|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 08 2017 21:35 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 21:18 Kickboxer wrote:On August 08 2017 20:21 Plansix wrote:
Not all ideas were created equal and some of them are just masks for well trodden sexist stereotypes used in other professions to say women were not suited for the job. The female vs. male propensities he's listing are well documented in clinical psychology. It's all backed up by actual, peer reviewed science based on sizeable group samples dealing with children as well as adults. I know that because it's been popping up a lot, lately. You should really look into it, since you seem to be dismissing it with particular zeal as something not based on actual evidence - something like gender studies, for example. On the other hand the idea that men and women are interested in the same or even similar things, and / or motivated by the same or even similar environments and topics, is to a clear degree disconnected from "manifest" reality as it is expressed in roughly 95% of the population (across cultures and time). It's just so incredibly, blatantly obvious how different we are that it's literally contingent. You can attribute it to social construction, sure, but that has turned out to be factually wrong. To a major extent the social constructivist myth is biologically untrue, it is psychologically dishonest, and the nonsense has to stop sooner rather than later. Warping the work environment of specific industries to shove women into professions they aren't even interested in will address exactly nothing. Besides, women are free to start an all-female software company where they can thrive in a non-patriarchal environment and organize themselves as they please. Maybe they're more interested in fashion&lifestyle blogging, tho? I don't know. I'd say one very valid point has been made is that some people perceive assertive women differently. However, I would say that those same people are also likely to see non-assertive men differently. There will obviously also be people who use the differences between men and women to actually discriminate against people based on stereotypes even when they do not apply. Women can definitely do all of the things that men can do, and some choose to do those things. The same is true the other way around. It only becomes a problem when people make assumptions based on these stereotypes that aren't true for certain individuals.
I work with a lot of female attorneys who argue professionally. They could run a class on how they have to tailor their arguments around not appearing “shrill” or “emotional” to sexist judges and other attorneys. And this is backed up by our male attorneys. And it isn’t just a few bad apples, it is all the time. It is striking how assertive women are quickly framed as harping or being disrespectful. How being assertive is quickly framed as a derisive form of ambition, where a woman will do “anything” to get ahead.
|
On August 08 2017 21:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 21:47 travis wrote:On August 08 2017 20:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
With the sidenote that I only read like 10% of the letter, I agree with warding here. I don't think all his arguments are valid, for example I think claiming universality regarding gender behavior relating to culture is bound to be wrong. But I don't think his arguments are incendiary. From what I saw, he's not attacking the women who are there and saying they are inferior biologically, he's saying there are explanations for why a 50/50 gender distribution hasn't been attained and reasons why it's not necessarily a goal to strive for. Personally, I think this is the type of difference of opinion that should ideally be permitted, and met through arguments (address where he is factually wrong) rather than firing him. He didn't claim universality. He specifically said he doesn't claim universality. 'On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: They’re universal across human cultures'. Beyond giving birth, there are very, very few things that are actually universal across human cultures.
ohhh I get what you are saying
my apologies, you're right, I am wrong. I thought you meant universality more broadly.
|
On August 08 2017 19:51 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 19:36 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2017 18:19 warding wrote:
I don't think the argument was that women are generally worse at it, rather than that they are generally less inclined to pursue careers as programmers. But then he fails to provide any meaningful as to why and sort of just says "there has to be a reason, we shouldn't force it". It is the Tim Allen style of gender discussion, where women are this unknownable mystery of science and culture. Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
edit: sorry, that's not a quote of warding, that's just a quote of the google nerd in warding's post.
It is such a foreign notion to me that your gender dictates how much empathy you are capable of showing. And it's even more foreign to me to see this data and think, as the subset of nerds that this dude belongs to does, "Oh I guess I lack empathy because I'm a man, not much I can do there, luckily I compensate that by being smart in other ways".
Empathy is a good thing. If you lack it, you shouldn't just shrug that off, you should work on that.
Kickboxer, you are wrong that it's been factually proven that there is a biological cause. And if you were right about it, as you think you are, you shouldn't be okay with others being wrong about it. "You can attribute it to social construction, sure, but that has turned out to be factually wrong" is a nonsensical expression of a position.
|
Gender has nothing to do with empathy. I heard that shit in the 1980s growing up and it still doesn’t play. Considering the premium people put on rational arguments and thought, it should be pretty evident why that myth would persist. Men need to stop buying into that shit that promotes them devaluing their own emotions and understanding of other.
|
On August 08 2017 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:...Is this a joke? I got exactly 30 points- even with my STEM masters degree- and that's supposedly the lowest you're allowed to score to be able to apply? Unless you're rich, a genius, or an Olympic athlete, you wouldn't be able to immigrate to the United States, if Trump gets his way? Can someone please confirm whether or not this is satire? Over 90% of Americans wouldn't even score 30+. Show nested quote +Find Out If President Trump Would Let You Immigrate to America
President Donald Trump announced his support last week for a new "merit-based" immigration bill that would screen visa applicants using a point system.
