# Skilled versus unskilled immigration



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Edit - this discussion was straying off-topic in the Top 10 Bushisms thread, therefore I moved all posts on this immigration topic to a new thread.

Disclosure: the views that follow are personal and don't reflect any views of Talk Classical and its owner/administration/staffers. I'm removing my staffer hat for the purpose of expressing these personal opinions.:tiphat: (this smiley is now Alma removing his hat rather than tipping his hat).

I see your point and that's what we've been taught and told throughout our lifetimes - the checks and balances, the Republic, the limits imposed on government. But I think we tend to idolize the Founding Fathers a bit too much eek:I know, heresy!), because while this was all good for two centuries, I'm afraid that now the world is moving too fast and we need to get more flexible. We are rapidly becoming less competitive, and I think it has to do with how frozen our political process has become. Were the Founding Fathers really prepared to guide us through the 21st century and beyond?

Look at how modern research has been hindered by political, ideological, and religious debate. Look at how our high technology businesses have been suffering with our archaic immigration system. But then, when you try to reform any of this, you get into political posturing, clash of opposing interests, and we don't budge, while other countries keep moving. We're getting smothered under mountains of red tape and conflicting interests that never get worked out given that one side always cancels out the other one.

When I defended a multi-party system, I wasn't thinking of fringe parties with pet issues. I was dreaming of a, say, 5-party system: Extreme Left, Moderate Left, Centrist, Moderate Right, Extreme Right, instead of two parties thwarting all others and eternally engaging in mutual cancellation.

Let me give you a concrete example.

We now have a deficit of professionals in high technology fields. Paradoxically, we have the best universities in the world and the capacity to train these people, both in number of training spots, and in know-how to implement the training. This capacity was achieved thanks to enormous investments in infrastructure (e.g., to build universities and labs), and in training a body of professors who are able to teach the students. But then, our superior education became a big and profitable business (even in public schools) and got some idle capacity, and it is often advantageous for the schools to enroll foreign students on student visas paying full tuition to fill those spots that otherwise would be left out by the American students. Apparently half of graduate students in advanced technological fields these days are foreigners who are not authorized to work in the United States once they graduate. But then, they spend 4 to 7 years here in doctoral and post-doctoral programs, like our way of life, and want to stay. Well, OK, we have a program of H visas and they can transform their F student visa into H, and from there get to a green card and citizenship. But we only grant about - I don't remember the exact number - 55,000 of these per year. By March or April they are gone, and those students who graduate in May/June get left out and get the boot, and have to return to their own countries. Those countries then benefit from our exquisite expertise in training these scientists and engineers and doctors, and they generate businesses, jobs, and economic growth abroad. Meanwhile, our technology businesses can't hire and grow because they can't find enough qualified people. Some conservative figures estimate that we'd need 300,000 H visas per year to remain competitive in advanced technology. OK, then, if we opened up 300,000 H visas, people would cry foul, saying that we'd be fostering competition for jobs against our own citizens (regardless of the fact that these folks only fill the left-over, idle capacity). But this is the short-sighted view, because if we *don't* get those extra 245,000 specialists every year, then our businesses fold and go belly-up under the threat of more competitive businesses abroad, or have to send their production units to India or China. When we are not competitive and we let our businesses be smothered by the lack of qualified personnel, *that's* when we have job losses for Americans.

See, let's suppose that we train a South Korean student in advanced biotechnology, and upon graduation, instead of kicking him out we offer him a green card and a research lab in a top university. This scientist will need to hire four research assistants, two secretaries, a manager, a statistician, an information technology specialist, and so on and so forth, in order to set up his lab. He'll need to buy office supplies, office furniture, computers, lab research tools and supplies, reagents, microscopes, etc. His lab will grow and relocate to a custom-built facility which will be built under contract with a local architect, a construction manager, and some construction workers. A bio-hazard waste business will take care of safely disposing of the left-over biological material from his research (not to forget the local janitor who will keep the lab clean for the next day of research activities). Then the scientist's research will pay off and he'll get a patent from which his university will greatly benefit, in partnership with a biotechnology firm that will then produce, sell, and export whatever new gadget or new medication the scientist has developed or discovered.

See the multiplication of local, regional, and national jobs and economic activity? That's because we *didn't* kick out that *one* South Korean grad student at the end of his training - and he then generated dozens of new jobs for Americans and a new profitable export line.

Oh well, let me stop dreaming - we *do* kick out those folks, and then they go and do the exact same thing (they generate jobs and new research and patents) in South Korea. No wonder South Korea is developing so fast, together with other "Asian Tigers." Later we may need to hire someone just like him, but we can't find any qualified American, and we scramble to see if we can get someone to come from abroad (often we can't find them, because other more flexible countries have poached them first). Wouldn't it be easier to just keep the damn guy here in the first place?

So, we should fix this silly, bloated, archaic immigration system, right? As any other developed country in the world, we should make it *easy* for people with advanced degrees to come in and contribute to our economic activity, right? Huh... no. We'd rather have only 55,000 of those, while we look the other way when millions and millions of illegals cross our borders, or while family reunion visas bring in a few more millions of unqualified workers. I ask you, does it make *any* sense whatsoever that we would *not* want those highly skilled 245,000 extra workers who are *already* integrated into our society by having spent several years here as trainees of our top schools, speak perfect English, have had enough time here to be screened in terms of criminal background, diseases, terrorist inclinations, etc., etc.? Aren't these the *most* ideal immigration candidates that any other developed country would want? France, for instance, gives immediate priority immigration treatment to any foreigner who earns a multi-year advanced degree from a French educational institution.

We don't. Nope. We just kick them out and leave our businesses starving for their expertise, while on the other hand we accept several folds more people who won't generate a single job and will end up burdening our society. Makes a lot of sense! Meanwhile, the guy develops and patents in South Korea whatever he would have done here instead, and then the next thing is that we end up buying from South Korea the commodity that the scientist helped create. Oh wait, that's not the *next* thing - first we'll have to borrow money from the Chinese so that we can afford to buy the South Korean's scientist's product.

Then, OK, some bright minds in Congress realize that there is something wrong with this picture, and we need comprehensive immigration reform. We need these experts and scientists here, and we also need laborers for our farms and construction industry and tourism industry and what not, but in an organized, legal, background-checked, tax-paying way.

