Just getting rid of H1B while giving them no other options is bad for them and us.

    Every day a thousand impoverished, poorly educated, non-English speakers pour across the southern border from Mexico and Central America, while we're legally re-settling Syrians and others from the middle east who have a different set of values, and many of whom actively hate America.

    At the same time I work with a large number of Indians, many of whom are here on H1B. These are some terrific people who admire the American ideal, have a terrific work ethic, strong family foundations and are highly educated. They would unquestionably be net assets to our country, and it drives me nuts that we continue to talk about giving a pass to millions who came here illegally while making it harder for the people we should want to be here.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    But they would presumably be top notch candidates for merit based immigration. It's not like he's proposed to deport them and bar them from returning. Of course they could apply for merit based slots, and probably with an excellent chance of getting them. That much seems obvious.

  • vek||

    I think the general idea here is:

    Can all non merit immigration.

    Push all skilled immigration through the regular system.

    The smart Indian guys can apply full on for the merit based, and will be towards the top I would assume. The only question is what if any changes will be made to current quotas etc. Frankly I'll take whatever we can get that stops the stream of half illiterate lottery visa/family immigration stuff. We just don't need to import unskilled people in the 21st century, it's retarded.

  • MikeP2||

    "It is true that Canada's immigration system, though not perfect, is far superior to America's in many respects. Canada admits the vast majority of foreigners based on a point system that gives more weight to those with college degrees, youth, job offers, and English or French speaking skills."

    Of course, the Canadian system you laud would not allow in most of the poor, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking immigrants that are the root cause of the vast majority of immigration disaggreements in the US.

    I guess you are just a racist, Shikha.

  • Flyby||

    Or she's just making sense! Never thought I'd say that about Shikha Dalmia.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Point to the country of poor, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking potential immigrants that Canada physically borders on any current map.

    The fact that she equates the two shows she has no sense or perspective. She's just an open borders loon who'll take any position for her cause.

  • MikeP2||

    "Point to the country of poor, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking potential immigrants that Canada physically borders on any current map."

    Minnesota? New York?

    Detroit?

  • MJBinAL||

    Well, Canada is now turning away all those deserving folks who thought they could escape being deported from the US by going to Canada. And they don't deport them here, they send them back to their country of origin.

    In fact, the Canadian system is remarkably similar to the one Trump wants.

  • The_Hoser||

    They aren't exactly being turned away. They are being housed, fed, given medical and dental benefits until the vast majority of them are shipped back to their country of origin. A fairly recent article (Nov. 2017) said the government had processed about 300 of the thousands of claims received in a three-month span. I recently heard a figure of 41,000 people waiting, with a possible backlog of five years.

    Our PM didn't help by essentially tweeting that Canada's immigration policy was olly olly oxen free. Not a genius, but he has nice hair.

  • CE||

    Yeah, but Canada is mostly miles and miles of empty prairie with some frozen tundra thrown in. They have a lot more room. Ever been to Seattle? that place is crowded.

  • ||

    some frozen tundra thrown in

    Global warming is a Canuck scam to make the place habitable.

  • JP88||

    "DREAMers a nickname for those illegally brought to America as children"

    "DREAMers, an Orwellian term for illegal immigrants brought here by their parents as children..."

    Fixed it for ya.

  • MJBinAL||

    Hmmm, somw DREAMERS seem to have come here as unaccompanied minors in their teens. Are they DREAMERS if they came alone to joint the rest of the uninvited invaders they are related to? Of does being underage by US standards make them blameless until the gang the are part of gets them arrested for murder? Just asking....

  • gclancy51||

    You don't know what Orwellian means, do you?

  • Ecoli||

    Americans are DREAMers too!

  • ||

    Making immigration "legal based" would be a good first start.

  • Nuwanda||

    There ya go. The simple plan is always the best.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "His fraudulent plan for making America's immigration system merit-based."

    Why would anyone take anything in this article seriously after that?

  • XM||

    Isn't there some cognitive dissonance going on here?

