![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This was a points-based immigration bill, proposed by Cotton and Purdue. It seems appropriate to me that we include this information in the header of the article, since otherwise it's not clear what the purpose of this bill is. Haxonek ( talk) 00:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Does this thing even have a bill number yet? I couldn't find one. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
-- Neutrality talk 15:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The user with the ironic screen name "Neutrality" has been removing content which would provide some balance to the analysis section - on the basis that the article is an opinion piece, but the WonkBlog article cited is also opinion/commentary.
In any event, the Atlantic article - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/ - is a solid piece from a very credible publication, and it offers a potent rebuttal to the claim that there's a "consensus" among economists that large-scale immigration is beneficial to everyone. That's simply not the case...Cheap labor does have some economic benefits - particularly if one is a business owner who can hire people or less money or a consumer with a good income who can buy goods and services for cheaper. But if one is a low-skilled worker then having to compete with more low-skilled workers isn't beneficial.
So Wikipedia shouldn't be asserting that there's broad consensus that immigration is beneficial to everyone. We need to be giving a balanced overview of different views on the topic. - 2003:CA:83C7:3400:A5EE:D240:104D:7780 ( talk) 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Ecopedia: Does the National Academies Press article mention the RAISE Act? (I haven't read it yet because I don't have an account.) If not, then it probably doesn't belong in this article (maybe it could go in the George Borjas article, or some general article about immigrants and economics). Sources that directly discuss the RAISE Act and Borjas's work are generally preferred for this article, rather than just links to his work. Falling Gravity 16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The RAISE Act introduces a point-based system for immigrants largely based on educational attainment. This aspect of the proposed law should not be suppressed. Under the current immigration system, two-thirds is through extended family relationships (far beyond the nuclear family of spouse and minor children). The immigrants under this system have lower educational skills and compete with less educated Americans, thereby costing them $500 billion annually (essentially the national defense budget). This is precisely the impact of immigration addressed by the Jordan Commission. In the words of Civil Rights icon Barbara Jordan at the conference of United We Stand America, October 19, 1995: "The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser-skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force. Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder." Ecopedia's efforts to address the interests of Americans all too often left behind seem to have struck a nerve. How might we work together in addressing these concerns? Ecopedia ( talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I've removed new text inserted citing to a National Review article. The text claims that the poll shows that "most Americans support the majority of the provisions of the Act." This is poorly done for a few reasons:
If we want to include text on public opinion, we need to do it right, with an accurate summary, not with a slapdash cite to the National Review and cherry-picked results from 1 poll. Neutrality talk 15:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The introduction and provisions sections should give greater prominence to the points system. That is a significant change to American immigration, independent from any changes to the total numbers of immigrants. Quark1005 ( talk) 20:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This was a points-based immigration bill, proposed by Cotton and Purdue. It seems appropriate to me that we include this information in the header of the article, since otherwise it's not clear what the purpose of this bill is. Haxonek ( talk) 00:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Does this thing even have a bill number yet? I couldn't find one. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
-- Neutrality talk 15:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The user with the ironic screen name "Neutrality" has been removing content which would provide some balance to the analysis section - on the basis that the article is an opinion piece, but the WonkBlog article cited is also opinion/commentary.
In any event, the Atlantic article - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/ - is a solid piece from a very credible publication, and it offers a potent rebuttal to the claim that there's a "consensus" among economists that large-scale immigration is beneficial to everyone. That's simply not the case...Cheap labor does have some economic benefits - particularly if one is a business owner who can hire people or less money or a consumer with a good income who can buy goods and services for cheaper. But if one is a low-skilled worker then having to compete with more low-skilled workers isn't beneficial.
So Wikipedia shouldn't be asserting that there's broad consensus that immigration is beneficial to everyone. We need to be giving a balanced overview of different views on the topic. - 2003:CA:83C7:3400:A5EE:D240:104D:7780 ( talk) 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Ecopedia: Does the National Academies Press article mention the RAISE Act? (I haven't read it yet because I don't have an account.) If not, then it probably doesn't belong in this article (maybe it could go in the George Borjas article, or some general article about immigrants and economics). Sources that directly discuss the RAISE Act and Borjas's work are generally preferred for this article, rather than just links to his work. Falling Gravity 16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The RAISE Act introduces a point-based system for immigrants largely based on educational attainment. This aspect of the proposed law should not be suppressed. Under the current immigration system, two-thirds is through extended family relationships (far beyond the nuclear family of spouse and minor children). The immigrants under this system have lower educational skills and compete with less educated Americans, thereby costing them $500 billion annually (essentially the national defense budget). This is precisely the impact of immigration addressed by the Jordan Commission. In the words of Civil Rights icon Barbara Jordan at the conference of United We Stand America, October 19, 1995: "The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser-skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force. Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder." Ecopedia's efforts to address the interests of Americans all too often left behind seem to have struck a nerve. How might we work together in addressing these concerns? Ecopedia ( talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I've removed new text inserted citing to a National Review article. The text claims that the poll shows that "most Americans support the majority of the provisions of the Act." This is poorly done for a few reasons:
If we want to include text on public opinion, we need to do it right, with an accurate summary, not with a slapdash cite to the National Review and cherry-picked results from 1 poll. Neutrality talk 15:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The introduction and provisions sections should give greater prominence to the points system. That is a significant change to American immigration, independent from any changes to the total numbers of immigrants. Quark1005 ( talk) 20:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)