But then, what happens? _*We can't pass any reform that would make us competitive again, because the issue is a hot political potato and both parties won't stop posturing and shooting down the other side's views.*_ Great. Meanwhile we continue to suffer the consequences of our archaic system, while the South Koreas of this world continue to prosper.

That's what I mean by the fact that our system of checks and balances and our 2-party system are hindering our growth. The world is catching up, and we're in decline. The world is moving fast. We can't afford the paralysis any longer, and maybe our Founding Fathers did not anticipate that all these checks and balances one day would make us be stretched thin into so many simultaneous directions by so many conflicting interests, that we'd be frozen in place and just hopelessly decline.

Many conservatives are against any hint of comprehensive immigration reform. But it makes no sense, because conservatives should be pro-business, and for smaller government. The government would be smaller by *not* getting in the way between a non-criminal, non-terrorist, highly skilled scientist, and the university or technological firm that wants to hire him. The government should be in the business of making it easy, not difficult, since this will benefit American business and American society.

But no. The politicians prefer to engage in political posturing so that they guarantee that *they'll* be re-elected, rather than doing something useful for our businesses and our society. And God forbid if some politician goes and actually tries to *do* something to fix the issue: rest assured that another politician from the opposing party will make a special point of blocking it and undoing it, lest the *other guy* will get re-elected instead of the posturing one.

End of personal, pet-peeve rant. Moderator hat back on.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2011)

Alma,
I didn't quote you, because then this would just get too long.
I understand your point, but there are some assumptions that just don't fit the real picture. In terms of losing these highly trained people, the fact of the matter is there aren't jobs lying around in a lot of these areas, just waiting for someone to step into them. Science, in particular. I am in that field. In fact, we already have more American scientists than we have positions for them to fill. In the late 90's, early part of this century, when the NIH budget was doubled, they significantly increased the number of students that were getting trained. The problem was they didn't significantly increase the number of faculty positions. So when all those students started to graduate, there were no positions open to them. So you start seeing scientists do lengthy post-docs, or multiple post-docs. Or going into industry, or other alternatives. Funding can't always increase at that rate. In an ideal world, you could give every project all the money it needs. In the real world, you are limited by how much you have to spend. You can try to take more, but that gets into all the problems we are seeing now around the world. A lot of these countries are seeing booms because they make it a lot more attractive to work in their borders.

So what would be the effect of going from 50,000 to 500,000 visas for people like scientists? The job market for scientists in this country would be even tougher, and funding would be even more difficult. Regardless of what you think of how the U.S. allocates research funding, the fact of the matter is that no other country in the world funds science at the level the U.S. does. But we simply can't fund science for every single scientist out there. Not even in the most idyllic socialist paradise does the wealth exist to do such a thing - because you have to pay for other stuff as well. So you prioritize your funding. And many scientists end up in support roles, not heads of labs. Just because a person has a Ph.D. behind their name doesn't mean they are going to discover the next miracle cure.

The leading edge technology is still going on in a large part here in the U.S. While China may be an emerging power, the fact is that currently most of their technology is coming from us - they ignore patent law, and they force any company that wants to establish there to give up their trade secrets and property rights.

With unemployment hovering just under 10%, and so many people out of work, I still don't quite understand how there are just so many jobs in this country that are lying undone because we don't open up the gates to floods of immigrants. Much of the farm labor we talk about immigrants doing - they only exist because the people are here illegally. It is cheap labor - less than minimum wage, not having to pay all the other things that you have to pay for a legal worker. Open up the borders, allow all these immigrants through, make them legal, and all of a sudden they become much more expensive to hire. If you have to factor into pay federal income tax, social security, fica, medicare, minimum wage, then there is no longer an incentive to hire an immigrant over a legal resident. Most of these jobs aren't necessarily jobs that Americans won't do, rather jobs that employers don't want to have to pay more by having Americans do them, instead of paying less for an undocumented illegal immigrant.

Most countries have restrictive immigration policies. Mexico has a much more restrictive policy than we do. European countries don't exactly have open borders. Sure, they may be looking to draw more highly skilled people to them, but that is because it is harder to get them. Of course they make it easier for scientists to migrate there - because they don't have a lot else that would draw them there. They can't offer the same income to scientists that we can. They can't offer the same funding levels that we can. So they have to at least make it easy to come there, or nobody would. My graduate advisor would have loved to go back to his native England after he finished his training here in the U.S., but he would have taken a pay cut from what he was making as a postdoc for any of the faculty positions there. Additionally, they were much more restrictive with what kind of research he would be allowed to do. Animal research is more restricted. Say what you will about religious objections to scientific research areas here that are controversial, but far left groups put just as many restrictions on research, just for different reasons. 

It's not as simple as just letting more people come here. And were we to only preferentially allow in highly trained people, then you would have people screaming out that we have a racist immigration policy, because it would very glaringly still turn away many coming from south of our borders, who tend to be more at the other end of the educational spectrum, generally only unskilled laborers.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Dr. Mike, thanks for your thoughtful points, but the high technology industry has long complained of the 55,000 cap for H visas (my numbers may be off like I've indicated above, maybe it's 65,000), and has long advocated for increasing it to 300,000. Maybe in your field there is a surplus of scientists, but I've not just made up this number, it comes from the real (and so far unsuccessful) attempts from technology lobbies to increase the quota. Maybe they overestimate the needs, hoping to get the numbers slashed in half so that 150,000 would be allowed, which would still be better than 55,000 or 65,000 (just like in any price bargaining - you start by asking for more than you need in the hope that the middle ground will approach what you really need).

I am in a scientific field as well, and in my field we routinelly import, year after year, 33% of our highly trained manpower from abroad, because there aren't enough American graduates to fill the positions. So, in different niches, different numbers will apply. Then, we struggle for years to make of those who come, permanent residents and ultimately citizens (when I think it would make a lot more sense to have a streamlined process for these desirable immigrants). In the case of my field, most come with J-1 visas rather than H visas - because there aren't enough H visas available - and it is a lot harder to transform a J-1 visa into an immigrant visa (a.k.a. green card). 

And yes, not all Ph.D.s will be heads of labs, but even those who won't will still be productive, tax-paying citizens who won't burden the State. Besides, the lack of these skilled professionals (I haven't only quoted scientists, it was just an easier example to give when I was talking about the setting up of a research lab - I have indeed also mentioned doctors, engineers, etc., and you can add software developers, etc.)

