Yeah, it should also be combined with the elimination of OPT, H4 EAD, and H1 visas that are harming the STEM industries in the same way to the tune of 6 million jobs. New grads can't compete with the tax benefits provided by hiring OPT workers.
Are they harming the STEM industry, or are they a key reason why these industries are successful? Maybe those workers are just better than you and deserving of those jobs? If you don’t want competition, what you’re asking for is a tariff basically. In other words, you are pro inflation and pro passing on YOUR costs to the rest of us. No thanks.
Stupid me, I thought the US was about competition and boldness, a place where a man can work, be good at what he does and be appreciated for it. But it turns out that for many of you it's about the place you happened to be born.
The purpose of the United States government is to benefit the people already here. It is not reasonable to assume that Americans should have to compete with the labor pool of the entire planet.
>But it turns out that for many of you it's about the place you happened to be born.
This meme needs to die. It was not some sort of accident that I was born in this country, it was the consequence of generations of conscious decisions and actions. I had a 0% probability of being born literally anywhere else. And as such, it is perfectly reasonable to want my government to prioritize the needs of me and my compatriots over those of others who are not from here.
> Americans should have to compete with the labor pool of the entire planet.
You almost always do, with houw our world is set up. No matter what you believe.
> it was the consequence of generations of conscious decisions and actions.
Oh, yeah, you are worthy, the others aren't. Got it.
> it is perfectly reasonable to want my government to prioritize the needs of me and my compatriots over those of others who are not from here.
They are not, in fact, prioritizing the needs of your compatriots. They would if they cared about making your country more competitive.
But in fact, they are hard at work to alienate your allies, erase your competitive advantages and turn you into a dictatorship.
Good luck, you're going to need it. Don't worry, I know us across the pond are fucked too, but at least we are not throwing away our status as a superpower for the dumbest of reasons.
I think the hyperbole in your comment is clouding your point, which appears to be that you are skeptical that immigration restrictionism is on balance good for the United States, to which I’d say that immigration restrictionism is actually the default setting and the current era of high immigration is unprecedented and new. This is the same pattern in Europe as well. The US achieved its super power status during one of the more restrictionist periods for immigration in its history, so I don’t follow how moderating immigration just a little bit equates to “throwing it away”.
>at least we are not throwing away our status as a superpower for the dumbest of reasons.
If you would choose to believe, all of this is a strategic play to get off the resource curse (aka the Dutch disease), with resources in question being trust and US dollar being the world currency.
Throwing that away may be a good thing for US long term.
65% of H1B jobs are in one industry, “computer-related” jobs as of 2023.
There are over 700,000 H1Bs in the USA, so almost half a million tech industry specific H1B jobs. Considering there are roughly 6-10 million tech jobs in total in the USA, that's 5-9% of tech jobs.
Exploiting? I’m lefty, but this dude volunteered for the procedure and was fully reimbursed. I’m having a really hard time seeing “exploited” on this one.
> this dude volunteered for the procedure and was fully reimbursed
And it worked! The animal subjects were exploited. This man was not.
The only way I can square this circle is with the hypothesis that everything a billionaire does must be exploitative of the poor. (Which holds about as much water as its balancing hypothesis on the far right about leftists being good for nothing more than whining.)
According to the left exploitation can occur when people choose and are paid for it.
For example demeaning work. Also much of slavery, indentured servitude in the past was chosen and fully reimbursed. Most classic lefties would say all work is exploitation under capitalism.
It's the idea of individualism mostly seen on the right wing and the modern/American democratic left that says that people make free and rational choices in an amoral economic model. When money sets the rules there is no exploitation. I think the reality isn't so black and white and people can make good and bad decisions.
So while I agree he probably wasn't exploited it doesn't mean that others in the same place doing the same things will not be.
Have you ever thought of "choosing slavery" for yourself and your children? No, because given a choice, nobody would choose to be a slave. The fact that people "choose" to be slaves is evidence that they had Hobson's choice. Probably because the wealthy and powerful arranged the system and laws to give people no choice because they wanted slaves.
> "When money sets the rules there is no exploitation
People didn't freely choose to migrate from their ancestral homeland, farming and hunting and grazing animals on common ground, to go and "find their fortune" in the slums and workhouses of the growing urban areas; the land was taken by force, the laws were set by the wealthy to kick the commoners off, to make wild grazing and hunting illegal, to shift the taxes away from land and onto trade, and the commoners were forced into it or "choose" starvation. William the 'Conqueror' in 1066 in Britain started it and set the model for the British colonies and British Empire which pushed it out around the world. From[1]:
"the Anglo-Saxon period as the system of law know as ‘folkland’, whereby land was held in allodial title by the group or regional community .. 1066-7 Norman invasion displaces Anglo-Saxon commons/land ownership model. William the Bastard declares that all land, animals and people in the country belong to him personally. .. We go from a country in which >90% of people owned land, to a country of landless serfs, themselves owned by foreign lords. .. The intended effect was precisely the result: the dispossession of the ‘common folk’ (i.e. anyone who wasn’t a Latin speaking Norman aristocrat) of their ancestral lands and rights."