    Shikha praises Canada's immigration system, but that country (land size bigger than USA, if I'm not mistaken) is more than 80% white while having less people than CA. Their immigration policy results in Asians outnumbering Latinos by something like a 4 to 1 ratio (wiki). Is it that "humane"? Canada's police can just stop you in airport, search your phones, and deport you on the spot if they find out you plan to stay there illegally.

    If you ain't legal in Canada, you probably have no shot at a normal life. No healthcare, no job, nothing. But it's a different story in the USA. All this moaning about "the legal process takes 20 years" ignores the fact that people who come to this country have a long game in mind. The networks and family connection are there, meaning you can just start working or send your kids to school as you wait out the years applying for the green card.

    I'm not new to the sponsorship game, my old church used to sponsor people all the time. Chain migration fears are overblown only because families are more likely to come together as a unit. Or their kids could fly in later on and live with the family.

    If we prioritized the merit system, we're still gonna get gazillions of people, because we're a better country than Canada.

  • ||

    because we're a better country than Canada

    According to which measure? For example on the Heritage Foundation's 2018 Index of Economic Freedom, Canada is "a better country" than the USA.

  • MJBinAL||

    Yeah, Canada's system is WAY better.

    Healthcare: Go the the US if it is anything serious and pay for it in cash.
    Immigration: Discourage them from coming if you can unless they are educated and self supporting. Deport them immediately if they are caught in the country illegally.
    Defense: Let the USA pay for it.
    Infastructure: What's that, EH?

    Heritage is full of it on this one.

  • ||

    Heritage is full of it on this one.

    But not on other ones? That sounds like special pleading.

  • Mark22||

    According to which measure? For example on the Heritage Foundation's 2018 Index of Economic Freedom, Canada is "a better country" than the USA.

    "Better" always depends on who it is better for.

    Canada and Europe are great if you're wealthy, and for many types of businesses. If you're an immigrant, a minority, or middle class, your economic opportunities and choices are severely limited.

  • ||

    "Better" always depends on who it is better for.

    Indeed: for example, a dictatorship is better for the dictator and his supporters than a non-dictatorship (or a dictatorship run by a different dictator and a different set of supporters).

    Canada [is] great if you're wealthy, and for many types of businesses. If you're an immigrant, a minority, or middle class, your economic opportunities and choices are severely limited.

    But the question is: are those economic opportunities and choices more severely limited than in the USA? Don't forget: the original claim was that "we're a better country than Canada".

  • Mark22||

    are those economic opportunities and choices more severely limited than in the USA?

    As an immigrant who voted with his feet, I can say unequivocally: yes, as an immigrant, minority, or middle class, your opportunities are far more limited in Europe and Canada than in the US.

  • ||

    As an immigrant who voted with his feet

    You mean you've emigrated from Europe to Canada, then from Canada to the USA?

  • Mark22||

    No, I just worked in Canada. It's not a bad country, but in terms of opportunities, the US is far better.

  • ||

    in terms of opportunities, the US is far better

    This is your perception; it isn't necessarily other people's perception. See the Heritage Institute's evaluation.

    Maybe one aspect of better opportunities is the considerably larger US market; but one can be based in Canada yet have access to the larger US market (for example entertainers, like Justin Bieber, Celine Dion and others).

    Or look at ATI Technologies Inc. (now part of AMD). It was started by three (or four?) Chinese immigrants to Canada, yet became a reasonably successful company which competed with US companies.

  • Mark22||

    This is your perception; it isn't necessarily other people's perception. See the Heritage Institute's evaluation.

    The Heritage Institute certainly agrees with me on that, since on the most relevant index, namely labor freedom, the US scores much better than Canada. Canada's higher ranking in the overall index is mostly due to "fiscal health", a largely unrelated measure.

    Maybe one aspect of better opportunities is the considerably larger US market; but one can be based in Canada yet have access to the larger US market (for example entertainers, like Justin Bieber, Celine Dion and others).

