So far it's worked out, I think. I'm not talking about a billion dollar startup, but trillion-dollar technology. Think Manhattan project, not WhatsApp.
> Think Manhattan project So established scientists from Western countries?
Don't comment about history you know nothing about.
One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. It looks like every kind of screening of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones, as far as that determination is possible on their arrival at all.
Another insidious equivalence of equating immigration policy geared towards unskilled, illegal immigrants with immigration policy in general.
Whenever I see "Immigration" in the title, i think anti-Trump and get sad. No one is trying to stop legal immigration. Tech companies are mad because they are cracking down on H1-B Visa abuse. This is not a bad thing.
Issues of H1-B Visa abuse aside, I think this guy was trying to stop legal immigration: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/kent-shooting... I don't think articles like "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups" are all about anti-Trump, it's more like pointing out to the American public that immigrants are not a tax on the rest of society.
I am sure there are some who don't like any kind of immigration; however, I believe most Americans are only concerned with illegal immigration, so it really doesn't do much to sway public opinion to claim that immigrants are good for the economy, since nobody is denying that and it is irrelevant to the issue of illegal immigration. Most people are fine with immigration, as long as immigrants come in legally. For example, my wife is an immigrant and currently holds a green card, but both of us are against illegal immigration. It's best not to conflate the two.
Now that we know immigrants are better businesspeople than those US-born, the next logical step is to find out which immigrants are the best, and preferentially allow those...
So far it's worked out, I think. I'm not talking about a billion dollar startup, but trillion-dollar technology. Think Manhattan project, not WhatsApp.
> Think Manhattan project So established scientists from Western countries?
Even if that's the only group that's worthwhile, bringing in the rest of the world is like a loss-leader at a retail store. Being friendly is good advertising.
Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. Universities do it.
There are many alternatives if you are denied from a university, such as applying to a different university or learning online instead. There is only one America
First they came for the "Illegals"... Rhetoric aside, as you pointed out, this is only the beginning. Authoritarians always need a scrapegoat to blame for "failed policies". Once one group is eliminated, on to another.
One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. It looks like every kind of screening of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones, as far as that determination is possible on their arrival at all.
It wouldn't be hard to have an immigration system which is biased toward useful vs. not useful. The question is: where do you want to have the cutoff? I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), combined with a transparent and straightforward points-based system for mainly immigrant visas. I'd eliminate the inherent racism in the current system (penalizing India and China vs. Equatorial Gui…
Yeah I mean, the problem is that we can't afford to "let them all in", so how do you decide who to let in? An immigration policy that is held be numerous other countries that favors skilled immigrants seems to be reasonable. On the other hand, brain drain. How will those countries continue to get better and enjoy a modern standard of living if all the smart people leave?
It seems to make that cuts the other way. What is the cost of integrating and potentially supporting a million immigrants compared to the return from one billion dollar startup? (Especially when we're talking a billion dollars of Monopoly money valuation versus day a billion in revenue.)
It doesn't "cost" anyone much. Immigrants pay for goods and services and provide labor, so they economy just ends up expanding. It's not like taking "too many" immigrants will make you poor because it cost too much. More likely the cost would be social and political rather than economic.
You can't ignore the social cost of integrating and Americanizing new immigrants. You also can't brush aside the potential load in the social welfare system. The economic cost of immigration tends to be low, but that's partly because we mostly deny welfare services to poor immigrants. Having a class of people living here without a safety net, or being limited in your ability to expand the safety net for everyone is a bad thing, not a good one.
One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. It looks like every kind of screening of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones, as far as that determination is possible on their arrival at all.
And this matters because individual productivity is a log-normal distribution, like VC returns. As a country it's a good investment to invite millions of immigrants trying to find the next major inventor. I suppose this also relies on national productivity being the product of, not the sum of individuals productivity.
>I suppose this also relies on national productivity being the product of, not the sum of individuals productivity.
By that logic you can easily argue it's imperative to weed out those with productivity close to 0 (and below 1).
Great people inspire greatness, awfully people can bring their whole environment down. That's why ghettos are such a bad idea.
From your arguments alone I wouldn't be able to tell which side you are arguing for.