Regarding saturated fields like you have indicated that yours is, that's why we have a visa process. Cases would be gauged depending on needs and demand, and of course, if we have two candidates for the same visa, one applying based on a field that is saturated and Americans aren't getting those jobs, another one applying based on a field that has not enough American graduates to fill the positions, it is fair to deny the first application and approve the second one. That's what happens anyway in practical terms because these work-related visas require job offers, and there are Labor Department regulations (e.g., the position must have been advertised unsuccessfully for six months before it is offered to a prospective immigrant). That's also why we have things like a Labor Certificate Waiver to allow to these immigrants streamlined processes in order to fill positions in certifiable shortage fields (e.g., nursing). So, we do have the instruments... what we don't have is the flexibility, and the numbers - even those supposedly streamlined processes can be quite lenghty and cumbersome - and part of this is thanks to Homeland Security being overwhelmed with too many unskilled immigrants based on family reunion visas, etc.

My metropolitan region which harbors the North Carolina Research Triangle is one of the most sophisticated poles in bioengineering, biochemistry, pharmaceutical research, and telecommunications/hardware/software in the country (with IBM, GlaxoSmithKline, BASF, DuPont, Lenovo, Pfizer, Qualcomm, Sony Ericsson, SAS, Verizon and many others either headquartered here or with important R&D facilities here, as well as Duke Medical Center and UNC Memorial Hospital). Even outside my field (which like I said needs to yearly import a third of its manpower), I have local friends who complain of similar limitations to grow in other sectors of this vast R&D campus.

So, we do have - guess what - large neighborhoods with Asian scientists and engineers - the ones we *did* manage to import.

I am strongly *for* legal immigration, and even though it may be costly like you have demonstrated (sure, it costs more to hire a legal immigrant than an undocomunted illegal worker), it does pay off in future dividends.

And as for it being a racist policy, I don't think so. Like you said, most developed countries favor high skilled immigration, and the color of the skin or national origin of the Ph.D./engineer/software expert doesn't matter to me. What matters is his/her skill set, which can benefit our economy and our society.

And while I agree with you that we still have the edge on new research and patents, what I'm saying is that the world is catching up fast and we need to be more flexible if we want to remain ahead. If we just sit on our past/present accomplishments but don't do anything to prepare for the future, what will ensue is decline and loss of leadership - and we're definitely going this way, and meanwhile can't pass any sensible reforms thanks to our polarized political process.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Funny how the issues with immigrants differ in different places. In the US it seems to me to be about skilled versus non-skilled labour, whereas here in NL were most concerned about them integrating into our culture.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Funny how the issues with immigrants differ in different places. In the US it seems to me to be about skilled versus non-skilled labour, whereas here in NL were most concerned about them integrating into our culture.


Skilled labourers integrate very easily (their high level of education helps with English language proficiency and with building bridges with local coworkers in similar fields). The unskilled ones do too, after one generation or so. Successive waves of immigrants have always been pegged as getting voluntarily segregated into ghettos, not speaking the language, etc. This has happened, for example, with the Italian immigrants who kept insulated for at least one generation, dwelling in organized crime. Then, while there are still some pockets of criminality within the community, in modern days Italian-Americans are fully integrated, and in many cases are monolingual English speakers who think of themselves a lot more as Americans than as Italians (this writer included - second generation, although I still have double citizenship and carry both passports). Funny enough, my son (third generation) has lately been interested in his Italian roots and, unlike me, has learned to speak fluent Italian. But he's still an American boy, just, not a monolingual one.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2011)

I don't think that the immigration policy is a racist one either - but there are those who make their living keeping the racism issue alive, and if you were to preferrentially allow more highly educated and trained individuals into the country, then some will cry that it is a racist policy, because right now, that would mean more Asians and Europeans, and less Central and South Americans, because that is where the education is and isn't. The issue with immigration really is two parts - sure, it would be good to import more skilled workers. But right now we are dealing with a flood of unskilled, illegal immigrants. It tends to get the system backed up. So for most people, the concern is to clean up the mess first, then get to sensible reform. Most people who object to "comprehensive" reform (and I include myself), know that if you don't make the politicians enforce existing law first and clean up the problem, they won't do it later.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> I don't think that the immigration policy is a racist one either - but there are those who make their living keeping the racism issue alive, and if you were to preferrentially allow more highly educated and trained individuals into the country, then some will cry that it is a racist policy, because right now, that would mean more Asians and Europeans, and less Central and South Americans, because that is where the education is and isn't. The issue with immigration really is two parts - sure, it would be good to import more skilled workers. But right now we are dealing with a flood of unskilled, illegal immigrants. It tends to get the system backed up. So for most people, the concern is to clean up the mess first, then get to sensible reform. Most people who object to "comprehensive" reform (and I include myself), know that if you don't make the politicians enforce existing law first and clean up the problem, they won't do it later.


Good points, but narrow-minded criticism shouldn't stop us from doing what is right for our country. People confound race with geographic location. In South America there are plenty of white people (in Brazil, for instance, a country I'm very familiar with, 50% of the population is made of European whites of Portuguese, German, and Italian descent). So, if someone cries "racism!" because skilled immigration policy is favoring people who come from Europe or Asia instead of those who come from South America, it is easy to demonstrate that it is not racism. Like you said, what matters in terms of skilled immigration is the candidate's skill set. If a very dark-skinned software specialist from India is better at what he does than his milky-white counterpart from an Eastern European country, most efficient businesses would want to hire the former. And I'm sure that while they are less numerous because they can't find in their countries the same educational opportunities, some South American doctors and scientists who are highly qualified can still be found, and can still jump ahead of others if they are better at what they do, as long as the skilled immigration process remains color blind and origin blind and focused on skill sets.

Now, while I agree with you that we need to fix the problem of illegal immigration, what I'm complaining is exactly the paralysis. You say we need to fix it *first* before we become more generous with highly skilled prospective immigrants. I say we need to fix it *simultaneously* and not waste any time since the more we wait, the less internationally competitive we get.

