Stephen Miller Has a Point, You Cosmopolitans

[Green Arrow]

Via ForeignPolicy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/04/stephen-miller-has-a-point-people-immigration-refugees-trump-raise-act/):


In a press-conference confrontation earlier this week that has now gone viral, CNN reporter Jim Acosta, the child of Cuban immigrants, accused Stephen Miller, advisor to President Donald Trump, of defending an immigration-reform bill that violated the sacred words printed at the base of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor …” Miller responded feebly that the poem had been added after the statue had been installed. He would have spoken to a deeper truth, however, if he had said that immigration policy is not designed to shelter the world’s “huddled masses” but to make America great. (I’ll leave off the “again.”)

The legislation that Miller was defending is, itself, indefensible. The bill, introduced by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.), and loudly trumpeted by our trumpet-in-chief, would reduce immigration by half over the next decade despite overwhelming evidence that immigration boosts economic growth. It would cut the number of refugees the United States takes annually from 85,000 to 50,000, a pitiful figure at a time when Europe is besieged by refugees from Middle Eastern wars. The bill is a sop to the xenophobes who constitute a significant part of Trump’s base; it should come as no surprise that white nationalists like Richard Spencer have affixed their seal of approval.

Nevertheless, the reaction to the bill reveals a kind of existential confusion among pro-immigration liberals. Immigration policy is not governed by compassion for the world’s downtrodden. That’s refugee policy. Refugees have a moral claim on the states from which they seek asylum. Immigrants do not. States take them in as a matter of national self-interest, not compassion or international law. Mark Silverman, an immigration advocate, took up Jim Acosta’s theme by observing sardonically, “Maybe they should change the inscription on the Statue of Liberty to, ‘give me your computer engineers and your high-paid professionals yearning to increase their rate of return.’” I hope they don’t, if only because the line doesn’t scan as well as the Emma Lazarus poem. But it wouldn’t be as grotesque as he seems to think.

While I hate to defend Stephen Miller (and, frankly, his attempt at arguing with Acosta was pretty pathetic, skilled debater he is not), as this excellent article by James Traub points out, Miller does have a valid point about immigration. Immigration is a net benefit for economic growth and it does make our country better off in the long run, the evidence of this is inarguable. However, that doesn't mean immigration should be largely unchecked. It's not about compassion, it's about what's best for the advancement of our country.

Now, that doesn't mean this new bill of the president's and his few allies in Congress is the right way to go about fixing the problem. It's not, and in fact is largely meaningless. But liberals have always supported checks on immigration, this new dedication to unfettered immigration is a relatively recent development, and it's not a good one. Our immigration system does need serious reform, and that only happens when both sides come to the table.

[stjames1_53]

sometimes you guys irk me with your "feel good" terms. You tend to lump illegal aliens with lawful immigrants. Most of us don't have issues with lawful immigration. It's when you try to lump them all into one pot and call it done.........
I am not against lawful immigration............just keeping and hiding the illegal aliens. Sanctuary cities that protect the criminal class of illegals, even at the point of harm to Americans......

[Green Arrow]

sometimes you guys irk me with your "feel good" terms. You tend to lump illegal aliens with lawful immigrants. Most of us don't have issues with lawful immigration. It's when you try to lump them all into one pot and call it done.........
I am not against lawful immigration............just keeping and hiding the illegal aliens. Sanctuary cities that protect the criminal class of illegals, even at the point of harm to Americans......

I think you're in the wrong thread.

[Safety]

I think you're in the wrong thread.

That one has a history of not reading the OP, nor what people post, but just posts on what he "thinks" they wrote.

[Tahuyaman]

Via ForeignPolicy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/04/stephen-miller-has-a-point-people-immigration-refugees-trump-raise-act/):



While I hate to defend Stephen Miller (and, frankly, his attempt at arguing with Acosta was pretty pathetic, skilled debater he is not), as this excellent article by James Traub points out, Miller does have a valid point about immigration. Immigration is a net benefit for economic growth and it does make our country better off in the long run, the evidence of this is inarguable. However, that doesn't mean immigration should be largely unchecked. It's not about compassion, it's about what's best for the advancement of our country.

