I'm certainly not complaining, but I find it hard to believe that shooting a handful of missiles at some storage buildings with zero casualties was a satisfying resolution for Iran.

Iraq is trying to kick out the U.S. That's a big win for Iran. What more could they get with more attacks?

Yes, the military is good at blowing up buildings and weddings or whatever. I'm not denying they have incredible equipment and training. War goes far beyond blowing up whatever you want. Results matter and those results have sucked.

I also don't know how you can say the COMMANDER IN CHIEF and SECRETARY OF DEFENSE shouldn't count as part of the military. They are literally the people who make the decisions for the military. They are the leaders.

Probably wasn't but I'm sure they don't want a direct escalation either.

Still kind of surprised how weak their response was. Figured they'd do something bigger with a proxy for plausible deniability.

If we managed to avoid this escalating (which it looks like so far), then I'm happy.

Internal fervor, I guess? I won't claim to know the slightest intricacies of what goes on in Iran but I read several articles suggesting that a nice big foreign Boogeyman would serve to distract their own populace from recent grumblings.

Such a tepid response and immediate capitulation doesn't seem like it would be very effective in that regard.

So I'm lost with this plane crash. Are we to believe that a plane crash in Tehran just randomly happens within hours of this military escalation? Very odd story...

They are politicians. They make.grand sweeping general decisions, which the military must break down into a systematic string of decisions and actions to then execute, as is their duty. That doesn't mean the military is a mess.

And as decision makers, those non-military politicians have been inarguably terrible.

They are not part of the military, any more than you are part of the hammer just because you're swinging it.

Pilotman, you do understand that most Americans paint in crayon, especially when it comes to anything outside of the US, right? The simplest story here is that Iran killed a contractor, and we killed the number 2 man in their government. That will be defined as a win. To try to explain it further takes more words than people will listen to. This is why they win.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I am surprised this has turned out the way it has.

I am surprised shot missiles with the intent to not hurt anyone.

I am surprised Trump is using some sense here.

This is the last thing I expected when the news started coming in last night that they were launching missiles at US assets.

+1

Agree with Pilotman on the big picture, absolutely, but in the immediate term, this is absolutely the best we can hope for.

Jim Bakker is a thing again?

I never believed this would ever amount to anything of any significance. After Iraq, it always seemed like the next big battle would be a proxy war between the Saudis and Iran in the region. Perhaps we're still doing their dirty work, which after 9/11 still strikes me as incredible or they aren't as big a player in the ME as they want you to believe.

smoke, fire, sounding like you were right...

Also, this:

BREAKING: @thejointstaff Chairman Milley and Defense Secretary @EsperDoD just briefed us again - new: They believe #Iran was targeting US lives at the #alasad base, not intending to miss . Early warning saved those lives, they said (more)

— Tara Copp (@TaraCopp) January 8, 2020

Remember what we said about the AA crash in JFK after 9/11?

That ended up being totally unrelated.

Plus, those things are reported with every crash, whether or not they are accurate.

That means there is hope for the domestic terrorist that executed those people during the Hanukkah celebrations?

Agree and disagree, no doubt it could be complete coincidence. However your AA example was like months later right? This happened the same night in the same area. Had a third plane crashed into a building on 9-11 accidentally I would more agree with your point.

Isn't the plane that crashed incredibly safe? Was interested to hear your thoughts. There were a lot of commercial planes flying in the area at the time so I don't know what would have singled that one out.

Tehran is also far from the action and I would have to imagine they would have picked it up on the radar entering the country far earlier. Just seems like a weird mistake.

Here's the thing. In a combat area passenger planes getting shot down isn't a new thing either. The US, Russians, and now it looks like the Iranians might have. Yes, the plane is very safe, but accidents happen. A crash on takeoff is one thing, the Malaysian plane that the Russians shot down was at cruise. That's way more suspect. Al Queda in Iraq tried to shoot down a DHL 767 and the engine contained the entire blast. These engines are smaller than those, and may not have been able to handle the blast as well either.



The whole thing seems rare to me. A commercial airport, with lots of planes taking off regularly, and someone decides to turn on radar and fire a couple SAM's at it? There's a number of very deliberate steps there. That's not just a oops we thought we were doing this one thing, and then we did this other, kind of mistake. We do know that planes crash. We know they have major issues, and takeoff and landing are the most critical phases of flight where bad things happen. So an accident at takeoff wouldn't be unheard of.



