4 ms·

Or, depending on your viewpoint, the US is far, far, far ahead of every other developed western nation. What makes it right for skilled people to get into a co

Or, depending on your viewpoint, the US is far, far, far ahead of every other developed western nation. What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily than unskilled?

m_eiman 17y ago
Regardless if it's "right" or not, it's likely more valuable to the country. On the other hand, being able to bring the family might further increase the value of a skilled immigrant.
jacoblyles 17y ago
This seems really obvious, but I'll bite. Maybe this is some sort of socratic exercise. >"What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily than unskilled?" Prudence. Theoretically, skilled immigrants can create a positive economic externality. Through enterprise and innovation, they can add more value to the national economy than what they consume. Current US residents benefit from skilled immigration along with the immigrant. Since the immigrants may not have had an opportunity to produce this value in their home country, the whole world may experience a net benefit as well. On the other hand, the act of importing unskilled immigrants is unlikely to generate such positive externalities. To the extent they depend on public welfare or bring with them social problems associated with poverty, unskilled immigrants may even function as a negative externality on our society. It is unlikely that an unskilled worker will generate much more value than what is necessary for subsistence. The average wealth of a society correlates highly with how pleasant it is to live there. As an experiment, I suggest the author spend two weeks living in the impoverished southeast side of Washington DC along the green metro line. If he survives, I then suggest he spend two weeks living on the well-to-do west side along the orange line. At the conclusion of the experiment, the author should report to us which lifestyle he prefers. It is likely that this experiment will have shaken the author's expressed egalitarianism. To some extent, we are choosing between these two societies when we frame our immigration policies.
- geebee 17y ago
  I think you've misinterpreted what shrughes meant by "right". I agree with a lot of what you've written, but you'd be refuting someone who said "what makes it smart", not "what makes it right". Keep in mind when shrughes wrote "what makes it right", he was responding to someone who called the USA "anti-immigrant" because it doesn't prefer highly educated and skilled immigrants over low skilled, low educated immigrants. I find that argument strange too - it's a basis for claiming the US is kinda dumb about immigration, but taking 1.2 million immigrants a year that most other nations don't really want is definitely not "anti-immigrant", it's immensely pro-immigrant.

Or, depending on your viewpoint, the US is far, far, far ahead of every other developed western nation. What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily than unskilled?

m_eiman 17y ago

Regardless if it's "right" or not, it's likely more valuable to the country. On the other hand, being able to bring the family might further increase the value of a skilled immigrant.

jacoblyles 17y ago

This seems really obvious, but I'll bite. Maybe this is some sort of socratic exercise. >"What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily than unskilled?" Prudence. Theoretically, skilled immigrants can create a positive economic externality. Through enterprise and innovation, they can add more value to the national economy than what they consume. Current US residents benefit from skilled immigration along with the immigrant. Since the immigrants may not have had an opportunity to produce this value in their home country, the whole world may experience a net benefit as well. On the other hand, the act of importing unskilled immigrants is unlikely to generate such positive externalities. To the extent they depend on public welfare or bring with them social problems associated with poverty, unskilled immigrants may even function as a negative externality on our society. It is unlikely that an unskilled worker will generate much more value than what is necessary for subsistence. The average wealth of a society correlates highly with how pleasant it is to live there. As an experiment, I suggest the author spend two weeks living in the impoverished southeast side of Washington DC along the green metro line. If he survives, I then suggest he spend two weeks living on the well-to-do west side along the orange line. At the conclusion of the experiment, the author should report to us which lifestyle he prefers. It is likely that this experiment will have shaken the author's expressed egalitarianism. To some extent, we are choosing between these two societies when we frame our immigration policies.

geebee 17y ago
I think you've misinterpreted what shrughes meant by "right". I agree with a lot of what you've written, but you'd be refuting someone who said "what makes it smart", not "what makes it right". Keep in mind when shrughes wrote "what makes it right", he was responding to someone who called the USA "anti-immigrant" because it doesn't prefer highly educated and skilled immigrants over low skilled, low educated immigrants. I find that argument strange too - it's a basis for claiming the US is kinda dumb about immigration, but taking 1.2 million immigrants a year that most other nations don't really want is definitely not "anti-immigrant", it's immensely pro-immigrant.