The GOP (most of it) doesn't support this and it will never pass the senate.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Not sure what to say...Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers...

Try googling "merit-based immigration system"

I just googled it and it seems to be a made up term in the last few weeks. It appears to mean anything you want it to. So I guess it is a useless term. Also you can respond intelligently to a stupid question. Giving a stupid answer is the fault of the person giving the answer not the one asking the question.

ok

In a very important the answer is yes. We have this weird thing called "opportunity" which more significantly rewards folks who work hard, and provides virtually no advantage for those who don't. It turns out that the cost of living here is very high (compared with many other countries), so there is very little advantage to coming here, unless you are very capable and hard-working. The end result? We already strip mine the world for human capital. This intrinsic "merit-based" society that we live in (with many flaws and limitations) goes a long way toward explaining why many urban hubs are intrinsically more capitalistic and economically conservative, in spite of liberal political structures. I would call our economy a fundamentally merit-based system, reducing the number of legal immigrants means more jobs go unfilled, and businesses look elsewhere.

If you want more evidence, look at the ratings of American universities and the number of foreign students (there is a strong correlation). University admission is fundamentally merit-based (ignore legacy admission for now). Does reducing those numbers actually improve the overall future economic strength of the US? Please explain how that works.

You're also ignoring race based preferences.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

No dog in the fight, but the term merit-based immigration has been around for decades to describe the system used in many countries like Australia and Canada. Some use a system of points and depending on how many points you have you are either automatically allowed to immigrate or put to the top of the list. Points are given for things like advanced degrees (particularly in STEM fields) and how much wealth you have in your bank accounts.

The US has it for visas, but not for permanent residency or citizenship.

Who cares? Hillary deleted emails.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Got ya. Thank you.

-
I generally agree with what I have read of the bill. To add; the current system means the majority of the million or so who annually get green cards because they have family in the states, which is more compassionate, but arguably not best for the country as a whole. After reading just a few articles, it does look like the legislation totally ignores addressing the migrant worker needs, I don't know if there are any "targets" as far as increase or decreased totals, though headlines are that Trump wants to "slash" immigration. I'd imagine there will be a mix of protestations from congress critters, some probably that it is not comprehensive enough, as well as those who disagree with various specifics.
-
"The new competitive application process will favor those who possess skills that will benefit the U.S. economy, can speak english and are able to financially support themselves and their families, Trump said."
-
"The White House also believes this transformation could raise wages and protect taxpayers by potentially decreasing the number of immigrant families that rely on welfare. More than 50% of all immigrant households receive welfare benefits, while 30% of native households do, according to the administration."

https://finance.yahoo.com/...legal-151800053.html

   Real question: Do you think, even adjusted for the respective country, the US or Canadian/Aussie type immigration policy more sane?

Real question: Do you think, even adjusted for the respective country, the US or Canadian/Aussie type immigration policy more sane?

The biggest problem in the U.S is your land border with Mexico and the rest of Central America which we don't have so that makes a comparison difficult. However, in terms of what makes the most sense, our system is pretty good. We have a points system and generally attract well educated people who can get a job and pay taxes right off the bat. That's how an immigration system should work.

We do have different immigration policies for refugees, families etc., and they fall under a different class with different requirements.

Yeah, my understanding is that the Drumpf administration has been looking at the Oz system for a while.
I'd like to better understand some of the objections to the proposal. There are different issues around immigration levels and immigration processes.

Principally, the proposal seems like a fig leaf for the intent to dramatically cut immigration and refugee intake; as a sop to the xenophobic component of his base, so I understand the concern with misuse of policy for political rather than economic motives.

It's worth noting, though, that Australia already has a per capita immigration rate (& per cap refugee intake) triple that of the US. Canada's is double the US. Matching Australia's policy would triple immigration, not halve it.

Further, Australia, Canada & the US all face a demand for immigration far, far greater than can be met. Each country says "no" multiple times more than it says "yes". Why is the Australian or Canadian system for selecting immigrants (favourably so, far more than the US) worse than the US system?

Our Immigration Dept policy is "The purpose of migration is to build the economy, shape society, support the labour market and reunite family." Refugees, which run about 10% of regular immigration, have different criteria of course. What is the objection to "highly skilled, law-abiding, financially secure immigrants who contribute to our society, pay taxes and help keep our economy strong." as KS asks? Sounds reasonable to me.

Shhhhh.... This new "policy" is Pro-Canadian. It's Big Orange's way of making up for his next gaffe. NAFTA.

I don't see how anyone could oppose this. We can't let EVERYONE in. So we're going to prioritize those who are educated, wealthy, and speak our language. My only question is why don't we already do that?

Many people have the mistaken impression that we've never had limits on immigration before because we're so cuddly and warm fuzzy that we welcome any and all immigrants with open arms. Problem is, that's just not so.

Immigration policy is supposed to be designed to benefit the country, not just to be really nice to people who want to come here. Sometimes it benefits us to allow in more low skilled workers. Sometimes we don't need as many of those and need more skilled educated workers. Sometimes we need lots of immigration, and other times we need fewer people coming in. It makes sense for our laws to change to support our immigration needs at the time.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)