    So the opportunities are actually in the US, but Canadians happen to be able to take advantage of them. And, yes, getting Canadian citizenship in order to take advantage of US opportunities was an option I considered, but the simplest way of taking advantage of US opportunities is to just get US citizenship.

  • ||

    the most relevant index, namely labor freedom

    Why would that be the most relevant index?

    Seven quantitative sub-factors are equally weighted, with each counted as one-seventh of the labor freedom component:
    Ratio of minimum wage to the average value added per worker,
    Hindrance to hiring additional workers,
    Rigidity of hours,
    Difficulty of firing redundant employees,
    Legally mandated notice period,
    Mandatory severance pay, and
    Labor force participation rate.

    Admittedly, the US unemployment rate is only about 70% of the Canadian unemployment rate, which indicates that someone who wants to be an employee in the USA has more opportunities to land a job than in Canada; but because the values themselves are reasonably low (4.9% vs. 7.1% according to the Heritage Institute), it might not make a large difference. Furthermore, it says little about the opportunities available for those with entrepreneurial interests.

  • ||

    Canada's higher ranking in the overall index is mostly due to "fiscal health", a largely unrelated measure.

    Are you saying that the amount of government deficit and government debt are "largely unrelated" to the opportunities available to immigrants, minorities, or middle class people?

    "Contrary to Keynesians, the problem with government budget deficits is not merely that they (typically) lead to higher interest rates and thus reduce private-sector investment and consumption spending. Because, in this context, the Keynesians only look at economic factors insofar as they work through "aggregate demand," they understandably think that large deficits can't possibly hurt anything when interest rates are practically zero.

    [...]

    When the government buys (say) $1 trillion more than it takes in as tax revenues, it diverts real resources out of the jurisdiction of private entrepreneurs and into politically directed channels. Ultimately, it is not deficits per se but total government spending that distorts the economy and starves the private sector of resources. But deficits are insidious because they give the illusion of freebies in the near term, and the reckoning comes with a vengeance down the road."

    link to article

  • ||

    So the opportunities are actually in the US

    Nope; the particular opportunity is the one provided by the considerably larger market -- which has nothing to do with the levels of economic freedoms prevailing in the two countries. China has a larger market than even the USA (roughly four times based on population), yet the economic freedom index as calculated by the Heritage Institute is roughly 3/4th of Canada or the USA.

    Ultimately, I agree with you on this:

    "Better" always depends on who it is better for.

    but disagree on this

    Canada [is] great if you're wealthy, and for many types of businesses. If you're an immigrant, a minority, or middle class, your economic opportunities and choices are severely limited.
  • Mark22||

    Isn't there some cognitive dissonance going on here?

    Cognitive dissonance implies understanding.

    Shikha's writing is better explained by her being ignorant, bigoted, and not very intelligent.

  • MJBinAL||

    Oh look, Shitma is back.

    With the newest version of her usual rant.

  • Nuwanda||

    New Zealand and Australia, two fairly well-off Western nations, comparable in almost every way to the US, have merit-based, quota-driven, bi-partisan immigration policies that Trump could only dream about, and they've had them for a very long time. Put another way, these countries would find Trump's plans too lax for comfort.

    Dalmia and her open borders friends should head down to the Antipodes and see a couple of heartless, racist, xenophobic societies in operation.

  • Mark22||

    Calling all this an effort to make America's immigration system merit-based is beyond Orwellian.

    Well, if his amnesty for 1.8 million illegals goes through, those immigrant visas will have to be compensated for by a comparable reduction in legal immigration, so that means that for about half a decade, we don't really have to worry about whether our immigration system is merit-based or lottery based. That should give us ample time to design a good, merit based system.

    The president should stop trying to fool the country and own up to his true designs.

    Shika should just stop trying to fool Reason readers and own up to her true political orientation, somewhere between a progressive statist and a neo-Marxist.

    Shikha: your ignorance, your bigotry, and your reprehensible political views alone make you a poster child for restrictionist immigration policies.

