[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What are you guys complaining about?!
They probably want to move to the US.[/quote]
We are talking about Orion and Lixy, right? I doubt it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What are you guys complaining about?!
They probably want to move to the US.
We are talking about Orion and Lixy, right? I doubt it.[/quote]
Shit, if you lived abroad, wouldn’t you want to move to America? Hell, when I was abroad, I always knew I wanted to come home.
'Course with these two… well, I wouldn’t be surprised if orion ended up doing a stint in the states. Lixy will probably visit at some point, probably as a tourist though.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Europe can pick up all these rejected immigrants! “Let’s go bitch at the US that they’re not snapping up the brightest fast enough, before we can.” Let’s use a paper that doesn’t even present immigration policy as one of the more significant factors, to make our case. [/quote]
Immigration policy is pervasive in this context. I have no doubt that somewhere around 100% would apply for citizenship if it wasn’t such a hassle. Or that they’d seek jobs in the US if they were on equal footing as Americans.
First of all, I am not European. Nor do I plan to be. So, I don’t give a flying duck about whatever quarrel you might have with the Old Continent.
This thread was intended to spark debate about what is - in my opinion - an overly protectionist immigration policy (compared to the rest of the world’s trends). It stems from genuine admiration of the American ideals as described by your Founding Fathers. If you think the immigration policy is just peaches over there, it just confirms my feeling that it’s unlikely to change.
Your overblown reaction is a perfect illustration of the knee-jerk nationalism that got these laws passed in the first place.
[quote]lixy wrote:
This thread was intended to spark debate about what is - in my opinion - an overly protectionist immigration policy [/quote]
with you so far…
huh? I thought the whole world, more or less, was getting more restrictive since the big nine one one. Have things been turning around lately?
Overall I think we (being the US) should implement a guest worker program for low-skilled workers with the opportunity to apply for longer-term visas given a laundry list of obligations (eg English, no felonies, stable income, etc) and greatly increased immigration for high-skilled workers. The current system is badly broken.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Immigration policy is pervasive in this context. I have no doubt that somewhere around 100% would apply for citizenship if it wasn’t such a hassle. Or that they’d seek jobs in the US if they were on equal footing as Americans.[/quote]
And? They’re apparently such a valueable resource, they’ll get snatched up by some other nation. Why are you so concerned that others might be able to compete for our castoffs and self-deported? Who knows, maybe the brains will stay behind and improve their own countries.
And if, again, immigration policy isn’t named as one of the most significant factors, just how hassle free do you folks want it?! Right, you two are Anarchists (or close enough to it).
That, I don’t doubt. And I suspect many, many, many more immigrants feel the same way, in Europe.
[quote]This thread was intended to spark debate about what is - in my opinion - an overly protectionist immigration policy (compared to the rest of the world’s trends).
It stems from genuine admiration of the American ideals as described by your Founding Fathers. If you think the immigration policy is just peaches over there, it just confirms my feeling that it’s unlikely to change.
Your overblown reaction is a perfect illustration of the knee-jerk nationalism that got these laws passed in the first place. [/quote]
The American peoples’ Founding Fathers didn’t have a welfare state, the threat of wmd terrorism, or quick, safe, and easy transport across the pond, capable of bringing the numbers of immigrants we could see coming over today, etc.
The rest of the world should be overjoyed that they can compete for our castoffs. Take advantage, we’ll see your results in the market, and in developing economies!
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
huh? I thought the whole world, more or less, was getting more restrictive since the big nine one one. Have things been turning around lately? [/quote]
Air travel, yes. Immigration and/or naturalization, no.
Of course, you must understand that “the whole world” extends beyond the US, UK and satellites.
Ok.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What the hell are Europeans doing criticizing US immigration policy? The effects of your policies are creating a huge backlash through Europe, and you come here bragging about it?
Yeah. Flag waiving crowds of “God bless Europe” are all over the place. And patriotism (the lapel-pin wearing kind) is at the center of political discussion. And all European countries are passing crap such as the Military Commissions Act.