My main fear, though, is that I don't think the core of the problem resides in what you said: "if you don't make the politicians enforce existing law *first* and clean up the problem, they won't do it *later*." My main fear is that *they won't *ever* do it!* They will continue to dodge the bullet, engage in political posturing, point accusatory fingers at the other side (one side yells "this is amnesty" while the other side yells "this is racism") and sit on the _status quo_. Both parties have had opportunities to address these problems and have failed to do so. There is no political will to solve it one way or the other because the issue is a multi-headed hydra (with multiple stake holders - certain businesses and their lobbies are more than happy with the influx of illegal immigrants) and a hot political potato. That's the paralysis I'm talking about. We need compromise. We need the conservatives to open up a bit and realize that the job won't get done if it is not bipartisan and comprehensive, and we just don't have the resources to boot out 12 million illegals, while the liberals need to understand that we can't just open the borders and allow a free-for-all. But instead of seeking compromise and a sensible, job protecting/simultaneously job creating, flexible, comprehensive policy that will benefit Americans of all walks of life, what we see is posturing to score political points and get re-elected. Once they get into office, they say "forget about it, let's not touch the hot potato!"


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2011)

I understand your point and your frustration - the problem is that we know exactly how this will turn out . . . because it has done before. In the 80's, "comprehensive" immigration reform was passed, which was supposed to deal with both those already here illegally, and resolve the issue once and for all going forward. It was signed into law by Pres. Reagan. And it led us exactly back to the same situation a couple of decades later. Politicians promise then punt. It is what they do. They want the easiest solution that looks the best for short-term political gain. 

There is a backlog, because you can't deal with this mess and still have the normal process move forward. My brother just married a Brazilian, and has been having a devil of a time going through the normal legal process for her. It is maddening - she is highly skilled (maybe not at the Ph.D. level, but has gone to college, and worked in the banking system in Brazil), he is financially stable, she is already taking intensive courses to become fluent in English. 

But we also just are never going to be able to completely fill our wishlist for all of the skilled, highly trained people we would like. Some will want to stay here, some won't. I worked with a postdoc from Australia who, at the end of his training, went back to Australia because he still thought of that as home, and wanted to go back. That isn't to say that all those who train here and leave do it willingly. But countries like India and Korea and China are really starting to ramp up, and for their citizens, I'm sure they see that as an exciting thing - to come here, get the training they need, and go back there to improve their own countries.

We are never going to "solve" immigration. In the infancy of this country, we could be less strict in how porous our borders were. But now, it just isn't feasible to not control immigration. You want highly skilled people preferentially admitted. But there is enough political pressure out there to make the entire process blind, and not have criteria out there. In fact, there is some bipartisan desire for more unskilled. Business minded people like the flood of unskilled labor, because they can hire them and don't have to pay them as much as a skilled worker. Liberals and labor unions like them because they come in almost instantly into their camps, thanks to the social programs they want to offer them and as a way of swelling their ranks. 

It makes sense that we preferentially allow in skilled workers, but you almost never hear that issue in any of this debate. I am all for your plan. But I know that nobody on capitol hill is seriously discussing that factor.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

We have a lot of highly skilled immigrants coming to New Zealand - engineers, medical professionals, business people, as we rely on them to fill the large gaps left by our own emigrants. But those from non English speaking backgrounds find it very hard to get a job because their English is not perfect, even sometime those who have studied in NZ. If they have an accent, that's it. One my students (I'm an ESL teacher) was a rocket scientist (literally) and he was driving a taxi, and this is a common story - highly skilled people working as cleaners, couriers and in other low level jobs. Do you think employers in the States would be more likely to hire if people's English was not perfect?


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> We have a lot of highly skilled immigrants coming to New Zealand - engineers, medical professionals, business people, as we rely on them to fill the large gaps left by our own emigrants. But those from non English speaking backgrounds find it very hard to get a job because their English is not perfect, even sometime those who have studied in NZ. If they have an accent, that's it. One my students (I'm an ESL teacher) was a rocket scientist (literally) and he was driving a taxi, and this is a common story - highly skilled people working as cleaners, couriers and in other low level jobs. Do you think employers in the States would be more likely to hire if people's English was not perfect?


I think the ability to speak English is a huge factor. The more complex the job, the more necessary it is to speak the language. Obviously at the level of farm labor, it isn't important. Getting up to the level of rocket scientist, or doctor, or any other high skill level job, then it gets to be very important. How could you operate a business/hospital/etc., if you had your high level employees speaking Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Hindi, Portuguese, Spanish, German, French, or whatever other language you can imagine, when most of your clients are only going to be speaking English? It just isn't practical.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong post.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> We have a lot of highly skilled immigrants coming to New Zealand - engineers, medical professionals, business people, as we rely on them to fill the large gaps left by our own emigrants. But those from non English speaking backgrounds find it very hard to get a job because their English is not perfect, even sometime those who have studied in NZ. If they have an accent, that's it. One my students (I'm an ESL teacher) was a rocket scientist (literally) and he was driving a taxi, and this is a common story - highly skilled people working as cleaners, couriers and in other low level jobs. Do you think employers in the States would be more likely to hire if people's English was not perfect?


I don't see this problem hindering most immigrants, in both ends of the spectrum. Unskilled immigrants in this country are often Hispanics from Mexico and Central America, and they often don't speak English but fit into niches (such as construction work, hog farms, restaurant kitchens, etc) under a bilingual manager. At the high end, I personally have trouble understanding some Chinese scientists but they are still hired. Indians are prevalent in my field and they generally have excellent English given that they get taught in English in their colleges and graduate schools. This said, of course the better someone can speak the languages, the better the person's chances at good employment.

I believe that the trouble at the high end of the spectrum is with accents, not with knowledge of the language. Some sophisticated Asian scientists know excellent English but can't talk without a heavy accent. You get used to the way they speak, though.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> I think the ability to speak English is a huge factor. The more complex the job, the more necessary it is to speak the language. Obviously at the level of farm labor, it isn't important. Getting up to the level of rocket scientist, or doctor, or any other high skill level job, then it gets to be very important. How could you operate a business/hospital/etc., if you had your high level employees speaking Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Hindi, Portuguese, Spanish, German, French, or whatever other language you can imagine, when most of your clients are only going to be speaking English? It just isn't practical.


Regarding hospitals, the revalidation exams for medical doctors who are graduates of foreign medical schools do include English language tests, and an oral exam during which they have to demonstrate proficiency when interviewing actors who pose as patients.

Most if not all high level professionals who come to the United States are already fully bilingual. English is the language of science and trade.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Argus said:


> Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong post.


Better long but with ideas than short but without them.

I'm bored and in a verbose mood today; slow day at work (as opposed to yesterday's incredibly busy day).


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Regarding hospitals, the revalidation exams for medical doctors who are graduates of foreign medical schools do include English language tests, and an oral exam during which they have to demonstrate proficiency when interviewing actors who pose as patients.
> 
> Most if not all high level professionals who come to the United States are already fully bilingual. English is the language of science and trade.


