"S__t hole countries"?? What does it take?

I think the problem comes earlier than that.

Once one has decided to make a group judgement of humans with such causal superficiality (where were you born, is the government pathetic there, how rich are you) , one can start questioning all sorts of actions we might take and decide we don't want them.

Why should we consider them covered by our principles of equality before the law when they are clearly NOT equal to us? Why should they be allowed in our schools?

Why should we allow them into our country? (More to the point, but only one of many.)


If we're looking for smart people or people somehow more likely to succeed here, the question is what measures do we use when we screen applicants, who does the measurement (corporations? someone at State Department?), how well is that working, is it affecting high tech pay, reducing the number of jobs for Americans, etc., etc., etc.


Also, Trump's comments show a seriously disturbing pattern of addressing serious issues. How could he have spent so much time heaping hate on immigrants without first asking even the most basic few questions concerning who these people are and what they have done for us???

 

Yes, I think Carville was talking about the efforts being made to find women who would accuse Clinton of something.

That's clearly a disgusting comment made 25 years ago.

Today we have a president who is paying off women to shut them up about his own acts with prostitutes and women over whom he had financial power.

You must be LIVID about this president.

 

So? But you obviously thought it worth repeating

 

Which is exactly why those things should never be used to decide whether someone from a poor or rich country, should be granted immigration because people should be judged on their individual merit AT ALL TIMES. The irony of what you said is that currently, the question "where were you born" IS asked when deciding who gets to immigrate to the US. That's because the Diversity Visa program is all about where someone is from, that being countries from where a low number of immigrants have come from in the previous five years.

They are NOT equal to Western people at all because we are not the same as them! We come from a different culture. They ARE equal in terms of equality before the law, of course, but the countries of the world do not share the same people! People are different! I'd be surprised if that was news to you! Who would assimilate to the US easier? An English speaking person from the UK, or a non-English speaking person from Africa? And who the hell in the government is asking the question, "should people from certain countries be treated equally under the law?"

These are all important questions, but they are irrelevant to the Diversity Visa Program, because as I've said above, it is only concerned with what country the people are from.

First of all, you don't know that he DIDN'T ask "the most basic few questions." And I'm sure that Trump knows who these people are and what they have done for for the US because the answer is obviously LOTS! But this doesn't mean that some people from better countries couldn't do better by having more to offer. And the Diversity Visa Program makes this impossible to know.

 

Thanks for you thoughtful contribution to the thread.

 

Hey Renee. Its funny, this is the first time that I've known for certain that I'm responding to a female. I don't know why, but it feels different! Anyway, is there a difference you ask - well, yes and no. In both ways the countries are obviously being referred to as shitholes and I understand that offence would be taken by that. However, there is a big difference in what they actually mean. "We shouldn't bring in people from shitholes" would mean that Trump doesn't want even one single person from those countries. On the other hand, “why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here” means why THIS many when we could have ONLY those which qualify on a merit based immigration system and increase the intake from countries which will have more people who can offer what the US needs. Like Norway.

 

You brought up people bashing trailer parks and I gave you a perfect example. You just don't like the fact that it was a Democrat.

 

Actually to be honest I used the term also before my consciousness was raised by someone in one of my groups. Please don’t make it sound like it’s a right left term.

 

The left is always the ones trashing people in trailer parks and I mean always

 

The objective of the diversity program is diversity (sorry, not meant to be snarky). Given that, I'm not sure what other means of spreading immigration slots would be effective.

I'd point out that there is also the issue of the diversity we already have. We've gone through many years of having ZERO diversity slots available for any of the countries in North and South America on the grounds that we have a lot of immigration from those areas.

Also, family members can apply for immigration, so the diversity program wasn't really needed for those areas.

Exactly. Diversity!

We're winning at this immigration game. Those coming here from Africa have a higher rate of college completion than do native born Americans. They are well equipped to contribute their brains, their energy, their new ideas. They give us a better understanding of other cultures. Today, a lot of Americans think Africa is a country. How can a representative democracy make rational decisions about other continents when we don't know JACK about them?