More seriously, Europeans have a problem with immigration from ex-colonies, not with open borders and/or equal opportunity. And I find that ironic to say the least.
Europe can pick up all these rejected immigrants! “Let’s go bitch at the US that they’re not snapping up the brightest fast enough, before we can.” Let’s use a paper that doesn’t even present immigration policy as one of the more significant factors, to make our case.
What are you guys complaining about?! Throw those borders wide open and pat yourselves on the back. Take them all in and become the economic juggernaut of the future. Why complain about this blessing?
[/quote]
Ach, bitching would be too much.
Just a friendly reminder that we are not all in tears if our competition decides to make it artificially hard on itself.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The rest of the world should be overjoyed that they can compete for our castoffs. Take advantage, we’ll see your results in the market, and in developing economies![/quote]
Yes, we will and a heart-felt thank you!
Give us your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore;
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me...
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The rest of the world should be overjoyed that they can compete for our castoffs. Take advantage, we’ll see your results in the market, and in developing economies!
Yes, we will and a heart-felt thank you!
Give us your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore;
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me...
[/quote]
Great, have fun.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The rest of the world should be overjoyed that they can compete for our castoffs. Take advantage, we’ll see your results in the market, and in developing economies!
Yes, we will and a heart-felt thank you!
Give us your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore;
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me...
Great, have fun.[/quote]
Make sure yall take the illegal mexicans across the street from me…They are major assholes.
[quote]lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
On immigration, we really have no choice but to be selective. You cannot have open boarders and a welfare state. This is a surefire way to bankrupt a country. Open borders would be a much better choice. We have chosen the welfare state.
Well, European countries have a much better “welfare state” than you guys. Yet, they opened borders like there’s no tomorrow. They probably figured that keeping borders closed was more of a “surefire way to bankrupt a country”.
[/quote]
I guess I am not aware of any that have open boarders, a welfare state, and are doing well financially.
Historically correct. I don’t beleive this is the case today. I never hear people complain about those that come to this country legally. I think you may have the wrong impression.
In Minneapolis we have had a few large waves of immigrants. Hmong and Somalies have migrated here in incredible numbers. There are issues early in the migration but assimilation happens within a generation.
As far as I can tell they have recieved a warm welcome.
Probably true. I would guess that this has subsided. I doubt most people would even notice a streamlines immigration process. I think the bigger threat is the large numbers crossing boarders illegally. This is just conjecture on my part.
I am not understanding where you are headed here?
Again, my experience was that they never intended to stay. The tax payer should not be funding non-citizens in any way. I support making citizenship easier to those that are productive.
how?
quite true. what does this have to do with educating non-citizens on the tax payers dime?
again, I am missing your point.
[quote]
The only thing concerning me is making policy that puts us at a disadvantage. Immigration law (not enforcement) is probably the least of our worries when it comes to this.
You think human resources are “the least of [y]our worries”? Think again. [/quote]
Feel free to elaborate.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We find that, though restrictive immigration policies caused some returnees to depart the United States, [b]the most significant factors in the decision to return home were career opportunities, family ties, and quality of life.[/b]
Good point, Sloth. Thank you.
But at some point, “career opportunities” and immigration policies are blurred. I’m thinking about loads of people with extremely restrictive visas which virtually means they put up with crappy conditions (relative to natural-born or naturalized Americans), or go home. I personally have decided not to set foot in the US since 9/11 because the government seems to treat foreigners as criminals by default. Some desperate types put up with that, but highly qualified people would obviously not.
P.S: HH, don’t you think it’s time to amend the constitution? The leading presidential candidates were both accused of not being “natural-born”. Doesn’t the concept strike you as pointless? [/quote]
Before the Constitution could be changed, it’d have to go through a very arduous process. The implications of any change can be enormous. For ex, the phrase ‘to promote the general welfare’ (just this phrase!) opened a HUGE can of worms and has justified so much insanity that it practically renders the rest of the Constitution nil.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
On immigration, we really have no choice but to be selective. You cannot have open boarders and a welfare state. This is a surefire way to bankrupt a country. Open borders would be a much better choice. We have chosen the welfare state.