  • Nuwanda||

    Shika should just stop trying to fool Reason readers and own up to her true political orientation, somewhere between a progressive statist and a neo-Marxist.

    She's not alone. Many self-described libertarians openly advocate voting Democrat purely on the basis of abortion and open borders. And for every one that admits to it I suspect there are ten that don't.

  • Mark22||

    Many self-described libertarians openly advocate voting Democrat purely on the basis of abortion and open borders.

    I used to be a Democrat myself. But it's the Democratic party that has changed, not me. Hard as that may be to believe, until a few decades ago, many Democrats opposed illegal immigration, overregulation, and high taxes.

    This full-blown neo-Marxist nuttery that has taken hold of the Democratic party is something fairly new.

  • arm||

    H1B visas are a problem, not a solution to spread. Now even high tech, engineering, and nursing/medical jobs are the jobs "Americans just won't do"?!? As someone with a science degree, why would someone hire me at 100k per year so I can finance my student loan debt when they can bring someone over for 30k and basically keep them under lock and key knowing if they ever quit they have less than 1 month before they get deported? This is a racket run by progressives. You want that free healthcare? It will be administered by all foreign trained H1B doctors in training and nurses.

    There is nothing wrong with a normal immigration system where we find people we want coming into our country... give them residency... then at some point citizenship after they tell us why they love America better than their home shithole of a country. We do not need all of these progressive loopholes to pad the pockets of cronies and corrupt politicians.

    There is something called the all-mighty dollar.. if the job is to be done in america, use more dollars to do it, if the market won't pay those dollars, it will be done somewhere else. In what world does my local meat packing plant need to find Kekistans, ship them over, house them, feed them and goverment aid them to pack that meat. Remove the incentives for this nonsense and you will have innovation.

  • arm||

    The numbers in this article are skewed. Here is the only thing that matters:

    America has 4% of the worlds population but accepts 20% of the entire WORLD's legal immigrants, the next nearest is Germany with 4.9%... so we take 4x the immigrants of the next closest country. Enough about how we are heartless. When you include illegal immigration who knows, it is staggering.

  • vek||

    Yup, which is why we have so much turmoil going on. Our stable culture that had developed after the Italians etc finally all melted into the pot by the 60s has been filled to overflowing in a short period of time, and people don't like it. Especially the types of immigrants moving in. End all unskilled immigration NOW!

  • damikesc||

    Hmm, another column where Dalmia never explains what, precisely, qualifies as a suitable immigration policy for her...

  • Nuwanda||

    Her policy--and more importantly, Reason's--is open borders. No borders. Literally, just walk across. In fact there's nothing to walk across since "border" is a floating abstraction that can be used when it suits but disappears like a fart in the wind when it's inconvenient.

  • Mark22||

    Her policy--and more importantly, Reason's--is open borders. No borders. Literally, just walk across.

    No, that's not her or Reason's policy since they evidently have no problem with Mexican's draconian immigration enforcement against Americans.

    Shikha and Reason advocate opening US borders unilaterally to migrants while keeping natural born American citizens caged up in the country and footing the bill for the newcomers.

  • Nuwanda||

    But that's not the case, is it? If you're going to disagree with a position, you first have represent it honestly.

    I've read nothing from Reason that advocates open borders for the US but not for other countries. Their policy is open borders for the US, and until I read differently I take that to mean open borders everywhere. They regard OB as the only policy compatible with freedom of association. They are wrong about that, but that's their belief. They also don't advocate keeping anyone "caged up".

  • vek||

    They have from time to time written about Americans moving to China or where the fuck ever in hypothetical situations, which implies they expect them to have open borders too.

    It doesn't make it any less idiotic of an idea. I don't understand how people can't look at a principle, and see how SOMETIMES principles applied in the extreme in the real world are in fact worse than just ignore the damn principle in the first place and doing what's practical. Open borders can exist when there is a single global mono culture, a single global language, zero differences in economic levels worldwide, no religions exist, etc... In short, it is never going to be a workable idea without major downsides for more advanced nations.

