Deficit Hawks Support Immigration Bill

[Bonestorm]

Because why wouldn't they. It will cut deficits by $200 billion over the next decade:

The immigration bill under consideration in the Senate would reduce federal deficits by nearly $200 billion over the next decade, and continue generating savings in the years beyond, even after millions of new citizens became eligible for health-care and welfare benefits, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday.

The long-awaited report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office marked a major victory for the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators who have spent months negotiating the details of the measure. Although some conservatives say the bill would cost the nation billions of dollars, CBO analysts concluded the opposite, undercutting a potentially powerful argument against the measure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...bedd08-d855-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Because why wouldn't they. It will cut deficits by $200 billion over the next decade
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...bedd08-d855-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html

I would tend to agree with that assessment. As illegals they tap into the system and end up costing us more in the long run. The majority simply want to work hard and provide for their families. By getting them into the system legally, allowing them to work, pay taxes etc... not only would they be paying into the system, but they would also stop draining it via emergency services and other more costly measures. Yes, their inclusion will bump up use of SS, medicaid etc... but I think in the long run this will be a net benefit.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I would tend to agree with that assessment. As illegals they tap into the system and end up costing us more in the long run. The majority simply want to work hard and provide for their families. By getting them into the system legally, allowing them to work, pay taxes etc... not only would they be paying into the system, but they would also stop draining it via emergency services and other more costly measures. Yes, their inclusion will bump up use of SS, medicaid etc... but I think in the long run this will be a net benefit.

As long as it's a process though and not an easy one. My wife and I made a lot of sacrifices in her immigration to citizen process doing it legally. I do understand why conservatives view a blanket amnesty as a smack at the rule of law. Having said that, we simply cannot from a humanitarian standpoint ignore the cold hard fact of over 10 million people living illegally in this nation and the costs it represents. We need to reform our immigration system to bring these people out of the shadows and productively integrate them into our society.....but at a price they will have to pay.

I'm also concerned about changing the focus on immigration away from prioritizing families and towards people with highly sought out skills. I oppose that. It's not like the two concerns are mutually exclusive. We can prioritize both. I'm not willing to sacrifice prioritizing immigration priorities for family members over the needs of corporate America and it doesn't need to be that way. We can give both groups priority.

 

[cawacko]

As long as it's a process though and not an easy one. My wife and I made a lot of sacrifices in her immigration to citizen process doing it legally. I do understand why conservatives view a blanket amnesty as a smack at the rule of law. Having said that, we simply cannot from a humanitarian standpoint ignore the cold hard fact of over 10 million people living illegally in this nation and the costs it represents. We need to reform our immigration system to bring these people out of the shadows and productively integrate them into our society.....but at a price they will have to pay.

I'm also concerned about changing the focus on immigration away from prioritizing families and towards people with highly sought out skills. I oppose that. It's not like the two concerns are mutually exclusive. We can prioritize both. I'm not willing to sacrifice prioritizing immigration priorities for family members over the needs of corporate America and it doesn't need to be that way. We can give both groups priority.

I believe you are talking about the H1-B visas but I could be wrong. If you are the argument I hear is these workers compete with American workers and drive down wages. To me, what's the point of having these bright young kids study and learn at our top universities and then tell them they need to leave the country? Why not have them use their expertise and entrepreneurial drive here in the U.S. rather than countries overseas? If they start up a company in their country we'll be competing with them anyway. Why not have them create those companies here?

We can't hide from competition so why not have it here in America working for us as oppose to working somewhere else?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I believe you are talking about the H1-B visas but I could be wrong. If you are the argument I hear is these workers compete with American workers and drive down wages. To me, what's the point of having these bright young kids study and learn at our top universities and then tell them they need to leave the country? Why not have them use their expertise and entrepreneurial drive here in the U.S. rather than countries overseas? If they start up a company in their country we'll be competing with them anyway. Why not have them create those companies here?

We can't hide from competition so why not have it here in America working for us as oppose to working somewhere else?

Yes I am refering to H1-B visas and no that is not my argument.

I have no problem with competition. Trust me, if you have a science degree and some experience....which I do....competition is not something you have to worry to much about as demand is well in excess of supply. Though I do have concerns that US Corporations don't want utilize foreign science and technical talent. I fear that US Corporations want to utilize foreign science and technical talent for $25,000/year. All to often when I hear spokes persons for companies complaining about the lack of talent what they really mean is the lack of people willing to work for them at their low end price point. I know quite a few engineers and technologist who have sucessfully gone into private practice because too many companies don't want to pay them market value for their services. They want to pay them significantly less than market value.

My argument is that H1-B visa applicants should not recieve visa priority over the foreign family members of US citizens. My argument is that neither priority is mutually exclusive and that you can prioritize both types of visas. This doesn't have to be an "either/or" argument.

If you want to make it an "either/or" argument then I would argue that foreign family members of US Citizens should recieve priority over H1-B visa applicants based on the fact that family is more important than the needs of corporations or businesses.

 

[tekkychick]

But I'd agree, it doesn't need to be an either/or argument; families AND workers can both be taken care of.

But does it still exclude same sex partners under the definition of family? That part sucks.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

But I'd agree, it doesn't need to be an either/or argument; families AND workers can both be taken care of.

But does it still exclude same sex partners under the definition of family? That part sucks.

LOL I'm not touching that one with a 10 foot pole!

That would also fall under K1/K2 visa and not H1-B.