Well, European countries have a much better “welfare state” than you guys. Yet, they opened borders like there’s no tomorrow. They probably figured that keeping borders closed was more of a “surefire way to bankrupt a country”.
I guess I am not aware of any that have open boarders, a welfare state, and are doing well financially. [/quote]
“Doing well financially” is a relative term. And “welfare state” too. One could easily argue both side of the argument. So, let’s not go there.
My point is that countries with more “welfare state” than the US make it much easier for people to move around (see: Schengen States).
[quote]We I say open boarders, I mean legal entry into the country.
I don’t think many would argue that the process for legal entry by seemingly productive immigrants should be simplified.
As I understand it, curbs on immigration were a result of white protestants of Anglo-saxon heritage feeling threatened by the numbers of Catholics and Asians coming to the country. “Productive” wasn’t the issue. Even nowadays, plenty of organizations are arguing that foreigners are “stealing” their jobs. If the process isn’t simplified, it’s because some forces are opposing that.
Historically correct. I don’t beleive this is the case today. I never hear people complain about those that come to this country legally. I think you may have the wrong impression. [/quote]
You probably know better than me what the attitudes are. But you’d then have to explain why H-1B visas are still around, green-cards are given based on chance, and the road to citizenship is so sinuous.
Big corps. have a lot of leverage over Washington. Yet, they are consistently opposed when it comes to the issue of importing qualified labor. The only conclusion I can draw is that there are forces opposing it.
[quote]In Minneapolis we have had a few large waves of immigrants. Hmong and Somalies have migrated here in incredible numbers. There are issues early in the migration but assimilation happens within a generation.
As far as I can tell they have recieved a warm welcome. [/quote]
That they weren’t lynched isn’t the issue. It’s all the hoops they had to go through. How many of those would have put up with that if they had alternatives?
[quote]There was a 20% increase of people advocating immigration restrictions right after 9/11 (Gallup). With that in mind, the hoops foreigners must jump through seem to be validated by the population and a result of excessive paranoia about national security. But I might be wrong.
Probably true. I would guess that this has subsided. [/quote]
Not sure. Nationalism is alive and kicking in the US.
And yes, I say that like it’s a bad thing.
Neither presidential candidate last year would address that.
Clearly, “the bigger threat” lies elsewhere for the majority of Americans.
[quote]Evidently, Canada is more of a welfare state than the US is. Why not open the borders? It’s not like Ottawa can say no. No borders, no “borders jumpers”.
I am not understanding where you are headed here?[/quote]
That, following your logic, Canada would lose more than the US if there were no borders.
[quote]The other trend I find disturbing is non-americans coming here to be educated in tax payer subsidized universities. Knowing that the tuition costs payed by students are subsidized by tax payers, shouldn’t visitors to this country be paying a higher cost?
Worse, many of those “non-americans” have scolarships, grants and such which are mostly taxpayer money. When they graduate and go back home, it’s an obvious net-loss for you. You should be doing all you can to keep them there, instead of making the naturalization process hell.
Again, my experience was that they never intended to stay. The tax payer should not be funding non-citizens in any way. [/quote]
My guess would be that those scholarships make up 0.0001% of what your government spends on “non-citizens”.
It was always the case. The trend in the US today, is to make it harder.
Your opinion seems to be in the minority.
[quote]There was a very large population of Asian students at the school I went to that had no intention of staying here after graduation.
I don’t blame them. They get discriminated against just because they’re not citizens.
how?[/quote]
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006.
[quote]I got to know quite a few in the various areas of study I was in over my college career. I seemed to be a minority while majoring in Applied Math, Computer Science, and Telecommunications Engineering. I switched my major a few times.