Now, that doesn't mean this new bill of the president's and his few allies in Congress is the right way to go about fixing the problem. It's not, and in fact is largely meaningless. But liberals have always supported checks on immigration, this new dedication to unfettered immigration is a relatively recent development, and it's not a good one. Our immigration system does need serious reform, and that only happens when both sides come to the table.


Acosta takes no responsibility for trying to argue? Acosta looked pretty and partisan.

But yes, Miller made a valid and reasonable point.

[Safety]

Acosta takes no responsibility for trying to argue? Acosta looked pretty and partisan.

But yes, Miller made a valid and reasonable point.

Pretty?

[Green Arrow]

Acosta takes no responsibility for trying to argue? Acosta looked pretty and partisan.

But yes, Miller made a valid and reasonable point.

Acosta is a journalist, he did his job.

[IMPress Polly]

I wish people would be honest and recognize that they're attacking working class immigrants themselves, not just us "cosmopolitan elitists" who don't hate them, with this line of argument. Wanting to exclude poorer people just for being poor isn't actually a populist suggestion just because people like Miller seek to portray it that way.

Personally, I can't imagine why one would support further limiting (or for that matter limiting at all) the number of people who migrate to this country. Or at least I can't imagine any good reasons anyway.

[Tahuyaman]

Acosta is a journalist, he did his job.

Hes also a hard partisan. He tried to start an argument. He embarrassed himself.

[Trish]

Via ForeignPolicy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/04/stephen-miller-has-a-point-people-immigration-refugees-trump-raise-act/):



While I hate to defend Stephen Miller (and, frankly, his attempt at arguing with Acosta was pretty pathetic, skilled debater he is not), as this excellent article by James Traub points out, Miller does have a valid point about immigration. Immigration is a net benefit for economic growth and it does make our country better off in the long run, the evidence of this is inarguable. However, that doesn't mean immigration should be largely unchecked. It's not about compassion, it's about what's best for the advancement of our country.

Now, that doesn't mean this new bill of the president's and his few allies in Congress is the right way to go about fixing the problem. It's not, and in fact is largely meaningless. But liberals have always supported checks on immigration, this new dedication to unfettered immigration is a relatively recent development, and it's not a good one. Our immigration system does need serious reform, and that only happens when both sides come to the table.

Communication is an ongoing problem with the Prez and his minions. The country needs to reform how we address immigration illegal and legal but this group in the WH have the communication skills of a bunch of alt right mob bosses who enjoy giving out the kiss of death.

[Tahuyaman]

Pretty?


Oops.....petty.

[Green Arrow]

Hes also a hard partisan. He tried to start an argument. He embarrassed himself.

Regardless, the topic is immigration, not Acosta.

[Green Arrow]

I wish people would be honest and recognize that they're attacking working class immigrants themselves, not just us "cosmopolitan elitists" who don't hate them, with this line of argument. Wanting to exclude poorer people just for being poor isn't actually a populist suggestion just because people like Miller seek to portray it that way.

Personally, I can't imagine why one would support further limiting (or for that matter limiting at all) the number of people who migrate to this country. Or at least I can't imagine any good reasons anyway.

What good reason is there to allow unchecked immigration?

Let me clarify that working class immigrants should not be turned away and excluded.

[Peter1469]

Acosta's Statute of Liberty standard got a lot of people sent back to where ever they came from. There is a museum at the SoL that is very interesting and sobering. Any number of problems, some seemingly trivial got people rejected. To include bad teeth.


Via ForeignPolicy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/04/stephen-miller-has-a-point-people-immigration-refugees-trump-raise-act/):



While I hate to defend Stephen Miller (and, frankly, his attempt at arguing with Acosta was pretty pathetic, skilled debater he is not), as this excellent article by James Traub points out, Miller does have a valid point about immigration. Immigration is a net benefit for economic growth and it does make our country better off in the long run, the evidence of this is inarguable. However, that doesn't mean immigration should be largely unchecked. It's not about compassion, it's about what's best for the advancement of our country.

