As an immigrant in the US I looked at the plans ( produced by Stephen Miller) and would not have qualified to be admitted.

High-skill immigrants disproportionately found companies (whose very existence implies driving up demand in the labor market), as well as disproportionately induce new consumer demand (high-skill -> high pay -> high consumption), which again drives new companies.

Out of America (and the world's) only $1T companies: Brin and Huang are 1st gen immigrants. Nadella is a 1st gen immigrant; he brought Microsoft out of it's malaise.

(Jobs' bio father was an immigrant, as was Bezos' adoptive father)

3/5 ain't bad. (2/5 if you're a stickler)

Tesla, which at one point was a $T company and is currently pretty close, is also famously founded by an immigrant.

There are very few people in tech in America who will not have worked for an immigrant founder/CEO at some point in their career.

> Nadella is a 1st gen immigrant; he brought Microsoft out of it's malaise.

I agree with most of what you posted, but not enough credit is given to Ballmer here. He set Microsoft on the trajectory that Nedella followed and got the fuck out of the way. There were a lot of cringe Ballmer moments but he had a profound impact on Microsoft, probably much more so than Nadella so far. And none of this is meant to take anything away from Nadella's competency. Just that Ballmer gets blamed for a whole lot despite setting MSFT up for the success Nadella (and shareholders) enjoy.

So, you do understand how this exactly demonstrates how you are anti-immigration, not just anti-illegal immigration?

I am not the original commenter. I am not anti immigration. I am merely critical of it. We need skilled healthcare workers. Instead giant corporations are focusing on importing software engineers o drive down wages.

anti-illegal immigration and pro-illegalizing immigration

Lowering wages and salaries for skilled workers has a big disinflationary effect and slashes inequality. (The bulk of inequality is indeed due to skill-biased divergence in labor income, not passive or unearned income from asset ownership.)

I agree if we look at through a purely economical lense, but you can’t deny that this statement may sour some voters opinions.

That's an article from 7 years ago?

Don't you think it makes more sense to look at Trump's 2024 platform?

https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/

The only statement on legal immigration: "Republicans will prioritize Merit-based immigration, ensuring those admitted to our Country contribute positively to our Society and Economy, and never become a drain on Public Resources."

The amount of room they give to interpret that vague statement however they want could fit an aircraft carrier. Their actual policy position is in their project 2025 materials and it curtails legal immigration pretty significantly along similar lines that trump attempted to tread in his first presidency.

Project 2025 is not the Trump official 2024 platform. It's a policy white paper published by an independent think tank.

Why would I look at that?

A lot of former Trump administration officials are involved in Project 2025, at least 140, which is more than half of the people listed as authors and contributors to their Mandate for Leadership document [0]. There's also over 100 conservative organizations on the Project 2025 advisory board [1], organizations that have also endorsed Trump for president. There's a lot of overlap in this document with positions that Trump has endorsed.

It appears to everyone, on both the left and the right, that Project 2025 is what conservatives want for a future Trump administration. There doesn't seem to be much of a competing vision for the future of the Republican party, certainly nothing as detailed as this 900 page document nor as widely backed by other conservatives.

This is why a lot of people are looking at this document. Maybe you should be, too?

I do acknowledge that Trump has been trying to distance himself from Project 2025 lately, coinciding with the press coverage the details in that document have been getting.

[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-pro...

[1] https://live-project2025.pantheonsite.io/about/advisory-boar...

> It appears to everyone, on both the left and the right, that Project 2025 is what conservatives want for a future Trump administration.

Sure, but it's not Trump's platform. If he wanted to implement those policies, he'd put them in his platform.

He didn't.

Just like the Democrats, lots of left wing policy groups have a list of policies they'd like Biden to implement. It would be silly of me to assume otherwise.

> I do acknowledge that Trump has been trying to distance himself from Project 2025 lately.

This is an odd take. "Trying to distance himself"? I think you mean "clarifying that those policies are not his own".

Stop spreading mis-info about Trump and Project 2025 which he is not involved in.

Of course he isn’t involved in it, trump doesn’t come up with any policy. Doesn’t mean it isn’t the position of his party.

So you're very much inclined to agree if I said "down with America" is the policy of the Democratic party.

In the last ten years or so, I came to understand the parable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” in a visceral way. We can all see the viciousness and cruelty to scapegoats is Trump and the conservatives binding principal, and that they’ve settled in immigrants as that scapegoat without much regard to legal status. You can tell me all you want that the evidence of my eyes and ears is false, but I am not able to turn them off.

It seems like Trump’s immigration stance has evolved significantly in the seven years since this article was written. A few weeks ago he appeared on the All-in podcast and promoted the idea of giving green cards en masse to foreign students upon graduation. I support the idea even if I don’t support the candidate.

Meanwhile if we forget what his lips are doing and watch for the fist we’d see his republican party has a different agenda. Namely one about picking certain favorite nations and excluding others. Really just read the project 2025 materials and forget whatever tangents he goes on, as he doesn’t hold himself accountable to what he might say.

So if a text says your name 100 times, you automatically wrote it? He has nothing to do with Project 2025.

"In fact, at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025, a CNN review found, including more than half of the people listed as authors, editors and contributors to “Mandate for Leadership,” the project’s extensive manifesto for overhauling the executive branch" [0]. Here's details on a bunch of them [1].

People and organizations, not just on the left but also over 100 influential organizations on the right [2], take Project 2025 as the desired direction for a future Trump administration. Trump himself has endorsed many of the same positions in this document.

Right or wrong, that's why people have made the association between Trump and Project 2025. This is what conservatives as a group seem to want for a future Trump administration. There doesn't seem to be a competing vision for the party, and certainly nothing laid out in 900 pages of detail.

Why wouldn't people on the left make the association between Trump and this document when so many on the right do?

[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-pro...

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/project-2025-ex-trump-contributors-...

[2] https://live-project2025.pantheonsite.io/about/advisory-boar...

Yes of course, but as I told someone else, if I said I believe the left is associated with "down with America" you would disagree. Just because 1% of the left might say that, doesn't mean it's true for all of you.

The Democrat obsession with Trump implementing Project 2025 strikes me as similar to the Republican obsession with Biden implementing the Green New Deal a few years ago. It's the president's radical legislation that isn't endorsed by the president and isn't legislation.