You're fooling yourself if you think this is just about undocumented Mexicans, Muslims, or H1-B abuse. There's way too much circumstantial rhetoric that's been said that indicates this is something more and we invite peril if we don't harshly Critique it.
As an immigrant in America, if Bannon and Miller were removed, Trumps policies are not that much different from any other boilerplate republican.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-tru...
[2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/06/steve_bann...
First and foremost thing that is apparent about Trump's administration is the anti-globalist "america first" approach. It's not just the rhetoric either - he's acting on his promises of bringing american jobs back, addressing the trade deficit disparities, cutting down on the debt (US debt is down by almost 70 billion in the last 2 months) and so on.
This sets him apart not only from the Dems but also from the mainstream and rhino GOP which is why they publicly denounce him.
Rhetoric aside, as you pointed out, this is only the beginning. Authoritarians always need a scrapegoat to blame for "failed policies". Once one group is eliminated, on to another.
Supporters of Trump and his policies go out of their way to try and soften and explain what he "really" means by saying to ignore what he or his advisors literally say. I think this is dangerously naive and the time is past giving the benefit of the doubt and sticking to rigid logical standards. This isn't philosophy class and this stuff poses real world dangers.
The Obama administration has deported many many illegal immigrants and yet I've never felt that way for them.
There is historical precedent in this particular instance...
There is ample historic precedent for regimes and loud minorities implementing agendas by first going after the easiest targets (jews, kurds,hooligans,illegal immigrants) then slightly generalising (disabled, kurdish supporters, all "potentially violent", immigrants in general) in some steps until the end goal (political opponents, political opponents, political opponents and...political opponents). Hence in this case, the slippery slope is a given and justified.
Why do you think they are authoritarians. I don't get this.
The right in the US is about freedom. The left is the part of authoritarianism. The progressive left especially has incredibly tight control of freedom of speech. Everything they don't like is called hate speech, all discussions are shut down, and PC terminology means that it doesn't matter what you say anymore, if you accidentally choose the wrong words, you are finished.
Except when it comes to a woman's right to choose, the freedom to assemble and protest, freedom from religion, freedom of the press, freedom of movement, freedom to use the bathroom associated with your gender, freedom to use drugs recreationally, or any other area of personal freedoms you'd care to name wherein - to be really, really generous - the right doesn't perform any better than the left.
Everything else you mentioned can be democratically overturned if enough people support it.
> woman's right to choose
I consider myself on the right, but I support women's right to choose. The religious right is on the way out. Yes, it use to be a big issue, but its not anymore. It was not a campaign issue, and Trump says he will "leave it to the states".
> freedom to assemble and protest
Can I have examples of this? We 100% support your right to peaceful protest and assembly. Can you provide some examples of ways Trump's administration is cracking down on this?
If you are talking about non-peaceful protests like blocking highways, preventing people from getting to work, ANTIFA wearing masks and attacking people at rallies then this is not acceptable and I support laws to crack down on this more.
> freedom from religion
Tick.
> freedom of the press
Examples that are not fake news please?
> freedom of movement
What do you mean here? US citizens who are not under parole or incarcerated can move freely anywhere inside the US.
> freedom to use the bathroom associated with your gender
What about freedom to use the bathroom associated with your own sex (physical M/F)?
Two sides to every "freedom" issue.
> freedom to use drugs recreationally
You want crack made legal? Weed legalisation is non-partisan now.
> personal freedoms
If these personal freedoms you talk of prevent you from being able to assemble and vote, then I support them.
Otherwise, laws should be enacted based on debate and democratic processes.
- Is it the act of calling a homosexual person, gay instead of fag?
- Is it referring to black people as african-americans and not niggers?
- Is it referring to Muslim people as muslim people and not ragheads?
- Is it referring to people of east asian heritage as Asian and not chinks?
Its 2017, so if we have to watch our words so that we dont disrespect people who have been humiliated for years, its not much to ask for. Unless you put up everyday with something that offends you, you have no idea how much your "PC terminology" helps a disadvantaged person feel comfortable in their own skin.
Using the term 'homosexual person' is not PC. Are you a homophobe or what? :P
http://americablog.com/2007/07/dear-washington-post-please-s...
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-more-appropriate-homosexual-o...
If I was on the left, I could make a big deal out of your incorrect use of the word homosexual, and I could make it look like you are as bad as someone calling someone a fag in an intentionally derogative way.
> Is it referring to black people as african-americans and not niggers?
Black people is not PC. Dude, are you a racist or what?