Of course, now we have multiple reports, from multiple agencies, and countries agreeing that this was a shoot down, so that looks more likely. But even then, the knee jerk jump to it, seemed quick at the time, without further corroboration.

NY Times has a video supposedly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/v...e-missile.html

First part: I don't agree, I'd say the opposite from listening to him and more importantly so do a lot of people who are lot smarter than me and more knowledgeable in the related scientific fields. The whole 'Daddy's money' thing implies he inherited a stack of money. It was $28,000. He was able to raise investment capital for the rest and four years later his share of Zip2 being sold was 22 million. He then multiplied his money again with X.com.

Elon does make broad irresponsible pronouncements and I certainly don't defend those, but on the other hand nobody called him a 'savior' here, least of all me so that's some ridiculous goalpost-shifting. SpaceX actually relies almost mostly on private funding not government subsidies from everything I can find so I'd be interested in your source on that, but he's done also some demonstrably working things. StarLink is underway and is proven technology. The Tesla 3 is by far the biggest-selling EV, playing a major role is getting us less dependent on oil and also appears to be on track to make Tesla profitable. SpaceX has done a number of needed things faster than any other company, etc. These are not hypotheticals or falsehoods, they are real-world results.

He's the next Bezos/Gates/Branson imo. Tesla might not be making money, but the car and the company are next level future of auto's type stuff. Amazon was skewered for years, until it wasn't. I continue to invest in the company.

NASA gave SpaceX half a billion to launch their business. They have received billions in government contracts. It's so important that they are actually suing the US government for not choosing them for a contract. They would not be a business if it wasn't for the government.

As for Tesla, let's take a look at their profitable quarter back in 2018. They made $312 million. That was made possible by $52 million in ZEV credits, $137 million in non-ZEV credits, and $512 million in FIT subsidies. That's just the US. THey also get them overseas (some countries provide even more than the US).

I'm not even touching on the $1.3 billion they are getting from the state of Nevada for their battery plant.

Anyway, a few clips of this really smart guy who is not just a rich guy pretending to be Iron Man for a bunch of sycophants.

I've been impressed by Musk as well. Sure Tesla and SpaceX aren't profitable yet, but he's pushing technology in ways that it simply hasn't been. Tesla shoved the electric car market forward in real ways. And SpaceX is doing things that NASA simply isn't that interested in anymore.

Tesla pushed electric cars to the forefront. But they aren't doing anything that special anymore. More and more competition popping up each year that have the same features.

If they couldn't be profitable when they owned the EV market, why do people think they will be with a bunch of other companies in the fray?

Why do you think it's all about profitability here? Pushing (shoving really) a technology out in front is a great legacy. Besides, if the ball rolling gets electric cars as the standard (as opposed to internal combustion), then maybe Tesla becomes profitable at that point. As Pilotman pointed out, how long did it take for Amazon to make a profit?

Not to mention SpaceX's Starlink. These are big ideas that are being pushed forward. Sure, things like Hyperloop didn't get built, but we need CEOs willing to push things forward.

He didn't create the electric car. And if it wasn't for the massive subsidies involved in it, they would continue to be an afterthought in the market.

Satellite internet constellations are nothing new either. And there is going to be a ton of competition in the coming years. Believe Amazon is investing heavily.

And Steve Jobs didn't create the smartphone either...

Evangelical leaders who lay their loyalty and faith on the altar of @realDonaldTrump are betraying their congregants and their country. https://t.co/2n34Y2ftxH

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) January 9, 2020

Rick Wilson can surely make good TV

He also believed fruit would cure his cancer.

My initial comment was in regards to someone saying that we just needed to wait on Elon to solve the energy crisis. Being a good marketer or investor doesn't mean you're the guy we should be banking on to save our terrible foreign policy.

I was that guy and let's not exaggerate. You'll see when I mentioned "go Elon" its was "go Elon and like".

I'm glad that majority of folks so far agree with my sentiment that Elon (jerk as he is) is making a real difference here.

Let's hope he is making a difference. Our taxes are paying for it.

I work in implementing software and systems. One of the software I work with was first in the cloud arena back in late 00's, went public in 2012'ish and is still not profitable. The industry is maturing but many smart money is still on this company.

Why? They were effectively first in, they have the creds, clients know them and know the other companies are playing catchup (e.g. the others may have a product but not the full functionality, quality etc.), and they have faith this company will innovate and do greater things.

