I Want Only The Best People

I would love to drop some of these posters right in the middle of some of our "Best States". Like California. See how long you last in Compton or any of the hundreds of tent cities of homeless people in SoCal. Our Illinois. I'm sure you'd feel safe and right at home in Altgeld Gardens. Or Baltimore Maryland had a neighborhood that ranked in the top 5 most dangerous in all the USA. But sure, they are the "best of the best"! What a crock.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I hate getting into the Mud Pit but you are acting as if the people that live in terrible communities, no matter where on earth they may be, bear no responsibility whatsoever for their situations. I get that it is a circular argument, and that poverty begets poverty, but until you understand that sometimes bad places are a reflection of the people that live in them, there is not much of a debate to be had. To quote Brandon Lee in The Crow "Victims... aren't we all."

I used to live in a nice neighborhood in Southern California. I saw what happened to it over 22 years. It did not improve, if you catch my drift. Why? Because people came that were not educated, nor did they wish to be. They got subsidized housing. Crime started going up, and up, and before I knew it, people on my block were going to prison for selling heroin. Then my 27-year-old neighbor overdosed on heroin and died.

I live in Utah now. You really wonder why? Keep it real, man. If the countries you speak of were so great, you could do what I did, and leave for a greener pasture. Instead, you want that greener pasture to come to you. I wish you luck with that. Because that pasture isn't green. It's snippy.

a reply to: MisterMcKill

I have in laws that have lived in San Diego and Thousand Oaks for 30 years. They love it there.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I find every glimpse you provide inside your head truely disturbing. To walk around with such vitriol daily must be exhausting.

You play it off as satirical comedy. But you and I both know you have a truely toxic mentality that is corrupting an otherwise critical thinking individual. Politics has broken you...

a reply to: network dude

This is a really popular analogy it seems (this is probably the 5th-6th time I've been asked this in recent threads) but I don't think it's all that great.

Imagine your company is very large and you have thousands of openings across a spectrum of dozens of positions in many departments. You've got executives, engineering jobs, jobs in accounting, sales, clerical, manufacturing, supply-chain, building maintenance and so on down to custodial. You need managers, team leads, etc in various departments.

Do you restrict your applicants for every position to people with advanced degrees and years of professional experience? Of course not. There's no single ideal candidate for every job. You're going to hire all sorts of people.

But, for the sake of continuing the discussion, let's take this out of the realm of a hypothetical company and apply it more precisely to what Trump reportedly said.

I do in fact hire people. Not thousands or even hundreds but probably about a dozen over the last 10 years, mostly junior admins. And when I hire people, I don't just look at their resumes and make a determination. I start with casting a wide net (the job posting), I go through the resumes and I select people that meet the minimum criteria. This isn't always perfect. A lot goes into it prioritizing specific skills/experience. So I'm not overly restrictive. Sometimes the person isn't a perfect fit on paper but something stands out. Then I typically reach out to schedule brief phone interviews. In those interviews, I ask questions. Based on how those go, I'll select to a second round. Sometimes it's longer interview but usually, I'll set aside a couple days for in person interviews.

I know what the resume says but I want to know about the people who will work for me. I'm looking for all sorts of things. I've passed up on people who looked really good on paper and demonstrated proficiency for any number of reasons. Maybe they showed a lack of enthusiasm or had poor communication or interpersonal skills. Maybe something they said threw up a red flag. Maybe that person has had 5 jobs in 8 years and over the course of the interview, I'm left with the impression that they're not looking for a long term position and so I have to consider if I want to invest time in a person. Sometimes people apply who are way overqualified for the job. It's movie trope but it's also a real world thing. In the end, I usually end up with a few standouts that are all qualified for the job and who seem to be a good fit. Selecting from among qualified candidates can often come down to things that are hard to pin. Sometimes just a gut feeling.

I have hired people who on paper were not the most qualified candidate because it's not always about the resume. I've had people with better degrees and more professional experience who didn't exhibit the same proficiency as somebody else. I've been flexible on qualifications if I thought a person had the mindset we were looking for, was a better fit and could be developed in the position.