The Republican-backed proposal, which would significantly reduce the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to America, would weigh each person's age, education, English ability, job offer salary, investments and even whether the person has an Olympic medal. The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act, or RAISE Act, favors people between the ages of 26 and 30 with a doctorate, high English proficiency and a job offer with a high salary.
Applicants would need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for a visa under the proposal, and the fastest way to get there is to have received a Nobel Prize or comparable international award, which gives applicants a head start of 25 points. Applicants with the highest number of points would go to the front of the line to receive visas.
The bill, introduced by Republican Senators David Perdue and Tom Cotton, has failed to gain traction beyond the President's endorsement and is unlikely to pass Congress. But if Trump had his way and it became law, here's how you would fare if you were trying to immigrate to the U.S. under the restrictions:
Would You Qualify for Legal Immigration to the U.S.?
Answer the following questions to find out:
You need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for immmigration
How old are you?
Under 18 cannot apply
18-21 6 points
22-25 8 points
26-30 10 points
31-35 8 points
36-40 6 points
41-45 4 points
46-50 2 points
Over 50 0 points
What's your highest level of education?
Less than high school diploma 0 points
High school diploma or foreign equivalent 1 point
Foreign bachelor's 5 points
U.S. bachelor's 6 points
Foreign master's in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 7 points
U.S. master’s in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 8 points
Foreign professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 10 points
U.S. professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 13 points
What's your english ability?
Poor 0 points
Moderate 6 points
Good 10 ponts
Excellent 11 points
Fluent 12 points
Do you have a job offer?
No 0 points
Yes, with a salary less than $77,900 0 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $77,900 5 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $103,900 8 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $155,800 13 points
Do you have a Nobel Prize or major international award?
Yes 25 points
No 0 points
Have you won an Olympic medal in the past 8 years?
Yes 15 points
No 0 points
Do you plan on investing money in the U.S.?
No 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth less than $1.35 million for a new commercial enterprise 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth between $1.35 million and $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 6 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth at least $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 12 points
See my results
Methodology
For greater clarity, some answers are simplified from what appears in the bill. For example, the legislation proposes an English test, with points allotted based on the applicant's performance. We instead created categories ranking English ability. The question about job salaries took the bill's original language regarding "150% of median income" and calculated actual salaries based on the U.S. median household income of $51,939 in 2014. The full text of the bill can be found here. http://time.com/4887574/trump-raise-act-immigration/
Pretty sure this has less chance of passing than the healthcare bills did. Majority of Americans wouldn't even qualify under these standards (tho this is the point it makes it easy to attack).
|
On August 08 2017 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:...Is this a joke? I got exactly 30 points- even with my STEM masters degree- and that's supposedly the lowest you're allowed to score to be able to apply? Unless you're rich, a genius, or an Olympic athlete, you wouldn't be able to immigrate to the United States, if Trump gets his way? Can someone please confirm whether or not this is satire? Over 90% of Americans wouldn't even score 30+. Show nested quote +Find Out If President Trump Would Let You Immigrate to America
President Donald Trump announced his support last week for a new "merit-based" immigration bill that would screen visa applicants using a point system.
The Republican-backed proposal, which would significantly reduce the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to America, would weigh each person's age, education, English ability, job offer salary, investments and even whether the person has an Olympic medal. The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act, or RAISE Act, favors people between the ages of 26 and 30 with a doctorate, high English proficiency and a job offer with a high salary.
Applicants would need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for a visa under the proposal, and the fastest way to get there is to have received a Nobel Prize or comparable international award, which gives applicants a head start of 25 points. Applicants with the highest number of points would go to the front of the line to receive visas.
The bill, introduced by Republican Senators David Perdue and Tom Cotton, has failed to gain traction beyond the President's endorsement and is unlikely to pass Congress. But if Trump had his way and it became law, here's how you would fare if you were trying to immigrate to the U.S. under the restrictions:
Would You Qualify for Legal Immigration to the U.S.?
Answer the following questions to find out:
You need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for immmigration
How old are you?
Under 18 cannot apply
18-21 6 points
22-25 8 points
26-30 10 points
31-35 8 points
36-40 6 points
41-45 4 points
46-50 2 points
Over 50 0 points
What's your highest level of education?
