Congressional Research Service report on removing per-country caps on green cards (which unanimously passed the Senate yesterday) reveals how transformative this proposal would be. It basically shuts down high-skilled immigration from most of the world. cis.org/sites/default/…
The EB1 visa is for applicants with "extraordinary" abilities in the sciences, research, the arts, business, etc. Currently (outside of India and China), there's only a 1-year wait for this visa. Under HR1044, that will become a 7-year wait.
For EB2 (professionals w/advanced degrees, etc.), the backlog for the rest of the world (other than India/China) is less than a year. If the caps are removed, that will become 37 years.
The removal of those per-country caps would seem poised to create a global logjam for skills-based immigration.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One note of caution about extrapolating too much from this statistic (and related studies): The U.S. economy is balanced very differently compared to 1918--much more dependent on service sector now. Also, many city "lockdowns" in 1918 were less stringent than today.
LA as cited as an example of a city that had an effective lockdown to counter the 1918 flu. But, according to the Influenza Encyclopedia, the lockdown was pretty targeted--schools, poolhalls, theaters, etc. Efforts to implement broader lockdowns failed. influenzaarchive.org/cities/city-lo…
If you look at the 1918 policies in the cities praised by the NYT above, you'll notice that they leave many businesses open and focus mostly on closing entertainment venues, schools, and churches. Again, the Influenza Encyclopedia is a good resource. influenzaarchive.org/index.html
This is the pluralist in me, but here's an issue that arises if major social-media platforms want to start policing the accounts of "dangerous extremists" with more granularity: Who determines what counts as a dangerous or extremist ideology?
If you look at the 20th century, one of the ideologies with the most corpses to its discredit was communism. So do postmodern socialists count as dangerous extremists?
What about essays arguing that one of the goals of criminal-justice reform should be to *increase* the violent crime rate? Some might think of that as a necessary revolution, while others might consider that a dangerous proposition. nplusonemag.com/issue-13/polit…
As outsider politicians continue to gain power, it's worth remembering one of the reasons why they've had such an opportunity: The political center accepted as conventional wisdom ideas that, in reality, are quite extreme.
Maastricht and other treaties that centralized power in Europe were radical in their ambition. Placing so many countries (with so many competing imperatives) under a single currency is almost a recipe for political tensions.
Angela Merkel's open-door approach to migration is also quite radical. "Wir schaffen das" became a slogan for a utopianism disconnected from the realities of concrete political life.
The claim that "attending a White House event is unusual for new justices" (also contained in the story) doesn't seem to be true. See next tweets in this thread for evidence. 1/
So many of the forces who have caused such elite lamentation have been given an opening by migration politics. Elite moderation on immigration would seem a plausible way of lessening populist angst.
Merkel's extremist refugee policy probably pushed Brexit over the top, gave life to the AfD, and has empowered populists across the continent.
Many top GOP 2016 contenders basically operated within confines of 2012 GOP "autopsy," which gave Trump a clear opening in primary. Likewise, Clinton's maximalist approach turned off Rust Belt voters.