ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

WSJ: OBAMA CAN'T WAIT TOO LONG ON IMMIGRATION

Rate this Entry
The Wall Street Journal makes the case that immigration reform needs to remain at the top of the President's priority list.

Submit "WSJ: OBAMA CAN'T WAIT TOO LONG ON IMMIGRATION" to Facebook Submit "WSJ: OBAMA CAN'T WAIT TOO LONG ON IMMIGRATION" to Twitter Submit "WSJ: OBAMA CAN'T WAIT TOO LONG ON IMMIGRATION" to Google Submit "WSJ: OBAMA CAN'T WAIT TOO LONG ON IMMIGRATION" to StumbleUpon Submit "WSJ: OBAMA CAN'T WAIT TOO LONG ON IMMIGRATION" to Reddit Submit "WSJ: OBAMA CAN'T WAIT TOO LONG ON IMMIGRATION" to Digg Submit "WSJ: OBAMA CAN'T WAIT TOO LONG ON IMMIGRATION" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Another voice's Avatar
    Good argument but I agree with the WSJ they are paralyzed by the economy and they probably think that immigration reform will send the wrong message.
  2. Adi's Avatar
    "Good argument but I agree with the WSJ they are paralyzed by the economy and they probably think that immigration reform will send the wrong message."

    So will inclusion of public option in healthcare. This president seems like is still in election campaign mode. He still seems to be singing tune of election days. I would say its about time to get off election fever and do something that really helps people. Back in 2007 it was all about immigration getting done in that year. Then it moved to 2008, then to 2009 now back to 2010. There is never right time for immigration issues. People will always be opposed to the idea of illegals being let to break law and reap benefits.

    Healthcare which has so much support among American people is facing such opposition (thanks CIGNA, UNH, Bluecross etc). Can't imagine what will happen with immigration bill?
  3. George Chell's Avatar
    I for one will be buying cheaper foreign products..fact is I cannot afford many American produced products like $4.00/lb tomatos at the local grocery store the Giant. Canned tomatos from Latin America at Trader's Joe is cheaper now!
  4. Jack's Avatar
    From the former director of the UN Population Division, a cogent summary of the alternative to the WSJ's unlimited growth ideology:

    These projections raise the fundamental question of how much larger should America's population be. Over the past several decades, the White House and Congress established various commissions to comprehensively address the future size of America's population. In general, these high-level advisory bodies concluded that in the long run, no substantial benefits would result from the further growth of the nation's population. And in particular, they recognized that America cannot grow indefinitely and recommended that the country welcome and plan for a gradual stabilization of its population.

    Also, they concluded that there is hardly any problem confronting America whose solution would be easier with a larger population. Moving toward population stabilization would contribute significantly to America's ability to solve its domestic problems as well as many of those abroad, especially energy and resource consumption, climate change and environmental sustainability. Moreover, without US leadership as demonstrated by domestic efforts to stabilize its population and thereby mitigate further damage to the environment, other nations would be reluctant to adopt policies and practices to stabilize their populations and work toward developmental and ecological sustainability.

    As the new US Administration and Congress begin to deal with immigration, they could decide to alter the direction of the country's current pro-growth immigration policies and plan for a gradual stabilization of America's population, as the various advisory commissions have indeed recommended. This outcome would be environmentally beneficial and advantageous to America's long term interests.

    Given the current economic and political climate, it seems doubtful that the US Congress will be able to address immigration reform any time soon. However, when they do begin debating US immigration policies, it would be wise to consider demographic realities, future population projections and likely environmental costs and not simply embrace the traditional pro-growth ethic that "more is better." Congress and the Administration have an opportunity to address immigration reform in the broader context of America's population. If they choose to do otherwise, expect another 100 million Americans to be joining us very soon.

    http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=12620




  5. gg's Avatar
    It is clear that Republicans are going to go negative regardless how much Obama tries to appease them. Its time for Obama to show some tes...lar fortitude and ram both healthcare and immigration through and cement his position for the next 71/2 yrs.
  6. Jim's Avatar
    "It is clear that Republicans are going to go negative regardless how much Obama tries to appease them. Its time for Obama to show some tes...lar fortitude and ram both healthcare and immigration through and cement his position for the next 71/2 yrs."