Yes, this company can still fail, get gobbled up etc. and judging a CEO by the company's profitability is valid, but you have to give some leeway when its still effectively in a maturing industry.

Tesla's market success is clearly built on the real perception of (valid or not) Elon's vision, marketing ability, business acumen etc. Call him many things, even call him a moron in his personal life, but a moron in business he is not.

All be worth it when you think long-term and Elon-and-like greatly reduces our dependency on ME oil.

I googled on this and after 3 pages, didn't see anything. Do you have a link, would like to read more and context.

When he was initially diagnosed, he delayed surgery for 9 months so he could do acupuncture and juicing to cure it. It's in his biography.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegw.../#5a8093417d2e

Okay, I thought you were referring to Elon and was googling on "elon cancer"

So if the Iranians did indeed shoot down that aircraft, does Trump have to respond? If so then how?

Seems like Canada would be the one to respond more than us?

Let's not forget the Ukrainians also.

Hmmm ... but it was Ukraine that shot down the Malaysian airliner? (Or was it Russians in Ukraine?)

It was absolutely the Russians.

Trump's rally tonight caused me to spend an extra 30 minutes in traffic. Thanks a lot jack-ass

It was "Russian partisans who were totally working on their own and not at all affiliated with or taking marching orders from the Kremlin nope nope just overzealous Russian patriots."

(It had the backing of the Kremlin.)

If people are only looking at what Tesla is doing in the US, they are completely missing out on what's going on with the company in China. China may steal the company, the tech, whatever, but if he's successful in building an empire there, the company is likely undervalued.

I represent more troops than any other member of this body. I buried one of them earlier today at Arlington.

If our servicemembers have the courage to fight and die in these wars, Congress ought to have the courage to vote for or against them.

I’m voting for this resolution. pic.twitter.com/cSCBG7CmIm

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) January 9, 2020

There's probably going to be no other time when I say Matt Gaetz is right.

I can’t remember where I read this, but I saw one article that said his strategy was to create and develop the electric car market to a point where it is attractive encourage for more to enter it

The more players that come in the better for him, as he has cornered the battery production that everybody will need

If that is the case it is a mark in the credit column for his intelligence

Confirmed: American businesses and consumers are paying 'approximately 100%' of Trump tariff costs

I am wondering if those in favor of this trade war are now fine with us tax payers meaning not the top 1% paying for it?

Do you honestly think anyones mind will be changed? Trumpers will scream it is fake news and their orange god will tell them we are getting rich off them. The rest of us already know the American consumer eats the cost.

Is this a shock? That's how tariffs generally work. The premise behind them is that there is a local manufacturer that can compete more effectively behind the tariff. With as much manufacturing as we off shored, in many industries there was no one to fill the void.

Yes. I think one has to weigh the pros and cons. Obviously there are a lot of cons but it's worth it if we are able to stop/reduce/delay/mitigate China overtaking the US in technology and ultimately superceding the US as the dominant economic and technological power.

I'm not convinced that Trump really has this in mind as his long-term goal nor this "war" alone will achieve that goal (e.g. it needs to be a concerted long term play with other administrations). But doing something about IPs and encouraging manufacturing away from China into other low cost countries is a good start.

At this point it's pretty likely that China will overtake the US in technology. Besides "borrowing" technology from the US look at the number of STEM graduates China is producing compared to the US.

Unfortunately I think it's more of a question of when than if.

Article from South China Morning Post on the impact of the trade war to China. Take it for what its worth.

Ultimately saying that manufacturers are continuing to leave China and moving to other areas like Vietnam, Thailand etc.

I have to do more googling but it would seem that we should encourage more manufacturing to move to India and that region vs SE Asia. I don't see "made in India" tags and wonder if there is an opportunity there to help beef up India and strengthen that relationship. Probably because of infrastructure and availability of skills needed ...

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-e...e-2020-despite

China has surpassed US in some technology areas and adoption already. They are leading in 5G. They are not yet leading on AI. I do think we can significantly reduce their progress with some measures (admittedly going to be very controversial, not saying it'll be easy) and don't think all is lost.

Some examples, I'm sure there are many more:

1) Reform immigration. Assuming security concerns can be taken care of, let all the highly educated immigrate easily to the US, this includes Chinese, Indians, Israelis etc. whoever. Yes, get rid of dual citizenship.

2) Reduce or don't allow Chinese to study in our higher education institutions. Maybe undergraduate but focus on PhDs.

Immigration reform & education are probably the biggest bang for the buck for immediate results.