Now, that doesn't mean this new bill of the president's and his few allies in Congress is the right way to go about fixing the problem. It's not, and in fact is largely meaningless. But liberals have always supported checks on immigration, this new dedication to unfettered immigration is a relatively recent development, and it's not a good one. Our immigration system does need serious reform, and that only happens when both sides come to the table.

[Trish]

I wish people would be honest and recognize that they're attacking working class immigrants themselves, not just us "cosmopolitan elitists" who don't hate them, with this line of argument. Wanting to exclude poorer people just for being poor isn't actually a populist suggestion just because people like Miller seek to portray it that way.Personally, I can't imagine why one would support further limiting (or for that matter limiting at all) the number of people who migrate to this country. Or at least I can't imagine any good reasons anyway.

The problem with this group is the terms they use are dog whistles. This is one of the reasons why the Prez's numbers are going down. I for one am tired of hearing them talk to just their base. The country's bigger than 37%

[resister]

I wish people would be honest and recognize that they're attacking working class immigrants themselves, not just us "cosmopolitan elitists" who don't hate them, with this line of argument. Wanting to exclude poorer people just for being poor isn't actually a populist suggestion just because people like Miller seek to portray it that way.

Personally, I can't imagine why one would support further limiting (or for that matter limiting at all) the number of people who migrate to this country. Or at least I can't imagine any good reasons anyway.
So America does not turn into a third world country is a good reason.

[Common]

Heres how the immigration argument fails on all levels.

If there is a need for immigrants in the workforce theres a simple solution raise the limit of LEGAL VETTED licensed immigrants until the need is filled then set the limit back where it was.

There is absolutely NO argument for illegal immigration, its duh illegal, along with those willing to work you get bums, skids and criminals.

We have a system for legal immigration and we can fill whatever we need LEGALLY.

[KathyS]

I wish people would be honest and recognize that they're attacking working class immigrants themselves, not just us "cosmopolitan elitists" who don't hate them, with this line of argument. Wanting to exclude poorer people just for being poor isn't actually a populist suggestion just because people like Miller seek to portray it that way.

Personally, I can't imagine why one would support further limiting (or for that matter limiting at all) the number of people who migrate to this country. Or at least I can't imagine any good reasons anyway.

The bill in question follows the same guidelines as that of Canada, Switzerland, and New Zealand. It benefits the country as a whole, and taxpayers as well, to not allow people in that immediately become a drain on our resources, particularly when we carry $20 trillion in debt.

[Green Arrow]

Heres how the immigration argument fails on all levels.

If there is a need for immigrants in the workforce theres a simple solution raise the limit of LEGAL VETTED licensed immigrants until the need is filled then set the limit back where it was.

There is absolutely NO argument for illegal immigration, its duh illegal, along with those willing to work you get bums, skids and criminals.

We have a system for legal immigration and we can fill whatever we need LEGALLY.

This thread isn't about illegal immigration.

[Mark III]

Where to begin?

Uh, Stephen Miller is a weirdo who looks like a young Nazi functionary of the type I've seen in old 1930's photos.

"Cosmopolitan" is a white nationalist dog whistle.

Miller would like all immigration to the US to either be white, European, or people who want to immediately submit to traditional American norms, aka white and European.

[resister]

Where to begin?

Uh, Stephen Miller is a weirdo who looks like a young Nazi functionary of the type I've seen in old 1930's photos.

"Cosmopolitan" is a white nationalist dog whistle.

Miller would alike all immigration to the the US to either be white, European, or people who want to immediately submit to traditional American norms, aka white and European.
19159 With Exo absent today, I wondered who Godwin a thread. Fish on!

@resister TB'ed at the request of the OP.

[Mark III]

19159 With Exo absent today, I wondered who Godwin a thread. Fish on!

I should not tell the truth just because it is going to provoke some sort of third rate Pavlovian reaction in you? Please.

[Safety]

I should not tell the truth just because it is going to provoke some sort of third rate Pavlovian reaction in you? Please.

No, evidently they consider this their safe space...

