Mickey Kaus points to veteran liberal analyst John Judis's article in The New Republic on the Eight Banditos' bill:
Just look at the tortuous way the bill deals with immigrants’ access to the Affordable Care Act. The bill denies health insurance coverage to the eleven million undocumented workers, who will become “registered provisional immigrants” (RPIs), and to over 100,000 guest agricultural workers (who will get “blue cards” rather than “green cards”). Only after immigrants become permanent residents, which in the case of the eleven million undocumented will take a minimum of ten years and as long as 15 years, will they become eligible for Obamacare. ...
But it’s also bad economics. It creates an incentive for employers to hire the new immigrants over citizens or green-card holders and to provide neither with health insurance. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with fewer than 50 workers do not have to buy health insurance for their employees, but businesses with 50 or more workers—which employ about three-quarters of American workers—either have to provide insurance or pay a fine for those workers who buy insurance through the exchanges the act creates. The fine is ordinarily $2,000 but can run as high as $3,000.
Businesses with 50 or more employees that choose to pay a fine rather than provide insurance will not have to pay fines for the RPIs or blue-card holders because they are not eligible for the exchanges. So employers will be able to save from $2,000 to $3,000 a year by hiring a new immigrant over an American citizen. For salaries that hover between $15,000 and $25,000, as they do in many immigrant-heavy industries, that’s no small savings. Even an advocate for low-income immigrants sees the language as a potential problem: “We don’t want them to hire immigrants over citizens because of that loophole,” says Sonal Ambegaokar, who analyzes health policy for the National Immigration Law Center. “We want a level playing field.”
As Milton Friedman pointed out, welfare and immigration don't really play nice together, do they? Back in 2001, the Danes picked the former over the latter, but then what do the Danes know about running a successful society?
Posts
11 comments:
Kaus went to Harvard College and Harvard Law as Schumer did. Did Kaus used unsporting methods to get in?
The way that businesses with 50+ employees can escape ObamaCare is to cut back as many of their employees as possible to 29 or fewer hours a week. A lot of that is already happening.
Generally speaking, Nordics run the most successful/happy/less corrupt societies in the world.
But they also tend to be so trusting of each other, that they forget that the outside world is a different beast.
East Asians are more corrupt, look at their press freedom rankings(not great) but still less so than vast of the world's populations.
But they are, apparently, more ethnocentric and much less trusting of outsiders.
They are also much more collectivist, which means that they are looking at more of what's good for the group(and by extension, the nation) than the more individualist whites(and specifically Anglos, who are the most extreme individualists not only among Europeans but among the entire world).
Some people fear the rise of Asia. I don't, because the vast majority of Asia will not rise. We're talking basically about China. India's per capita income is still below most African nations and their IT sector is built not around innovation but around outsourcing grunt work and/or callcenters.
China's entire history is a case study about isolationism. China will not be nearly as aggressive militarily as the West has been. Can you imagine them invading, say, Yemen to "spread liberty" with "Chinese characteristics"?
Get real. Less U.S. dominance means less wars and less American blood spent. The decline in U.S. power is not as dramatic as advertised but the recent events in Syria confirm that as America cannot dictate how it wants in the region anymore, it's forced to use less of its military.
This, again, is part of the reason why the rise of Asia(read: China) should be held in a nuanced way.
Finally, America shouldn't be seen as a single country but rather as the crown Jewel of the Western world. Bring the entire population of that world and you got a population not far off a billion people and far more powerful than anything that will emerge on this planet for decades, if ever.
The main threat, as always, is the internal suicide. Starting with the cultural one.
Yup.
The 'Peter Schaeffer' series of comments over at some econo-retard's blog somewhere or the other, last week, really blew out of the water the notion that somehow open borders immigration can ever be reconciled with an effective, universal cradle-to-grave welfare state (ie the sort of thing Victorian dreamers wanted because they couldn't stomach the fact that people starved in the streets or died painfully of operable medical conditions due to their penury).
Schaeffer was the rapier-wielding swordsman par excellence. With a few deft thrusts and parries wielded in an elegant position with his razor-honed blade, he 'unseamed' the unfortunate econo-retard 'from the nave to the chops' (as the bard would have it), leaving only rapid 'shhhwip-wip' noises - and a pile of econo-retard guts lying on the floor.
"who will get “blue cards” rather than “green cards”" - Nuh uh, blue backs.
"Some people fear the rise of Asia. I don't, because the vast majority of Asia will not rise. We're talking basically about China. India's per capita income is still below most African nations and their IT sector is built not around innovation but around outsourcing grunt work and/or callcenters."