Less than high school diploma 0 points
High school diploma or foreign equivalent 1 point
Foreign bachelor's 5 points
U.S. bachelor's 6 points
Foreign master's in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 7 points
U.S. master’s in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 8 points
Foreign professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 10 points
U.S. professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 13 points
What's your english ability?
Poor 0 points
Moderate 6 points
Good 10 ponts
Excellent 11 points
Fluent 12 points
Do you have a job offer?
No 0 points
Yes, with a salary less than $77,900 0 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $77,900 5 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $103,900 8 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $155,800 13 points
Do you have a Nobel Prize or major international award?
Yes 25 points
No 0 points
Have you won an Olympic medal in the past 8 years?
Yes 15 points
No 0 points
Do you plan on investing money in the U.S.?
No 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth less than $1.35 million for a new commercial enterprise 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth between $1.35 million and $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 6 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth at least $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 12 points
See my results
Methodology
For greater clarity, some answers are simplified from what appears in the bill. For example, the legislation proposes an English test, with points allotted based on the applicant's performance. We instead created categories ranking English ability. The question about job salaries took the bill's original language regarding "150% of median income" and calculated actual salaries based on the U.S. median household income of $51,939 in 2014. The full text of the bill can be found here. http://time.com/4887574/trump-raise-act-immigration/
i was born here, but i'm scraping by with 31 otherwise. this is stupid. basically unless you're in the top 0.1% of your field and have an award, or the top 0.01% economically (all those $$$ questions) you ain't getting in the US.
|
On August 08 2017 22:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:...Is this a joke? I got exactly 30 points- even with my STEM masters degree- and that's supposedly the lowest you're allowed to score to be able to apply? Unless you're rich, a genius, or an Olympic athlete, you wouldn't be able to immigrate to the United States, if Trump gets his way? Can someone please confirm whether or not this is satire? Over 90% of Americans wouldn't even score 30+. Find Out If President Trump Would Let You Immigrate to America
President Donald Trump announced his support last week for a new "merit-based" immigration bill that would screen visa applicants using a point system.
The Republican-backed proposal, which would significantly reduce the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to America, would weigh each person's age, education, English ability, job offer salary, investments and even whether the person has an Olympic medal. The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act, or RAISE Act, favors people between the ages of 26 and 30 with a doctorate, high English proficiency and a job offer with a high salary.
Applicants would need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for a visa under the proposal, and the fastest way to get there is to have received a Nobel Prize or comparable international award, which gives applicants a head start of 25 points. Applicants with the highest number of points would go to the front of the line to receive visas.
The bill, introduced by Republican Senators David Perdue and Tom Cotton, has failed to gain traction beyond the President's endorsement and is unlikely to pass Congress. But if Trump had his way and it became law, here's how you would fare if you were trying to immigrate to the U.S. under the restrictions:
Would You Qualify for Legal Immigration to the U.S.?
Answer the following questions to find out:
You need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for immmigration
How old are you?
Under 18 cannot apply
18-21 6 points
22-25 8 points
26-30 10 points
31-35 8 points
36-40 6 points
41-45 4 points
46-50 2 points
Over 50 0 points
What's your highest level of education?
Less than high school diploma 0 points
High school diploma or foreign equivalent 1 point
Foreign bachelor's 5 points
U.S. bachelor's 6 points
Foreign master's in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 7 points
U.S. master’s in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 8 points
Foreign professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 10 points
U.S. professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 13 points
What's your english ability?
Poor 0 points
Moderate 6 points
Good 10 ponts
Excellent 11 points
Fluent 12 points
Do you have a job offer?
No 0 points
Yes, with a salary less than $77,900 0 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $77,900 5 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $103,900 8 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $155,800 13 points
Do you have a Nobel Prize or major international award?
Yes 25 points
No 0 points
Have you won an Olympic medal in the past 8 years?
Yes 15 points
No 0 points
Do you plan on investing money in the U.S.?
No 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth less than $1.35 million for a new commercial enterprise 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth between $1.35 million and $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 6 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth at least $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 12 points
See my results
Methodology
For greater clarity, some answers are simplified from what appears in the bill. For example, the legislation proposes an English test, with points allotted based on the applicant's performance. We instead created categories ranking English ability. The question about job salaries took the bill's original language regarding "150% of median income" and calculated actual salaries based on the U.S. median household income of $51,939 in 2014. The full text of the bill can be found here. http://time.com/4887574/trump-raise-act-immigration/ i was born here, but i'm scraping by with 31 otherwise. this is stupid. basically unless you're in the top 0.1% of your field and have an award, or the top 0.01% economically (all those $$$ questions) you ain't getting in the US.