The correct term is person-of-color. But do not say "colored person" or you will receive a massive social media outcry.
"But I am not a racist you say?". Doesn't matter, once you say the wrong word, you are already one of them.
> Is it referring to Muslim people as muslim people and not ragheads? > Is it referring to people of east asian heritage as Asian and not chinks?
2017 PC is not about using derrogatory terms.
> In 2017...its not much to ask for.
It seems like it is for you, because in your post you have used the incorrect terms.
Now, are you a racist and a homophobe?
The right would assume you are not.
The left will be keeping their eye on you, and now have material to take you down in the future if they want to.
"Freedom of speech" has nothing to do with social opprobrium. Freedom of speech means the government is not going to step in and silence you for failing to use "PC terminology". It does not mean you should be immune from other people deciding you said something distasteful enough that they no longer want to employ you or associate with you.
I think a lot of democrats don't see what is happening in the progressive left. I use to identify as a democrat, but after seeing this stuff, I no longer can.
You can associate with whoever you like. 100% agree.
Re: employment. So if you accidentally referred to someone as "colored" instead of "person-of-color", and you get fired for it...you are happy about this? You want to live in this kind of society?
I'm specifically referring to the current WH. It's authoritarian because it refuses to accept facts and wants to distort them to fit its own narrative. It will discredit the press if it does not "fall in line".
And on the right, its the press who is distorting facts for their own narrative.
The press being discredited is justified. And there is no problem with this. Imagine if all the MSM press was like Fox News? What would you say then? Your argument would flip around 180 degrees and you would be fine with news being discredited.
The press are just people. Look at how hard it is to have a debate with a liberal these days - do you think newsrooms would enjoy having Trump supporters as co-workers. Nope. They like having people around them with the same opinions, so we get the liberal MSM echo-chamber.
> The press being discredited is justified.
Its not simple being discredited, its being regarded as unnecessary. Sure you can discredit the press they're not perfect. But you cannot attempt to discard them or regard any criticism as fake.
> And there is no problem with this. Imagine if all the MSM press was like Fox News? What would you say then? Your argument would flip around 180 degrees and you would be fine with news being discredited.
Excuse me? Do you have a point here? Sure if all the food I ever ate started smelling bad, I would say all food in the world smells bad. What is your point?
> The press are just people. Look at how hard it is to have a debate with a liberal these days - do you think newsrooms would enjoy having Trump supporters as co-workers. Nope. They like having people around them with the same opinions, so we get the liberal MSM echo-chamber.
Bullshit. The reason they have Trump supporters is because a lot of American people are Trump supporters. And their willingness to work with people with different beliefs shows that they are willing to debate with them. You are contradicting yourself.
All of this is, again, besides the point that the current WH is authoritarian.
How so? Where do Trump supporters and right-wingers get their news from?
If you are on the right, you look at MSNBC, CNN, NYT, etc. and see a ridiculously biased and censored view of the world. So distorted that no one could see Trump winning.
Their viewers are mostly liberal and because of PC-culture there is a very narrow acceptable world-view. To write an article pro-anything-Trump did would put careers at risk.
Liberals receive a very censored view of the world. The ethos being something like, we need to control the facts you hear about otherwise everyone will turn into racists.
Its ironic how they are shouting fascist and big brother 1984, when they are the ones who are censoring the news, physically preventing ppl speaking at events, not engaging in debate, banning words, etc.
Look at wikileaks - use to be a hero of the left, but now it is an enemy.
A progressive-run government would be much more authoritarian.
---
> Excuse me? Do you have a point here? Sure if all the food I ever ate started smelling bad, I would say all food in the world smells bad. What is your point?
You perceive Fox News as a bad source of news in the same way that the right perceive the MSM as a bad source of news.
Its wrong to discredit the MSM...when its on your side. But if the tables are turned, you would feel the same way about the MSM.
> Bullshit. The reason they have Trump supporters is because a lot of American people are Trump supporters. And their willingness to work with people with different beliefs shows that they are willing to debate with them. You are contradicting yourself.
You think that there is 50% republicans running around the NYTimes newsroom? You think the people who work at CNN are anywhere close to 50% republican. No way. I am saying they hire like-minded people because its difficult to constantly be having arguments all day.
> All of this is, again, besides the point that the current WH is authoritarian.
> pm90: Definition: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
I really, really don't see this, compared to the behaviour of the progressive left.
I do not see personal freedoms of US citizens being violated. I see illegal immigrants being deported, laws being enforced, national borders being secured, and freedoms being protected.