[resister]

I should not tell the truth just because it is going to provoke some sort of third rate Pavlovian reaction in you? Please.
:rollseyes: You Godwinned the thread, not me.

[Ethereal]

I wish people would be honest and recognize that they're attacking working class immigrants themselves, not just us "cosmopolitan elitists" who don't hate them, with this line of argument. Wanting to exclude poorer people just for being poor isn't actually a populist suggestion just because people like Miller seek to portray it that way.

Personally, I can't imagine why one would support further limiting (or for that matter limiting at all) the number of people who migrate to this country. Or at least I can't imagine any good reasons anyway.
If you believe "this country" is a coherent entity with a meaningful identity, then there are many good reasons why one would want to limit immigration from other countries.

[Mark III]

You know boss hog would of voted for DJT!

I think that would actually revolt most intelligent people. Why are you bragging about it?


@Mark III TB'ed at request of OP

[resister]

You know boss hog would of voted for DJT!

I think that would actually revolt most intelligent people. Why are you bragging about it?
If it gets your panties in a bunch, it did it's job!

[Safety]

You know boss hog would of voted for DJT!

I think that would actually revolt most intelligent people. Why are you bragging about it?


To cause an emotional response. Best to ignore it.

[Chris]

"Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all human beings belong to a single community, based on a shared morality." @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism

Accosta's message was much emotionalism, Miller's sharp pragmatism. The idea we belong to a single community is egalitarian hogwash, we're all different. I don't agree with Trump's populism either, for it's progressive. But you can't just open the borders to all. As a localist I have to ask who I want joining my community, why those who wouold contribute. Consider who you would allow in your home, surely you'd discriminate.

Shared morality, right, moral relativism.

[resister]

To cause an emotional response. Best to ignore it.
If someone gets emotional over that, they need big boy pants :rollseyes: Lawlz

[Mark III]

If it gets your panties in a bunch, it did it's job!

I don't wear panties, do you?

[Mark III]

To cause an emotional response. Best to ignore it.

I don't get emotional over clowns.

[resister]

I don't wear panties, do you?
I freeball, if my signature about a fictional character offends you, get some big boy britches!:rollseyes:

[IMPress Polly]

Green Arrow wrote:
Let me clarify that working class immigrants should not be turned away and excluded.

That's an important clarification because the president's new policy proposal would, in fact, turn them away.


What good reason is there to allow unchecked immigration?

I am all for making sure that we're not admitting jihadists or what have you, but that's about as far as I go with border-crossing restrictions. Beyond ensuring the baseline physical safety of the population, I really don't see why there need to be restrictions. I mean why? Because you'd rather people go hungrier or be sent back to the war zone they fled to die than have to go through the exertion pressing 1 for English? I don't think that's so reasonable as you're trying to make it sound.

[Green Arrow]

That's an important clarification because the president's new policy proposal would, in fact, turn them away.
Agreed, that's one reason I and James Traub criticized and rejected the president's bill.

I am all for making sure that we're not admitting jihadists or what have you, but that's about as far as I go with border-crossing restrictions. Beyond ensuring the baseline physical safety of the population, I really don't see why there need to be restrictions. I mean why? Because you'd rather people go hungrier or be sent back to the war zone they fled to die than have to go through the exertion pressing 1 for English? I don't think that's so reasonable as you're trying to make it sound.
Again, I think the English requirement is silly. I don't believe that should be one of the restrictions. Also, if they are fleeing a warzone they are refugees, not immigrants. Those are two separate issues.

[Private Pickle]

I wish people would be honest and recognize that they're attacking working class immigrants themselves, not just us "cosmopolitan elitists" who don't hate them, with this line of argument. Wanting to exclude poorer people just for being poor isn't actually a populist suggestion just because people like Miller seek to portray it that way.

Personally, I can't imagine why one would support further limiting (or for that matter limiting at all) the number of people who migrate to this country. Or at least I can't imagine any good reasons anyway.
One would have to ignore the cons associated with illegal immigration in their entirety in order to come to this conclusion. Selective naitivity with a tinge of intellectual elitism allows for this sort of self-induced ignorance.