What I have never done is asked a person if they grew up in a #hole. It's not even on my radar.

a reply to: JAY1980

Don't quit your day job. You're a piss poor armchair psychoanalyst.

a reply to: theantediluvian

So many members here concerned about your health and well being you know? Who in the right mind would question the dear leader? Who? And on ATS, a safe space for Trump!

Out of order you.

Out of order.

a reply to: theantediluvian

But again, you are assuming merit means only the highest education level, etc.

Chosing based on merit means finding out what positions you need to fill, and then choosing applicants of the highest merit for that position.

So if your company needs engineers, being a 110 pound valedictorian of MIT would give you outstanding merits for that job. But if you need a person to swing a sledge hammer all day, that same person would probably have very little merits for that job.

The same principal would be used for a merit based immigration system. In Australia points based system, more points are given for qualifications and experience in jobs they have a shortage in.

Your idea of merit being elitist is so unworkable its laughable. A company that just randomly selected people not based on who was most qualified for the job would go bankrupt in short order.

a reply to: Southern Guardian


Strangely enough you all are still here.

In fact I can tell you from experience when I made threads that were satire poking fun of left wing people, it was removed.

Yet not only is this thread allowed (as it should be) but then people say conservatives arent funny and cant use satire.

So the truth is there are people on all sides saying threads shouldnt exist.

a reply to: Grambler

I agree, he was discussing the current non merit based sytem, and asking why we take so many people from crummy countries, which was relevant to the discussion they were having at the time recomending increaasing el salvador and haiti in the lottery apparently.

That's not how the lottery works though from everything I've read. And the proposal that they were pitching to Trump did away with the lottery. So I don't know how that could be the case.

Again, if the cirrent system is taking country of origin into account, Trump wants to know why we take so many from crummy countries.

You're relying on assumptions about the lottery to make your point that I don't think are valid. For one, I don't think it has any sort of preference for country of origin beyond the 7% cap. Take a look at the 2017 winners by country.

By my count, visas were allocated to people from 166 countries out of the 200 or so eligible. Looks like the single biggest group was Ukraine w/4507. As I pointed out before, neither Haiti nor El Salvador are eligible for the lottery. Both of those countries of origin did however have TPS designation. Haiti lost its TPS designation on November 20th (with an 18-month delay) and El Salvador lost its about 10 days ago.

As I've previously noted, the deal presented to Trump did away with the lottery. I think what he was taking issue with was allocating half of those to TPS and probably, maintaining Haiti and El Salvador as TPS designated countries of origin.

Keep in mind, in regards to TPS, we're talking about people who are already in the country, not new immigrants.

So I think you're wrong about the nature of the lottery, you're wrong that changes to the lottery were the source of Trump's consternation (as under the proposed plan, the lottery goes away) and you're wrong in this assumption that anyone was proposing adding anyone to the lottery that is being done away with entirely in the proposal.

I don't what else to say in regards to this argument.

a reply to: theantediluvian

you know all of those states are predominantly white right?

a reply to: theantediluvian

By your own admission, they were suggesting either allowing more immigrants to come in based on country, or allowing them to stay based on country.

Thats my point.

So it is reasonable to ask why we are taking or leaving people in BASED on the fact they come from crummy countries.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Ok, point taken.

Tell me this. Where do you stand on the current welfare system and the EBT cards?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Show me the error in my statement....

Where did I say anything about the KKK?

Why do I need to know more about history? Me thinks it is you, if you consider my statement wrong, that needs to brush up on History.


I'll help you..

! Mic Drop !

a reply to: Grambler

You keep asserting you showed that peole from crummy countries dont do worse, but you havent.

You posted articles showing Nigerian and Indian immigrants have done well.

I posted a study shwoing that immigrants from poorer countries like others in africaa, haiti, etc. tend to require more government assistance when they get in the US.

