50Stars

   I agree with the views expressed in this post , that the bill, if passed, will be a very poor decision. The author argues in his post that this legislation will hurt the economy as the bill will reduce the chances of finding cheap labor. I agree with this argument, and in addition to that, some of the cheap labor jobs are jobs that American citizens do not want. An example of this would be the US agricultural industry where is is heavily reliant on a migrant workforce to help harvest crops. Some crop farmers have expressed the view that , if the Mexican workers were to be sent back, the entire agricultural system will collapse. Therefore, unskilled and cheap labor is essential to fill up jobs that no American wants, but are still essential to the American economy. Hence, only allowing highly skilled workers into the United States is a very poor move. Like the author, I do understand that the benefit of this legislation of admitting skilled workers through a merit system, means t

   On July 26, President Trump caught everyone by surprise, when he tweeted his intentions of banning transgender people from serving the military. Trump's reasoning for his decision was that it was too expensive to pay for transgender troops' healthcare and the potential disruptions it might cause. While I do understand the President's concern, I feel that his actions will bring about greater harm compared to the benefit of reducing the cost of the military spending. President Trump reasoned that the cost of  transition related treatment will be "tremendous." A study done by the Rand Corporation shows that the costs of such treatment will add between 2.4 million and 8.4 million dollars to the military's annual budget. While the number may seem high, this will only increase the military spending by 0.017% .  This cost is pretty insignificant compared to the potential cost of retraining troops to replace transgender troops. Furthermore, some trans gende