281–290 of 701 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall") Walls going up are days of sadness. Walls broken down are days of joy. The thing to keep in mind here is that such walls built to keep others out can be used just as easily to keep the locals in (on either side).
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.
Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. Universities do it.
Selective schools don't need to, less selective schools don't want to.
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.
> you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. I'm sure it's possible to do it, if you take a narrow enough view of 'usefulness', e.g. 'usefulness' = measurable economic productivity. You can screen out people with expensive preexisting medical conditions, people who cannot work, etc., and that will obviously raise the average productivity of immigrants. But it's immoral. Rich host coun…
Why? You appear to be making an argument that a sovereign nation has a moral obligation of care for another sovereign nation as a penalty for their success. What is your rational basis for believing that the US should take in immigrants that are unable to contribute to our society?
I'm generally pro-immigration, but this type of argument stinks of an insidious combination of American exceptionalism and white guilt. What makes you think someone who is unable to be productive and needs care is better off immigrating to a wealthy foreign country rather than staying in their home country? In their home country they have shared culture, family, and a social system that allows subsistence living more easily. Someone like this coming to the US would be faced with language barriers, likely homelessness, and an immediate need to rely entirely on the government as they'd have no other support system. I'd argue if they're trying to immigrate to a wealthier nation for other reasons they'd be better served going to Northern Europe, not the US.
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.
> One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. This is exactly what the study shows is not just possible but easy in screening by nationality. Think about US immigration statistics by country ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat... ): you'll see lots of Central and South American countries. Now take a…
Looking at >$1B businesses only, as this story does, presents a rather skewed perspective. Per Fiscal Policy Institute "there are nonetheless more small business owners from Mexico than from any other single country... Immigrants born in Mexico make up 12 percent of immigrant small business owners, followed by immigrants born in India, Korea, Cuba, China, and Vietnam." http://fiscalpolicy.org/immigrant-small-business-owners-FPI-...
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.
The only companies abusing H1-B visas are Indian outsourcing firms. The abuse though, is based on the eye of the beholder. From the outsourcing firm's perspective they are merely providing a service that is legally allowed in the market. American companies aren't completely off the hook though, for example in WA, AT&T and T-Mobile don't hire many international students from universities, instead they prefer to bring…
1: https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/h1b.pd...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a million studies done about it. Also, the Wiki link I posted contained lots of links and references. Anyhow, here's one: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resource... Quote from it: Weakness in human capital and particularly skill deficiency is a drag on investment and growth in Africa. Progress in overcoming shortages of skilled and trained manpower seems to be disappointingly slow, despit…
I was trying to gather more information, not debate. But now that you mention it, none of those citations support your hyperbole that human capital flight "is the single biggest obstacle". They all refer to it as "a" problem, or "one of the main."
Anyhow, it's not politically popular to state such in today's climate, but it is the largest impediment to development. We could also add war, famine, and a lack of institutions, but those are arguably caused by a lack of development and lower human capital. It's not exactly a politically correct thing to say but, if all the educated people move away from a country, who's left to rule it?
Anyhow, lots of sources list corruption, inequality, human capital flight - my opinion is based on both my education (in economics) as well as my experience.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall") Walls going up are days of sadness. Walls broken down are days of joy. The thing to keep in mind here is that such walls built to keep others out can be used just as easily to keep the locals in (on either side).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never finished university, and I started a bunch of companies. How do you sort out people on a "promising"/"not promising" scale for doing good things for the economy?
> How do you sort out people on a "promising"/"not promising" scale for doing good things for the economy? Ask Australia? But at a very basic level: * Criminal background -> sorry * No high school-equivalent education -> sorry * Crippling, expensive disease -> sorry Those are just three basic things that let you know straight away that this person has little chance to do anything but consume resources.