Progressive-left is authoritarianism waiting to happen.
But I really wish you could convince me of this WH authoritarianism. I'm just not seeing it.
IMO authoritarianism is totally orthogonal to right/left. It's clearly the case that members of both espouse changes that would limit our freedoms.
But I do not see the same kind of stuff from the right.
I'm not saying its always like this, but right now, this is how it is.
I mean give me an example where someone's free speech on the left was prevented?
Protests blocking highways and roads to right-wing events.
During the campaign name a single time when Trump supporters tried to prevent a left-wing speaking event happening?
The right is like "hey i think you are wrong, here is why".
The left is like "hey i think you are wrong, don't talk to me".
The market is up because of an irrational belief that Trump is going to enact the pipe dreams of the SeekingAlpha crowd with massive tax cuts that the Democrats are never going to approve.
Statistics show most likely there is going to be a big correction and a recession on Trump's watch. Never in the US's 200+ year history has it gone more than 11 years without a recession, check the NBER data.
So given the likely downturn in the markets when people realize that this stuff isn't going to be enacted, will speak up then because it's no longer "awesome" for you?
To be clear, I think presidents have little to do with market moves. So they should not be accredited with gains nor blamed for falls.
Im well positioned for the bear market
From http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14773298/mer...:
"Reforming the immigration system to be more “merit-based” is predicated on the idea that some of these slots are going to the wrong immigrants — immigrants who don’t have as much to give the US as the US has to give them. Proponents point to Australia and Canada — places that don’t have the American tradition of family-based migration, and that deliberately select for immigrants who are likely to contribute economically and assimilate culturally from the moment they arrive. In these countries, having a family member who’s already a citizen doesn’t guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself — having an advanced degree, being fluent in the language, and being able to support yourself (or have a job waiting for you when you arrive) matter as much or more."
Yes, Australia and Canada.
> Why is Bannon and Miller's favorite novel a racist French book about Europe becoming less white?
I could not find the quote from Bannon or Miller saying that "Camp of the Saints is my favourite novel"? Where can I find this?
> Why when Bannon was interviewed on radio he said he wanted to bring the numbers on legal immigration way down?
See http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/2/14472404/ste...
He is talking about H1-B visa abuse, just as the OP says.
"They get into graduate schools, they can’t get engineering degrees, they can’t get into graduate schools because there are all these foreign students, when they come out, they can’t get a job."
NOTE: "Foreign students". You do realise that by addressing this problem, he is helping all American citizens - who are all different ethnicities.
> You're fooling yourself if you think this is just about undocumented Mexicans, Muslims, or H1-B abuse. There's way too much circumstantial rhetoric that's been said that indicates this is something more and we invite peril if we don't harshly Critique it.
You, my friend, are reading fake news.
So you are able to dig up quotes supporting your spin, but couldn't run a Google search finding a quote on Camp of the Saints?
Here, this HuffPo article links directly to SoundCloud interviews where you can hear him say it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-camp-of-the...
Re: This is about "merit" >He is talking about H1-B visa abuse, just as the OP says.
Trump: Trump [...] asked him about keeping “our talented people in the country,” especially international graduates of Ivy League universities.
Bannon: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” Bannon responded before trailing off, according to the Post.
Yeah, fake news, from the horses mouth himself.
Do you really think American citizens are having tough time finding work because of H1-B abuse? The unemployment rate in the tech industry fell to 2% in 2016, well below the level of full employment. The median salary is $90k nationally, and >$100k in major tech centers (CA, NY, TX, etc). Sure, H1-B abuse should be reduced, but more because it hurts companies truly trying to fill requirement positions to build products, by fly-by-night consulting firms.
Speaking of someone in the tech industry for 20+ years, I'd say the biggest problem isn't the immigrants, it's the education system and the culture. It is not the fault of immigrants that Americans aren't getting advanced degrees, or that entire Phd departments are F-1 Visas, or that so many native born candidates are lack luster. American culture's "melting pot" could benefit from an infusion of immigrant culture from those who are still hungry and have a very high valuation placed on education and grit.
Keeping them out just makes us weak and complacent.
I cannot find it. Please give me a timecode. It being his favourite novel is implied from MSM is it not?
> Bannon: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” Bannon responded before trailing off, according to the Post.
Me and you will both have the opportunity to wait and see what happens.
Right now the left is all about scary predictions. Tell me an objective measure we can use in 4 years (or 2 if he is impeached as you like to predict), that we can point to to say that you were right and I was wrong about Bannon.