No. I've actually made a couple of assertions here. The first is that Trump is not looking at data to make decisions. He classified the entire continent of Africa as a #hole. I demonstrated that in reality, immigrant populations from a number of countries in Africa (off the top of my head, Nigeria, Egypt and Ghana) have far higher levels of educational attainment than native born citizens.

That leads to my second assertion which is that the idea of classifying a country as a "#hole" isn't just a non-scientific, not at all evidence-based way method for determining the likely success of immigrants from that country. A lot of people might think of a country like India as being a "#hole" and yet, again, immigrants from India as a group are far outperforming the general population in terms of economics.

The third point that I've raised repeatedly is that if you're a big supporter of merit-based immigration schemes, country of origin is irrelevant.

You want Trump to be able to have it both ways. You want to say that he's pushing for merit-based immigration and then defend his categorization of immigrants based on country of origin which is NOT merit-based.

I posted a study shwoing that immigrants from poorer countries like others in africaa, haiti, etc. tend to require more government assistance when they get in the US.

You said it was random and from 2009, and never refuted any of it.

First off, pulling random studies from the Internet to grab a few lines and then expecting me to read through and critique/respond to the results is a bit unreasonable. Did you take the time to read through all 40-some odd pages and understand all of it?

I did however offer refutation beyond just the date of publication. Here's the two main points I made:

* The conclusion you were excerpting included all manners of immigration, including refugees/asylum seekers, family-based, employment-based, I presume DV lottery (though that's not entirely clear) and illegal immigrants. Yet this is in the context of debating specifically about the DV lottery as you believe (and I believe you do so wrongly) that Trump was making statements about tinkering with the DV lottery. (I do not because as I've said, the proposed plan does away with the lottery entirely)

* It's completely unclear where the data comes from. However, it appears to come from previous studies/papers. Looking at everything cited, the publication dates were back to the 80's for some (which predates the DV lottery btw) and the newest items were published in 2005.

I would also add at this point that it makes no distinction among specific countries either. Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with a merit-based system.

Regardless, its irrelevant. It is not racist to ask why so many people are let in BECAUSE they are from crummy countries.

Again, you're making an assumption that people are being let in because they are from "crummy countries" and you've never actually made any attempt to back that point up. You seem to have arrived at this conclusion based on assumptions about the DV lottery that I don't even think are true.

Couldn't it be that the reason that so many immigrants are from "crummy countries" is that people are far less likely to immigrant from First World countries? That if you have 19 million applicants for 50k visas and 95% of them are from "crummy countries" that you're going to end up with a higher number of people not coming from someplace like Western Europe (though if you look at the actual numbers, you might be surprised how many do)?

You seem to assume that there's some preference given to "crummy countries" (by whom I dunno, SJWs? The diversity lottery was created in 1990) but I don't know that it's true and I don't think it is. And again, two of the countries specifically named, Haiti and El Salvador, are excluded from the DV lottery. Ironically enough, the one non "#hole" country cited, Norway, is part of the DV lottery.

While making all these assumptions about the DV lottery and "crummy countries" I think you're missing what's actually going on here. And I'd be interested in seeing what you think regards to what appears to be the actual debate.

Haiti and El Salvador were specifically named by Trump. Haiti and El Salvador are among the countries in the DV lottery. The proposal presented to Trump does away with the DV lottery. There are a few hundred thousand people from Haiti and El Salvador here under TPS (Temporary Protected Status).

In November, it was announced that the TPS designation for Haiti was being revoked (18 months from then). That means that refugees/asylum seekers from Haiti (many of whom came after the 2010 earthquake) have to leave or face deportation. Similarly, about 10 days ago, it was also announced that the TPS designation for El Salvador was being revoked.

Part of the proposal presented to Trump was to take half the visas from the to-be-done-away-with DV lottery, and allocate them to TPS (the other half going to employment-based immigration IIRC). I think it's safe to assume that these visas could then potentially go to people from Haiti and from El Salvador.