[Green Arrow]

One would have to ignore the cons associated with illegal immigration in their entirety in order to come to this conclusion. Selective naitivity with a tinge of intellectual elitism allows for this sort of self-induced ignorance.

The thread is about legal immigration.

[nic34]

So America does not turn into a third world country is a good reason.
Oops, too late.

[Chris]

The typical liberal progressive view of the economy as a pie of wealth and opportunity to be divided up would lead one to suspect, as Trump and Miller do, that adding more immigrants would reduce jobs and wages for US workers, and vices versa, reducing immigration would increase jobs and wages for US workers.

History Suggests Trump Immigration Plan Won’t Boost US Worker Wages (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/history-suggests-trump-immigration-plan-wont-boost-us-worker-wages/)


White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller urged reporters on Wednesday to use common sense in assessing a bill endorsed by President Donald Trump to cut legal immigration in half. Employers want low-skill foreign workers, Miller said, because they’re less expensive than domestic workers. If the government stops letting them in, he argued, wages for working-class Americans would go up.

Miller cites a disputed study to support that but the libertarian Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration’s Real Impact on Wages and Employment (https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrations-real-impact-wages-employment), explains why that study is useless:


The implicit assumption in CIS’ publications is that if those millions of immigrants weren’t working in the United States, more native-born Americans would have jobs – a static view of the economy. CIS’ fixed pie implication is inappropriate to any kind of reasonable economic analysis of the effects of immigration on the labor market. That is the primary reason why labor economists do not use CIS’ methods when attempting to measure the labor market impacts of immigration. Even if CIS’ numbers were compiled correctly, they are not measuring anything useful.

He then reports the general consensus in economics:


A large body of academic economic research has found that immigration has a relatively small effect on U.S-born American wages and their employment prospects. For wages impact, the estimates are that immigrants either lower the wages of some American workers by about 2 percent or raise them by about 2 percent in a dynamic economy (this, this, and this). The employment effects vary little but, like wages, the effects are small and clustered around zero. Nowhere will you find a tradeoff where one additional immigrants means that one American loses a job in the economy.

He supports that with a lot of data.

The Brookings Institute reports, What Immigration Means For U.S. Employment and Wages (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/05/04/what-immigration-means-for-u-s-employment-and-wages/):


Although many are concerned that immigrants compete against Americans for jobs, the most recent economic evidence suggests that, on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans. Based on a survey of the academic literature, economists do not tend to find that immigrants cause any sizeable decrease in wages and employment of U.S.-born citizens (Card 2005), and instead may raise wages and lower prices in the aggregate (Ottaviano and Peri 2008; Ottaviano and Peri 2010; Cortes 2008). One reason for this effect is that immigrants and U.S.-born workers generally do not compete for the same jobs; instead, many immigrants complement the work of U.S. employees and increase their productivity. For example, low-skilled immigrant laborers allow U.S.-born farmers, contractors, and craftsmen to expand agricultural production or to build more homes—thereby expanding employment possibilities and incomes for U.S. workers. Another way in which immigrants help U.S. workers is that businesses adjust to new immigrants by opening stores, restaurants, or production facilities to take advantage of the added supply of workers; more workers translate into more business.

Because of these factors, economists have found that immigrants slightly raise the average wages of all U.S.-born workers. As illustrated by the right-most set of bars in the chart below, estimates from opposite ends of the academic literature arrive at this same conclusion, and point to small but positive wage gains of between 0.1 and 0.6 percent for American workers.

On a side note, I keep telling you all that Trump as a populist is a liberal progressive.

[Tahuyaman]

Oops, too late.


So you believe the United States us a third world nation?

[Private Pickle]

The thread is about legal immigration.
Yes. I know.

I was responding to:

Personally, I can't imagine why one would support further limiting (or for that matter limiting at all) the number of people who migrate to this country. Or at least I can't imagine any good reasons anyway.

[nic34]

So you believe the United States us a third world nation?

Complete with 3rd world clown as dear leader.

[Tahuyaman]

Whatever. I'm out.....

[Tahuyaman]

Regardless, the topic is immigration, not Acosta.
He's part of the subject as is Miller.