"Commons Act 1236 allowed Lords to enclose common land .. Statutes of Westminster 1275/85/90 restrict subtenure/sale of parcels of land other than to the direct heirs of the landlord. These restrictions gave rise to .. the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via salaries, land sales and rent. In-effect, this was the start of modern wage-slavery"
"1536 to 1541 Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII, who privatises church lands (then 1/5th of the country). As these lands were often used by commoners, for grazing – this dispossesses people further from essential access to the land and generates yet more landless people who are wholly dependent upon the emerging model of selling their labour to survive i.e. wage-slavery. 1671 Game Act made it illegal to hunt wild animals, considered a common right since time immemorial. 1700-1850 Parliamentary Enclosures, now no longer held back by the sections of the Church, nor by the power of the (heavily indebted) nobility and Monarchy, land enclosures increase exponentially in both speed and size, and the new urban slums grew correspondingly"
"By 1700 half all arable lands are enclosed, and by 1815 nearly all farm land was enclosed; hunting, grazing, pannage, foraging, wood collection and gleaning rights, are all but lost. From 1750 to 1820 desperate poachers were ‘hanged en-mass’. 1800-1850 the Highland Clearances led to the displacement of up to 500,000 Highlanders and crofters, tens of thousands of which died in the early-mid 19th century, their settlements and economies replaced by Sheep. An esteemed member of the ‘British’ aristocracy noted: ‘It is time to make way for the grand-improvement of mutton over man.’. 1790-1830 a third of the rural population migrates to urban slums. Where they are put to work in early forms of factories, workhouses"
I’m familiar with those applications of exploitation, too, but they also wouldn’t apply here. This wasn’t demeaning work and wasn’t predicated on necessity, past their disability.
And of course, all work is exploitation under capitalism (from a true lefty point of view) but I didn’t perceive the original comment as referring to that level of exploitation. Just saying that this isn’t the hill to die on if one wants a case for capitalist exploitation.
I do understand the dangers of others being exploited down the line but again, that wasn’t what OP was saying either.
Really, if this is exploitative it’s only an indictment of profit incentives in healthcare, which are abhorrent.
Climate migration from South and Central America to North America has already started. If the US think they have an immigration problem right now, I can’t imagine how vicious immigration propaganda is going to get when that number goes up by an order of magnitude.
Mostly because they're acting as agents of the president's agenda, and as such, even if one were to prosecute them for their crimes, the president would just blanket-pardon them all and executive-order that they're immune to any legal enforcement against them, and the toadies in D.C. would roll over and allow it all to happen.
But none of that has to do with a president's own qualified immunity.
ICE isn't inheriting the president's qualified immunity; they have it because they're government employees. It doesn't matter if they're acting in the presidents interests or not and for state employees if they're acting in the governors interests or not.
Pardon is a very clearly enumerated power of the president so any usage of it is very clearly legal (although typically undesirable).
The problem with the presidential pardon is that it enables the president or his accomplices to carry out any amount of federal crimes. See Iran-Contra.
You’re being downvoted but you’re right. The number of people who act like a web cam reproduces the in person experience perfectly, for good and bad, is hilarious to me.
Trump has already joined those ranks, he just failed at it. January 6th was a legitimate attempt at overturning the election results. He was impeached over it. Mike Pence was the only thing that stopped it, and I can’t believe how close we actually came to that timeline.
And you’re absolutely right about the denial. It manifests as the “nothing ever happens” meme.
Most numbers I can find say that about 65% of Americans are registered to vote. Let’s say 100% of them voted in 2024.
Of that, let’s call it a flat 51% voted for Trump. That means that about half of 65%, or roughly 32.5% of American citizens support Trump, and by extension, likely this policy move.
So yes, it actually is more than you need to win elections.
> Now it seems like the republicans are trying to speed-run to a point where there won’t ever be another Democrat to worry about
The simpler explanation is they're bad at long-term planning. Most of Trump's Cabinet and advisors are, essentially, influencers after all.
We probably need to work on a Project 2026 and Project 2028 document set. Plans to use these newly-unlocked powers to reform how power is distributed in America, force forward long-overdue projects being resisted by vocal minorities and secure our republic from its tendency towards electoral fetishism.
Two heads of the same coin I guess! I agree though, we sorely need a counterweight to this administration. I keep asking my friends that support Trump if they’ll have the same staunch attitude towards strong executive branch powers if a Democrat gets elected next. I haven’t gotten a straight answer back.
reply