No, you just need a good job offer. If you are kinda young, have a bachelors degree, speak english well enough, and have an 80k $ job offer or shitloads of money, you can immigrate.
That is pretty strict, but not totally absurd. And if i recall KwarKs comments to that topic correctly, immigrating into the US is basically kinda like that anyways already, but also takes a few years of weird legal battles.
I don't know how relevant this discussion is though, is this something that actually has a chance of being passed, or one of the large amounts of troll legislation pieces that basically get proposed to make headlines, but would never ever have a chance of becoming law? There seem to be a lot of those in the US.
|
On August 08 2017 22:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:...Is this a joke? I got exactly 30 points- even with my STEM masters degree- and that's supposedly the lowest you're allowed to score to be able to apply? Unless you're rich, a genius, or an Olympic athlete, you wouldn't be able to immigrate to the United States, if Trump gets his way? Can someone please confirm whether or not this is satire? Over 90% of Americans wouldn't even score 30+. Find Out If President Trump Would Let You Immigrate to America
President Donald Trump announced his support last week for a new "merit-based" immigration bill that would screen visa applicants using a point system.
The Republican-backed proposal, which would significantly reduce the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to America, would weigh each person's age, education, English ability, job offer salary, investments and even whether the person has an Olympic medal. The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act, or RAISE Act, favors people between the ages of 26 and 30 with a doctorate, high English proficiency and a job offer with a high salary.
Applicants would need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for a visa under the proposal, and the fastest way to get there is to have received a Nobel Prize or comparable international award, which gives applicants a head start of 25 points. Applicants with the highest number of points would go to the front of the line to receive visas.
The bill, introduced by Republican Senators David Perdue and Tom Cotton, has failed to gain traction beyond the President's endorsement and is unlikely to pass Congress. But if Trump had his way and it became law, here's how you would fare if you were trying to immigrate to the U.S. under the restrictions:
Would You Qualify for Legal Immigration to the U.S.?
Answer the following questions to find out:
You need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for immmigration
How old are you?
Under 18 cannot apply
18-21 6 points
22-25 8 points
26-30 10 points
31-35 8 points
36-40 6 points
41-45 4 points
46-50 2 points
Over 50 0 points
What's your highest level of education?
Less than high school diploma 0 points
High school diploma or foreign equivalent 1 point
Foreign bachelor's 5 points
U.S. bachelor's 6 points
Foreign master's in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 7 points
U.S. master’s in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 8 points
Foreign professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 10 points
U.S. professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 13 points
What's your english ability?
Poor 0 points
Moderate 6 points
Good 10 ponts
Excellent 11 points
Fluent 12 points
Do you have a job offer?
No 0 points
Yes, with a salary less than $77,900 0 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $77,900 5 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $103,900 8 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $155,800 13 points
Do you have a Nobel Prize or major international award?
Yes 25 points
No 0 points
Have you won an Olympic medal in the past 8 years?
Yes 15 points
No 0 points
Do you plan on investing money in the U.S.?
No 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth less than $1.35 million for a new commercial enterprise 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth between $1.35 million and $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 6 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth at least $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 12 points
See my results
Methodology
For greater clarity, some answers are simplified from what appears in the bill. For example, the legislation proposes an English test, with points allotted based on the applicant's performance. We instead created categories ranking English ability. The question about job salaries took the bill's original language regarding "150% of median income" and calculated actual salaries based on the U.S. median household income of $51,939 in 2014. The full text of the bill can be found here. http://time.com/4887574/trump-raise-act-immigration/ i was born here, but i'm scraping by with 31 otherwise. this is stupid. basically unless you're in the top 0.1% of your field and have an award, or the top 0.01% economically (all those $$$ questions) you ain't getting in the US.
That's not everything the bill does. Almost everything in the news is inaccurate, be aware of that. Personally I don't care about this but just out of curiosity I was reading the posts and was like "there is no way this is accurate".
The people who score high simply go to the front of the line. People who score less can still get in (up to a quota of 50k refugees and 88k immigrants per year).
It's actually kind of weird because the article links to another article that says it would lead to about 500k people coming in per year total. So maybe that's the 138k + other family members.
|
My favorite part about this bill is that people keep debating it like it could be real law, even though it has almost zero support in congress.
|
On August 08 2017 22:36 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part about this bill is that people keep debating it like it could be real law, even though it has almost zero support in congress.
That is because the US system (or the media) is weird.