Other stuff:

3) Partner and strengthen relationships with countries that lean US and lean away from China e.g. India, majority of SEA. Give them incentives to continue working with US and away from China

4) Reduce incentives of US firms to work with China (may need to be a law). Yeah, the almighty buck is a strong incentive to do business with China but put in incentives and restrictions

5) There is a China bubble somewhere and we should try to and/or hope it bursts. In the 80's it was all about Japan Inc. buying up US properties. Then it popped and the lost decade because lost 2 decades and we don't worry about Japan as much anymore.

Is this protectionist? Yes, specifically to one country. Will prices increase? Yes in short term but it will stabilize some as manufacturing move to other places and new markets are opened to US businesses.

Just curious why people that have higher education should have an easier path to citizenship than an equally qualified immigrant that was not able to complete a college degree? The work force needs unskilled labor too and why not focus on improving educational opportunities for those already here? And if I was told I had to relinquish my British citizenship I would tell the government to kiss my Limey ass.

People with higher education (e.g. PhD) should have an easier path because I believe it is a semi-zero sum game. "Brain drain" allows the US to get a country's best and brightest, it helps the US and hurts the other country. I'm all for the brightest talent coming over especially from China but honestly from anywhere.

For unskilled labor, I've got multiple posts on holistic immigration reform which includes more guest workers. Devil is in the details of this but conceptually I agree we need more "legally" (e.g. south of the border).

Is this racist? No. Is it discriminatory? Yes.

On dual citizenship, I've got prior posts on this also. I immigrated and I took the oath. I personally feel if you take the oath to be naturalized and reaping the great benefits of this country, having a dual citizenship is incongruent to the oath and shouldn't be allowed (obviously the US government thinks otherwise). It says:

Quote:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Yes, JPhillips has said China doesn't allow you to renounce their citizenship when you become US naturalized, but I think there is plenty we can do to enforce it if we choose to (e.g. let's cut up your passport, do not allow you to get a new Chinese passport etc.)

Also, I understand it goes both ways. US citizens naturalized in some other countries can hold dual citizenships. US citizens obviously benefit from being able to straddle dual citizenships and get the benefits (e.g. work in the other country). Nevertheless, it personally seems wrong to me.

Best way to compete with China is to educate our own expel more with science, math and technology funding in the school systems. The main reason I regularly as an executive in cyber security have to pursue overseas applicants or outsource some roles or functions is there just aren’t enough (any) qualified US candidates. The ones that are qualified here in the US are mostly Indian and Chinese along with some from EU.

More fodder for the Tesla/Elon Musk discussion.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/inves...lue/index.html

It doesn't seem that we can fill all the needs organically/homegrown talent for whatever reason (e.g. lack of interest, demand for technology skills far outpaces supply etc.).

Would you want to give these specialized skills from India, China, EU etc. more quota slots, fast pass to naturalization or you think it should be organic growth? They may not be PhD's, and I know specialized skills are already given a preference but seems we can expand it significantly (... and also help remediate some SS and entitlement challenges).

Legal immigration is down 43% from 2016 and foreign grad schools students are down as well. This admin isn't interested in getting more educated immigrants, it wants to eliminate non-European immigration, or at least get as close to elimination as possible.

This. In the end, Trump people only believe what the Great Leader tells them.



This plays into my fear of what is going to happen in this election. Following mass and unprecedented voter suppression throughout the country, Trump wins, and gains in the senate along with retaking the House. Once that happens, all safe-guards are gone, and Trump takes over the entire government. Who are what is going to stop him? Definitely not congress. A judicial system stuffed to the rim with Trumpist?

Not saying they are thinking this in depth, one way to get more people coming out of schools for a particular job is to drive up the wage those jobs earn. If you can't get off shore talent, demand builds up and either employers will train or push schools to educate people to fill the role.

I think a major problem is that high schools and businesses do a lousy job advertising what jobs are out there to high school students. The last job fair I am familiar with where I am that was put on for students was 5 years ago. My kids loved it, but a lot of the jobs were basic service type. With the companies around here, it would have been great to have GE Aviation, Lockheed Martin, or someone like that talking to the kids about designing/building jet engines, etc.

Instead it was, insurance, real estate, sales, etc. As a result, neither of my kids have a clue of any jobs beyond what they see. I've pushed and pushed, but there is only so much you can do if the kid is being stubborn. My oldest wants to be a teacher so he can coach high school soccer, while my youngest wants to be a pharmacist. That job fits him. The older one is not cut out for teaching.