South Korea and Japan have built first world economies, as have Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore. I don't know if China itself will ever become a 1st world country though.
"China's entire history is a case study about isolationism. China will not be nearly as aggressive militarily as the West has been. Can you imagine them invading, say, Yemen to "spread liberty" with "Chinese characteristics"?"
I can't imagine us invading Yemen either.
"Get real. Less U.S. dominance means less wars and less American blood spent. The decline in U.S. power is not as dramatic as advertised but the recent events in Syria confirm that as America cannot dictate how it wants in the region anymore, it's forced to use less of its military."
US naval dominance in the Pacific has been arguably our greatest military accomplishment since World War II, and has been a huge boon to China, Japan, South Korea, and other countries in the region. Under US hegemony, trade and prosperity have flourished among countries that really don't like each other that much.
As for Syria, I don't what the recent events there confirm. It just seems like a mess that we'd be best off staying out of. Change in the region has generally been for the worse. Might as well not bear responsibility for it.
Very well put Dave but you shouldn't waste your time on someone who thinks the Chinese are more collectivist than the west. In China the Good Samaritan would be considered a sucker. I think that people who post things like that must simply have yellow fever or more likely be Chinese themselves.
As for the isolationist crap China has invaded everyone of its neighbors but Russia at least once. Sure it didn't have much an overseas empire but that's because china didnt have the werewithal to pull it off.
Dave Pinsen wrote to my original post:
"South Korea and Japan have built first world economies, as have Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore. I don't know if China itself will ever become a 1st world country though."
In some ways it already is, notably in the technology and the science sector. Per Capita income in China will be below that of America for a long time, perhaps forever, but you already have a solid 300 million strong middle class(by Western standards) along the East Coast which is going to double the next two decades.
"I can't imagine us invading Yemen either."
And who could imagine us invading Iraq before the year 2000?
America won't invade Yemen today because it uses drones instead, plus people are really tired of all the wars. China hasn't entangled itself and will very likely never do so, precisely because of their isolationism.
___________________
"
Very well put Dave but you shouldn't waste your time on someone who thinks the Chinese are more collectivist than the west. In China the Good Samaritan would be considered a sucker. I think that people who post things like that must simply have yellow fever or more likely be Chinese themselves."
Neither, just facts ma'am.
Also, it's pretty obvious that East Asians in general are more collectivist and less individualists than white Westerners.
A good place to start is the family. Asians, whether in Western nations or back in their home countries tend to invest a lot more in their children. Their children also show a lot more obediance towards their parents/elders. Also, they tend to rebel against authority a lot less, both domestic and governmental.
So there are downsides to this collectivism. But it's there.
"As for the isolationist crap China has invaded everyone of its neighbors but Russia at least once. Sure it didn't have much an overseas empire but that's because china didnt have the werewithal to pull it off. "
China has been around for 4000 years. It's also been invaded itself multiple times. But compare that to the total and constant warfare in Europe during most of history. When Europeans started to make war against each other less, they went to other countries and colonized them en masse. Did China travel to Africa or other continents to do that?
You need a history lesson or two - probably more.
""China's entire history is a case study about isolationism. China will not be nearly as aggressive militarily as the West has been. Can you imagine them invading, say, Yemen to "spread liberty" with "Chinese characteristics"?""
china has been in a lot of territorial/maritime disputes lately against japan, india, taiwan, philippines, or have not been following the news lately?
the USA is in decline and china knows it.
"The decline in U.S. power is not as dramatic as advertised but the recent events in Syria confirm that as America cannot dictate how it wants in the region anymore, it's forced to use less of its military."
Considering that the Syrians now have Russkie S-300 missiles, there is nothing much the USA could do air power wise. Even Israel is going to have a big problem trying to hit targets there. As the Carlo Kopp folks point out, western air forces haven't really faced modern Russkie/ PRC air defense systems. America has pissed our defense money away on the War on Terror instead of building up our forces for fighting nation states. The third world can buy ANY of the Russkie stuff if they bring cash; or the Chinese copies if they have less.
To the best of my knowledge, the only overseas colonization China has done has been Singapore. Other than that, China hasn't invaded any country that didn't directly border it. They've tried in the distant past to conquer Korea, Vietnam, and the Central Asian "Stans" that border it to the West. In all cases they failed, and never really tried again after the initial failure. I know they had a tributary system with Korea and Vietnam, ie pay us tribute and we won't invade you. It seemed to work out well for all involved.
Post a Comment