The way i am used to it from German politics is that bills that are reported upon are very highly to become law, and the amount of proposed troll bills is a lot lower in general. Thus, if i apply the stuff i experienced from German politics unto american politics, it is reasonable to assume that proposed bills that are talked about have a very high chance of becoming law. But it seems to be completely different in the US, where shitloads of bills are proposed, and people talk about those, but they are often simply a random idea of one random dude in congress. That stuff never even reaches the population here.
I must say that i am sadly not well informed enough about the inner workings of the German parliament to know if those bills also exist there and people just don't talk about them, or if they don't exist here.
|
On August 08 2017 22:33 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 22:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 08 2017 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:...Is this a joke? I got exactly 30 points- even with my STEM masters degree- and that's supposedly the lowest you're allowed to score to be able to apply? Unless you're rich, a genius, or an Olympic athlete, you wouldn't be able to immigrate to the United States, if Trump gets his way? Can someone please confirm whether or not this is satire? Over 90% of Americans wouldn't even score 30+. Find Out If President Trump Would Let You Immigrate to America
President Donald Trump announced his support last week for a new "merit-based" immigration bill that would screen visa applicants using a point system.
The Republican-backed proposal, which would significantly reduce the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to America, would weigh each person's age, education, English ability, job offer salary, investments and even whether the person has an Olympic medal. The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act, or RAISE Act, favors people between the ages of 26 and 30 with a doctorate, high English proficiency and a job offer with a high salary.
Applicants would need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for a visa under the proposal, and the fastest way to get there is to have received a Nobel Prize or comparable international award, which gives applicants a head start of 25 points. Applicants with the highest number of points would go to the front of the line to receive visas.
The bill, introduced by Republican Senators David Perdue and Tom Cotton, has failed to gain traction beyond the President's endorsement and is unlikely to pass Congress. But if Trump had his way and it became law, here's how you would fare if you were trying to immigrate to the U.S. under the restrictions:
Would You Qualify for Legal Immigration to the U.S.?
Answer the following questions to find out:
You need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for immmigration
How old are you?
Under 18 cannot apply
18-21 6 points
22-25 8 points
26-30 10 points
31-35 8 points
36-40 6 points
41-45 4 points
46-50 2 points
Over 50 0 points
What's your highest level of education?
Less than high school diploma 0 points
High school diploma or foreign equivalent 1 point
Foreign bachelor's 5 points
U.S. bachelor's 6 points
Foreign master's in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 7 points
U.S. master’s in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 8 points
Foreign professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 10 points
U.S. professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 13 points
What's your english ability?
Poor 0 points
Moderate 6 points
Good 10 ponts
Excellent 11 points
Fluent 12 points
Do you have a job offer?
No 0 points
Yes, with a salary less than $77,900 0 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $77,900 5 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $103,900 8 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $155,800 13 points
Do you have a Nobel Prize or major international award?
Yes 25 points
No 0 points
Have you won an Olympic medal in the past 8 years?
Yes 15 points
No 0 points
Do you plan on investing money in the U.S.?
No 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth less than $1.35 million for a new commercial enterprise 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth between $1.35 million and $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 6 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth at least $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 12 points
See my results
Methodology
For greater clarity, some answers are simplified from what appears in the bill. For example, the legislation proposes an English test, with points allotted based on the applicant's performance. We instead created categories ranking English ability. The question about job salaries took the bill's original language regarding "150% of median income" and calculated actual salaries based on the U.S. median household income of $51,939 in 2014. The full text of the bill can be found here. http://time.com/4887574/trump-raise-act-immigration/ i was born here, but i'm scraping by with 31 otherwise. this is stupid. basically unless you're in the top 0.1% of your field and have an award, or the top 0.01% economically (all those $$$ questions) you ain't getting in the US. That's not everything the bill does. Almost everything in the news is inaccurate, be aware of that. Personally I don't care about this but just out of curiosity I was reading the posts and was like "there is no way this is accurate". The people who score high simply go to the front of the line. People who score less can still get in (up to a quota of 50k refugees and 88k immigrants per year). It's actually kind of weird because the article links to another article that says it would lead to about 500k people coming in per year total. So maybe that's the 138k + other family members.
that's 140k number is kind of a pittance - i'm not exactly sure how it relates to the 1m new permanent residents we get annually, but it's way small. overall this is limiting immigration to high skilled workers, who will just do high skilled labor for cheaper than their US counterparts the way those come under H1B do already.
i'm also very opposed to the expansion of the rich guy's back entrance where there's a ton of points available for people who "plan to invest". some rich foreign guy could set up a US-based LLC, fund a couple million and "pay himself" a 150k salary - boom, 25 points right there, he'd have to be a literal potato not to qualify.
|
On August 08 2017 22:45 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 22:36 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part about this bill is that people keep debating it like it could be real law, even though it has almost zero support in congress. That is because the US system (or the media) is weird. The way i am used to it from German politics is that bills that are reported upon are very highly to become law, and the amount of proposed troll bills is a lot lower in general. Thus, if i apply the stuff i experienced from German politics unto american politics, it is reasonable to assume that proposed bills that are talked about have a very high chance of becoming law. But it seems to be completely different in the US, where shitloads of bills are proposed, and people talk about those, but they are often simply a random idea of one random dude in congress. That stuff never even reaches the population here. I must say that i am sadly not well informed enough about the inner workings of the German parliament to know if those bills also exist there and people just don't talk about them, or if they don't exist here.