Meanwhile, “Americans” are increasingly avoiding science and engineering.
quite true. what does this have to do with educating non-citizens on the tax payers dime? [/quote]
It seemed relevant to point out that your losing the edge when it comes to “science and engineering”. And the obvious solution is not discussed much at the governmental level.
[quote]I also don’t find it concerning that the rest of the world is more competitive with the US. Why would we be concerned with the other countries improving.
One doesn’t necessarily imply the other.
again, I am missing your point.[/quote]
That a country is “more competitive with the US”, doesn’t mean it’s improving.
[quote]The only thing concerning me is making policy that puts us at a disadvantage. Immigration law (not enforcement) is probably the least of our worries when it comes to this.
You think human resources are “the least of [y]our worries”? Think again.
Feel free to elaborate. [/quote]
The human resources were a major driving force for making the US the hyperpower it is today. Immigration law, and how it has evolved, should be up there with the important “worries”.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We find that, though restrictive immigration policies caused some returnees to depart the United States, [b]the most significant factors in the decision to return home were career opportunities, family ties, and quality of life.[/b]
Good point, Sloth. Thank you.
But at some point, “career opportunities” and immigration policies are blurred. I’m thinking about loads of people with extremely restrictive visas which virtually means they put up with crappy conditions (relative to natural-born or naturalized Americans), or go home. I personally have decided not to set foot in the US since 9/11 because the government seems to treat foreigners as criminals by default. Some desperate types put up with that, but highly qualified people would obviously not.
P.S: HH, don’t you think it’s time to amend the constitution? The leading presidential candidates were both accused of not being “natural-born”. Doesn’t the concept strike you as pointless?
Before the Constitution could be changed, it’d have to go through a very arduous process. The implications of any change can be enormous. For ex, the phrase ‘to promote the general welfare’ (just this phrase!) opened a HUGE can of worms and has justified so much insanity that it practically renders the rest of the Constitution nil. [/quote]
I’m very much aware of the many ways the US constitution can be interpreted. And I know that changing it ain’t easy.
My question had more to do with the usefulness and morality of that clause.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We find that, though restrictive immigration policies caused some returnees to depart the United States, [b]the most significant factors in the decision to return home were career opportunities, family ties, and quality of life.[/b]
Good point, Sloth. Thank you.
But at some point, “career opportunities” and immigration policies are blurred. I’m thinking about loads of people with extremely restrictive visas which virtually means they put up with crappy conditions (relative to natural-born or naturalized Americans), or go home. I personally have decided not to set foot in the US since 9/11 because the government seems to treat foreigners as criminals by default. Some desperate types put up with that, but highly qualified people would obviously not.
P.S: HH, don’t you think it’s time to amend the constitution? The leading presidential candidates were both accused of not being “natural-born”. Doesn’t the concept strike you as pointless?
Before the Constitution could be changed, it’d have to go through a very arduous process. The implications of any change can be enormous. For ex, the phrase ‘to promote the general welfare’ (just this phrase!) opened a HUGE can of worms and has justified so much insanity that it practically renders the rest of the Constitution nil.
I’m very much aware of the many ways the US constitution can be interpreted. And I know that changing it ain’t easy.
My question had more to do with the usefulness and morality of that clause.[/quote]
The Founding Fathers were very familiar with Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and with how surrounding states had used foreign rulers to dissolve the country of Poland — squabbling amongst Polish nobility allowed foreigners to literally by the kingship.
The POTUS MUST have roots in America.
Now, suppose you hated America. You might get some guy who worships his communist dad and has very weak ties to America, possibly even being born in a foreign land, say, Kenya…
[quote]lixy wrote:
My question had more to do with the usefulness and morality of that clause.[/quote]
It’s to greater ensure loyalty to this nation. No divided loyalties. We’re not anarcho-socialists here. Only a handful of people even take a shot at the position, so is this what really keeps you up at night?
