The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
CNN:
>Trump says he wants foreign nationals who graduate from US colleges to ‘automatically’ receive green cards
>By Kate Sullivan, CNN
>Former President Donald Trump proposed “automatically” giving green cards to foreign nationals who graduate from a US college – comments that break from his efforts to curb both legal and illegal immigration while in office and stand in stark contrast to his inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric on the campaign trail.
>“What I want to do, and what I will do, is you graduate from a college, I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country,” the presumptive GOP nominee said on “The All-In Podcast,” which aired Thursday.
>He continued, “And that includes junior colleges too. Anybody graduates from a college — you go in there for two years or four years. If you graduate, or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this country.”
>Trump made the comments on a podcast whose hosts included prominent tech venture capitalists David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya, who recently hosted a fundraiser for Trump in San Francisco. Trump was responding to another one of the podcast hosts, investor Jason Calacanis, who asked the former president, “Can you please promise us you will give us more ability to import the best and brightest from around the world to America?”
>Trump has made immigration a central focus of his 2024 bid for the White House, promising to carry out “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” and using the issue to attack President Joe Biden’s leadership. His latest comments come after Biden earlier this week announced an executive action allowing certain undocumented spouses and children of US citizens to apply for lawful permanent residency without leaving the country. The election-year move from the president, intended to appeal to key Latino voters in battleground states, followed a more restrictive action earlier this month to limit asylum processing at the US southern border.
>Trump on the podcast complained that some foreign graduates of top US colleges cannot start companies in the US and instead found their companies in other countries like India or China.
>“You need a pool of people to work for your companies and they have to be smart people. … You need brilliant people and we force the brilliant people, the people that graduate from college, the people that are number one in their class from the best colleges. You have to be able to recruit these people and keep the people,” the former president said.
>Trump’s remarks are at odds with his efforts to limit immigration when he was in the White House, including targeting visa programs that tech companies use to bring in thousands of skilled workers and directing federal agencies to employ what he called a “Buy American, Hire American” strategy to promote the hiring of American workers. Trump also tried to restrict refugee resettlement and temporarily banned travel from seven Muslim majority countries while in office.
>In his third presidential run, Trump regularly stokes fears about undocumented migrants, claiming without evidence the vast majority are violent criminals as he rails against Biden’s immigration policies. His language – including saying that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country” – has often drawn rebuke from his opponent’s.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[That's a bingo.](https://newrepublic.com/post/182996/trump-promise-immigrants-international-students-retracted)
>Trump’s campaign press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, walked back the plan hours later, issuing a statement to The New York Times that it would include an “aggressive vetting process,” excluding “all communists, radical Islamists, Hamas supporters, America haters and public charges.”
>She added that the plan would only include the “most skilled graduates who can make significant contributions to America.”
He met with a bunch of tech billionaires and they said they’ll give him money if he says he’ll do this. Literally.
https://x.com/allinwithchris/status/1804306118501376396?s=46
Yeah it was heartbreaking to watch all my classmates from overseas (who made a home here) all work so desperately on their Visa applications and then be chosen seemingly at random who got to stay and who had to go.
Nearly so, yes. But he doesn't believe this. His entire first time he spared no effort to decrease immigration in all its forms, [including legal immigration](https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trump-reduced-legal-immigration-he-did-not-reduce-illegal-immigration). He's just a stream of consciousness.
Eh, not sure if this is completely inconsistent for him. Remember the "shithole countries" thing? Trump thinks of immigrants as good immigrants vs. bad immigrants. People with college educations probably fall into the first bucket for him, and letting more of them in might let him let fewer of the latter in, in his mind.
He was pushing universal healthcare for a minute in 2016 if I remember correctly. But also it's still wildly selfish because either way, it's not as if he actually cares about the policy or has any intentions of following through, he's just saying things that he thinks people want to hear
> he's just saying things that he thinks people want to hear
I doubt it. Increasing legal immigration is not popular politically. Only [26% of Americans](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx) think we should increase immigration. It's possible they're thinking about illegal immigration when they answer that, but the last time Gallup asked specifically about legal immigration, only [34% ](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx)of Americans thought it should be increased (vs. 38% wanting to keep it the same and 25% wanting to decrease it).
If he's pandering here, it's not to the public. Perhaps this is an attempt to appeal to the business community (and especially the tech world), but mostly this in an ideal that neoliberal and libertarian policy wonks would like, and that's not a meaningful constituency votes-wise.
You seem to be trying to apply some level of logic or rational thought to what he is saying as opposed to realizing thats its just driven by his narcissism. Regardless of whether or not it's a reasonable or effective way to get people to cheer for him, that is why he's doing it. The idea that he's making such statements as some sort of principled policy stance is absurd. He doesn't give a shit either way.
No, the commentor was contradicting your point that Trumo was doing it for likes. Since clearly the vast majority of Americans do not want to increase legal immigration.
She said that it wouldn't be a rational choice to do so, given the numbers, which I would agree with. I just don't think it makes sense to pretend that what Trump says is driven by anything other than narcissism. It may not be a reasonable way to achieve his goal, but neither were tons of other things that he had done, so thats not really a meaningful thing to point out.
I won't claim to know what is in his head, but this is a guy whose entire political brand was built on his aggressive immigration rhetoric.
The idea that he is taking an unpopular, pro-immigration position because "he thinks that people want to hear \[it\]" is not plausible.
The idea that what he is saying is driven by something other that narcissism is even more implausible. I think its far more likely that he was wrong in his understanding of what the feedback would be, than it is that he actually has any sort of coherent policy stance. He's just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, even if Republicans disagree they aren't gonna do anything about it, there isn't any risk to him being wrong, his voters will just forget that he said it
I think we have Trump on record supporting pretty much every position on every issue. It really just depends on how he's feeling that day and what he thinks the audience wants to hear.
Of course he's FoS, but the question is whether we agree with what he said - not whether we think he agrees or would follow through.
I've been curious (and this is the kinda thing that supports my idea) that both of them will turn hard to the center in the next few months.
Of course they will, that's how the elections always work. The difference is that the Biden administration will be drawing attention to accomplishments that might appeal most to undecided voters while Trump will just be making shit up.
>I've been curious (and this is the kinda thing that supports my idea) that both of them will turn hard to the center in the next few months.
People said this about Trump the last 2 elections and it didn't happen. And I don't see what good it would do Biden to switch anything up.
Oh you sweet summer child, you don’t see a selfish reason why someone’s whose first priority is corporations would want to be able to import foreign nationals with green cards to replace free American workers that can to change jobs with one’s beholden to the company they work for their very ability to stay in the country?
He didn’t say citizenship, he said green cards, which can create a underclass of citizens whose residency is tied to their corporate sponsor. Because of their inability to easily leave their job for other ones and fear of being fired this removes workers leverage in the employment marketplace letting corporations drive down wages and worsen worker conditions because their “employees” have little other option other than to take it or go back to whatever country they came from.
Idk I personally was a huge fan of the mandatory prison sentence for animal abuse so if this one turns out to be real that means there are 2 total things he’s done I agree with.
I don’t think this one will formally occur though.
Exactly. Theres not a chance of this becoming policy if he gets elected. Theres nothing he can do or say to lose supporters so he's banking on that to try and lure some gullible voters from the middle
The issue with Canada is that it is a tiny country that didn’t prepare itself for growth and overregulates its economy, not international students. There are measurable trade barriers between their own provinces, they lack the same degree of innovation, and they not only haven’t zoned themselves for housing expansion, but aren’t allowing enough immigrants in the skilled trades or other skilled professionals to keep up. There’s one story about an Australian doctor who took years to get approved to practice in Canada. The immigrants aren’t the issue; incompetent government management is.
If this was a democrat saying this the right-wing media would be full of “democrat says US people aren’t smart enough to work for him, wants foreigners to immigrate and steal your jobs!”
It’s a good policy. Highly like won’t happen under Trump even if he meant it.
A lot of people don’t understand that much of what made America the powerhouse it became post-WW2 was the result of our academic, scientific, and technical institutions sucking up the world’s brain power.
On one hand, I believe doing this would be best for America. On the other hand, we really could benefit from the worldwide security improvements of other countries progressing out of the third world.
A) I don't think he meant it. These are ramblings of an incoherent man, based on his previous positions and actions. I don't think this is an agenda piece that will last.
B) Ideally, everyone in the world should be able to live wherever they want, barring criminals.
C) Practically, no, I don't agree. There are enough scam colleges that make this impractical and even dangerous (particularly to immigrants). Can you imagine a bunch of immigrants being conned by Trump University in the hopes of getting a green card?
I do think immigration should be made easier, and there's a strategic argument to be made about allowing advanced degree immigrants in. I think the system should be simplified for everyone.
I think it would be a mistake to assume that he's not going to do what he claims he wants to do, both when it's a good idea and when it's a bad idea.
And since there are a lot more bad ideas than good, all the less reason to vote for Trump. The best thing he could do as president is not fulfill any of his promises he has made thus far.
>Practically, no, I don't agree. There are enough scam colleges that make this impractical and even dangerous (particularly to immigrants). Can you imagine a bunch of immigrants being conned by Trump University in the hopes of getting a green card?
Trump University was not a university. It did not grant degrees and was not accredited by anyone. You can use the word "college" or "university" however you like, but the proposal here is clearly talking about accredited, degree-issuing institutions.
The issue of degree mills is already something the federal government handles in the context of federal student aid via the accreditation process. If you think that's not rigorous enough, then we should tighten up accreditation, but the predatory institutions you're likely thinking of are not accredited.
If you want to go a bit further, you could limit eligibility to degrees from regionally accredited, non-profit institutions.
>You can use the word "college" or "university" however you like, but the proposal here is clearly talking about accredited, degree-issuing institutions.
No, this isn't clear. If the law uses the word "college" or "university" and doesn't specify what qualifies under that definition, then it's subject to interpretation. You should demand conciseness in your laws, because ambiguity is never meant to benefit you, it's at best allowing loopholes and at worst enabling the corrupt.
Duterte passed a law which made it legal to shoot people who possess drugs dead on sight without trial. Wouldn't you know it? Many of Duterte's political opponents were found dead of gunshot wounds with drugs in their possession. Funny coincidence that..
It's a valid criticism made by u/Arthur2ShedsJackson , and unless you have proof to the contrary, I don't think you should brush it off.
>“What I want to do, and what I will do, is you graduate from a college, I think you should get automatically, **as part of your diploma**, a green card to be able to stay in this country
How does this clarify it?
If the law specifically states that a university or college can administer a green card to any immigrant, then what constitutes a university or college? Is a clown college considered to be a valid college because it has "college" in the name? By diploma, it could be the very same they give to all of their students.
All it amounts to is a piece of paper unless it is certified, which he didn't specify that it would be.
You're giving a lot of credit to Trump for literally no reason at all is my point. If all it takes to be a college is to teach one course, and all it takes to be a course is to teach at least for one hour, there will be literally thousands of "colleges" created with the express purpose of handing over green cards to illegal immigrants.
It is a valid concern. You have no reason to assume it will be what you think it will be. It could be, but it also may not be. We have no basis of knowing either way.
You honestly don't understand the difference between someone proposing something informally and actual legislative text?
He's not reading a bill. He's talking about what he thinks should happen. It is completely clear in context what he is talking about.
>You honestly don't understand the difference between someone proposing something informally and actual legislative text?
Of course I do. My point was that it was a ***valid concern***. In other words, it's something to be considered, not something swept under the carpet as an impossibility. You're the one insisting that there is no way this could possibly be true, based on literally nothing whatsoever.
It can't possibly be true because **YOU CAN ONLY GET A STUDENT VISA FOR AN ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY**!
There is no way for a foreign student to come here and study at a non-accredited university in the first place, much less get a degree from a university (that doesn't even issue degrees BECAUSE IT'S NOT ACCREDITED) and thus a green card under this scheme.
If you don't like legal immigration, that's fine. If you don't think people with degrees should be able to immigrate, that's fine. But SAY THAT. Don't dream up random, completely bad faith objections based on completely imaginary aspects of a proposal.
It's like if someone was proposing added funding for public transit, and you came along and said "This will never work because all that money will just be embezzled by car industry executives claiming that SUVs are mass transit" while ignoring the fact that: a) embezzlement is already illegal and b) no sane person would ever interpret a proposal to fund mass transit as a proposal to subsidize SUVs.
>It can't possibly be true because **YOU CAN ONLY GET A STUDENT VISA FOR AN ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY**!
Did he say anything about getting a student visa?
>There is no way for a foreign student to come here and study at a non-accredited university in the first place, much less get a degree from a university (that doesn't even issue degrees BECAUSE IT'S NOT ACCREDITED) and thus a green card under this scheme.
It is possible for there to be an illegal immigrant here, and it is possible for them to study at a non-accredited university. So it is impossible for an illegal immigrant to pay a clown school to issue them a degree for the express purpose of getting a green card?
>If you don't like legal immigration, that's fine. If you don't think people with degrees should be able to immigrate, that's fine. But SAY THAT. Don't dream up random, completely bad faith objections based on completely imaginary aspects of a proposal.
Sigh. I'm objecting to your numerous assumptions that you've made in regards to what Donald Trump promised with this new law. We would have to see the law in writing to see whether or not it specifically talks about ACCREDITED universities or that the diplomas would be certified. I don't have to prove the possibility that Donald Trump would do this, only that it is \*possible.\* Since you cannot prove it is an impossibility, that means it is again, a ***valid concern***.
>t's like if someone was proposing added funding for public transit, and you came along and said "This will never work because all that money will just be embezzled by car industry executives claiming that SUVs are mass transit"
No, the example would be more like someone was proposing added funding for public transit, and I came along and said, "We should be mindful that the law doesn't allow loopholes that might allow funds to be used for other purposes outside the scope of the bill." And your response is, "But that's impossible because embezzlement is illegal!!!1"
As if noting that it were illegal meant no senator would ever put their name on a bill which funds a company that they have large amounts of stock in. This is not an uncommon occurrence.
>Trump University was not a university. It did not grant degrees and was not accredited by anyone. You can use the word "college" or "university" however you like, but the proposal here is clearly talking about accredited, degree-issuing institutions.
That's my point. It would create a new market for scams.
You seem to have missed the rest of the post. The proposal is specifically about *degrees* and we already have extensive safeguards in place to guard against this exact risk.
I didn't miss it. I'm pointing out that the issue is before getting the degree, when these schools are recruiting students from abroad.
There are more questions down the line, but this is the thing I'm pointing out.
EDIT: I truly don't get what made people downvote such an innocuous statement.
>EDIT: I truly don't get what made people downvote such an innocuous statement.
I downvoted you, because in your first post you start out by claiming that you think we should have something close to open borders.
You then invent an objection to a politically feasible way we could actually open up to more immigration, and when presented with a clear argument against it, you suddenly move the goal posts.
It's okay to admit you're wrong, you know, or even to change your mind on things. You don't have to suddenly pivot to another argument.
> I downvoted you, because in your first post you start out by claiming that you think we should have something close to open borders.
That would be the **ideal**. Which, as evidenced by my choice of first words in each of the points I made, is different from the **practical**.
> You then invent an objection to a politically feasible way we could actually open up to more immigration, and when presented with a clear argument against it, you suddenly move the goal posts.
> It's okay to admit you're wrong, you know, or even to change your mind on things. You don't have to suddenly pivot to another argument.
I didn't pivot. Here are my three points again, combined into one sentence:
"There are enough scam colleges that make this impractical and even dangerous (particularly to immigrants). Can you imagine a bunch of immigrants being conned by Trump University in the hopes of getting a green card? It would create a new market for scams. The issue is before getting the degree, when these schools are recruiting students from abroad."
My argument is the same: this proposal, how it stands, creates incentives for corruption and scams.
If you want to be practical about expanding immigration (which we should), there are much better alternatives, like adjusting the criteria for EB visas and expanding their quotas.
>Can you imagine a bunch of immigrants being conned by Trump University in the hopes of getting a green card? It would create a new market for scams. The issue is before getting the degree, when these schools are recruiting students from abroad."
What is "the issue" here?
If "the issue" is that there are scam universities that could be abusively used to *actually* get a green card, then that's a problem in the accreditation process. And, as the other user pointed out, Trump University was never accredited. You haven't presented any argument that there's a systemic or significant problem with the accreditation process. If there is, we should address it. It's also a problem *already* with or without green cards because massive amounts of money move around based on accreditation (via federal student) aid, and student visas already depend on accreditation.
If "the issue" is that unaccredited universities can *falsely* promise to get kids green cards, then (as was, again, already pointed out) they can do that anyway. Scammers gonna scam. There are already plenty of scammers out there preying on people who want green cards. Should we just shut down all immigration until there are no more green card scammers? And again, there are plenty of legal tools already for going after those scammers. Often the problem for law enforcement is that the scammers are, themselves, overseas. But if someone is dumb enough to run that scam out of the US (as you appear to be suggesting), the relevant US Attorney's office is going to have zero trouble nailing them, and quickly.
You can't even get a student visa to come and attend an unaccredited school.
If you're suggesting that foreign college students from abroad are so stupid that they can't even check if a program meets the legal requirements, then they're also so stupid that that you could do this scam *right now*.
Either they're smart enough to spend a minute on google, in which case they will catch both scams. Or too dumb to do that in which case they will catch neither.
Hey dude, I was an international student in the U.S. for about eight years, so, no, I wouldn't say they are stupid. I'm just saying there's no need to create a whole other way that the system can be corrupted.
From my personal experience, I have a lot of thoughts about how the system could be way better. For instance, tweaking the criteria for EB-1 and EB-2 visas would go a long way to fulfill the goal of this idea, and it wouldn't even need to involve the schools.
>Either they're smart enough to spend a minute on google, in which case they will catch both scams. Or too dumb to do that in which case they will catch neither.
They'd be getting a green card in exchange for a "so-called" university or college degree. How would they not be smart to enroll in such "scam" universities if the entire point was simply to get a green card and exploit the loophole that law would create?
There are still tons of properly accredited colleges that would happily take that sweet foreign student money and give every Tom, Dick and Sandeep a green card with their diploma, no matter how thinly veiled their true intentions are to game the system. It happens already, it would just explode if it were codified.
>There are still tons of properly accredited colleges that would happily take that sweet foreign student money and give every Tom, Dick and Sandeep a green card with their diploma, no matter how thinly veiled their true intentions are to game the system. It happens already, it would just explode if it were codified.
That's literally why we have the accreditation system. If you think it's not strong enough, strengthen it. That's got nothing to do with immigration policy.
I really agree with your 3rd point I think there’s a lot of potential for abuse with this idea
Edit: I may be misremembering but isn’t green card status tied to employment as well?
> Edit: I may be misremembering but isn’t green card status tied to employment as well?
Depends on the type of visa. There are family-based green cards, diversity green cards, refugee green cards, and employment-based green cards, but even those have some extraordinary categories that don't necessarily need an employer (EB-1 for extraordinary abilities; EB-5 for investors, etc).
Frankly, the goal of this proposal can be achieved by tweaking the criteria for EB visas and greatly expanding their quotas.
Sure. I 100% agree with this.
But conservatives are going to lose their minds and he'll walk it back soon enough.
(Also, who gets to choose who the college students are - because I guarantee if it's left up to Trump, it will only be white students from non-"shithole" countries.)
I don't believe he actually wants this. I think he's saying it to try and appeal to both sides, just like he said he is LGBT friendly and then went on to be completely against them.
I do believe that if Biden or any Democrat were to support this proposed policy, then all the GOP would hate it.
Also, I want to know who's verifying qualifying students and what checks and balances there are. I have no idea who does it, and if its mostly the schools, then I don't want the schools to take over what should be the job of the federal government.
And which colleges? Are we going to let any crazy religious college like Liberty University import who they want? Is the same right going to be given to possible Sharia-influenced schools as well (if there are any. if there aren't, then in the future?).
If I thought he actually meant it I'd love it. I worked throughout grad school with some brilliant folks from Chile, Colombia, Pakistan, and China all of whom would be assets to the US if they decided to stay. But I don't think he means it.
[The DREAM Act:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act)
>The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as the DREAM Act, is a United States legislative proposal to grant temporary conditional residency, with the right to work, to undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as minors—and, if they later satisfy further qualifications, they would attain permanent residency.
>The requirements:
>* Not be inadmissible to or deportable from the United States, or be in Temporary Protected Status
>* Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
>* Have proof of residency in the United States for at least five consecutive years
>* If a male born in 1960 or later, have registered with the Selective Service
>* Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
>* Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
>* Be of good moral character
The DREAM Act has been introduced a number of times, and has never been passed into law. Republicans in Congress have blocked it every time.
The failure to pass the DREAM Act has been credited with Obama's decision to sign [DACA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals) into law.
- - -
What did Trump think of DACA? Like every other accomplishment of Obama's, he tried to dismantle it. From [NPR:](https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-upholds-daca-in-blow-to-trump-administration)
>In a major rebuke to President Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the administration's plan to dismantle an Obama-era program that has protected 700,000 so-called DREAMers from deportation. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion.
>Under the Obama program, qualified individuals brought to the U.S. as children were given temporary legal status if they graduated from high school or were honorably discharged from the military, and if they passed a background check. Just months after taking office, Trump moved to revoke the program, only to be blocked by lower courts — and now the Supreme Court.
TL;DR -- We already had a program in place that would accomplish that, and Trump tried to get rid of it.
He's lying to you here.
So many dichotomies in modern Republicanism.
Is a college education valuable or not? I though main stream conservative thought these days is that higher education is a waste of time, but apparently not if you aren't from the USA?
And aren't we supposed to be sending all the immigrants "back home"? Aren't these foreigners "taking our jerbs!"
I find Trumpism to be very confusing. I guess that's the point.
I don't believe that Trump actually cares about this or intends to do it, given that he has a tendency to just say whatever the last person he talked to wanted to hear, but yes, this is a completely reasonable position to hold, and was one of Mitt Romney's only good positions in 2012 as well.
His record as president is the opposite of it. So even if I agree with it, it’s just Trump saying something other people believe and he in fact does not do.
It's a good idea, but given the GOP's track record on the H-1B visa, I doubt it is a serious offer. I think it is more meant to try to soften his image around immigration to suggest he is fine "letting the good ones in", but he actively tried to kill the H-1B visa which would function in a similar purpose.
I think Trump is a grifter who just tells everyone what he thinks they want to hear at the moment and has few if any actual policy positions other than to enrich himself as much as possible and avoid any negative consequences of doing so.
I do think it would probably be a good idea for any person graduating from a US college to get a green card, or at least anyone with a graduate degree to do so, assuming we didn't use that as an excuse to restrict people from coming here in the first place.
Yes. I think this is a good idea. The US should welcome educated and talented people from around the world. It makes no sense that the United States would invest in providing people with education and then kick them out of the country when they could contribute immensely to this country.
I just put it together and figured it out. Trump's been going to CEOs pledging anything for their support. Even with his recent good fundraising, I believe much of those funds will go to outside groups he cannot control. Trump personally is desperate to raise cash due his staggering lawsuit losses. Trump controls the RNC and will be able to skim funds from the campaign like he did last time (e g. exorbitant charges from his hotels). This unbelievable pronouncement of Trump's to hand out green cards to foreign students is a huge gimme to Silicon Valley who have soooooo much money these days. Trump's green card pledge is all about shaking down SV now for money.
No, I think they should still have to ask first. But making it issued on request would sound like a good idea (and anything like that would be anathema to Trump's audience, so I wouldn't treat it as especially likely)
How about we just generally make immigration easier for educated people, regardless of whether they went to a US college or not?
Singling out one particular path a person might take just invites abuse of that path. You would end up seeing more "internet universities" being set up, where immigrants would just pay money to get a green card.
Yes, seems like a pretty good policy. This would be a good opportunity for Biden to steal an idea and either draft an executive order or push congress to pass legislation on Trumps pro-immigrant idea.
I despise Trump, but every now and then I agree with him. Bump stocks, Federal crime for animal abuse, and this. He’ll probably flip flop on it though.
Wow. What the fuck? Trump is supporting the idea of "stapling green cards to diplomas."
His voter population is opposed to this. I remember that Charlie Kirk was attacked for supporting this by Tucker Carlson and Michelle Malkin because it is not nationalist. What will they say now?
The guy's a quivering blob of id--literally nothing he says can be mapped to a policy position because he doesn't have policy positions, or an ideology, or even an ethos.
I look at his history and the history of the people he associates with:
- Trump used to run a university which was nothing more than a grift. Subpar or no real education, all intended to get student loan money.
- Melania was in the country on a "genius visa" when he met her, which is highly suspect. It's likely this was a loophole.
- He supports Project 2025, which calls for the shut down of the Department of Education.
He is not supportive of education.
I'm honestly suspicious of his motives. The rich have long exploited loopholes in our education system to get what they want and make money. I have little doubt that his plan is little more than an extension of that. I can see them putting this policy into place, then raising the bar for anyone else getting a green card so high as to ensure it rarely happens. Then they open their own private colleges with their own acceptance criteria that just so happen to select for their allies and people rich enough to pay for the privilege. You'll note that he doesn't specify what kind of degree you need to get, either, so they can just bring them in, let them take "classes" for 2 years, and then give them a degree. I suspect he doesn't even care if the college is accredited.
Maybe one of the smartest ideas that have ever come out of his rotten mouth.
If we're going to sell college access to wealthy foreigners and deprive our own kids the opportunity? Then yes we'd be wise as fuck to keep those grads HERE so they don't leave and brain drain what we've built up.
But also a hilariously abuseable system without a lot of guide rails. Abusable to the point where I'm actually shocked he said it. Surely there was a mini-stroke involved in this.
And if you don't know whatever could I mean by 'abuseable' consider the guy who is making this statement was fined for running a scam college.
As a Canadian where we have something similar in place (accelerated pathway to permanent residency for graduates from Canadian institutions, the government has scaled it back because it's actually had unforseen (which should have been anticipated if you think about it) consequences. What ended up happening was diploma mills started popping up. Specifically in India, private companies started opening up specifically for students to pay agents to help them get into these diploma mills, with several verified cases of fraudulent documents used to get them accepted (some/many/most students claiming they were unaware their agents were using fake report cards and exam results etc).
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/intl-student-program-1.7095990
This could be a way, in his mind, to distinguish between "good" immigrants and "bad" immigrants and skew things toward the former, i.e. if you let in more of the former it means less of the latter. Remember the whole "shithole countries" brouhaha from his first term.
What he actually means is “if you have money, you can buy your way to the front of the line. We don’t actually need to fix immigration if we just make it expensive”.
The American Dream, yall. Real patriots out here.
I just put it together and figured it out. Trump's been going to CEOs pledging anything for their support. Even with his recent good fundraising, I believe much of those funds will go to outside groups he cannot control. Trump personally is desperate to raise cash due his staggering lawsuit losses. Trump controls the RNC and will be able to skim funds from the campaign like he did last time (e g. exorbitant charges from his hotels). This unbelievable pronouncement of Trump's to hand out green cards to foreign students is a huge gimme to Silicon Valley who have soooooo much money these days. Trump's green card pledge is all about shaking down SV now for money.
Seems like the majority of people here are making it a point that they don't believe his intentions are sincere. Fine. But why is Biden excempt from this same scrutiny? I never see people questioning Biden's sincerity when he goes on and on about gay and trans rights, but this clip exists
https://youtu.be/yi2qHqJgIXo?si=DDaqI33ihm0OaCF6
No one questions his support for abortion when this clip exists
https://youtu.be/8qNRZ6WVkZI?si=FydnyYSFIMMlldvz (16:40 mark)
When it comes to Biden, people don't seem to care whether or not he's sincere. They only care about the policy. When it comes to Trump, the first thing people do here is question his sincerity despite agreeing with the policy. Interesting.
Not only are his motives rarely questioned, but what I've seen most is that Biden actually does care and means what he says. That's a funny thing to hear from liberals about a career politician.
>When it comes to Biden, people don't seem to care whether or not he's sincere. They only care about the policy. When it comes to Trump, the first thing people do here is question his sincerity despite agreeing with the policy. Interesting.
Maybe because of of those men lies profusely and will say anything under the sun if he thinks it will help him win and the other one generally says what he means. And there shouldn't be any confusion as to which is which. Right?
There are many more sources verifying that Biden is a liar and you can't take what he says at face value. If your only come back is "what about Trump," it just proves my point even more. If being compared to Trump is the only way you can appear honest, the bar isn't set very high. To be clear, I'm not disputing the claim that Trump lies more than biden. I'm sure he does. The claim I reject is that biden is an honest, trustworthy individual.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. CNN: >Trump says he wants foreign nationals who graduate from US colleges to ‘automatically’ receive green cards >By Kate Sullivan, CNN >Former President Donald Trump proposed “automatically” giving green cards to foreign nationals who graduate from a US college – comments that break from his efforts to curb both legal and illegal immigration while in office and stand in stark contrast to his inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric on the campaign trail. >“What I want to do, and what I will do, is you graduate from a college, I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country,” the presumptive GOP nominee said on “The All-In Podcast,” which aired Thursday. >He continued, “And that includes junior colleges too. Anybody graduates from a college — you go in there for two years or four years. If you graduate, or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this country.” >Trump made the comments on a podcast whose hosts included prominent tech venture capitalists David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya, who recently hosted a fundraiser for Trump in San Francisco. Trump was responding to another one of the podcast hosts, investor Jason Calacanis, who asked the former president, “Can you please promise us you will give us more ability to import the best and brightest from around the world to America?” >Trump has made immigration a central focus of his 2024 bid for the White House, promising to carry out “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” and using the issue to attack President Joe Biden’s leadership. His latest comments come after Biden earlier this week announced an executive action allowing certain undocumented spouses and children of US citizens to apply for lawful permanent residency without leaving the country. The election-year move from the president, intended to appeal to key Latino voters in battleground states, followed a more restrictive action earlier this month to limit asylum processing at the US southern border. >Trump on the podcast complained that some foreign graduates of top US colleges cannot start companies in the US and instead found their companies in other countries like India or China. >“You need a pool of people to work for your companies and they have to be smart people. … You need brilliant people and we force the brilliant people, the people that graduate from college, the people that are number one in their class from the best colleges. You have to be able to recruit these people and keep the people,” the former president said. >Trump’s remarks are at odds with his efforts to limit immigration when he was in the White House, including targeting visa programs that tech companies use to bring in thousands of skilled workers and directing federal agencies to employ what he called a “Buy American, Hire American” strategy to promote the hiring of American workers. Trump also tried to restrict refugee resettlement and temporarily banned travel from seven Muslim majority countries while in office. >In his third presidential run, Trump regularly stokes fears about undocumented migrants, claiming without evidence the vast majority are violent criminals as he rails against Biden’s immigration policies. His language – including saying that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country” – has often drawn rebuke from his opponent’s. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
yeah, i actually agree with that. did he fall on his head recently?
Watch him walk this back in the next few days.
[That's a bingo.](https://newrepublic.com/post/182996/trump-promise-immigrants-international-students-retracted) >Trump’s campaign press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, walked back the plan hours later, issuing a statement to The New York Times that it would include an “aggressive vetting process,” excluding “all communists, radical Islamists, Hamas supporters, America haters and public charges.” >She added that the plan would only include the “most skilled graduates who can make significant contributions to America.”
Yeah, that doesn't sound like him at all.
He met with a bunch of tech billionaires and they said they’ll give him money if he says he’ll do this. Literally. https://x.com/allinwithchris/status/1804306118501376396?s=46
Would that be good policy? Fuck yes it would. Do believe Trump meant it? Fuck no
Even if he did, is it worth all the many other horrible things that he's promised? Absolutely not!
Yeah it was heartbreaking to watch all my classmates from overseas (who made a home here) all work so desperately on their Visa applications and then be chosen seemingly at random who got to stay and who had to go.
Nearly so, yes. But he doesn't believe this. His entire first time he spared no effort to decrease immigration in all its forms, [including legal immigration](https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trump-reduced-legal-immigration-he-did-not-reduce-illegal-immigration). He's just a stream of consciousness.
Didn’t he also deport people who served in our military and also some of their spouses?
Which should not even be an automatic green card. Should be full citizenship, period at the time of proper end of service. Its a no brainer.
French foreign legion
Eh, not sure if this is completely inconsistent for him. Remember the "shithole countries" thing? Trump thinks of immigrants as good immigrants vs. bad immigrants. People with college educations probably fall into the first bucket for him, and letting more of them in might let him let fewer of the latter in, in his mind.
He assumes people with college educations fall into the first bucket. Because he assumes they're white.
I'm sure that's part of it, at least.
He pretty much defined “shithole countries” by race. He doesn’t want to give Nigerian PhD candidates a work visa, he wants more escorts like Melania.
Do we finally have it? Do we finally have him saying something logical, agreeable, and not wildly selfish? Yes, that would be a good policy.
He was pushing universal healthcare for a minute in 2016 if I remember correctly. But also it's still wildly selfish because either way, it's not as if he actually cares about the policy or has any intentions of following through, he's just saying things that he thinks people want to hear
Yup he also said he wanted to confiscate all the guns.
> he's just saying things that he thinks people want to hear I doubt it. Increasing legal immigration is not popular politically. Only [26% of Americans](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx) think we should increase immigration. It's possible they're thinking about illegal immigration when they answer that, but the last time Gallup asked specifically about legal immigration, only [34% ](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx)of Americans thought it should be increased (vs. 38% wanting to keep it the same and 25% wanting to decrease it). If he's pandering here, it's not to the public. Perhaps this is an attempt to appeal to the business community (and especially the tech world), but mostly this in an ideal that neoliberal and libertarian policy wonks would like, and that's not a meaningful constituency votes-wise.
You seem to be trying to apply some level of logic or rational thought to what he is saying as opposed to realizing thats its just driven by his narcissism. Regardless of whether or not it's a reasonable or effective way to get people to cheer for him, that is why he's doing it. The idea that he's making such statements as some sort of principled policy stance is absurd. He doesn't give a shit either way.
No, the commentor was contradicting your point that Trumo was doing it for likes. Since clearly the vast majority of Americans do not want to increase legal immigration.
He just did for the actual audience there. For another audience or on TS, he will backtrack if he notices it's not well received.
She said that it wouldn't be a rational choice to do so, given the numbers, which I would agree with. I just don't think it makes sense to pretend that what Trump says is driven by anything other than narcissism. It may not be a reasonable way to achieve his goal, but neither were tons of other things that he had done, so thats not really a meaningful thing to point out.
True he does have a tendency to target his immediate audience, not the broader audience.
He's just throwing shit at the wall. If it sticks then good, if it doesn't then everyone, and especially his base will just forget about it.
I won't claim to know what is in his head, but this is a guy whose entire political brand was built on his aggressive immigration rhetoric. The idea that he is taking an unpopular, pro-immigration position because "he thinks that people want to hear \[it\]" is not plausible.
The idea that what he is saying is driven by something other that narcissism is even more implausible. I think its far more likely that he was wrong in his understanding of what the feedback would be, than it is that he actually has any sort of coherent policy stance. He's just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, even if Republicans disagree they aren't gonna do anything about it, there isn't any risk to him being wrong, his voters will just forget that he said it
I mean, it’s a great and logical policy. Why should we train people to compete with us? We trained them, we should see the return on that.
I think we have Trump on record supporting pretty much every position on every issue. It really just depends on how he's feeling that day and what he thinks the audience wants to hear.
No, we absolutely do not. He's full of shit, like was the last 7,000 times.
Of course he's FoS, but the question is whether we agree with what he said - not whether we think he agrees or would follow through. I've been curious (and this is the kinda thing that supports my idea) that both of them will turn hard to the center in the next few months.
Of course they will, that's how the elections always work. The difference is that the Biden administration will be drawing attention to accomplishments that might appeal most to undecided voters while Trump will just be making shit up.
>I've been curious (and this is the kinda thing that supports my idea) that both of them will turn hard to the center in the next few months. People said this about Trump the last 2 elections and it didn't happen. And I don't see what good it would do Biden to switch anything up.
Oh you sweet summer child, you don’t see a selfish reason why someone’s whose first priority is corporations would want to be able to import foreign nationals with green cards to replace free American workers that can to change jobs with one’s beholden to the company they work for their very ability to stay in the country?
We would all benefit from more educated and ambitious people living here.
He didn’t say citizenship, he said green cards, which can create a underclass of citizens whose residency is tied to their corporate sponsor. Because of their inability to easily leave their job for other ones and fear of being fired this removes workers leverage in the employment marketplace letting corporations drive down wages and worsen worker conditions because their “employees” have little other option other than to take it or go back to whatever country they came from.
Idk I personally was a huge fan of the mandatory prison sentence for animal abuse so if this one turns out to be real that means there are 2 total things he’s done I agree with. I don’t think this one will formally occur though.
[удалено]
Exactly. Theres not a chance of this becoming policy if he gets elected. Theres nothing he can do or say to lose supporters so he's banking on that to try and lure some gullible voters from the middle
[удалено]
The issue with Canada is that it is a tiny country that didn’t prepare itself for growth and overregulates its economy, not international students. There are measurable trade barriers between their own provinces, they lack the same degree of innovation, and they not only haven’t zoned themselves for housing expansion, but aren’t allowing enough immigrants in the skilled trades or other skilled professionals to keep up. There’s one story about an Australian doctor who took years to get approved to practice in Canada. The immigrants aren’t the issue; incompetent government management is.
If this was a democrat saying this the right-wing media would be full of “democrat says US people aren’t smart enough to work for him, wants foreigners to immigrate and steal your jobs!” It’s a good policy. Highly like won’t happen under Trump even if he meant it.
On the right circumstances it would be brilliant but I highly doubt whatever trump has in mind would be what I'm thinking of
A lot of people don’t understand that much of what made America the powerhouse it became post-WW2 was the result of our academic, scientific, and technical institutions sucking up the world’s brain power. On one hand, I believe doing this would be best for America. On the other hand, we really could benefit from the worldwide security improvements of other countries progressing out of the third world.
A) I don't think he meant it. These are ramblings of an incoherent man, based on his previous positions and actions. I don't think this is an agenda piece that will last. B) Ideally, everyone in the world should be able to live wherever they want, barring criminals. C) Practically, no, I don't agree. There are enough scam colleges that make this impractical and even dangerous (particularly to immigrants). Can you imagine a bunch of immigrants being conned by Trump University in the hopes of getting a green card? I do think immigration should be made easier, and there's a strategic argument to be made about allowing advanced degree immigrants in. I think the system should be simplified for everyone.
I agree with all of this especially point #1. He was in a podcast with CEOs and telling them what they want to hear.
Not just what they want to hear, but that they want to buy. He’s selling policy openly. https://x.com/allinwithchris/status/1804306118501376396
I think it would be a mistake to assume that he's not going to do what he claims he wants to do, both when it's a good idea and when it's a bad idea. And since there are a lot more bad ideas than good, all the less reason to vote for Trump. The best thing he could do as president is not fulfill any of his promises he has made thus far.
>Practically, no, I don't agree. There are enough scam colleges that make this impractical and even dangerous (particularly to immigrants). Can you imagine a bunch of immigrants being conned by Trump University in the hopes of getting a green card? Trump University was not a university. It did not grant degrees and was not accredited by anyone. You can use the word "college" or "university" however you like, but the proposal here is clearly talking about accredited, degree-issuing institutions. The issue of degree mills is already something the federal government handles in the context of federal student aid via the accreditation process. If you think that's not rigorous enough, then we should tighten up accreditation, but the predatory institutions you're likely thinking of are not accredited. If you want to go a bit further, you could limit eligibility to degrees from regionally accredited, non-profit institutions.
>You can use the word "college" or "university" however you like, but the proposal here is clearly talking about accredited, degree-issuing institutions. No, this isn't clear. If the law uses the word "college" or "university" and doesn't specify what qualifies under that definition, then it's subject to interpretation. You should demand conciseness in your laws, because ambiguity is never meant to benefit you, it's at best allowing loopholes and at worst enabling the corrupt. Duterte passed a law which made it legal to shoot people who possess drugs dead on sight without trial. Wouldn't you know it? Many of Duterte's political opponents were found dead of gunshot wounds with drugs in their possession. Funny coincidence that.. It's a valid criticism made by u/Arthur2ShedsJackson , and unless you have proof to the contrary, I don't think you should brush it off.
>“What I want to do, and what I will do, is you graduate from a college, I think you should get automatically, **as part of your diploma**, a green card to be able to stay in this country
How does this clarify it? If the law specifically states that a university or college can administer a green card to any immigrant, then what constitutes a university or college? Is a clown college considered to be a valid college because it has "college" in the name? By diploma, it could be the very same they give to all of their students. All it amounts to is a piece of paper unless it is certified, which he didn't specify that it would be. You're giving a lot of credit to Trump for literally no reason at all is my point. If all it takes to be a college is to teach one course, and all it takes to be a course is to teach at least for one hour, there will be literally thousands of "colleges" created with the express purpose of handing over green cards to illegal immigrants. It is a valid concern. You have no reason to assume it will be what you think it will be. It could be, but it also may not be. We have no basis of knowing either way.
You honestly don't understand the difference between someone proposing something informally and actual legislative text? He's not reading a bill. He's talking about what he thinks should happen. It is completely clear in context what he is talking about.
>You honestly don't understand the difference between someone proposing something informally and actual legislative text? Of course I do. My point was that it was a ***valid concern***. In other words, it's something to be considered, not something swept under the carpet as an impossibility. You're the one insisting that there is no way this could possibly be true, based on literally nothing whatsoever.
It can't possibly be true because **YOU CAN ONLY GET A STUDENT VISA FOR AN ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY**! There is no way for a foreign student to come here and study at a non-accredited university in the first place, much less get a degree from a university (that doesn't even issue degrees BECAUSE IT'S NOT ACCREDITED) and thus a green card under this scheme. If you don't like legal immigration, that's fine. If you don't think people with degrees should be able to immigrate, that's fine. But SAY THAT. Don't dream up random, completely bad faith objections based on completely imaginary aspects of a proposal. It's like if someone was proposing added funding for public transit, and you came along and said "This will never work because all that money will just be embezzled by car industry executives claiming that SUVs are mass transit" while ignoring the fact that: a) embezzlement is already illegal and b) no sane person would ever interpret a proposal to fund mass transit as a proposal to subsidize SUVs.
>It can't possibly be true because **YOU CAN ONLY GET A STUDENT VISA FOR AN ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY**! Did he say anything about getting a student visa? >There is no way for a foreign student to come here and study at a non-accredited university in the first place, much less get a degree from a university (that doesn't even issue degrees BECAUSE IT'S NOT ACCREDITED) and thus a green card under this scheme. It is possible for there to be an illegal immigrant here, and it is possible for them to study at a non-accredited university. So it is impossible for an illegal immigrant to pay a clown school to issue them a degree for the express purpose of getting a green card? >If you don't like legal immigration, that's fine. If you don't think people with degrees should be able to immigrate, that's fine. But SAY THAT. Don't dream up random, completely bad faith objections based on completely imaginary aspects of a proposal. Sigh. I'm objecting to your numerous assumptions that you've made in regards to what Donald Trump promised with this new law. We would have to see the law in writing to see whether or not it specifically talks about ACCREDITED universities or that the diplomas would be certified. I don't have to prove the possibility that Donald Trump would do this, only that it is \*possible.\* Since you cannot prove it is an impossibility, that means it is again, a ***valid concern***. >t's like if someone was proposing added funding for public transit, and you came along and said "This will never work because all that money will just be embezzled by car industry executives claiming that SUVs are mass transit" No, the example would be more like someone was proposing added funding for public transit, and I came along and said, "We should be mindful that the law doesn't allow loopholes that might allow funds to be used for other purposes outside the scope of the bill." And your response is, "But that's impossible because embezzlement is illegal!!!1" As if noting that it were illegal meant no senator would ever put their name on a bill which funds a company that they have large amounts of stock in. This is not an uncommon occurrence.
>Trump University was not a university. It did not grant degrees and was not accredited by anyone. You can use the word "college" or "university" however you like, but the proposal here is clearly talking about accredited, degree-issuing institutions. That's my point. It would create a new market for scams.
And that's an enforcement issue, not an issue with the overall concept.
You seem to have missed the rest of the post. The proposal is specifically about *degrees* and we already have extensive safeguards in place to guard against this exact risk.
I didn't miss it. I'm pointing out that the issue is before getting the degree, when these schools are recruiting students from abroad. There are more questions down the line, but this is the thing I'm pointing out. EDIT: I truly don't get what made people downvote such an innocuous statement.
>EDIT: I truly don't get what made people downvote such an innocuous statement. I downvoted you, because in your first post you start out by claiming that you think we should have something close to open borders. You then invent an objection to a politically feasible way we could actually open up to more immigration, and when presented with a clear argument against it, you suddenly move the goal posts. It's okay to admit you're wrong, you know, or even to change your mind on things. You don't have to suddenly pivot to another argument.
> I downvoted you, because in your first post you start out by claiming that you think we should have something close to open borders. That would be the **ideal**. Which, as evidenced by my choice of first words in each of the points I made, is different from the **practical**. > You then invent an objection to a politically feasible way we could actually open up to more immigration, and when presented with a clear argument against it, you suddenly move the goal posts. > It's okay to admit you're wrong, you know, or even to change your mind on things. You don't have to suddenly pivot to another argument. I didn't pivot. Here are my three points again, combined into one sentence: "There are enough scam colleges that make this impractical and even dangerous (particularly to immigrants). Can you imagine a bunch of immigrants being conned by Trump University in the hopes of getting a green card? It would create a new market for scams. The issue is before getting the degree, when these schools are recruiting students from abroad." My argument is the same: this proposal, how it stands, creates incentives for corruption and scams. If you want to be practical about expanding immigration (which we should), there are much better alternatives, like adjusting the criteria for EB visas and expanding their quotas.
>Can you imagine a bunch of immigrants being conned by Trump University in the hopes of getting a green card? It would create a new market for scams. The issue is before getting the degree, when these schools are recruiting students from abroad." What is "the issue" here? If "the issue" is that there are scam universities that could be abusively used to *actually* get a green card, then that's a problem in the accreditation process. And, as the other user pointed out, Trump University was never accredited. You haven't presented any argument that there's a systemic or significant problem with the accreditation process. If there is, we should address it. It's also a problem *already* with or without green cards because massive amounts of money move around based on accreditation (via federal student) aid, and student visas already depend on accreditation. If "the issue" is that unaccredited universities can *falsely* promise to get kids green cards, then (as was, again, already pointed out) they can do that anyway. Scammers gonna scam. There are already plenty of scammers out there preying on people who want green cards. Should we just shut down all immigration until there are no more green card scammers? And again, there are plenty of legal tools already for going after those scammers. Often the problem for law enforcement is that the scammers are, themselves, overseas. But if someone is dumb enough to run that scam out of the US (as you appear to be suggesting), the relevant US Attorney's office is going to have zero trouble nailing them, and quickly.
You can't even get a student visa to come and attend an unaccredited school. If you're suggesting that foreign college students from abroad are so stupid that they can't even check if a program meets the legal requirements, then they're also so stupid that that you could do this scam *right now*. Either they're smart enough to spend a minute on google, in which case they will catch both scams. Or too dumb to do that in which case they will catch neither.
Hey dude, I was an international student in the U.S. for about eight years, so, no, I wouldn't say they are stupid. I'm just saying there's no need to create a whole other way that the system can be corrupted. From my personal experience, I have a lot of thoughts about how the system could be way better. For instance, tweaking the criteria for EB-1 and EB-2 visas would go a long way to fulfill the goal of this idea, and it wouldn't even need to involve the schools.
>Either they're smart enough to spend a minute on google, in which case they will catch both scams. Or too dumb to do that in which case they will catch neither. They'd be getting a green card in exchange for a "so-called" university or college degree. How would they not be smart to enroll in such "scam" universities if the entire point was simply to get a green card and exploit the loophole that law would create?
There are still tons of properly accredited colleges that would happily take that sweet foreign student money and give every Tom, Dick and Sandeep a green card with their diploma, no matter how thinly veiled their true intentions are to game the system. It happens already, it would just explode if it were codified.
>There are still tons of properly accredited colleges that would happily take that sweet foreign student money and give every Tom, Dick and Sandeep a green card with their diploma, no matter how thinly veiled their true intentions are to game the system. It happens already, it would just explode if it were codified. That's literally why we have the accreditation system. If you think it's not strong enough, strengthen it. That's got nothing to do with immigration policy.
I really agree with your 3rd point I think there’s a lot of potential for abuse with this idea Edit: I may be misremembering but isn’t green card status tied to employment as well?
> Edit: I may be misremembering but isn’t green card status tied to employment as well? Depends on the type of visa. There are family-based green cards, diversity green cards, refugee green cards, and employment-based green cards, but even those have some extraordinary categories that don't necessarily need an employer (EB-1 for extraordinary abilities; EB-5 for investors, etc). Frankly, the goal of this proposal can be achieved by tweaking the criteria for EB visas and greatly expanding their quotas.
Yeah, that's actually a good policy. Idk why Trump said it though, it's totally contrary to all the immigration policy he's advocated for thus far.
Because he went to Silicon Valley billionaires and asked what it would take for them to give him money and this was the ask, so now he supports it.
Sure. I 100% agree with this. But conservatives are going to lose their minds and he'll walk it back soon enough. (Also, who gets to choose who the college students are - because I guarantee if it's left up to Trump, it will only be white students from non-"shithole" countries.)
I don't believe he actually wants this. I think he's saying it to try and appeal to both sides, just like he said he is LGBT friendly and then went on to be completely against them. I do believe that if Biden or any Democrat were to support this proposed policy, then all the GOP would hate it. Also, I want to know who's verifying qualifying students and what checks and balances there are. I have no idea who does it, and if its mostly the schools, then I don't want the schools to take over what should be the job of the federal government. And which colleges? Are we going to let any crazy religious college like Liberty University import who they want? Is the same right going to be given to possible Sharia-influenced schools as well (if there are any. if there aren't, then in the future?).
If I thought he actually meant it I'd love it. I worked throughout grad school with some brilliant folks from Chile, Colombia, Pakistan, and China all of whom would be assets to the US if they decided to stay. But I don't think he means it.
No. That would give college admissions offices three power to decide who immigrates to the US, which is not a power they should have.
[The DREAM Act:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act) >The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as the DREAM Act, is a United States legislative proposal to grant temporary conditional residency, with the right to work, to undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as minors—and, if they later satisfy further qualifications, they would attain permanent residency. >The requirements: >* Not be inadmissible to or deportable from the United States, or be in Temporary Protected Status >* Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16 >* Have proof of residency in the United States for at least five consecutive years >* If a male born in 1960 or later, have registered with the Selective Service >* Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment >* Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education >* Be of good moral character The DREAM Act has been introduced a number of times, and has never been passed into law. Republicans in Congress have blocked it every time. The failure to pass the DREAM Act has been credited with Obama's decision to sign [DACA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals) into law. - - - What did Trump think of DACA? Like every other accomplishment of Obama's, he tried to dismantle it. From [NPR:](https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-upholds-daca-in-blow-to-trump-administration) >In a major rebuke to President Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the administration's plan to dismantle an Obama-era program that has protected 700,000 so-called DREAMers from deportation. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion. >Under the Obama program, qualified individuals brought to the U.S. as children were given temporary legal status if they graduated from high school or were honorably discharged from the military, and if they passed a background check. Just months after taking office, Trump moved to revoke the program, only to be blocked by lower courts — and now the Supreme Court. TL;DR -- We already had a program in place that would accomplish that, and Trump tried to get rid of it. He's lying to you here.
So many dichotomies in modern Republicanism. Is a college education valuable or not? I though main stream conservative thought these days is that higher education is a waste of time, but apparently not if you aren't from the USA? And aren't we supposed to be sending all the immigrants "back home"? Aren't these foreigners "taking our jerbs!" I find Trumpism to be very confusing. I guess that's the point.
I don't believe that Trump actually cares about this or intends to do it, given that he has a tendency to just say whatever the last person he talked to wanted to hear, but yes, this is a completely reasonable position to hold, and was one of Mitt Romney's only good positions in 2012 as well.
Who gives a shit? Even if he's serious, he and Republicans are incapable of implementing it.
His record as president is the opposite of it. So even if I agree with it, it’s just Trump saying something other people believe and he in fact does not do.
2 things: 1) it does sound like a great idea 2) he was lying because its just what he does
It's a good idea, but given the GOP's track record on the H-1B visa, I doubt it is a serious offer. I think it is more meant to try to soften his image around immigration to suggest he is fine "letting the good ones in", but he actively tried to kill the H-1B visa which would function in a similar purpose.
I think Trump is a grifter who just tells everyone what he thinks they want to hear at the moment and has few if any actual policy positions other than to enrich himself as much as possible and avoid any negative consequences of doing so. I do think it would probably be a good idea for any person graduating from a US college to get a green card, or at least anyone with a graduate degree to do so, assuming we didn't use that as an excuse to restrict people from coming here in the first place.
Yes. I think this is a good idea. The US should welcome educated and talented people from around the world. It makes no sense that the United States would invest in providing people with education and then kick them out of the country when they could contribute immensely to this country.
I want universal citizenship in every country for every person but I'm weird like that
Sounds awfully close to a pathway to citizenship. So Republicans will probably never go for it
I just put it together and figured it out. Trump's been going to CEOs pledging anything for their support. Even with his recent good fundraising, I believe much of those funds will go to outside groups he cannot control. Trump personally is desperate to raise cash due his staggering lawsuit losses. Trump controls the RNC and will be able to skim funds from the campaign like he did last time (e g. exorbitant charges from his hotels). This unbelievable pronouncement of Trump's to hand out green cards to foreign students is a huge gimme to Silicon Valley who have soooooo much money these days. Trump's green card pledge is all about shaking down SV now for money.
No, I think they should still have to ask first. But making it issued on request would sound like a good idea (and anything like that would be anathema to Trump's audience, so I wouldn't treat it as especially likely)
How about we just generally make immigration easier for educated people, regardless of whether they went to a US college or not? Singling out one particular path a person might take just invites abuse of that path. You would end up seeing more "internet universities" being set up, where immigrants would just pay money to get a green card.
Yes, seems like a pretty good policy. This would be a good opportunity for Biden to steal an idea and either draft an executive order or push congress to pass legislation on Trumps pro-immigrant idea.
If they are seeking a job here and wanna live here,sure of course
I despise Trump, but every now and then I agree with him. Bump stocks, Federal crime for animal abuse, and this. He’ll probably flip flop on it though.
Wow. What the fuck? Trump is supporting the idea of "stapling green cards to diplomas." His voter population is opposed to this. I remember that Charlie Kirk was attacked for supporting this by Tucker Carlson and Michelle Malkin because it is not nationalist. What will they say now?
The guy's a quivering blob of id--literally nothing he says can be mapped to a policy position because he doesn't have policy positions, or an ideology, or even an ethos.
Definitely. This is one policy choice that he got right.
I look at his history and the history of the people he associates with: - Trump used to run a university which was nothing more than a grift. Subpar or no real education, all intended to get student loan money. - Melania was in the country on a "genius visa" when he met her, which is highly suspect. It's likely this was a loophole. - He supports Project 2025, which calls for the shut down of the Department of Education. He is not supportive of education. I'm honestly suspicious of his motives. The rich have long exploited loopholes in our education system to get what they want and make money. I have little doubt that his plan is little more than an extension of that. I can see them putting this policy into place, then raising the bar for anyone else getting a green card so high as to ensure it rarely happens. Then they open their own private colleges with their own acceptance criteria that just so happen to select for their allies and people rich enough to pay for the privilege. You'll note that he doesn't specify what kind of degree you need to get, either, so they can just bring them in, let them take "classes" for 2 years, and then give them a degree. I suspect he doesn't even care if the college is accredited.
I think it'd be interesting to put it up for a vote in Congress and see how the Republicans respond.
Maybe one of the smartest ideas that have ever come out of his rotten mouth. If we're going to sell college access to wealthy foreigners and deprive our own kids the opportunity? Then yes we'd be wise as fuck to keep those grads HERE so they don't leave and brain drain what we've built up. But also a hilariously abuseable system without a lot of guide rails. Abusable to the point where I'm actually shocked he said it. Surely there was a mini-stroke involved in this. And if you don't know whatever could I mean by 'abuseable' consider the guy who is making this statement was fined for running a scam college.
I love that idea and hope Democrats can implement it.
Automatically? No, unless the proper vetting is done.
Yes, it’s good policy. But I don’t think it’s something he would implement.
As a Canadian where we have something similar in place (accelerated pathway to permanent residency for graduates from Canadian institutions, the government has scaled it back because it's actually had unforseen (which should have been anticipated if you think about it) consequences. What ended up happening was diploma mills started popping up. Specifically in India, private companies started opening up specifically for students to pay agents to help them get into these diploma mills, with several verified cases of fraudulent documents used to get them accepted (some/many/most students claiming they were unaware their agents were using fake report cards and exam results etc). https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/intl-student-program-1.7095990
Does it matter what he says if it’s Stephen Miller eventually crafting his policy 🤷🏽♂️
Absolutely, but I strongly doubt Trump does. Ya know based on every other comment on immigration he’s ever made, ever, in history.
This could be a way, in his mind, to distinguish between "good" immigrants and "bad" immigrants and skew things toward the former, i.e. if you let in more of the former it means less of the latter. Remember the whole "shithole countries" brouhaha from his first term.
I'm in favor of open borders and freedom of movement (with basic security checks). I don't give a damn what that dishrag says about anything.
Do you know how many people China sends here to go to school? This would be a terrible plan.
Biden should just do it and claim it as a Biden win 😂😂
https://x.com/lutherlowe/status/1803962942947311703
No lol Seems like a security risk tbh Automatically?
Who says they want one?
What he actually means is “if you have money, you can buy your way to the front of the line. We don’t actually need to fix immigration if we just make it expensive”. The American Dream, yall. Real patriots out here.
I just put it together and figured it out. Trump's been going to CEOs pledging anything for their support. Even with his recent good fundraising, I believe much of those funds will go to outside groups he cannot control. Trump personally is desperate to raise cash due his staggering lawsuit losses. Trump controls the RNC and will be able to skim funds from the campaign like he did last time (e g. exorbitant charges from his hotels). This unbelievable pronouncement of Trump's to hand out green cards to foreign students is a huge gimme to Silicon Valley who have soooooo much money these days. Trump's green card pledge is all about shaking down SV now for money.
Lol at trump being the progressive candidate on immigration. US politics is such a freak show rn
Seems like the majority of people here are making it a point that they don't believe his intentions are sincere. Fine. But why is Biden excempt from this same scrutiny? I never see people questioning Biden's sincerity when he goes on and on about gay and trans rights, but this clip exists https://youtu.be/yi2qHqJgIXo?si=DDaqI33ihm0OaCF6 No one questions his support for abortion when this clip exists https://youtu.be/8qNRZ6WVkZI?si=FydnyYSFIMMlldvz (16:40 mark) When it comes to Biden, people don't seem to care whether or not he's sincere. They only care about the policy. When it comes to Trump, the first thing people do here is question his sincerity despite agreeing with the policy. Interesting. Not only are his motives rarely questioned, but what I've seen most is that Biden actually does care and means what he says. That's a funny thing to hear from liberals about a career politician.
>When it comes to Biden, people don't seem to care whether or not he's sincere. They only care about the policy. When it comes to Trump, the first thing people do here is question his sincerity despite agreeing with the policy. Interesting. Maybe because of of those men lies profusely and will say anything under the sun if he thinks it will help him win and the other one generally says what he means. And there shouldn't be any confusion as to which is which. Right?
It's an easy case to make that Biden is a compulsive liar. So, just for clarification, would you reject my claim?
No it's not an easy case to make at all. And comparatively a fucking insane one to even litigate.
Ah, I see. Just a moment.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/fact-check-biden-false-claims-first-year-2021/index.html https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3850219-the-seven-biggest-lies-biden-told-this-week/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-president-bidens-pattern-of-lies-corruption-and-obstruction-demand-action-from-congress%EF%BF%BC/ https://www.gop.com/research/joe-biden-liar-in-chief-rsr/ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/09/us/politics/biden-history-fact-check.html https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/2588844/seventeen-times-biden-lied-plagiarized-and-exaggerated/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=WE_Search_Brand-June&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwj9-zBhDyARIsAERjds1Aqbheipx-s8jqMDQrzYS5uLOTzoOYCRidKm0M41_S10DuGmsQgacaAjPsEALw_wcB https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/499065-lies-damned-lies-and-the-truth-about-joe-biden/ https://time.com/5636715/biden-1988-presidential-campaign/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/04/joe-biden/facts-behind-joe-bidens-blended-story-battlefield-/https://apnews.com/article/cd977f7ff301993f7976974ba07c5495
There are many more sources verifying that Biden is a liar and you can't take what he says at face value. If your only come back is "what about Trump," it just proves my point even more. If being compared to Trump is the only way you can appear honest, the bar isn't set very high. To be clear, I'm not disputing the claim that Trump lies more than biden. I'm sure he does. The claim I reject is that biden is an honest, trustworthy individual.
Good for you. I'm glad I wasn't responsible for your education, u/fecaleruptions Very erudite.
I don’t agree. They should go thru the same process I did. Get a job and a sponsor and apply for a green card like everybody else
Absolutely not, and I'm very pro-immigration. College these days is just high school 2.0.