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