Humane Policy or National Interest?

[sirs]

Should Reform Be For Immigrants Or the National Interest?
By Peter Brown

The impasse in the Senate over immigration reform generated lots of charges and recriminations, but all sides were reluctant to focus on the most fundamental question about the whole issue:

Should the guiding principle of any legislation be the desire for the most humane policy, in other words one with a bias toward treating immigrants most reasonably? Or, should it be the tilted toward the national interest, that is a proposal perceived to be most beneficial to current U.S. citizens?

Almost every aspect of the current proposal raises that tradeoff. The politically correct answer, of course, is that any reform should have the interests of both at heart.

Yet, that is a cop-out.

Each policy choice has profound implications in one of those directions or the other. At times they are mutually exclusive.

No provision of the proposed legislation makes this choice clearer than the one to change the pecking order for legal immigration.

The proposed change would create a point system which would favor potential immigrants with skills, education and experience in vocations where there are shortages of qualified American workers.

Current immigration law gives an edge to those with family members in the United States.

If that current bias remains in place, then Mexican, Central and South American applicants will, in general, be better off. They are more likely to have family members already in the United States.

If the rules are changed to give a preference to those with skills that are in demand, then Asians will disproportionately be the likely major beneficiaries. The data suggest that they are more likely to have the education, experience and English proficiency America needs to compete in a high-tech global economy.

For example, six in 10 Mexican immigrants who came to the United States since 1990 have not graduated from high school, while 76 percent of Indian immigrants have at least one college degree.

Of course these are raw statistics. A change in the formula won't mean all legal immigrants will come from Asia and none from south of our border.

But it would be naive not to understand the implications of this policy choice.

It would be hard to argue that continuing the current system would benefit most U.S. citizens, since the vast majority of them probably don't have family members they want to bring to this country. Changing the rules to provide a boost to better educated and trained immigrants could be another story, since better trained and educated immigrants would likely help improve the U.S. economy overall.

The requirements of the 21st century global economy are forcing Americans to compete with the rising Asian tigers, especially China and India, to protect our standard of living. Given the reality that Asia will be a much greater economic power than Central and South America, having more Asian immigrants with skills would likely be an economic asset for the United States in competing with that part of the world.

Yet those who oppose the change say that helping assure U.S. economic strength should take a back seat to reuniting families, which would be the humane way to handle immigration.

Public opinion on this question, perhaps not surprisingly, seems to be with those wanting to change the status quo, since those surveyed - like those who vote -- are already here and legal. A New York Times poll last month found that 51 percent favored giving preference to those with education and skills, 34 percent to family members.

Undeclared presidential candidate Fred Thompson may have found the politically popular sound bite when he tells audiences that the country is like "our home ... and we get to decide who comes into our home."

Candor requires the acknowledgement that this policy choice involves naked ethnic politics, and with it the inevitable involvement of special-interest groups trying to get the best deal possible for their constituents.

Democrats, the Catholic Church, some unions and Hispanic-dominated immigrant rights groups favor the family-preference policy. Republicans and some business groups favor the skills-based change.

Whether or not Congress can eventually salvage an immigration reform bill is an open question.

However, the next time the measure comes up for debate it might be useful if everyone stops dancing around this basic question and reach a consensus on who any legal change is aimed at helping the most.

Article

[Michael Tee]

Sounds like a pretty basic test of the Golden Rule is being applied here.  We'll all make more money and have a better standard of living if we let the quotas fill up with guys like Raj and Vishnu, but since we can't take everybody, that means that we can't take in Juan and Benito's mothers.

So, would YOU like it if someone separated YOU from your mum, on the grounds that it was more profitable for him to do so?

Basically, the "family values" Republicans have kind of priced out motherhood and found that it doesn't pay - - that by cutting the cord on motherhood for Hispanics, the country as a whole will be better off economically.

As I always knew, for Republican hypocrites, REAL family values don't mean jackshit when they get in the way of the income stream.  But don't worry, folks, "family values" in the form of gay-bashing and/or media censorship will always be upheld by the Party of Lincoln.  You can take that to the bank.

[sirs]

Start with a false premise and................well, you know the rest

[Xavier_Onassis]

We'll all make more money and have a better standard of living if we let the quotas fill up with guys like Raj and Vishnu, but since we can't take everybody, that means that we can't take in Juan and Benito's mothers

======================================================
For starters, Juan and Benito have separated themselves from their mothers, not the US government. The US took in thousands of aged Cubans, all of whom have never worked a day in this country and most of whom are collecting SSI benefits. I see no reason why it is in my interest or the interests of my country to bring in bunches of elderly dependents whose children cannot or will not support them.

Juan and Benito came here because it was more profitable for them to do so. They can at any moment take their money and Social Security and return to Guatemala or Guatepeor or wherever they came from.

Why should the US not have the same standard? I don't see this as a Republican policy, just one that makes sense.

All immigrants should be treated EQUALLY (no special treatment for Cubans or Chinese with too many kids)  and admitted based on how well they will fit in to our society.

Please notice that Raj and Vishnu's mothers are also not allowed in.

The MOST important element of immigration reform is still and always be closing the borders to illegals. If this is not done, then no reforms are worth diddly-squat.

[Michael Tee]

<<Start with a false premise and................well, you know the rest>>

I know the rest all right, but what was the false premise?

[Michael Tee]

<<For starters, Juan and Benito have separated themselves from their mothers, not the US government. >>

Sure but they did so when they had reason to believe they could sponsor their parents to join them once they'd been there awhile and made a few bucks.  Now the rules are gonna change - - guess what guys?  Fuck your mothers, we're gonna bring in Vishnu and Raj instead.  It'll raise our standard of living.

<<The US took in thousands of aged Cubans, all of whom have never worked a day in this country and most of whom are collecting SSI benefits. I see no reason why it is in my interest or the interests of my country to bring in bunches of elderly dependents whose children cannot or will not support them.>>

I don't know how it works in the U.S.A. but in Canada when you sponsor a relative you undertake to pay for his or her support for ten years and you furnish proof of financial ability to do so.  If you default, welfare can sue you.  If you're still in default you can't sponsor anyone else till you pay up.  I really can't believe that the U.S. government is any more lenient or easy-going than our government in that respect, so if there's any shortfall here, it's just because your bureaucracy is too stupid or too corrupt to enforce sound policy.  Maybe you need a change of government.

<<Juan and Benito came here because it was more profitable for them to do so. >>

Oh no!  I thought it was because of their love of freedom.

<<They can at any moment take their money and Social Security and return to Guatemala or Guatepeor or wherever they came from.>>

Maybe because they came here when the U.S. policy would have let them bring in their family later, they spent years busting their ass in menial jobs that no American wanted to do, at wages that no American wanted to take, enabling their blood-sucking Republican employers to gas up the yacht, cruise the Caribbean, buy expensive jewellery for their wives and generally engorge themselves at Juan and Benito's expense and then at the end are told, Hey surprise, suckas, you CAN'T bring in your mammas after all, now go back to whatever shit-hole you came from and forget about ever spending your golden retirement years in the country where you sacrificed so much of your lives without your families to be.  Nice.  And the reason for this sudden turnabout?  We just realized we can make more money off of Raj and Vishnu without your families.  Family values, yeah.

<<Why should the US not have the same standard?>>

What standard?  The standard of some money-hungry leech who, already engorged and enriched through the labours of others, now wants even more?