> I'd say the biggest problem isn't the immigrants, it's the education system and the culture.
H1B's are good to hire because there is the threat of having to leave, and losing ability to go for green card if they are fired. So they accept low wages, you don't have to give them pay rises, they will not leave for another company.
This is ripe for abuse. So its not just education and culture, its also government immigration policies -- and this is not the fault of the immigrants -- no-one is saying the immigrants are at fault here...
As for H1-Bs, the reason Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, et al, hire them is not to lock in slaves at low wages who can't leave. Yes, there are companies that do this, but the reality is, tech companies love to hire new advanced degree graduates and a large chunk of those with master degrees and above are immigrants.
If I want to hire a bunch of Phds in machine learning, optics, materials engineering, etc chances are they will be F-1 Visas and you won't see many native born in these programs in proportion to their representation in the population. This is just an uncomfortable fact.
What I find interesting is, conservatives will often tout this "pipeline problem" to explain away low representation of women and minorities in STEM jobs -- as a natural outcome that nothing should be done about it. However, when it comes to native born American (primarily white) males, who have their own "pipeline problem" at the advanced degree level relative to legal immigrants, you see them crying for government policy changes to protect what they assume to be their birthright privilege.
Most of the H1-Bs I have worked with, including my wife, were exceedingly talented, and hired by companies for their talent, not low wage slaves. This may not be true of consulting firms, but we can address those who abuse the system without lowering the overall number of H1-Bs allow -- that should be defined by market demand and right now, with unemployment at 2% in the STEM fields and salary inflation going through the roof, along with valuations, I question how much "protection" citizens need against importing the smartest people from around the world.
I leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_CGgM
>> You're in denial, the evidence is staring you in the face, you're just not concerned. That's your prerogative, but you're probably not one of those who are going to be hurt by Bannon's misguided nationalism.
Its a book he has read. That is all. Fake news and false outrage.
> What I find interesting is, conservatives will often tout this "pipeline problem" to explain away low representation of women and minorities in STEM jobs -- as a natural outcome that nothing should be done about it.
You are saying the government needs to tell women and minorities to apply for STEM courses, because they are incapable of doing so? This is a cultural problem and it is fixing itself without government intervention.
> "pipeline problem" at the advanced degree level relative to legal immigrants
As Dr. Kaku says in the video, "the scientific establishment would collapse...50% PhD are foreign-born.". So your solution is immigration? Wouldn't the solution be to fix the education system?
What we are saying is focus on a sustainable solution - looking after the people you have. If you keep bringing people in, and they bring their families, and their kids turn out to be dummies because of poor education system, then you need to bring in more foreign-born...who will just perpetuate the problem and increase the burden on the country of dummies. Its a ponzi scheme. And it is actually an argument for restricting family visas, and favouring increase numbers of H1-B.
> Most of the H1-Bs I have worked with, including my wife, were exceedingly talented, and hired by companies for their talent, not low wage slaves.
Anecdotal, but yes, some/most immigrants are talented - of course. But there is documented abuses, and conditions available for abuses - which means abuses certainly happen.
Either-or fallacy. Keeping foreign born Phds out doesn't help us, and doesn't help create more native American Phds. We could strengthen our education system and education culture without Affirmative Action for White Males By Banning Foreigners.
You know, Clinton and Sanders supported policies that would have helped, by dramatically reducing the cost of college. Upper level advanced degrees are a filter/pipeline issue, and the more people in 2-year and 4-year programs, the greater number who might advance to graduate level.
The reason there are so many foreign Phds is that they often completed (free) 4-year programs in their home country, and go abroad for graduate degrees. My wife completed her masters degree in China, then came here and got a second masters degree.
What I hear you saying is "if only we banned these foreigners, maybe our native born people would have a chance in Phd programs". And what I interpret that to mean is "Let's not spend $80 billion on free college for everyone who wants it, because that would be 'big gubmint socialism', instead everything will work out if we just institute protectionism immigration policies."
I say, let's continue to drain the smartest people in the world to our shores and educate our own as well.
You seem to view everything through a racial/foreigner lense. It muddies the debate. America is a melting-pot already, and US citizen focused policies are to the benefit of all US citizens regardless of race, birth-country, sex, etc. You are implying hidden motives in everyone's actions which cannot be argued against because we simply do not know what is going on in their heads.
Education is a big money making industry. It brings wealth into the country. There is far more incentive to bring in foreigners than to improve the opportunities for US citizens (who are not all white males - why does race and sex have to come into this I have no idea).