This is actually one area that I wish the American education system was expanded - although we already have problems with the basics. In many other countries, learning a second language is standard. In Europe, this is highly practical, given the close geographic proximity of so many different languages. I spent a couple years in Switzerland, and was impressed that working at McDonald's was not an unskilled job - frequently they had to speak English. Working at a bank required knowledge of at least all the national languages (German, French, Italian, Romansch) and English, the international business language.

My education included learning German, and I believe that learning a foreign language actually helped with my English, as you have to think more about how language in general is constructed. I worked with a Chinese graduate student who spoke English so well you could have sworn she was an American, and not Chinese.

Thriving in any kind of business requires you to adapt as much as possible to it. If you work in a professional setting, not only does that mean a good grasp of proper language skills, but also a certain level of grooming and attire. I know lots of people are into this idea that we need to be accepting of the individuality of each and every individual, but the fact of the matter is that to get ahead, you need to adapt.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> Regarding hospitals, the revalidation exams for medical doctors who are graduates of foreign medical schools do include English language tests, and an oral exam during which they have to demonstrate proficiency when interviewing actors who pose as patients.
> 
> Most if not all high level professionals who come to the United States are already fully bilingual. English is the language of science and trade.


I think you are right about it often being a question of accent. Other problems include being able to do your job but not manage the the everyday small talk that oils the wheels of workplace relationships. This is the issue that my high-level students mention most.

But actually the issue is not so much the immigrants' proficiency as the willingness of the host country's employers to give a job to someone that they might have to make an effort, however minimal, to understand. That's the problem here in NZ.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> I think you are right about it often being a question of accent. Other problems include being able to do your job but not manage the the everyday small talk that oils the wheels of workplace relationships. This is the issue that my high-level students mention most.
> 
> But actually the issue is not so much the immigrants' proficiency as the willingness of the host country's employers to give a job to someone that they might have to make an effort, however minimal, to understand. That's the problem here in NZ.


In the U.S., at least in my field, I have seen people with all different levels of English proficiency, from the student I mentioned that sounded like a native speaker, to another student that you had to explain things 10 times to before he understood what you are saying. The problem is, if you put it on the host country, it becomes near impossible. You are expecting the host country to be prepared for any language imaginable. Are you suggesting that the host country should put more effort in understanding the visitor's language, or put the effort in to not only educating the visitor, but also springing for language training?

Ultimately, the only reasonable thing is for the visitor to take the responsibility to learn the language that will make them most successful. It is easier for one person to learn one additional language than for an entire organization to accomodate many diverse languages. And that is why most countries have a national language. A few can accomodate 2 languages (think of Canada with both English and French as the national languages), and an even smaller number can accomodate multiple languages (my already mentioned example of Switzerland), but in the case of Switzerland, it is a much smaller, more highly educated country. The larger the country, and the more diverse the population, the more problematic it is to have multiple languages. In the last lab in which I worked, were we to accomodate all the diverse languages, rather than have the common language of English, we would have had to accomodate Spanish, French, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Arabic, and Russian. My training is in science, not linguistics. It would have been impractical to hire either some miracle translator who could speak all these languages, or several translators, especially when it came time for publication. Or we could have just made all the English speakers do all of the writing, which seems unfair.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

No, I don't mean that the host country should learn/use all migrant languages, just tolerate people with a different accent or the occasional lack of fluency in the host language! Many of our migrants have very good English and can express themselves well, but they will retain their accents, and NZ employers don't like this - I think they think that if you have an accent you can't speak English.

What I'm really saying is that it's no good attracting well-qualified highly-skilled migrants if the local employers are going to balk at employing them because they sound different. That's the case in NZ, I don't know if it would be the same in the US.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

I dropped out of this discussion earlier, so as to help keep the peace, but I have been following it with some bewilderment. I am very sympathetic to what Almaviva has been saying about the over-restrictive nature of USA immigration restrictions in regard to H visas (for allowing in highly qualified manpower). I believe that the normal annual quota is 65,000, but some of this is ear-marked to a few countries with which the USA has special "trade agreements"m, which therefore reduces the number of visas generally available elsewhere in the world. The quotas run from October to September, but they're not rationed out evenly over the year, and normally disaappear well before September. This year they ran out completely by about mid-January, so that several American high tech companies have been left high and dry unable to get the overseas talent they need. 

I disagree with a lot of what's been said by Dr Mike. In the context of the USA jobs market for highly qualified manpower in the scientific field, I find his his protectionist attitiude towards home-grown candidates to be at odds with his claimed "conservative" views. In fact, they seem right out of kilter with each other to me. As for his view that there is a need to give priority to home-grown PhDs, the fact is that the value of a PhD depends hugely on where you get it from. A PhD from, say, Imperial College, London is worth a darn sight more than those from many USA universities (Ivy-League aside, of course). It's manpower with qualifications of this calibre from overseas countries which American industry wants, not second-raters from American universities churned out by the barrel load, but can't get because of crazy restrictions on the number on H visas that make no economic sense.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2011)

Toccata said:


> I dropped out of this discussion earlier, so as to help keep the peace, but I have been following it with some bewilderment. I am very sympathetic to what Almaviva has been saying about the over-restrictive nature of USA immigration restrictions in regard to H visas (for allowing in highly qualified manpower). I believe that the normal annual quota is 65,000, but some of this is ear-marked to a few countries with which the USA has special "trade agreements"m, which therefore reduces the number of visas generally available elsewhere in the world. The quotas run from October to September, but they're not rationed out evenly over the year, and normally disaappear well before September. This year they ran out completely by about mid-January, so that several American high tech companies have been left high and dry unable to get the overseas talent they need.
> 
> I disagree with a lot of what's been said by Dr Mike. In the context of the USA jobs market for highly qualified manpower in the scientific field, I find his his protectionist attitiude towards home-grown candidates to be at odds with his claimed "conservative" views. In fact, they seem right out of kilter with each other to me. As for his view that there is a need to give priority to home-grown PhDs, the fact is that the value of a PhD depends hugely on where you get it from. A PhD from, say, Imperial College, London is worth a darn sight more than those from many USA universities (Ivy-League aside, of course). It's manpower with qualifications of this calibre from overseas countries which American industry wants, not second-raters from American universities churned out by the barrel load, but can't get because of crazy restrictions on the number on H visas that make no economic sense.