This is a case of the White House throwing their weight behind a bill that has zero chance of passing to start a discussion. The US system is designed to have a lot of ideas get thrown out there, put through the gauntlet of congressional debate and hopefully the best rise to the top. It is not functioning like that right now, but that is the theory. Unlike a parliament, our governments don’t die simply because a bill fails. Elections are fixed in time, so it creates a different dynamic.
|
On August 08 2017 22:31 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 22:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 08 2017 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:...Is this a joke? I got exactly 30 points- even with my STEM masters degree- and that's supposedly the lowest you're allowed to score to be able to apply? Unless you're rich, a genius, or an Olympic athlete, you wouldn't be able to immigrate to the United States, if Trump gets his way? Can someone please confirm whether or not this is satire? Over 90% of Americans wouldn't even score 30+. Find Out If President Trump Would Let You Immigrate to America
President Donald Trump announced his support last week for a new "merit-based" immigration bill that would screen visa applicants using a point system.
The Republican-backed proposal, which would significantly reduce the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to America, would weigh each person's age, education, English ability, job offer salary, investments and even whether the person has an Olympic medal. The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act, or RAISE Act, favors people between the ages of 26 and 30 with a doctorate, high English proficiency and a job offer with a high salary.
Applicants would need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for a visa under the proposal, and the fastest way to get there is to have received a Nobel Prize or comparable international award, which gives applicants a head start of 25 points. Applicants with the highest number of points would go to the front of the line to receive visas.
The bill, introduced by Republican Senators David Perdue and Tom Cotton, has failed to gain traction beyond the President's endorsement and is unlikely to pass Congress. But if Trump had his way and it became law, here's how you would fare if you were trying to immigrate to the U.S. under the restrictions:
Would You Qualify for Legal Immigration to the U.S.?
Answer the following questions to find out:
You need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for immmigration
How old are you?
Under 18 cannot apply
18-21 6 points
22-25 8 points
26-30 10 points
31-35 8 points
36-40 6 points
41-45 4 points
46-50 2 points
Over 50 0 points
What's your highest level of education?
Less than high school diploma 0 points
High school diploma or foreign equivalent 1 point
Foreign bachelor's 5 points
U.S. bachelor's 6 points
Foreign master's in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 7 points
U.S. master’s in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 8 points
Foreign professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 10 points
U.S. professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 13 points
What's your english ability?
Poor 0 points
Moderate 6 points
Good 10 ponts
Excellent 11 points
Fluent 12 points
Do you have a job offer?
No 0 points
Yes, with a salary less than $77,900 0 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $77,900 5 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $103,900 8 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $155,800 13 points
Do you have a Nobel Prize or major international award?
Yes 25 points
No 0 points
Have you won an Olympic medal in the past 8 years?
Yes 15 points
No 0 points
Do you plan on investing money in the U.S.?
No 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth less than $1.35 million for a new commercial enterprise 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth between $1.35 million and $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 6 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth at least $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 12 points
See my results
Methodology
For greater clarity, some answers are simplified from what appears in the bill. For example, the legislation proposes an English test, with points allotted based on the applicant's performance. We instead created categories ranking English ability. The question about job salaries took the bill's original language regarding "150% of median income" and calculated actual salaries based on the U.S. median household income of $51,939 in 2014. The full text of the bill can be found here. http://time.com/4887574/trump-raise-act-immigration/ i was born here, but i'm scraping by with 31 otherwise. this is stupid. basically unless you're in the top 0.1% of your field and have an award, or the top 0.01% economically (all those $$$ questions) you ain't getting in the US. No, you just need a good job offer. If you are kinda young, have a bachelors degree, speak english well enough, and have an 80k $ job offer or shitloads of money, you can immigrate. That is pretty strict, but not totally absurd. And if i recall KwarKs comments to that topic correctly, immigrating into the US is basically kinda like that anyways already, but also takes a few years of weird legal battles. I don't know how relevant this discussion is though, is this something that actually has a chance of being passed, or one of the large amounts of troll legislation pieces that basically get proposed to make headlines, but would never ever have a chance of becoming law? There seem to be a lot of those in the US.