  • Mark22||

    If you're going to disagree with a position, you first have represent it honestly.

    As I was saying: Shikha and Reason advocate opening US borders unilaterally to migrants while keeping natural born American citizens caged up in the country and footing the bill for the newcomers. That is an accurate and honest representation of their position.

    They also don't advocate keeping anyone "caged up".

    I didn't say that they advocated keeping people caged up, I said that they "advocate X while accepting that Y continues".

    Their policy is open borders for the US, and until I read differently I take that to mean open borders everywhere.

    I'm sure they desire open borders everywhere. But the policy they actually advocate is what I said it is: unilateral opening of borders into the US.

    They regard OB as the only policy compatible with freedom of association.

    Unilateral "opening" of the border between Mexico and the US does not amount to "freedom of association". Given the actual legal situation in the US, it is actually an infringement on "freedom of association" for Americans.

  • Nuwanda||

    Well, I find myself in the strange position of defending Reason. Not their position, mind you, but what the have said about it.

    As I was saying: Shikha and Reason advocate opening US borders unilaterally to migrants while keeping natural born American citizens caged up in the country and footing the bill for the newcomers. That is an accurate and honest representation of their position.

    The subtlety there, obviously, is just because say, Mexico, doesn't have open borders, that doesn't mean the US shouldn't. In the same way that if Mexico *did* have open borders it would mean the US should have them, too.

    But that's not the same as saying Reason advocates that unilateral position as the goal, it's simply saying it's an abuse of rights to continue with such a position, and in the same way as you wouldn't persist in denying free speech simply because other nations also deny it.

  • Mark22||

    But that's not the same as saying Reason advocates that unilateral position as the goal

    Reason certainly advocates unilaterally opening borders to Mexico as "the goal" of their political advocacy. The fact that they keep equivocating between "the goal of advocacy" and "the goal of libertarianism" only makes their position deceptive.

    it's simply saying it's an abuse of rights to continue with such a position

    That is their belief, but it's not an intrinsically libertarian position, and it is not a position that agrees with any recognized legal or human rights principles.

    and in the same way as you wouldn't persist in denying free speech simply because other nations also deny it

    The US government lacks the power to restrict speech; the Constitution gives it the power to restrict entry into the US. So, your analogy doesn't work.

  • vek||

    "That is their belief, but it's not an intrinsically libertarian position, and it is not a position that agrees with any recognized legal or human rights principles."

    Not to mention it violates every lesson of history, and common sense to boot!

  • Rosemary||

    Perhaps the countries from which the foreign techies came could use them. The brain drain from shithole countries is not the way to MAGA. Those countries need those people; luring them here only hurts those left behind.

  • zerofoo||

    The US has allowed 2.6 million H1B visas over the last 10 years. Data here:

    https://goo.gl/r3PFP5

    Clearly the "only 85,000 visas per year" statistic that is being tossed around is bunk.

  • gclancy51||

    Libertarians really have no business using the word Orwellian. You do know he was a socialist?

  • Mark22||

    Libertarians really have no business using the word Orwellian.

    Lucky then that Shikha is no libertarian.

    You do know he was a socialist?

    JFK and Bill Clinton were harassers of women; they were still important presidents. Shockley was a racist, and his transistor still works. Many libertarians and Christians consider homosexuality a sin, but they still agree with legalization of gay relations. So, Orwell was a democratic socialist, but his literary treatment of totalitarianism is still useful for anybody who opposes totalitarianism, even if Orwell was a bit confused on economic theory.

  • Helios||

    America was founded by people trying to find better lives for themselves and their family and family unification. Nobody in their right mind can say parents, siblings and children over 18 are not immediate family. Republicans' sudden redefining of what constitutes immediate family is nothing but an attempt at restricting legal immigration now that immigration from non European countries are higher than European countries. Unbelievable!

  • gulali||

  • gulali||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online