Originally Posted by
TheDarman
Again, it isn't something that needs a definite limit--especially if that definite limit is a racist and antiquated system of quotas that were designed to keep brown and black people out (because we can accept more from predominantly white countries). The amount that we should see should vary from year to year. The question is if you have clearly defined rules for what are qualifiers for getting into the country legally, have a nationwide e-Verify system that would ensure that no employer, across the country, would be able to employ undocumented immigrants, allow the undocumented immigrants already here an opportunity to stay through a particular avenue, secure the border in a way that yields superior results to a wall because of its technological posterity, why do you actually need to have a clear defined limit on immigration?
I mean, if an individual meets the qualifications for entry, why should we expect that they should be kept out for years on end? Now, there are limits to the kinds of Visas that are approved. I've seen no Democrat, particularly in the presidential race, argue that Visas should be handed out without regard for what the economy actually needs. There are good reasons to indicate that we should raise the amount of Visas in particular service jobs, such as agriculture, but certainly not to the point of excess of what the economy actually requires. Thus, an immigration reform package would be one that would communicate with industry leaders about how many they actually need and adjust the Visa limit appropriately and allow for all qualified candidates to be processed as fast as they can. Especially as native-born Americans move towards higher level private sector jobs, and have fewer kids, there needs to be new individuals to fill service level jobs that do require full time positions (regardless of what many Republicans say about service sector jobs being for high school kids--just remember that the next time you stop at Target to shop or McDonald's for lunch during the week days).
There has also been plenty of evidence that approximately half of the year-over-year increase in GDP growth since the Industrial Revolution has been a result of the larger numbers of people entering the work force. However, our population growth has slowed to replacement level in the United States. A substantial population that had ballooned the size of the labor market (baby boomers) are reaching retirement age without a larger generation entering the labor pool. This will result in a contraction of the labor market and can slow down GDP growth even further. Indeed, it is a big part of the reason why we've seen the slow down, even post-recession, in GDP growth. The situation gets even more dire as the baby boomers die off, because they are the most socioeconomically well off age-wise demographic group. They went to school in a time when a minimum wage job could provide a year's tuition to our nation's best schools if you only worked full time in the summers. Now, children are faced with crushing debt. People are having fewer kids because of the financial strain that is placed on them. As a result, financial strain and fewer children, businesses will see their domestic consumer base start to shrink. They can push their products internationally to maintain growth but the Republican Party has also become an anti-trade party as well.
The truth is that a xenophobic and an anti-trade party is bad for the economy, especially if that party doesn't do anything to address the issue of the cost of living increasing at a much faster rate than the earnings of graduates, be they from high school or college. Saying there needs to be reforms done to the systems in place for immigration to make it easier to legally immigrate are not just moral moves, but, ultimately, the necessary moves to make. We need to make sure our legal process moves quicker. But we can't put down clear, defined limits on all kinds of limitations at all times. That's not only unrealistic and immoral, it's dangerous thinking. It isn't an open borders policy to state that we will have to evaluate the situation, year by year, and then decide on that years limit for which kind of Visas get increased or decreased based on economic needs. From there, it is just a matter of ensuring that we process applications faster and do our part to make it less of a multi-year process to enter the country. But Democrats aren't saying that there need not be any kind of legal process for entry. I just think they are making the point that it needs to be modernized and remove the antiquated parts about our immigration system that 1) are ineffective and 2) cost a lot of money to be that way.