Not going to deny that Miller has racist motives. Transforming to merit-based and decreasing family-based immigration is a pretty good idea to me.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national...gal-immigrants

Exactly. Make the cost to attend college much more affordable. Eliminate legacy admissions. Make it an actual merit-based like these other countries.

That'll never happen but it is such a simple solution.

Graduates in science, technology, engineering and maths in 2016. (millions)

China: 4.7
India: 2.6
US: 0.56
Russia: 0.56
Iran: 0.33

(WEF) pic.twitter.com/X6Eun1rpJ9

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) January 9, 2020

That's not what they're doing. They banned immigration from many countries that do better than the average American.

Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Syria immigrants all prosper much more than Americans in the education system. They beat the national average in both bachelor's degrees and advanced degrees (Libya and Iran over double it).

So if this was truly a "merit-based" system, you'd be pursuing immigrants from these countries. Not banning them.

Not sure that policy based on racist motives is ever a good idea but that is just me.

That's not what merit-based immigration is.

Points-based immigration system - Wikipedia

The concept of merit based immigration itself is not based on racist motives (or at least not the ADL definition of racism). Ask Canada, UK, Australia.

There is no merit based immigration for the Muslim countries listed in the ban. A ban which looks to be expanding to even more countries.

President Donald Trump Preparing To Expand Travel Ban, Which Currently Bans Muslim Immigration

The concept of merit based immigration in and of itself is not based on racist motives.But as YOU said, Stephen Miller has racist motives for pushing the policy. IMO that means his racist motives are at the very least part of the foundation of THIS specific policy.

Let's take another extreme example. Let's say Louis Farrakhan was coming up with the merit based immigration policy. We would all agree that his anti Semitic motives would not be a good basis for the policy, no? Or are you saying we should trust that Miller's or Farrakhan's motives won't come into play at all when it comes to coming up with the policy?

It's actually led by Kushner. Does that help alleviate the concern that this is a racist policy?

Donald Trump, Jared Kushner immigration proposal ignores Dreamers

I don't see how this relates to our current topic about merit-based vs family-based immigration and whether it is racist or not?

Here's more info on the plan/proposal:

“Merit-Based� Immigration: Trump Proposal Would Dramatically Revamp Immigrant Selection Criteria, But with Modest Effects on Numbers | migrationpolicy.org
These seem reasonable to me except for maybe "earning higher wages" (whatever that means).

I don't know the optimal mix but suggest only 12% on employment based is too low and we should move to higher.


This proposal was "dead on arrival" because it did not offer a DACA solution. I didn't see anything on guest workers either. I think it has a good foundation to work from and hopefully something will be done after 2020 elections.

It could be organic homegrown if more kids at all economic levels got the proper education early like in these other countries. In the end, the roles I am speaking about are $100-$150k salary jobs that the people from other countries have a technology BS degree and many have a Masters and some with PhDs too.

Are Kushner's motives aligned with Miller's?

I honestly don't know. Miller's views on immigration have been out there for all to see and judge. Kushner could have the completely opposite viewpoint. I don't know. I do know the administration has made it perfectly clear what they feel the proper immigrant looks like. And yes, they have articulated a preferred race of those immigrants. I don't know if that is because they believe that one is "superior" to others or they just rather see one race for aesthetic reasons. I honestly don't care. Based on that, I am not sure why I would expect any immigration proposal that comes from this administration not to reflect the views that they have expressed whether it is led by Kushner, Miller or anyone else.

I googled "Kushner racist". In 3 pages, I found

-- Accusations he is a slum lord
-- Accused of being a racist because of his proposed Palestinian-Israeli peace proposal
-- Defending his FIL against accusations of racism (e.g. birther stuff)

So no, I think we give him the benefit of doubt unless there's reported systemic pattern of ADL defined racism.


I see Racism different from Bigotry/Prejudice & Discrimination.

I say I care whether "they believe one is superior to others" because that is racist and I would have to find some very strong justification to knowingly support it (and I can't think of one but never say never). And racism is specific to race and not religion (arguably, being Jewish is a generally accepted exception).

However, if a policy is prejudicial or discriminates, I would ask if it makes sense or if there is some context, and I could see myself supporting or agreeing to it.

The merit-base immigration proposal is not racist but definitely discriminates.