See, Toccata, first you put words into my mouth, and then throw out comments like those above, even though you seem bewildered at arrogant American attitudes. The Ph.D.s that come out of a university are no better than the professors training those Ph.D.s. Imperial College does not have the market cornered on excellent professors. And even Ivy-League alone is no longer a guarantee that you are at the best of the best. While the higher volume of Ph.D.s has no doubt let through a lot more second-rate Ph.D.s, there are also more top-rate ones, and since they all can't go to Imperial College, they have to go somewhere. How many of our Nobel prize laureates went to Imperial College for their Ph.D.? How many were churned out from American universities?

I said nothing about giving home-grown PhDs priority. I'm just saying that, given the U.S. pays the cost for much of this training, you can't open the doors to all takers - you simply can't afford that. And since they are funded by American tax dollars, then I do think that there should be some special consideration given to Americans at the education level. As for jobs, though, I say leave it up to the employers. If they can get a highly skilled foreigner, and that is what they want, more power to them.

Since 2000, just looking at Nobel laureates for physiology and medicine, 14 of the 27 laureates were from the U.S. 7 of 27 were from the UK. One individual was counted twice, listed as being from both.

The old bias towards certain universities is kind of dying out. In picking a place to do your Ph.D., most people tend to pick an institution that is a leader in the type of research they are interested in.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> No, I don't mean that the host country should learn/use all migrant languages, just tolerate people with a different accent or the occasional lack of fluency in the host language! Many of our migrants have very good English and can express themselves well, but they will retain their accents, and NZ employers don't like this -* I think they think that if you have an accent you can't speak English.*
> 
> What I'm really saying is that it's no good attracting well-qualified highly-skilled migrants *if the local employers are going to balk at employing them because they sound different*. That's the case in NZ, I don't know if it would be the same in the US.


Gee, Natalie, this sounds very provincial and xenophobic from NZ's business class. What is needed, in my opinion, is some large educational campaign, and the problem should be addressed in business schools as well.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> See, Toccata, first you put words into my mouth, and then throw out comments like those above, even though you seem bewildered at arrogant American attitudes. The Ph.D.s that come out of a university are no better than the professors training those Ph.D.s. Imperial College does not have the market cornered on excellent professors. And even Ivy-League alone is no longer a guarantee that you are at the best of the best. While the higher volume of Ph.D.s has no doubt let through a lot more second-rate Ph.D.s, there are also more top-rate ones, and since they all can't go to Imperial College, they have to go somewhere. How many of our Nobel prize laureates went to Imperial College for their Ph.D.? How many were churned out from American universities?
> 
> I said nothing about giving home-grown PhDs priority. I'm just saying that, given the U.S. pays the cost for much of this training, you can't open the doors to all takers - you simply can't afford that. And since they are funded by American tax dollars, then I do think that there should be some special consideration given to Americans at the education level. As for jobs, though, I say leave it up to the employers. If they can get a highly skilled foreigner, and that is what they want, more power to them.
> 
> ...


Uhoh, I see that the two of you don't really see eye to eye, and show some animosity.
But I'd say that Toccata is baiting you, Dr.Mike, please don't bite the bait. And Toccata, please don't bait. I believe that our own Toccata is quite skilled in writing a post that both appeases and provokes - a wind up merchant? Or just someone with strong opinions on the matter, eager to participate meaningfully? I hope it's the latter.

Now, going back to the matter - and please remember, folks, let's do it with civility - I believe that Toccata is right about the fact that our H visa system is inflexible - that's basically what I've been saying. On the other hand, I agree with you that our good institutions of superior education are not just found among the Ivy League schools. Nowadays we have schools like Duke, UNC, UVA, UCBerkeley, Un. of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Cal Tech, MIT, U of Chicago, Northwestern, and many others, that are just as good. And I also agree that often, what matters for your PhD is your mentor and his/her line of research, more than just the school.

While I see your point about giving priority to Americans, I agree with both of you when you say that truly competitive businesses should be willing to hire the most skilled professionals, regardless of national origin. With one caveat - while I see that this is what makes sense, I'm a bit ambivalent about it. I do think that protecting one's own citizenry in the job market is something that most countries do, and is quite understandable.

It's probably a question of walking a fine line. We shouldn't open all sectors of our economy to all takers, and completely decimate jobs for the locals. Think for instance of how we offer immigrant visas and hire many Filipino nurses. That's all fine, because we can't train enough nurses for our own needs. But if we had scores of unemployed American nurses, it would be weird to open the doors to any Filipino nurses who wanted to come and work here.

But then, when I say it's a question of walking a fine line, we shouldn't shy away from hiring very essential personnel, very highly skilled individuals, *even* if they would occupy jobs that Americans would be willing to do and at least reasonably qualified to do. That's called head hunting, and it does benefit the economy. Besides, all countries do it.

Over here we do have instruments for this. It's the O-1 visa, reserved for what we call "Aliens with Extraordinary Ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics." That is, the best of the best. Regardless of local competition, we should still struggle to import those folks.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> Gee, Natalie, this sounds *very provincial *and xenophobic from NZ's business class. What is needed, in my opinion, is some large educational campaign, and the problem should be addressed in business schools as well.


You're right. Being stuck out in the Pacific miles away from any non-English speaking countries and tied to the "Mother Country" didn't help.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Uhoh, I see that the two of you don't really see eye to eye, and show some animosity.
> But I'd say that Toccata is baiting you, Dr.Mike, please don't bite the bait. And Toccata, please don't bait. I believe that our own Toccata is quite skilled in writing a post that both appeases and provokes - a wind up merchant? Or just someone with strong opinions on the matter, eager to participate meaningfully? I hope it's the latter.


I'm all for civility, and felt that I did keep my retort civil. If my comments are misrepresented, though, I will say so. I won't engage in anything untoward, but I am not one to simply grin and bear it.

But I have agreed with much of what has been said. I just think that to some extent, it is not wrong for a country to protect its own interests. In terms of training, when a lot of the money for that comes from taxpayer dollars, I don't see anything wrong with giving preference to citizens. But as far as hiring people for jobs, or faculty positions, or whatever skilled position - so long as it is done legally, I could care less what country they come from. And that has been my stated position all along.

And Alma is right - there are numerous universities that are considered powerhouses for turning out Ph.D.s that don't have an ivy league pedigree. Many are even (gasp) state-run institutions!