I appreciate the discussion, it has been a good insight to another side of the debate floor.
We're dealing with an extremely xenophobic white house and need to unite against it.
Say what you really mean: "I only see this issue in black and white as a byproduct of my nascent understanding of the various forces at play in American politics and the motivations behind them."
You do understand that the average person sympathizes more with middle-ground attitudes, right? That speaking in extremes, except when necessary, can have the unintended effect of polarizing people? Affirming the beliefs of proponents and strengthening the resolve of opponents.
There is a reason that social disrupters who use Persona Management software aim for the middle ground when they speak. They use moderate voices that give a "balanced" view of both sides, before concluding one way or the other. Why? Because it has been shown to be a lot more effective and a greater number of people will be willing to digest the argument presented to them. Most people are on the fence and just need a little push in the right direction. They are more inclined to listen to a voice they sympathize with and less inclined to automatically become defensive and closed.
But keep up your strategy and we'll see how it goes. I'm sure your extremist "Everyone in the White House is xenophobic" argument is doing just fine.
1: http://www.npr.org/2017/03/13/519662321/in-their-search-for-...
This is a type of reaction that people have when faced with what they perceive to be a quick cultural change. Things to them were goo as they were, so changes present a threat to that stability. It's human nature.
I don't think we should sweep racism and xenophobia under the rug with the argument that "boys will be boys"
We have also done as many ugly things to one another in order to build cross-national entities, like empires and communist-based internationalist mega-states.
>I don't think we should sweep racism and xenophobia under the rug with the argument that "boys will be boys"
Well, first let's not call the desire to maintain one's national identity "xenophobia", the same way wanting to have your own house and family, and live as you like there, and accept whoever you like, is not "strangerophobia".
You think previous empires were built because they were more concerned with equality and anti-tribalism?
"Melting-pot entities" are concerned with the same things ("strategic control of resources and geo-political regions") too. Cross-national melting is mostly about whether you allow the peoples you control to keep their identities or you want to abolish them too, for less market friction and/or smoother political control. USSR comes to mind on the latter. UK/US/EU on the former.
You can justify anything by explaining away people'a xenophobia or bigotry by saying they didn't want change.
We just went through the same argument with gay marriage with people alleging great harm and the need to discriminate against gay people, causing greater harm to them.
I find great irony that people on HN who probably subscribe to ideas of dynamism and creative destruction and disruption as the life blood of innovation are defending cultural conservatism.
I don't think articles like "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups" are all about anti-Trump, it's more like pointing out to the American public that immigrants are not a tax on the rest of society.
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2015/31/zeven-van-de-tien-so...
Edit: guys.. just read the link or come with rebuttals instead of this lame cop-out when facing the truth. I thought we are people of science and facts here?
I think we could use more facts before coming to a conclusion.
Did you mean no one in the sense that no one knows healthcare is complicated?
Bannon responded: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” he didn’t finish his sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”
http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-tru...
> While Bannon didn’t explicitly say anything against immigrants, he seemed to hint at the idea of a white nationalist identity with the phrase “civic society.”
That seems like a pretty big jump from him citing a common stat to Verge accusing him of calling for a white nationalist state. He didn't say anything close to that.
He may hold nationalist ideas where he wants more American's founding good companies domestically. But I'm not really seeing where he is calling for a white society or for an end of Asians starting companies? It could easily just as much imply that he just wants to see more Americans being successful founders in the US tech industry in addition to Asians?
From someone outside of the industry it may be a rational concern question to ask why there aren't more Americans starting those top companies? You can ask that and be concerned about that while not being characterizing the problem as Asians taking some fixed amount of jobs.
The insistence of people to fill in all the blanks of everything Steve Bannon doesn't say with some generic white supremacist viewpoint is really strange to me. Like there's an attempt to discredit any of his ideas by associating them with white nationalism. Usually by cherry picking statements and inventing a bunch of implied underlying meaning - that may or may not actually exist - to fill in the gaps until a narrative is complete. It's actually quite brilliant from a partisan character assassination perspective.
> It could easily just as much imply that he just wants to see more Americans being successful founders in the tech industry in addition to Asians?
First, Asians can be and often are Americans.
Second, why would Bannon bring up this point that more "Americans" should be successful founders? Is it that our schools are failing? No, because Asians attend the same schools. Ah, I've got it. Perhaps there's a cultural problem with white anglo-saxon protestants: anti-intellectualism and anti-education. Is that what Bannon is getting at?
You have got to be kidding me. Ok, let me play along.