It won't get passed, but it's still a ridiculous proposal by Trump. It shows that either he isn't taken the immigration problem seriously or he's just plain ignorant of our immigration problem (or both)... which would be consistent with other nonsensical ideas he's had in the past (e.g., "We're gonna build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it...).
But I also disagree that it's not "totally absurd", because it's pretty much the antithesis of the freedoms, welcomes, and Statue of Liberty poem that our country is supposed to be promoting. The education only counts if it's in the STEM fields. Most jobs pay wayyy under $80K per year. Speaking English excellently is subjective (not to mention most Americans don't exactly have perfect grammar or syntax). And there's a very strict sweet spot for age too. And besides all that, the explicit asking for athletic gods or genuises is a slap in the face to the 99.999% of people who are neither. Look at how many points those two questions offer; it's totally absurd.
|
On August 08 2017 23:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 22:31 Simberto wrote:On August 08 2017 22:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 08 2017 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:...Is this a joke? I got exactly 30 points- even with my STEM masters degree- and that's supposedly the lowest you're allowed to score to be able to apply? Unless you're rich, a genius, or an Olympic athlete, you wouldn't be able to immigrate to the United States, if Trump gets his way? Can someone please confirm whether or not this is satire? Over 90% of Americans wouldn't even score 30+. Find Out If President Trump Would Let You Immigrate to America
President Donald Trump announced his support last week for a new "merit-based" immigration bill that would screen visa applicants using a point system.
The Republican-backed proposal, which would significantly reduce the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to America, would weigh each person's age, education, English ability, job offer salary, investments and even whether the person has an Olympic medal. The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act, or RAISE Act, favors people between the ages of 26 and 30 with a doctorate, high English proficiency and a job offer with a high salary.
Applicants would need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for a visa under the proposal, and the fastest way to get there is to have received a Nobel Prize or comparable international award, which gives applicants a head start of 25 points. Applicants with the highest number of points would go to the front of the line to receive visas.
The bill, introduced by Republican Senators David Perdue and Tom Cotton, has failed to gain traction beyond the President's endorsement and is unlikely to pass Congress. But if Trump had his way and it became law, here's how you would fare if you were trying to immigrate to the U.S. under the restrictions:
Would You Qualify for Legal Immigration to the U.S.?
Answer the following questions to find out:
You need at least 30 points to be eligible to apply for immmigration
How old are you?
Under 18 cannot apply
18-21 6 points
22-25 8 points
26-30 10 points
31-35 8 points
36-40 6 points
41-45 4 points
46-50 2 points
Over 50 0 points
What's your highest level of education?
Less than high school diploma 0 points
High school diploma or foreign equivalent 1 point
Foreign bachelor's 5 points
U.S. bachelor's 6 points
Foreign master's in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 7 points
U.S. master’s in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 8 points
Foreign professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 10 points
U.S. professional degree or doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 13 points
What's your english ability?
Poor 0 points
Moderate 6 points
Good 10 ponts
Excellent 11 points
Fluent 12 points
Do you have a job offer?
No 0 points
Yes, with a salary less than $77,900 0 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $77,900 5 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $103,900 8 points
Yes, with a salary of at least $155,800 13 points
Do you have a Nobel Prize or major international award?
Yes 25 points
No 0 points
Have you won an Olympic medal in the past 8 years?
Yes 15 points
No 0 points
Do you plan on investing money in the U.S.?