(I would add that the report that I linked to on Kushner's merit based immigration proposal said that Chinese and Indians will most likely benefit because they are more likely to have those "merits")

I'm a little surprised that the Iranians are owning up to shooting down the airliner.

I'm guessing they knew continued denial when/if the wreckage was examined would be futile. Investigators would come to that conclusion quickly.

I do wonder if they knew about this mistake that night and that is what muted their response some.

Okay, let's put this to bed and move on. The House did their job and the Senate will not confirm. At this stage its up to the public to really decide in Nov 2020.

Pelosi ends standoff with Senate Republicans over impeachment articles - POLITICO

You keep making this distinction and I don't understand why. Since the ADL is the definition of record here, I will ask my previous question in this way.

If the basis of a policy stems from the author's "belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics." or it results in "Prejudice and/or discrimination against people based on the social construction of race." in a way that "differences in physical characteristics (e.g. skin color, hair texture, eye shape) are used to support a system of inequities.", why would you support said policy under any context if you are against racism?

A merit based program is not inherently racist. It could be if it is based on "the belief that another person is less than human — because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person." Much of the talk and actions that have come from this administration regarding immigrants from say Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean stands in stark contrast when compare with the talk/actions with immigrants from say Norway, Given that I don't expect anyone to stand at a podium on national TV and explicit state a hatred of a particular race. I think it is fair to question what a merit based system would be based on that talk and those actions.

What is Racism? | ADL

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/fi...tion-terms.pdf

Yes, the ADL definition is the one I am going by. I believe others on this board have a much broader definition of what racism is so its good to level-set between us.


Both quotes are ADL definition of racism.

The ADL definition of discrimination and prejudice are:

Quote:

DISCRIMINATION: The denial of justice and fair treatment by both individuals and institutions in many arenas, including employment, education, housing, banking and political rights. Discrimination is an action that can follow prejudicial thinking.

Quote:

PREJUDICE: Prejudging or making a decision about a person or group of people without sufficient knowledge. Prejudicial thinking is frequently based on stereotypes.

Race could be a factor in examples of discrimination & prejudice but I see both as being much broader e.g. it includes a bunch of other things beside just race.

Hence, I cannot see justification for racism (discrimination & prejudice based on race or belief that my race is superior) but I can see several rationale for discrimination & prejudice other than race e.g. country of origin, religion etc. When I say rationale in this context, I means its understandable and I'm personally neutral/okay with it/not okay with it


I agree a merit based program is not inherently racist. And I see no evidence Kushner's plan is based on "belief that another person ... etc."


I don't disagree that Trump/Miller has said many racist things. I also believe that they have said many things that are prejudicial and discriminatory outside of race.

The link I provided on the details of the merit based program says that Chinese and Indians immigrants would benefit most because they have the "merits" to check off.

I assume Kushner knows this. If this is so, is this really a racist policy? Or is it discriminatory towards the better educated, more wealth?

So you are saying that they are racist and ...? Um, okay? But we are discussing whether it could be racist or not. I will others to discuss whether it could be prejudice or discriminatory in other ways. .

I linked the ADL's page titled What is Racism on purpose as it does provide the ADL's context to the singular definition.


If we are going to use the ADL as the authority, it would be best to use in the context they intended.


Again, I don't know. Is there already a preference for more Chinese and Indian immigrants as opposed to immigrants that are not of Chinese or Indian descent? Are we less likely to bring in better educated more wealthy people from backgrounds compared to those of Chinese and Indian backgrounds? Are we doing this with intent? Are we operating under the myth of the model minority?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, by ADL definition and context, the answer would be yes.

I'm not sure what you mean, what is "they are racist"?

I am saying those 2 quotes you presented are the ADL definitions of racism and they are the definition we should use. Not sure if that is what you mean.


I don't think so. The merit-based criteria doesn't talk about race. They are based on:

Quote:

In this selection system, applicants would be allotted points for: youth having a valuable skill having an offer of employment having an advanced degree planning to create jobs earning higher wages.

Haven't we played this game with Edward before?

But the authors of the article were able to infer based on that criteria and researching historical data, the race of people who would most benefit from it and the race of people who would be hurt the most by it. You have identified that the administration (in this case Kushner I guess) knows the former. I believe based on their words and actions that they are more concerned with the latter.

It's like you're looking at the one perfect facet of a terribly flawed gemstone. You have to look at immigration policy as a whole to understand the intentions, and when you do that, it's clear this admin wants to limit or eliminate immigration for non-European peoples.