Xapata is clearly a white nationalist! How do I know it? He doesn't speak in white nationalist terms! Those white nationalists need to speak in code, so the evidence is clear!
Suppose I'm a nice girl. A guy just asked me if I was free to go to dinner tonight. I don't want to offend, so I say, "I'm sorry, I'm washing my hair tonight." The guy now has a conundrum. He can interpret the statement literally and ask if I'm free for dinner tomorrow night, or he can interpret it as that I do not want to eat dinner with him. Humans speak in codes and implications regularly.
In Bannon's case, we must decide what interpretation of his thought is the most plausible cause of his speech. I can come up with two options:
1. Bannon believes there's something hindering the ethnic and cultural majority from technological entrepreneurialism and we should address that problem.
2. Bannon believes the number of ethnic minorities achieving economic success will decrease the prevalence of the historically common culture. Being of that culture, he dislikes this trend.
Are there any other interpretations? What's the most plausible to you?
This is a terribly dishonest debating tactic.
I didn't think I was assigning new meaning, but only exactly what Bannon intended. I can, obviously, never be certain I've understood him correctly, so I just make my best guess. It's reasonable to expect that different people will make different guesses.
What is your interpretation of Bannon's words?
Why are you guessing at all? Why are you assuming he isn't saying what he means?
>What is your interpretation of Bannon's words?
What they mean in English.
> What they mean in English.
If I told you to "take a hike" would you believe I was encouraging you to walk outdoors?
Let's pretend English is my second language. Could you paraphrase Bannon to help me understand him more clearly?
The citation seems quite clear to me. Perhaps I'm missing something. Was Bannon not complaining about the number of ethnic minorities?
So... that page is the understanding that the majority culture suppresses the entrepreneurial spirit or are bad at math and science? If that's the echo chamber of the far-right, that's a big surprise to me.
> decide they don't even personally like it while in the midst of saying it, and then cut themselves off.
That's possible. Indeed it sounds like Bannon cut himself off, but more for disliking the clarity than the content of what he was saying. It sounded like he caught himself and chose to insinuate rather than elucidate.
"When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think [...]" he didn't finish his sentence. "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society." [1]
[1] https://politics.slashdot.org/story/16/11/16/2331221/steve-b...
My problem with Trump administration rhetoric is there is this assumption that non-white == immigrant. Many Silicon Valley CEOs and entrepreneurs are second (or even third) generation Asian-Americans. And let's not forget the first generation Canadian or European founders. The fact that he singled out Asians in particular shows the undercurrent of racist ideology driving Bannon (the primary hardliner influencing Trump).
“When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, not finishing the sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered...
I'll give you the benefit of doubt and believe that YOU are not trying to stop legal immigration. However, many are trying to stop immigration, some are against all immigration, some are against only those of a certain religion.
Reference: "It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-gree...
Don't try to paper over or make excuses for the blatant racism espoused by the Republican party.
By some members of it, anyway. The Republican party is no more a united front than the Democrat party at the moment.
If you don't feel that the actions of the Republican leadership represents your viewpoints, you are not a Republican. Republicans put Trump in power and are keeping Trump in power and they are directly responsible for anything that comes from that.
This is patently untrue and statements like these are not helpful to the overall political situation that you're upset about. Demonizing your opposition in your rhetoric is divisive and causes reasonable people to shy away. One of the reasons the Democrats lost the elections almost across the board in 2016 was because of their insistence on divisive rhetoric. To win elections you need the reasonable middle that are registered to neither party, this voting bloc overwhelmingly voted Republican in 2016.
The conservative ideology is not racist. In fact, strong conservativism was a primary hallmark of support for things like the civil rights movement. Unfortunately the Republican Party is more authoritarian and corporatist than conservative these days. Regardless, many people are registered as Republicans who abhor racism and bigotry.
> This is patently untrue
No it isn't. The border wall is an idea rooted in racism. Look at Trump's nonsense about rapists and murderers. The immigration ban is a policy rooted in racism. Look at Trump's nonsense about Muslims cheering during 9/11. Do you notice a pattern how support for these policies go hand-in-hand with racist comments? That's because these policies are inspired by the idea that white people are superior to non-white people. It's not hard to tie Republican economic and domestic policies to racism either if you're willing to go one step below the surface.
> Regardless, many people are registered as Republicans who abhor racism and bigotry.
Then they need to stop supporting it. Voting for racists or for people who stand by while racist policies are enacted is equivalent to supporting racism. This is simply calling a spade a spade. Republican policies are racist and supporting Republicans means supporting racism.
