Do you support the RAISE Act?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAISE_Act

[quote]
The RAISE (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment) Act is a bill introduced in the United States Senate in 2017. Co-sponsored by Republican senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue, the bill seeks to reduce levels of legal immigration to the United States by 50% by halving the number of green cards issued. The bill would also impose a cap of 50,000 refugee admissions a year and would end the visa diversity lottery. The bill received the support of President Donald Trump, who promoted a revised version of the bill in August 2017, but was opposed by Democrats, immigrant rights groups, and some Republicans.

[Santander]

I fully support greatly reducing family immigration, unsure about the refugee cap, and lean opposed to cancelling the diversity lottery, which I think is an interesting policy. I guess that makes me lean in favor on balance.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Overall, yes.

[Lechasseur]

Overall, yes.

[SATW]

No.

[Xing]

Not at all.

[Maxwell]

Nah.

[TheSaint250]

I already made a thread like this when it came out, but to answer it again, no.

[RINO Tom]

No.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Do I support the destruction of what makes America unique and prosperous? Nah.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I already made a thread like this when it came out, but to answer it again, no.

My apologies, I did a search but came up empty.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The refugee cap makes me strongly against this bill, but the other elements of it I'd be willing to consider.   

Also, it is very oddly named, isn't it? 

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Kill it with fire.

[Higgs]

Yes

[Bismarck]

Yes mostly. It isn't a perfect bill but our immigration system should prioritize immigrants who have skills and speak English. No one accuses Japan or Canada of malice when they are selective with their immigration laws.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes mostly. It isn't a perfect bill but our immigration system should prioritize immigrants who have skills and speak English. No one accuses Japan or Canada of malice when they are selective with their immigration laws.

No, but we are uniquely strong because of our heritage. I firmly believe that America can't afford to stoop to dog whistle positions on immigration - caused by subconscious racism and nativism.  That may be the path of 99 other nations, but if 999 men in a thousand was supportive of a border wall, I wouldn't say that makes such a belief more valid. Unanimous decisions, Bismarck, are almost always suspect.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Yes, I do. My opposition to mass immigration is one of my strongest political positions and one of the few where I agree with Trump supporters.

[RFayette]

Overall, yes.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

It's completely insane. Levels of legal immigration to the US are far from too high.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No

[Kingpoleon]

It's completely insane. Levels of legal immigration to the US are far from too high.

I mean, they're at better levels than most, if not all, of Europe.

[Bismarck]

Yes mostly. It isn't a perfect bill but our immigration system should prioritize immigrants who have skills and speak English. No one accuses Japan or Canada of malice when they are selective with their immigration laws.

No, but we are uniquely strong because of our heritage. I firmly believe that America can't afford to stoop to dog whistle positions on immigration - caused by subconscious racism and nativism.  That may be the path of 99 other nations, but if 999 men in a thousand was supportive of a border wall, I wouldn't say that makes such a belief more valid. Unanimous decisions, Bismarck, are almost always suspect.

I understand your point but I didn't mean to say that the USA should just go with what most countries are doing, but that setting restrictions on mass immigration is not inherently bad. We would still be a magnet for high skilled workers of all cultures, and these people would (at least on average) be more prepared to integrate into our society (and bringing their unique experiences and culture)  without problems. America has gained much from immigrants, a policy that prioritized skilled immigrants would allow those who are best equipped to contribute to our society to come, while excluding those who may not have much to offer. I don't mean to say that these are bad or unimportant people, but we shouldn't bring in people who we don't need just for the sake of diversity. I do think there are industries (such as hospitality or some segments of agriculture) where we do need low skilled immigrants, and perhaps the bill should be amended to take this into account. I don't believe however, that it benefits us to bring in people just for the sake of diversity.

[The Govanah Jake]

Yes (I)

[Sumner 1868]

It would basically make classism offical immigration policy.

[Kingpoleon]

It would basically make classism offical immigration policy.

As it already is in most social democratic countries...