Hezbollah provides healthcare for the poor in Lebanon, but that doesn't mean they aren't anti-Jew. Don't zoom in so far that you can't see what the picture is about.

I just want to know why nobody talks about other minority sects and groups (besides latin americans and refugees) within the US, who have been here for multiple generations, when they complain about not being able to integrate like real Americans.

Is Chinese a race, is India a race? The article refers to them as "national origins".

You say "race" and I say "country of origin" is more appropriate.

Specifically per your last sentence assuming Kushner "words and actions" shows he is a racist, I don't think that has been established.

Sorry, I don't see it. The article below states merit based will be more beneficial to Chinese and Indians ... in the context of national origin, not race.

“Merit-Based� Immigration: Trump Proposal Would Dramatically Revamp Immigrant Selection Criteria, But with Modest Effects on Numbers | migrationpolicy.org

The argument that Trump & Kushner wants to "limit or eliminate" non-white (or based on race) immigration is contradicted by above.

A better argument IMO is they want to "limit or eliminate" the number of less educated, less wealthy, non-immediate family members. I think this is valid.

At least on this board, there was a lot of discussions about immigrant integration. I believe everyone pretty much believed that 2nd generation immigrants (e.g. born in the US, their parents were 1st generation) assimilated pretty well into the US.

Where we differed was I said let's not waste quota slots on initial first generation immigrants if they did not show the willingness to assimilate (exceptions granted for some groups like older people). The hypothetical was a woman immigrant who insisted on wearing a burqa in the US. My "unpopular" view was give her visa slot to someone who really wanted to integrate.

What was the discussion point you were concerned about?

My point was not really directed at who should be coming in, but instead at the arguments that I hear regarding which groups that aren't integrating and how they aren't really worthy Americans, and how they don't really want to be Americans and that is why they shouldn't be let in.


Point being you have numerous groups and sects, some large, some small, who have been in this country for multiple generations, and who have no interest in 'integration' by that same definition. One could argue that because they have been here for so long, they are, they just keep to themselves, or their traditions, and that makes it ok, but really, it's because they are descendants from familiar places, and they don't really harm anyone, and just want to live their lives, whatever. It's one of the most hypocritical arguments there is.

That's exactly my point. You can't single out one aspect that may not be racist and say that the Trump immigration policy isn't racist. You have to look at all facets of it.

dola

Race doesn't exist and is a social construct designed to enforce superiority.

But , yes, historically, in the U.S., Chinese has been defined as a race and Indian has as well.

This comment was in response to the article I provided a link to. The article says Kushner's program will benefit the Chinese and Indians in the context of national origin, not race.

Therefore, is the program discriminatory based on country of origin? or racist based on skin color or like?

Quote:

If the Trump proposal were to become law, it could make significant changes to immigrant flows in some respects and minimal changes in others. Examined through the lens of national origins, the points system seems likely to favor Indian and Chinese immigrants, who dominate employment-based immigration channels even now. For these two immigrant groups, proposed cuts to arrivals through family-sponsored categories could potentially be offset by increases in those granted admission through the employment stream.

Here's ADL definition of race

1) What JPhillips said.

2) I went with the terminology that the ADL, the agreed upon authority, had on its racism webpage. This included place of birth.

3) I did not call Kushner a racist. I already said that I don't know if he is a racist or not. In fact, I left open the possibility that he has a completely opposite viewpoint. This is what I said


To clarify, I believe the administration is more concerned with making sure this part happens...


...then they are with making sure this part happens.

We have been talking about merit-based immigration proposal and saying that is or not racist. When I answered your question, I wasn't thinking beyond that.

.
Your quote from ADL is below. Is the merit based proposal based on "hatred of one person" or "belief that another person is less than human" because of "place of birth"?

If you don't use the criteria of "hatred" or "less than human" and only use the criteria of "place of birth" then the definition of racism is very broad (too broad IMO).

Quote:

It may be defined as the hatred of one person by another — or the belief that another person is less than human — because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person.

Okay.


That is the likely result of the merit based immigration proposal and I agree it is discriminatory vs racist.

This just brings us right back to the beginning of the conversation. If it is based on racist motives (your words, not mine), then yes it is a racist proposal IMO.

The administration (because the proposal comes from the administration not specifically Kushner) has said and done things that fit the ADL's view of racism including things that paint certain immigrants groups as less than human. I believe calling them "animals" fits the bill, no? Or are you going to argue that was just discriminatory as well?

Will there be "Insert Racial Group" allowed or "Insert Racial Group" not allowed signs at the immigration offices? No, there will not.

Is the administration going to explicitly say we do or don't want "Insert Racial Group" in the USA on their proposal? No, but that is me giving them the benefit of the doubt.

But if that is the only evidence of racism you are willing to accept when it comes to this immigration proposal, then your view of racism is more limited than the ADL definition you keep quoting and ignores the historical context of racism that the ADL provides

The likely results of the proposal:

-reduces the number of high skilled occupational slots available to natives (I thought we wanted to keep these jobs for native Americans?)

-"does not address the needs of lower-skilled ones (such as agriculture, health and elder care, and service-sector jobs)—areas where research has shown persistent and growing demand for workers that is unmet by the native-born population." (guess who are generally doing these jobs now?)

- just so happen to keep more of the groups the administration called "animals" out

I believe the last result is more important to this administration that the other two.

Articles I've read gives Kushner credit. I am sure Trump had input and veto over whatever Kushner came up with but unless there is evidence elsewhere, I think we should assume its Kusher's but influenced by Trump. My guess is if Trump was the main writer, it wouldn't read as reasonable, it would read "racist" to me. This is obviously open to debate.

Yes, it comes back to the main point. Was it based on racist motives (e.g. superior race, hatred) or more on what skills do we want to bring into the country. I think the latter.

I'm not sure I understand "only evidence of racism you are willing to accept when it comes to this immigration proposal"?

This discussion began when I said we should encourage more higher educated to immigrate. It then evolved into the merit-based immigration proposal. You and I then discussed whether specifically merit-based immigration proposal was racist vs discriminatory.

There are other aspects such as the Muslim ban or the Wall. And I'll be glad to discuss those with you, but I was just focused on this merit-based proposal.

Possibly, I think its arguable if it reduces the number of high skilled occupations slots available to natives. As Galariel stated, specifically for his technical area of security, there's not enough STEM supply to meet demand.

Re: the comment on keeping these jobs for native Americans. I'm going to assume you are saying that is what Trump says (vs Kushner). There's no way anyone can defend what Trump says because we all know he jumps around and there are contradictions & inconsistencies. We have to keep to what we know of Kushner's merit based immigration proposal.

Yes, I agree. One of my comments early in this discussion is below. The merit-based immigration proposal is not as holistic/comprehensive as I would have liked. With that said, anything is better than nothing re: attracting foreign talent IMO (my earlier post on China said I would love to do a brain drain from China to US).

Quote:

This proposal was "dead on arrival" because it did not offer a DACA solution. I didn't see anything on guest workers either. I think it has a good foundation to work from and hopefully something will be done after 2020 elections.

I googled on this and I believe you are referring to Trump saying undocumented immigrants are "animals". He has obviously said many other things and I can't defend his (or Miller's statements).

That in itself does not invalidate the worthiness of merit-based immigration (vs family based) as other countries do this also (e.g. Canada, UK and Australia as examples).


This is likely true. Trump is campaigning against illegal immigration and he knows that resonates with his base. However, you are comparing that with Kushner's "legal" immigration policy which is more merit-based vs family based.



So 2 questions to you

1) Do you believe Kushner's merit-base immigration policy and moving away from more family-base is racist per ADL definitions? I believe you have said you don't know but if you had to pick yes or no based on all the discussion we had and links presented, your best guess ... is it more racist or is it more discriminatory/prejudicial?

2) What immigration policies, not related to this merit-based discussion we are having, do you believe is racist?

Of the top of my head, I can think of 2 possibles. They are (1) Muslim ban (currently more travel than immigration I think but we can assume it extends to immigration) or (2) the illegal immigration south of the border. Is there anything else policy wise (vs one of Trump's flippant statements).

In general yes. Two differences:

1) MF is agreeing to the ADL definition of racism whereas in the prior conversation with others, we never got to an agreement on what racism is, so making progress and I personally feel this conversation is more productive

2) This discussion is using a real use-case scenario of merit-based immigration proposal by Kushner. This gives us some new content to discuss

I'm not complaining and there is some satisfaction in hearing the often used phrase turned on its creators, but TBH I'm surprised and don't really understand why the protests.

Sure people are upset but I would think Iranians would understand the context it was a mistake due to heightened tensions, we're sorry and responsible parties will be held accountable.

Or is this just good timing and a good excuse to continue to vent from prior months?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/11/middl...ane/index.html