Calling /all/ of these people racists is extremely divisive and also blatantly untrue. Doing so does not win you elections and it doesn't move the politics of the US forward. All it does is make you look unreasonable to anyone intelligent and maybe win you virtue signalling points with Facebook-focused liberals. It also demeans the term "racism". Can we focus on the ACTUAL racism that's occurring within our current administration without painting large swaths of the voting population with an unfair brush?
Also, can you please take the time to breath deeply and realize that Donald Trump is not the only politician who was voted into office on behalf of the Republican Party?
This has a huge impact on legal immigration, which will have an impact on business in this country, both as we look abroad for strong workers and innovators.
You are misinformed:
"GOP Senators Move to Limit Legal Immigration
A pair of Republican senators are teaming up with the White House to introduce legislation to restrict legal immigration by slashing the number of visas and green cards available each year."
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-07/sen...
How does it make sense to let people in who will not work or fulfil a need? How is this sustainable?
From http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14773298/mer...:
"Reforming the immigration system to be more “merit-based” is predicated on the idea that some of these slots are going to the wrong immigrants — immigrants who don’t have as much to give the US as the US has to give them. Proponents point to Australia and Canada — places that don’t have the American tradition of family-based migration, and that deliberately select for immigrants who are likely to contribute economically and assimilate culturally from the moment they arrive. In these countries, having a family member who’s already a citizen doesn’t guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself — having an advanced degree, being fluent in the language, and being able to support yourself (or have a job waiting for you when you arrive) matter as much or more."
Family-based migration doesn't exist in other countries, and doesn't make sense.
There is a debate to be had here, but instead everyone is reading fake news headlines and confirming their biases.
Sigh.
Family-based migration absolutely does exist in other countries, including those you have specifically named. It may not be as extensive as in US, but that's a different matter.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/
https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Brin
And yes, having an eligible family member does effectively "guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself". Point-based system is for skilled immigration.
Sorry, I genuinely meant that its not as extensive.
"Australia admits approximately two-thirds of its immigrants on skill criteria and strives to recruit persons during their peak working ages (Walsh, 2008). By contrast, about two-thirds of U.S. immigrants are family sponsored, without regard to skills or age (Wasem, 2007)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516050/
Do you agree with me that the rhetoric and outrage surrounding this proposal are dramatically overblown when considering the statistics and practices in a very liberal country like Australia?
This is my main point. There is a debate to be had, and the left/liberal/progressive/MSM want to shut it down with scary headlines. This is most definitely an example of fake news.
So if you want to see ratios more like in Australia or Canada, the first thing you should do is not clamp down on family immigration, but open up skilled immigration - e.g. by removing H-1B quotas, or (better yet) creating a proper work-your-way-to-citizenship visa with no quotas. That will increase the overall number of immigrants, but most of that increase will come from skilled immigration, evening things out.
Of course, at that point you'll want to have some merit-based system (points etc), because otherwise you'll get too many skilled immigrants to process...
I think that a lot of people on the left would actually be fine with that kind of tradeoff - point-based system, but without quotas. So larger number of immigrants overall, but eligibility bar is higher, and skilled immigration is more prominent compared to family immigration. Would you be okay with that?
What is the rationale behind this? Or how will this benefit existing citizens? Where do you draw the line for a cap on immigration, and why?
There is an almost infinite number of people who want to come to the US. Decisions must be made fairly and consistently, and to the benefit of the standard of living of existing citizens.
H1-B = 236K applicants / 85K spots
So that is ~150K high-skilled people who want to come but cannot right now. I would say the first priority is to ensure this system is not being used to drive down wages, and not being used to abuse migrants.
If companies still need these people to grow the economy, and cannot find US people to do it, then we should get them in first.
Family-based immigration must be done in a way to ensure that we are not creating greater demands on the economy. They should be able to support themselves and not contribute to the decrease in participation rate, and increasing unemployment.
> "28% of new [tech] startups in America are started by immigrants," - Ron Conway > "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Doll..."
This says that there should have some kind of entrepreneurial visa.
There was no rationale. You keep pointing at Australia etc as a desirable model, and I told you what you'd need to do to make your system more like those countries, and what the result of that would be.
In particular, those countries don't have quotas on skilled immigration. Well, not explicit ones - any point system establishes an inherent limit.
> I would say the first priority is to ensure this system is not being used to drive down wages, and not being used to abuse migrants.
I don't think there are many people who would disagree with you. As an ex-H1B, I don't see anything objectionable about the changes presented so far (and if I still were an H1B, I'd actually benefit from them).