That's really the only connection to the DV lottery from everything I've read.

a reply to: LiberLegit

Stupidest comment ever. You know America is mostly white? Or was that more satire. Hard to tell anymore.

I'm a loser, almost every time I go to the casino I seem to lose. When I buy lotto tickets, I usually lose. I also lose half the time when I play pinnacle, that is what happens when you play against the best in the area.

I don't care to fight with trolls, I am a yooper and packer backer.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Trump, as dumb as he seems, made these comments because he wants Americans to get hired. Why? Income taxes. Look at the job participation rate in the US, it's pathetic. The more natives that get hired, the more taxes the gubment gets. It's all about economics. Foreigners pool their money to send it home. Dont believe me,,,go stand outside a Western Union on payday.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

As far as your immigration system.

Ok fine you dont defend the current system. But strange you dont call it out for using country of origin as part of the reason for letting people in. Yet you are outraged if trump does it, even though he never claimed he would.

You suggest a normal immigration stream, yet do not want merit based.

So what is it, just a big lottery?

It makes no sense.

Two things here.

I don't believe the DV lottery actually shows much in the way of preference by country. There are like 200 eligible countries and from last years lottery, immigrants won slots from a total of 166 countries. As I've said, the DV lottery just seems to be a way of allowing people from countries who would not otherwise have a chance because they're getting pushed out of other streams.

I don't think that you're fairly characterizing it and at the same time, I'm not supporting it either because I think it's a bit of hack intended to put a bandaid on otherwise flawed symptom.

I do not think a merit-based system as we have it now should be expanded. What is the analogy that people keep giving in support of merit-based systems? Employment. Hiring. Clearly when people conceive of "merit-based" systems, they are really thinking educational attainment and professional experience. In fact, that's pretty much how most of the preference is giving in the portion of our current immigration system that is merit-based (which is actually referred to as employment-based). There's a preference category in the "employment-based" portion of our immigration system that allocates visas for people who invest money in projects in the US.

The idea I suppose was to encourage people who would be building businesses in the US to immigrate. However, what's actually happening if you followed the news on it, is that organizations like the Kusher family's development business, go to places like China and sell high-end condos to wealthy foreigners who are looking to get a visa.

The result is that the Kushner family funds their project and gets richer and a bunch of rich people buy visas. I don't think that's a very good system either.

There's a lot of conflation going on here when it comes to "merit-based" and what it means. The "merit-based" portion of the US immigration system ("employment-based") — which is pretty much what people are clearly speaking of when they say "merit-based" — is not what they have in Canada though people act as though it's all the same thing.

What I was thinking in my post (and admittedly, there's no ideal system and I haven't spent a whole lot of time over the years trying to dream one up) is similar to Canada's point system but not exactly. You'd have all sorts of criteria that would be used to weight applicants.

For instance, if an applicant had a degree, that would be more points than not. The better the degree, the more the points. A degree from a US university, more points still. If a person had family members who were U.S. citizens, again, more points. Professional experience in a specific field? More points. Fluent in English? Points based on fluency. Fluent in additional languages? Points. These are all similar to what's in Canada's point system btw. There's also points for age. (younger adults getting more points than say seniors). I'd say adding points for each year the person was an applicant would be an idea.

You could add additional points for all sorts of relevant criteria. And there would be a minimal score for entry into the lottery.

At that point you throw all the applicants into a lottery. There's different ways of doing this. You could allocate tiers for score ranges and allocate x amount of slots to each. You could also just put everyone into the same lottery and give them one "entry" for each point. You could do a hybrid of both.

No system is perfect but I think something like that could be workable. It gives preferences (merit-based) and could include things that aren't part of our current employment-based immigration programs that aren't strictly about having a degree or a pile of money and at the same time, leave opportunities open for people who don't check all the right boxes on paper.

If you are the leader of a country, or a business or a sports team...what is wrong with wanting the best people? How is is biased or racist or whatever 'ism you want to use?

A simply basic question.