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> Uhoh, I see that the two of you don't really see eye to eye, and show some animosity.
> But I'd say that Toccata is baiting you, Dr.Mike, please don't bite the bait. And Toccata, please don't bait. I believe that our own Toccata is quite skilled in writing a post that both appeases and provokes - a wind up merchant? Or just someone with strong opinions on the matter, eager to participate meaningfully? I hope it's the latter.
> ….
> 
> Over here we do have instruments for this. It's the O-1 visa, reserved for what we call "Aliens with Extraordinary Ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics." That is, the best of the best. Regardless of local competition, we should still struggle to import those folks.


I wasn't baiting anyone, just putting over my viewpoint on the matter, without writing reams. I do know a thing or two about this general topic from personal experience, but I'm not going into any of that.

Perhaps I could reiterate that I was agreeing with you the USA system for rationing "H" visas is too inflexible with regard to requirements of its high tech industry. As evidence, I cited the fact that the 2010/2011 quota for H visas ran out in mid-January 2011, about one-third of the way through the year. This is pretty clear evidence that USA industry needs a greater supply of high quality manpower than it can provide from its own resources, and I'm a little surprised that no one has picked up on this observation in the ensuing responses.

I do not think that I misrepresented Dr Mike at all. It was certainly not my intention to do so. As I saw it, his earlier posts in this thread attempt to defend the status quo regarding low annual limits on H visa on job protection grounds. I have had another look at his initial post on this subject the main one post No 2) and that is still the unmistakable message I derive from it. There are several references to protecting domestic scientists.

I was firstly surprised to see job protection forming such a high priority for someone who professes conservative views, as I would have thought that this is not fully consistent with belief in the "free market" which is normally associated with that wing of the political spectrum. At any rate, arguments about limiting H visas for job protection purposes is based on the fallacious notion that recruiting from overseas will always automatically displace a US worker. This is bogus since before a US employer can offer a job (requiring an H visa) to an overseas candidate they must have taken steps to recruit locally at fair wages, and the employer must not have laid off any existing US worker merely to recruit an equivalent from overseas. Hence, there should be enough protection in the system is ensure that beneficial job creation results, not job diversion. This simple economic consideration is often not understood.

Nor was I suggesting that that PhDs from all non Ivy League universities are worth less than one from a top-rated institution like for example Imperial College. That's not what I said, or meant. Rather, I said that _"It's manpower with qualifications of this calibre from overseas countries which American industry wants, not second-raters from American universities churned out by the barrel load, but can't get because of crazy restrictions on the number on H visas that make no economic sense."_ Perhaps a tad colourful in description, the underlying point seems to me to be almost a truism given the excess demand situation I previously referred to.

As regards *O-1* visas, yes, I know all about that, but it is not a satisfactory alternative to an adequate supply of H visas. They are suited only to people who are very much at or near the top of their professions, who can whistle up a minimum of five glowing reports that have to meet specified criteria from distinguished people even more senior to them. This is a pretty daunting task and would probably be out of reach for most typical H visa candidates.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Thanks, Toccata. In spite of some edgy posts (from a moderator's standpoint) I believe that this discussion is going quite well and is interesting.

I *have* picked up on your observation about H visas running out, as evidenced by what I said: "I believe that Toccata is right about the fact that our H visa system is inflexible - that's basically what I've been saying." I wasn't entirely explicit about January - but that's what I was thinking about when I wrote this phrase - I had mentioned earlier the visas running out in April or May, and you have provided even more evidence that the problem is growing even worse than I thought, thus the "what I was saying" part. But sorry, I could have been more explicit in agreeing with you and valuing your input about this specific point which was, after all, exactly why I had started this thread and this discussion - the silliness of running out of a a few thousand visas for a legitimate need for high tech specialists while doing little to curb the absorption of millions of unskilled illegal aliens. And yes, I also agree with the part about existing instruments to protect the job market, as evidenced by my mention of a Labor Certificate which exactly addresses what you're saying: employers need to prove that they have advertised the position for 6 months and have failed to find a qualified American, before they can offer it to a prospective immigrant - except in the case of aliens with extraordinary ability, like I said.

The baiting part for me wasn't exactly the part about protection of the internal job market, but rather the part about Imperial College and American universities other than the Ivy League - I thought that there was a chance that this was still some displacement of anger from early unresolved resentments in another thread about the UK vs. USA - in the sense of "Ha-ha, our institutions are better than all but a handful of yours." This is what I called a little provocative. As you can see, if the intention was some winding up, it hit the mark because Dr. Mike and I jumped to the defense of non-Ivy League universities (my own Alma Mater is ranked among the top 10 universities in the USA, ahead of many Ivy League schools). But I did give you the benefit of the doubt when I said "let's hope it's the latter," and you have clarified your position, for which I thank you.

And Dr. Mike, I'm satisfied with the level of civility in this thread; my observation was in the sense of keeping it this way - being proactive, doing some prevention, because controversial topics like this one do have a tendency to spin out of control. It isn't happening so far, and I'm pleased with both your input, and Toccata's input. After all, there is no point in debating an issue if everybody agrees about everything. It's the disagreement that makes it interesting, as long as we continue to do what we've been doing, that is, debating the issue, not the other member's style or person.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Thanks, Toccata. In spite of some edgy posts (from a moderator's standpoint) I believe that this discussion is going quite well and is interesting.
> 
> I *have* picked up on your observation about H visas running out, as evidenced by what I said: "I believe that Toccata is right about the fact that our H visa system is inflexible - that's basically what I've been saying." I wasn't entirely explicit about January - but that's what I was thinking about when I wrote this phrase - I had mentioned earlier the visas running out in April or May, and you have provided even more evidence that the problem is growing even worse than I thought, thus the "what I was saying" part. But sorry, I could have been more explicit in agreeing with you and valuing your input about this specific point which was, after all, exactly why I had started this thread and this discussion - the silliness of running out of a a few thousand visas for a legitimate need for high tech specialists while doing little to curb the absorption of millions of unskilled illegal aliens. And yes, I also agree with the part about existing instruments to protect the job market, as evidenced by my mention of a Labor Certificate which exactly addresses what you're saying: employers need to prove that they have advertised the position for 6 months and have failed to find a qualified American, before they can offer it to a prospective immigrant - except in the case of aliens with extraordinary ability, like I said.
> 
> ...