Here are some nice charts here about who's using the system, and how:
https://www.axios.com/h1-b-salaries-2228205505.html
Note that what these numbers clearly tell is that it's not Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc that are a problem wrt wages. It's Tata, Infosys and similar sweat shops. Those are also the ones who get most of the H1B visa quota. Ironically, they're also the ones using H1B as a true temp worker visa - they rarely sponsor their employees for green cards.
In contrast, for most major tech company workers, H1B is a vehicle to green card and citizenship, and the companies themselves do encourage that, sponsoring employees and paying all filing and legal fees, because they are interested in retaining those workers long-term (and are paying well enough that they're not concerned that people would leave once they're no longer legally bound to the company).
So, imposing more stringent lower limits on wages would benefit the Googles of the world at the expense of Tatas, and would benefit people using H1B as immigration vehicle over temp workers.
> Family-based immigration must be done in a way to ensure that we are not creating greater demands on the economy. They should be able to support themselves and not contribute to the decrease in participation rate, and increasing unemployment.
Strictly speaking, family-based immigration already has such requirements. The sponsor must not only demonstrate sufficient minimum income to provide for the person they're sponsoring, but they're also required to sign a legally enforceable pledge making them financially liable for support of that person:
https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-pr...
This remains in force until that person becomes a citizen, which would be at least 5 years after getting green card in most cases (you need 5 years of permanent residency to apply for citizenship normally; 3 if you're married to a citizen).
This all is very similar to Canada.
> This says that there should have some kind of entrepreneurial visa.
There are visas for investors, but they require considerable sums of money upfront. I don't think there's anything for people who are not self-funded in that manner, which likely accounts for most of the startups.
I think we both agree system needs reforming, and subtracting the political rhetoric from both sides, there is middle ground reform that should hopefully prevail.
The easiest way to do so is to put your immigrant hat on. Pretend that you're a foreigner who knows English, and see how you'd go about immigrating to US. Literally starting from a google search along the lines of "US immigration", and then go from there. When you see various different options presented to you (like student, family, investor etc), conjure virtual personas corresponding to either one of those, and see how far you can get down either track, what are the things that are required of you, what quotas apply if any, how much it costs in fees, what the processing times are etc. Consider how you'd plan around all that. Also see how it works if you're married - how you bring your spouse to the country, whether they can work at all before they can get a green card, what about children etc.
Once you get to the end of it, try doing the same thing, but for "legally bring my parents/siblings/... to the country". Again note the various options, requirements, fees, processing times etc.
It can also be instructive to do it for a few other English-speaking countries (or those that have their immigration materials available in any language that you can understand), just to see how they all compare.
It's a lot like gun control. Based on your politics, I think it's a safe bet that you get annoyed when left-wing politicians talk about "weapons or war" or some such, without any actual knowledge of how guns work or how to operate one, beyond "it's a shoulder thing that goes up". To write meaningful gun legislation, one has to understand guns well, right? Well, same thing applies here.
After the mess that they have made with the first EO, when people with green cards were turned at the border, my main takeaway is that I'm not going to come anywhere near the border until I get that citizenship.
Yes, I am anti-Trump. Even if there were no other reasons, the EO alone would be quite sufficient to make me so, out of pure self-preservation.
I've also increased my monthly ACLU donation 5x. Not the least because I can never know if I wouldn't end up the beneficiary of their services some day under this administration.
Seriously, if you haven't gotten off the Trump train by this point you need to open your eyes.
You know, except for all of the legal visas and green cards for Iranian citizens and citizens of the other 5/6 countries.
> No one is trying to stop legal immigration.
> Tech companies are mad because they are cracking down on H1-B Visa abuse. This is not a bad thing.
Trump allies in Congress are literally introducing a bill to cut legal immigration in half.
Whenever I see comments like this I get sad. The idea that the administration is only trying to stop "illegal immigration is just plain wrong. It's clear Steve Bannon sees successful immigrants, especially non white non Christian ones, as a danger. And as for Stephen Miller he literally broke up with a close friend because he was Latino.
Tech companies aren't just worried about profits, many are headed by immigrants and they're worried about an extremely xenophobic white house.
American companies aren't completely off the hook though, for example in WA, AT&T and T-Mobile don't hire many international students from universities, instead they prefer to bring in employees from HCL to work on H1-B visas.
1: https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/h1b.pd...
No one is trying to stop legal immigration.
Tech companies are mad because they are cracking down on H1-B Visa abuse. This is not a bad thing.