No, Trump made it THE issue. He called all of Africa plus portions of the Americas as "shithole" countries that justify ending the diversity program if not at least preventing diversity immigration from those countries.

I don't know how one could possibly reconcile what you're saying here with ANY of the reports that came out of the "shithole" meeting.

Why would Trump want to cancel the diversity program or exclude Africa if they were contributing what you point out here?

Also, the diversity program means we CAN know. If we didn't allow Africans to come to America we would know LESS, not more.

 

So you think it should be 100% based on diversity and zero merit based immigration or any other means?

What areas?

But again, aren't you combining international students who come to the US just for college? These people are SMART and that's how they are granted a college placement - so MERIT based. I'm sure that students coming from Europe also have a higher rate of college completion than native born Americans. I'm sure that its true here in Australia too.

Anyway, the international student system in the US is irrelevant to the discussion. No one is saying there is an issue with it. So you can stop bringing it up now. Don't you think?

Yes, they will give us a better understanding of other cultures and that's a positive but I've never really completely understood how this benefits a country or its economy. I'm sorry, but if the US had zero migrants from other cultures, it would still be as strong a country as it is today. Just WAY more ignorant.

When is the American public making decisions about other continents?

Trump wants it to end it, not because of those shithole countries, but because it is a bad program which selects people based on the country they are from - which earlier you seemed to think shouldn't be used to judge people. But I guess you only have a problem with it if people are NOT selected based on their country but you're perfectly okay when they ARE selected based on their country.

Well I'm sure that many would've been accepted on merit even if the diversity program didn't exist. But of course, even many of those who would never have been accepted based on merit, I'm sure have gone on to be very beneficial to the US. However, this doesn't mean that the same benefits if not more, would have been achieved by a purely merit based system.

What I mean is, we wouldn't know whether the US would've benefited more from a purely merit based system.

 

Definition of S-hole places is right here.

 

??? Please read my posts. I NEVER said anything REMOTELY like that. No crap please!

I don't know of any limits on the "from" country in the law on family immigration. And, I'd point out that Republicans are NOT suggesting an end to family immigration - they just want stricter limits. Please don't make this a red herring.

Being here for school is not a permanent status. They still have to enter through our standard immigration law. I'm certainly not denying that our immigration policy does a good job of bringing in smart people.

YOU brought it up, not me. You made a claim without citing any substantiation.

No, we are weaker when we are more poorly informed. For example, we understand Islam when our neighbor is a Muslim, not when we read someone's on-line assault on the Qur'an.

When we bomb them, subject them to economic sanctions, provide military weapons, promote ethnic cleansing (as per Israel), give huge dollars, allow membership in international agencies for decision making, etc. I'm not suggesting these actions are all unjustified.

Well, our immigration tends to be based on lottery systems with some amount of qualification of those who may enter. The diversity program simply allows people to apply (according to requirements) and then allocates a number of lottery winners in each country.

The diversity program could be changed by changing the qualifications we require for those who apply, for example.

In other words, diversity spreads the slots - diversity!

No, merit based immigration tends to look for very specific skills. Simply having a US college degree does not do it. The student COULD be found by some corporation who would be willing to spend significant legal effort in sponsoring the student. That would raise the chances. But, a US college degree held by some guy in Nigeria? That's just not going to help. Not many corporations go to foreign countries to recruit those whose qualifications are a college degree. And, that's not something Trump promotes, either.

You can look this stuff up. The government states what the various immigration programs are - who they accept, how they choose winners.

I agree.

In fact, I don't believe we even know how we would go about measuring this so accurately that we would know the exact benefit of a particular immigration program. How do you weigh having America have a better understanding of those from other places in the world?

There is a belief that we benefit from diversity both in business and in everyday life.

 

So then what did you mean by this?:

Exactly, but I thought we were talking about permanent immigration, such as economic migration and diversity immigration. Therefore, education is irrelevant to the conversation.

I was the first one to mention anything about students? Are you sure about that? Because if you're not, I could direct you to your post where you first mention it earlier in the thread.

Yeah, and that's of benefit to the country right?

Again, you're talking about students! WHY? What is your obsession with students?