    I agree with you !! The WH floated a trial balloon last Sunday when HHS Sec. Sebelius implied they are willing to compromise by giving the co-op a chance. And how did the GOP and Fox news reacted? They are now saying the co-op is just a prelude to eventually the Gov't taking over HC when the very idea of the co-op instead of the public option was their idea in the first place. This just shows they do not have any intentions to cooperate whatsoever and are just delaying it as much as possible. Same old tactic they have been doing the past few years.

    The Dems should just ram it already as what the news we have been hearing this week.

    Same with CIR. Some GOPs are suspiciously suddenly saying they want it done and that it should be done this year.

    I doubt they want to sincerely cooperate as well. If I'm wrong, then I'll happily admit it but I have my doubts.

    I seriously doubt their sincerity to cooperate on anything.

  7. George Chell's Avatar
    From the former Prime Minister of Singapore, a cogent summary of the alternative to the UN's limited growth ideology:

    These projections raise the fundamental question of how much larger should Singapore's population be. Over the past several decades, the Singapore, whose per capital income ranks among the highest in the world, established various commissions to comprehensively address the future size of its population. In general, these high-level advisory bodies concluded that in the long run, substantial benefits would result from the further growth of Singapore's population, the most densely populated country in the world. And in particular, they recognized that Singapore can grow indefinitely and recommended that the country welcome and plan for a gradual increase in its population from four to eight million.

    Also, they concluded that there is hardly any problem confronting Singapore whose solution would be easier with a smaller population. Moving toward population growth would contribute significantly to Signapore's ability to solve its domestic problems including climate change and environmental sustainability. Moreover, without Singapore leadership as demonstrated by domestic efforts to increase their population other nations would be practising and end up as another Belarus with no significant impact on developmental and ecological sustainability. Belarus and Ukraine two of the least densely populated in the world also have serious ecological problems

    As the new US Administration and Congress begin to deal with immigration, they could decide to alter the direction of the anti-growth immigration policies and follow the path of Singapore towards economic prosperity instead of following the quacks in the various advisory commissions have indeed recommended. This outcome would be environmentally beneficial and advantageous to America's long term interests. Follow the success of Singapore rather than the disaster of Belarus.

    Given the current economic and political climate, it seems doubtful that the US Congress will be able to address immigration reform any time soon. However, when they do begin debating US immigration policies, it would be wise to consider demographic realities of aging population, future population projections and likely benefits and not simply embrace the traditional anti-growth ethic that "less is better" put forward by Jack and many other quacks and racists at CIS and FAIR. Congress and the Administration have an opportunity to address immigration reform in the broader context of America's population as Singapore is coung. If they choose to do otherwise and do as Jack suggests, expect another disaster like Belarus soon. Just like Singapore plans to add another four million Singaporeans in the next twenty years we need to add another 150 million at least in the next forty. After all empirical evidence indicates that Singapore has been a major success story by increasing its population without significant economic damange than the situation in the former soviet union, which is what quacks such as Jack recommend. There is a clear choice..increase immigration and follow the success of Singapore or decrease population and follow the disaster of Belarus! It is upto us!

  8. George Chell's Avatar
    Follow the success of Singapore and have 7% economic growth rate. Should be the US role model!

    http://www.jobs.com.sg/migrate.html
  9. SR's Avatar
    Noteworthy that the WSJ article is a pitch for low skilled immigration. In fact, by making the argument that this would "free up" Americans for higher skilled jobs, the article delivers one below the belt for the case of highly skilled immigration.

    While there may be a case to be argued for the millions of illegals (mostly low skilled and mostly Latino, if one might be so presumptuous!), holding higher skilled immigration to ransom on the touchy issue of amnesty is a dirty trick that the Latino interests in Congress have been engaged in, recently.

    While the political implications of numerical strength are indeed a part of life in a democracy, there is an urgent need for America to resolve the issue of highly skilled immigrants.
  10. George Chell's Avatar
    "While the political implications of numerical strength are indeed a part of life in a democracy, there is an urgent need for America to resolve the issue of highly skilled immigrants."

    WSJ has other articles supporting higher skilled immigrants. If the US does not let highly skilled immigrants in, jobs will go to countries such as Singapore and Americans will be left competing for low wage jobs. Secondly, the WSJ implication may hold water only if we train Americans. With the budget cuts and cuts in financial aid in places such as California, I dont see that happening.

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: