In my personal opinion, this is bullish for bay area real estate. You can tag me with this call.
One way to look at it:
Any immigration changes around H1B visas need law to pass congress (as laws are already well established). Trump does this after Republicans lose house majority. Dems won’t pass anything related to immigration without some sort of illegal immigration benefits.
Trump had already offered citizenship for dreamers with chain migration of direct family (parents, siblings, and children). Democrats rejected it and insist on unlimited chain migration (any family member). They’ll reject anything Trump proposes. He could propose making America fossil fuel free, and they’d switch and say climate change is good and the key to our future.
Everyone focused on the H1-B crackdown. Data says there are less Visas going to contracting firms like Infosys and more going to top-tier tech employers. That’s how the system is supposed to work. It’s good for high-skilled foreigners who aren’t losing their spot to lower-skilled workers. It’s good for top tech companies who can get the talent they need. It’s bad for the contracting firms but oh well.
More than anything else this shows that Trump is in favor of H1Bs. There were lot of rumors last year and some real estate agents told me that deterred potential buyers. This at least confirms that it will be status quo for them if not better.
This is good for real estate in all tech hubs like Silicon Valley, Seattle etc.
Agree, this will be bullish for RE in all tech hubs.
He is playing politics, preparing for next elections, challenging existing house Dems., not real intention…
I doubt that. He’s consistently been for highly-skilled immigration.
I doubt there are politics here. H1Bs cannot vote. Trump will not get a single vote because of this.
I agree with @rocketfast to a certain extent, even if the intent is right, IF congressional approval is required nothing will get passed.
<sidenote’>Where is our resident Trump lover(since there is Trump is in the headline)?</sidenote’>
Rushing out to buy more RE?
Ahhh………don’t I love the spinners kissing anything this liar president does?
I will do it in segments because the impairment some posters have to read between the lines:
On the day that Donald Trump ended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), he called on Congress to pass a legislative replacement for the Executive-branch program — one that would protect its 700,000 (former) beneficiaries from deportation. The president went on to suggest that if Congress failed to protect those Dreamers, he would “revisit the issue,” and, ostensibly, protect them himself. <----Are you understanding the BS now?
Four months later, a bipartisan group of senators announced that they’d reached consensus on a DACA replacement bill: Even though the president and GOP leadership had claimed to support legal status for Dreamers as an end in itself (and thus should have been prepared to support legislation that does nothing but that), Democrats nonetheless agreed to back a Dream Act that includes funding for Trump’s border wall, limits on the ability of legal U.S. residents to sponsor their adult children for immigration, and a reduction in diversity visas — provisions championed by Republicans and loathed by the progressive base.
On Thursday afternoon, Republican senators went to tell Trump the good news.
The president then told them the bad news:
The Trump administration rejected a bipartisan Senate proposal to protect young undocumented immigrants from deportation, saying it needed more work.
“We’re pleased that bipartisan members are talking,” President Donald Trump’s congressional liaison Marc Short said Thursday, but added, “I think there’s still a ways to go.”
… Second-ranking Senate Republican John Cornyn, who isn’t part of the group, said he spoke with Trump and the president told him the negotiators need to get wider approval of the plan before moving ahead.
Immigration hardliner Senator Tom Cotton, a Trump ally, called the proposal “a joke” after the White House meeting, saying it didn’t go far enough in particular to end immigration family preferences.
To be clear: This bill almost certainly does not “need to get wider approval” to pass. With Trump’s support, there should be more than enough Democratic and moderate Republican votes to get a Dream Act to his desk (even if some House progressives and conservatives buck their respective leaders).
Rather, the president appears to expect legislators to come up with a DACA deal that can both win enough Democratic support to pass the Senate and make all of his far-right friends happy. Trump has said repeatedly that he wants a bipartisan immigration deal. Earlier this week, he suggested that he would sign any immigration bill that made it to his desk. And yet, as Vox’s Dara Lind notes, every time congressional leaders have asked the administration what it needs to see in a DACA bill, the White House has produced a list of demands too extreme for many Republican senators:
“”“the White House has produced a list of demands too extreme for many Republican senators:”""
In December, the Senate’s bipartisan working group asked White House Chief of Staff John Kelly to tell them what the administration would need in a DACA deal for the president to sign it.
Late last week, they ostensibly got their reply: The White House sent the exact same document it had released in October, outlining an immigration “framework” that posited an overhaul of asylum laws, stepped-up interior enforcement, and a broad crackdown on legal immigration on the scale of the Trump-endorsed RAISE Act. Alongside it was a document outlining a “vision” for Trump’s border wall: 700 miles, at a cost of $18 billion.
Of course, the entire reason the senators asked Kelly for the White House’s demands in December was that they hadn’t taken the October wish list seriously. So the White House was essentially — as Breitbart correctly pointed out — thumbing its nose at the idea of a bipartisan DACA deal.
Eventually, Trump is going to need to decide how he actually feels about protecting Dreamers: Is it the urgent necessity that he called on Congress to pass, or an odious concession that is only acceptable when paired with a restrictionist revolution in American immigration policy?
If it’s the former, he’s going to have to disappoint Tom Cotton; if the latter, he’ll need to tell 700,000 people who grew up in the United States, lived by its laws, and contributed to its prosperity that this isn’t their country anymore.
So, where’s the legislation this liar president was going to sign?
Trump can help H1B with rules already on the book. How about reversing crap like not allowing spouses to work? Many of these spouses are highly educated themselves. While we are at it, would be great to fast track the processes we already have.
That was challenged in court and is likely a losing battle. That’s why it was repealed instead of continuing a losing legal battle. It was one of the unconstitutional easter eggs Obama left behind. Nothing like leaving office with it in a legal battle. Then the next guy gets blamed for repealing it. The fact is Obama never had the right to do it in the first place.
DACA and H4-EAD are Obama creations with executive orders i.e. no Congressional backing.
Having said that both of these could be part of some future immigration deal making, although I think Trump administration will wait for Supreme Court ruling on DACA first(because it expects Supreme court will strike it down).
H4-EAD is in front of some lower court.
Just that DACA and H4 EAD are going thru courts doesnt mean Trump has to reverse Obama’s exec orders. He could have left them alone waiting for courts’ decisions. If he believed these were good policies that is.
Trump himself isn’t shy about exec orders himself, and dozens of those are getting tied up in courts too. By your standard he shouldn’t have issued any?
Fundamentally I don’t see Trump as friendly to immigration, legal or not.
Criticism of Trump’s immigration policies - “I want Obama’s policies when Trump is President… why? because I like Obama’s policies…”
Dozens? The travel ban was challenged in court. Care to list the dozens that are being challenged?