I just want to make sure my position here is clear. I agree with the idea of making it easier for highly skilled people to come to this country. Unfortunately, this isn't what the immigration debate is focusing on. Instead, it is focusing on the more pressing question - what do you do about the flood of unskilled people coming here illegally. We don't really have a huge problem with a bunch of Ph.D.s trying to jump the fence on our Southern border. What we don't want to be is the dumping ground for all the third world's surplus population. I know most come here searching for a better life, but it benefits nobody to take on more than we can support.

When I have talked about limitations, it has only been at the training/university level. Many of our institutions of higher learning are state-sponsored, and are funded heavily by taxpayer dollars. I don't think it should be out of bounds to say that at that level, admission should be given preferentially to U.S. citizens.

Beyond that, once you start talking about the job market, I am even more open than I have been portrayed. I don't think a company should have to offer the jobs to Americans first. If they want to hire a foreigner for the job, provided they can do so in a legal manner, then I think it is ridiculous for them to have to first exhaust all possibilities among American citizens. If the best option for the job is, say, Japanese, speaks excellent English, and can get the necessary legal documents, I say give it to him/her. What if a foreign Nobel laureate applied for a position at a U.S. university - it seems like a stupid idea to have to first exhaust the search for possible candidates that are American before you can pick the Nobel laureate. I am all for hiring the best and brightest. And if that disproportionately becomes foreigners, well, maybe people in this country will start taking education a little more seriously.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

It is nice to have your position thus clarified, Dr. Mike, and I agree 100% with your post above. However, it is understandable that Toccata may have misunderstood you, since you did say the following in your first post in this discussion: "we already have more American scientists than we have positions for them to fill. ... So what would be the effect of going from 50,000 to 500,000 visas for people like scientists? The job market for scientists in this country would be even tougher." These statements in my opinion did justify the impression that you were advocating for protecting the job market for home grown scientists. Now you have clarified that it isn't so, and like I said, I do agree with your position. 

By the way, a Nobel winner would (and does) qualify immediately for the 0-1 visa and wouldn't need a labor certificate, but instead, a labor certificate waiver would be immediately granted (as a matter of fact, in the same petition and same rulling. The Nobel winner would be able to come to the country with no delay, effectively jumping ahead of any other applicant. He/she would likely be also granted the status of "Alien of extraordinary ability whose immigration is in the national interest of the United States." This label bypasses the need for a labor certificate or even a job offer, and qualifies the applicant directly to an immigrant visa (a.k.a. green card). So, Nobel laureates can come any time on the 0-1 category and start working/teaching while their green cards are being processed. It would be extremely silly to proceed otherwise. When someone of this caliber wants to come here, we feel thankful and honored, and make it as easy as possible. At least in this kind of circumstance, our policies actually make sense.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I would support liberalizing immigration for both skilled and unskilled workers. The political argument is easier for skilled workers, but the economy evidently needs both.

I would especially like to see huge numbers of Chinese and Indian immigrants, so that they would affect our politics and foreign policy. And, while we're at it, more Eastern Europeans, Arabs, Turks, Persians, and Indonesians. 

I know that it is politically impossible, but this is what I wish for.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

science said:


> I would support liberalizing immigration for both skilled and unskilled workers. The political argument is easier for skilled workers, but the economy evidently needs both.
> 
> I would especially like to see huge numbers of Chinese and Indian immigrants, so that they would affect our politics and foreign policy. And, while we're at it, more Eastern Europeans, Arabs, Turks, Persians, and Indonesians.
> 
> I know that it is politically impossible, but this is what I wish for.


That's what our diversity lottery tries to accomplish.

While I generally agree with you, I balk at your concept of "huge numbers." I don't think we can afford it, in very literal terms. Our country is broke. To absorb a huge population of immigrants, you need infrastructure of all kinds, which we don't have right now. What we do have is overwhelmed emergency rooms, overwhelmed school systems...

We need regulation rather than complete liberalization. No modern developed nation these days can survive with a full open door policy like we used to have at the time of Ellis Island.

Yes, we need unskilled workers as well, but not to the point that will break even more our already strained resources.

And we're not a full employment economy any longer. We *do* need to worry about the job market for our own citizens.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> That's what our diversity lottery tries to accomplish.
> 
> While I generally agree with you, I balk at your concept of "huge numbers." I don't think we can afford it, in very literal terms. Our country is broke. To absorb a huge population of immigrants, you need infrastructure of all kinds, which we don't have right now. What we do have is overwhelmed emergency rooms, overwhelmed school systems...
> 
> ...


If we want to build that infrastructure, we need workers and taxpayers. Anyway, we certainly have the money and probably have the people to do it already, but we choose not to for political reasons. We'd rather shrink the government than build our future.

I don't believe in the "lump of labor," so I don't think that immigration is going to lead to higher unemployment, though of course the cost of labor in whatever kind of work the immigrants do would probably fall. Rather than ship the jobs overseas, why not ship the laborers here?


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

hey hey, don't close door for skilled worker to get in USA, I have been paving the way thru there in the last five years.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Another interesting discussion. At my college I have made many friends with foreign transfer students from China, Korea, the Philippines, Nepal, etc. and they have all expressed significant concern over eligibility to work here in the United States. My one Nepalese friend did finally manage to get a green card to start working in an American accounting firm, but a very intelligent Chinese friend of mine has been turned down time after time because he does not possess the appropriate papers. 

In my mind, if you've got the intelligence to learn the second language (English), get to America and somehow graduate with an American degree, you deserve to have a green card... and you're probably a lot smarter than 95% of American students. I fully support Alma's idea of granting the work visas to immigrants who have graduated college (if I understand correctly).


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Another interesting discussion. At my college I have made many friends with foreign transfer students from China, Korea, the Philippines, Nepal, etc. and they have all expressed significant concern over eligibility to work here in the United States. My one Nepalese friend did finally manage to get a green card to start working in an American accounting firm, but a very intelligent Chinese friend of mine has been turned down time after time because he does not possess the appropriate papers.
> 
> In my mind, if you've got the intelligence to learn the second language (English), get to America and somehow graduate with an American degree, you deserve to have a green card... and you're probably a lot smarter than 95% of American students. I fully support Alma's idea of granting the work visas to immigrants who have graduated college (if I understand correctly).


I was setting the bar a little higher and thinking of graduate degrees, but one could make a case for doing it for college graduates as well.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Nah, I think graduate degrees is taking it too far. That would be making it 'too restrictive,' no?


----------