The biggest problem is the gradual reduction in incentives to work smarter/harder. Who wants to bust their ass to pay some loafing stranger’s mortgage?
I personally am happy to help the needy but institutionalizing such help using government invites abuse. No one wants to help those who are abusing a system or the evil people who build such a system. The incentive to keep the fire of your mind to yourself grows consequently.
“This is the mind on strike.”
[quote]lixy wrote:
“Doing well financially” is a relative term. And “welfare state” too. One could easily argue both side of the argument. So, let’s not go there.
My point is that countries with more “welfare state” than the US make it much easier for people to move around (see: Schengen States).
[/quote]
But the question is not if other countries are doing it. The question is whether or not it is the best policy. I ocntend policy ranks in the following order:
No welfare state - lax immigration
NO welfare state - restrictive immigration
Welfare state - restrictive immigration
Welfare state - lax immigration
Most people don’t know or care about H-1Bs. Public sentament doesn’t always = gov’t policy.
i don’t know why they would be. I don’t have any evidense of specific groups supporting or apposing more efficient legal immigration. If you are talking about swarms of illegal immigrant support a black market for labor, I think that would be justifiable.
Don’t know. All I know is that a large number of them made it here and seem to be prospering.
Again, I just have not seen public opposition to legal immigration. Maybe I am not paying enough attention.
It’s just not an issue that is near and dear to the public’s heart. If any congress wanted to streamline legal immigration, I doubt they would get hassled about it. So yes, I don’t see any ground swell in support of streamlined immigration. That doesn’t mean we want keep others out.
lose more what?
I don’t know. I am not talking specifically about scolarships. Universities are subsidized by state and federal tax dollars. They claim they cannot recover the full cost of educating a student from tuition. In an effort to keep tuition low, the gov’t subsidizes them tremendously. I say non-citizens should pay what the school claims is the full cost of educating them.
I don’t think so.
weak
Maybe it’s our education system, not immmigration. Rather than treat the symtem by attempting to import talent, why wouldn’t we attach the cause? Unless you thing americans don’t have the capacity to learn math and science?
Agreed. Not sure where that fits into immigration.
[quote]
You think human resources are “the least of [y]our worries”? Think again.
Feel free to elaborate.
The human resources were a major driving force for making the US the hyperpower it is today. Immigration law, and how it has evolved, should be up there with the important “worries”.[/quote]
Again, seems like treating the symtom rather than the cuase. No matter who we import, restrictive gov’t policy will apply to them as well. First we need to get the fed out of the economy, so to speak. Then whoever we let in will be more productive.
I’ll say this again. I don’t you’ll find too muck opposition in steamlining legal immigration for productive resourses.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Meanwhile, free circulation Europe is ever expanding and milking every aspect of it.
[/quote]
Sorry to jump back to the original post fella’s, but this comment rattled me.
Firstly I live in Europe, the UK to be precise and I can safely say that this FREE CIRCULATION is in the process of crippling the country.
We have eastern European workers coming into the country working for less than half the minimum wage, getting digs as part of the agreement and then shipping their wage back home where its converted into an amount that allows for a good standard of living due to the exchange rate.
Meanwhile British people are out of work because they cannot work for less than the minimum wage as its illegal for the employer to pay them so little.
Once the immigrant workers have paid X amount of months into the welfare system (and believe me, its not a great deal of time that they have to pay for) they can return home and then claim UK welfare to the country they live in which is substantially higher than the average wage in that country.
We now have MAJOR problems with racial diversity, we have violence and crime which is at an all time high and we have to bend over in order not to offend any immigrants as it may be against their human rights or the PC brigade are up in arms.
The quaint country the rest of the world thinks the UK once was is no longer there. If you ask me the US have got it bang on with wanting tighter immigration controls.
Lixy, you initially raise concerns about a brain drain, don’t you think there’s enough people in the US? Law of averages says that there should be one or two geniuses amongst them! Give them the scolarships instead.