No 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth less than $1.35 million for a new commercial enterprise 0 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth between $1.35 million and $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 6 points
Yes, with foreign currency worth at least $1.8 million for a new commercial enterprise 12 points
See my results
Methodology
For greater clarity, some answers are simplified from what appears in the bill. For example, the legislation proposes an English test, with points allotted based on the applicant's performance. We instead created categories ranking English ability. The question about job salaries took the bill's original language regarding "150% of median income" and calculated actual salaries based on the U.S. median household income of $51,939 in 2014. The full text of the bill can be found here. http://time.com/4887574/trump-raise-act-immigration/ i was born here, but i'm scraping by with 31 otherwise. this is stupid. basically unless you're in the top 0.1% of your field and have an award, or the top 0.01% economically (all those $$$ questions) you ain't getting in the US. No, you just need a good job offer. If you are kinda young, have a bachelors degree, speak english well enough, and have an 80k $ job offer or shitloads of money, you can immigrate. That is pretty strict, but not totally absurd. And if i recall KwarKs comments to that topic correctly, immigrating into the US is basically kinda like that anyways already, but also takes a few years of weird legal battles. I don't know how relevant this discussion is though, is this something that actually has a chance of being passed, or one of the large amounts of troll legislation pieces that basically get proposed to make headlines, but would never ever have a chance of becoming law? There seem to be a lot of those in the US. It won't get passed, but it's still a ridiculous proposal by Trump. It shows that either he isn't taken the immigration problem seriously or he's just plain ignorant of our immigration problem (or both)... which would be consistent with other nonsensical ideas he's had in the past (e.g., "We're gonna build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it...). But I also disagree that it's not "totally absurd", because it's pretty much the antithesis of the freedoms, welcomes, and Statue of Liberty poem that our country is supposed to be promoting. The education only counts if it's in the STEM fields. Most jobs pay wayyy under $80K per year. Speaking English excellently is subjective (not to mention most Americans don't exactly have perfect grammar or syntax). And there's a very strict sweet spot for age too. And besides all that, the explicit asking for athletic gods or genuises is a slap in the face to the 99.999% of people who are neither. Look at how many points those two questions offer; it's totally absurd.
I don't think that is exactly absurd. If a guy with a noble price wants to immigrate into your country, you take him, and make the procedure as easy as possible for him. You probably also give him a lab if he wants one. Anything else would be silly. Codifying that into law is not bad per se.
I agree that in that bill are not the same values as on the statue of liberty, but than the US does not exactly want to adhere to those values anymore anyways. It is clearly a nationalistic policy that intends to get the best into the country, while ignoring any other concerns.
|
I am not convinced that the US wants to change its immigration policy away its historical role of welcoming immigrants who want to find a better life. There is a group in the US that thinks it would be better for the US to take people based on merit, but they are not this clear majority. The discussion is more nuanced than that.
|
United States41985 Posts
The proposed system is pretty silly, if only because it makes the mistake of assuming that money and fluency in English aren't pretty much already required for legal immigration. #beenwithoutareplacementgreencardforsevenmonthsandcountingrightnow #howisUSCISthisfuckingslow #seriouslytheUSimmigrationsystemdoesn'twork
|
Where the Google guy loses me is where he makes the leap from "look at these evidence based gender differences" to "this naturally means there would be less women in tech and leadership". For example when he says having a stronger interest in people rather than things, being gregarious rather than assertive, and preferring social jobs "leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading". Okay, why? He doesn't explain why, yet it's central to his argument. This leads me to believe that he can't demonstrate a strong connection between that conclusion and its reasoning, yet he wants to advance this argument that bears directly on his ability to work with female colleagues, assess job applicants etc. And that's the key point that justifies firing - he's biased against women in tech and leadership, but he works in those roles.
|
On August 08 2017 23:37 KwarK wrote:
The proposed system is pretty silly, if only because it makes the mistake of assuming that money and fluency in English aren't pretty much already required for legal immigration. #beenwithoutareplacementgreencardforsevenmonthsandcountingrightnow #howisUSCISthisfuckingslow #seriouslytheUSimmigrationsystemdoesn'twork
I assume the system would also replace the green card lottery which Trump probably hates, because who knows whether the lottery winners are going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.
|
Keep in mind that this while this bill floats around aimlessly, Trump's hotel group is continuously applying for foreign laborer visas in order to staff his facilities instead of utilizing local labor. That's right, Mar-A-Lago is attempting to ship in servers, cooks, and hostesses instead of hiring locals.
Anyone who claims to support Trump on the grounds of his stance towards immigration is operating under a delusion.
|
On August 08 2017 23:42 Doodsmack wrote:
Where the Google guy loses me is where he makes the leap from "look at these evidence based gender differences" to "this naturally means there would be less women in tech and leadership". For example when he says having a stronger interest in people rather than things, being gregarious rather than assertive, and preferring social jobs "leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading". Okay, why? He doesn't explain why, yet it's central to his argument. This leads me to believe that he can't demonstrate a strong connection between that conclusion and its reasoning, yet he wants to advance this argument that bears directly on his ability to work with female colleagues, assess job applicants etc. And that's the key point that justifies firing - he's biased against women in tech and leadership, but he works in those roles.
It is one of those things that sounds fine if you are having a discussion about it, taking in information in support or against what you are asserting. That venue is totally fine and can lead to better understanding. But that isn’t the venue he decided to bring this in. The entire thing comes off as prescriptive, rather than a discussion. That this is his mission statement and it must be defeated. I understand why Google didn’t feel he keeping him a round would be productive , on top of him violating the company’s code of conduct against promoting gender stereotypes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
