We need to humanely deter people without visas and no realist claim to refugee status from crossing the border. This will not be cheap, easy, or rapid. But is i s necessary in order to turn the immigration issue into a question of how to recruit world talent.
We should accept genuine refugees. And the changes to make immigration merit bases should have some room for low skill workers, too. But we should humanely and cost effectively deter many who, admirable as it is, would have better life prospects in the US than in their country of origin.
Yes, I am prepared to try to distinguish people whose governments are trying to kill or imprison them from people who could improve their life prospects by living and working in the US. And "merit" should include some relatively low skilled people, not just unlimited H1B visa types. I agree that how to do the deterrence humanely is not easy ane will probablby not be cheep.
I'm not seeing how you would come to the conclusion that the piece is advocating harsher punishments for migrants! It is advocating for legal avenues for them...And, yes, the nativist GOP is a huge problem. But this problem predates Trump.
And post-dates Trump as well. And Biden, And . . . whomever or whatever. What some yokesters label/libel as "nativism" is simply a hard-wired human trait of favoring one thing over another. One might call it freedom of association. In this case, an open discussion on what might or might not be more or less beneficial for the ethnie to which the every one of the arguers belong. Shutting down such discussion(s) may result in more weibei (Beijing's notion of "societal harmony") but nothing more. This (non-GOP) immigrant considers US "nativism" a breath of fresh air. Even when, or especially when, I disagree with "the nativists."
We need to humanely deter people without visas and no realist claim to refugee status from crossing the border. This will not be cheap, easy, or rapid. But is i s necessary in order to turn the immigration issue into a question of how to recruit world talent.
We should accept genuine refugees. And the changes to make immigration merit bases should have some room for low skill workers, too. But we should humanely and cost effectively deter many who, admirable as it is, would have better life prospects in the US than in their country of origin.
Yes, I am prepared to try to distinguish people whose governments are trying to kill or imprison them from people who could improve their life prospects by living and working in the US. And "merit" should include some relatively low skilled people, not just unlimited H1B visa types. I agree that how to do the deterrence humanely is not easy ane will probablby not be cheep.
Because if _I_ do not someone else will.
I'm not seeing how you would come to the conclusion that the piece is advocating harsher punishments for migrants! It is advocating for legal avenues for them...And, yes, the nativist GOP is a huge problem. But this problem predates Trump.
And post-dates Trump as well. And Biden, And . . . whomever or whatever. What some yokesters label/libel as "nativism" is simply a hard-wired human trait of favoring one thing over another. One might call it freedom of association. In this case, an open discussion on what might or might not be more or less beneficial for the ethnie to which the every one of the arguers belong. Shutting down such discussion(s) may result in more weibei (Beijing's notion of "societal harmony") but nothing more. This (non-GOP) immigrant considers US "nativism" a breath of fresh air. Even when, or especially when, I disagree with "the nativists."