I don't really want to indulge your obsession with students, but I'm curious why you're specifying a US college degree held by some guy in Nigeria and not a Nigerian degree.

Well its not a belief shared by the Chinese is it. Do you think that the Chinese are concerned with diversity? Do you think the Chinese care about having a better understanding of those from other places in the world? Has it negatively affected their business world?

 

I think it's pretty clear - diversity isn't racist. And, spreading the slots doesn't imply racism or other discrimination.

We are. But, one of the points brought up was that student visas could explain the success rate of immigrants from Africa in general.

I didn't specify a US degree. I did say something about those who got US degrees, but there are Africans who got their degrees outside the country where they were born, but not in the US.

About twice as many people immigrate to the US than immigrate to China each year and they have a strong repatriation program that reduces the diversity of their immigrants. But, it's been growing rapidly in both diversity and numbers. Who they are, what China's diversity objectives might be, what they leave on the table because of their immigration policies - I don't know.

I like America. Diversity makes us stronger and a generally better place to be, imho.

 

Yes, but I don't understand what you mean by "spreading the slots."

Did you use the example of a Nigerian guy with a US degree?

What repatriation program? The one they have with North Korea for refugees?

Its all well and good to say that, but I wonder if you have evidence that you can base your 'humble' opinion on.

 

I've said plenty enough to allow you to make a post showing a justification for your direction.

China's repatriation program covers all nations, including the USA.

 

Forums are dominated by males, so its very easy for me to assume that I'm always talking to a male. Then you came along and rocked my world!

That depends what you mean by "dreamers." Do you mean literally any childhood arrival or just those who are enrolled in the DACA program? What I say here applies strictly to those who are enrolled in the DACA program. I don't think that they should have to pay for the mistakes of their parents. Living in the US during their formative years means that the US is all that they know. However, it should be recognised that not all cases are as significant as eachother. A child who arrived in the US when they were 15 (the youngest that someone can be when they entered the US to qualify for DACA) will obviously know their home country very well. And what about someone who arrived in the US as a kid but who are now adults who were older than 30 on June 15, 2012 and are now 31-100 years of age? Are these people subject to deportation?

 

Well you're the one who said that diversity make us stronger. So its up to you to provide evidence other than empirical evidence. Of course, you'll have to define what you mean by "stronger." Economically? I agree with you that it makes us less ignorant but I just can't see what that achieves. You made the point earlier about making American's aware so that they can consider what the US government does in other countries, but that is benefiting those countries, not the US. My justification is that there is no evidence.

Do you mean 'repatriation program' as in they send people, including American's, back to their home country after they've illegally entered the country?

You also didn't explain what you mean by "spreading the slots."

 

Actually, this is false. It's called anecdotal evidence and is much less reliable than statistics and studies. Whether your Muslim neighbor is a good guy or your Jewish neighbor is an as*hole tells you precisely zero about what Muslims or Jews are like in general.

That, too, is false. Businesses seem to benefit from a variety of views, but societies that are homogeneous are much stronger and more peaceful than heterogeneous ones. There is no benefit from "diversity" for society, and actually great harm.

 

Wrong and the founding fathers guaranteed in the Constitution we would not be a Democracy. The STATES elect the President of the United STATES, not the PEOPLE. Your state is not even required to let you vote on the President and Vice-President under the Constitution.

 

Spreading slots - I mean that slots are allocated to countries, rather than simply having a world wide lottery.

We can choose, for example, how many more of those we allow to immigrate from Mexico, etc., for those who would qualify for the diversity program (rather than some other program).

 

We were founded on being heterogeneous and followed through on that, allowing immigration of all sorts of people.

America is not weak nor have we been harmed by that.

 

How long are you going to insist on being wrong? This nation was founded by a population that was almost entirely white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. Maryland was Catholic, Pennsylvania had some Quakers, but overall, the population was overwhelmingly homogeneous. There was some dispute about letting Germans in, because it was thought they were too different. As for diversity being a weakness, it's been proven.

The downside of diversity
A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

http://www.vdare.com/posts/japan-proves-yet-again-homogeneity-is-strength