8 ms·

Watch What Happens When You Push Away Skilled Immigrants

49 points by shreyanshd 8y ago

sonnyblarney 8y ago
I find many popular arguments about immigration lack nuance and are sometimes purposefully misleading. I'm not fan of Trump, but he wants to institute a 'points based' system, along the lines of what Canada or Australia has. Immigrants to Canada tend to be fairly educated, more so than those coming to the us partly due to this policy, partly due to the irregular migrants coming to the US. The article's title and opening argument are basically inconsistent with reality: a points-based immigration system would likely mean more qualified migrants, not fewer.
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
  [A] special clause in the bill could actually take away points if the applicant tries to bring his or her spouse...Drafters of the proposal said that it was modeled on similar systems used by Canada and Australia. But this is actually not how other countries treat family members under their points systems. In the five countries we examined that currently use similar points systems–Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, South Korea and New Zealand, spouses of applicants do not negatively impact the overall accumulation of points. https://qz.com/1195155/trumps-merit-based-immigration-proposal-would-dock-points-for-spouses/ https://qz.com/1195155/trumps-merit-based-immigration-propos...
  - iamshs 8y ago
    I find US proposal exact same as Canadian one. Under Canadian system, a person without any family is able to gain more points than one with spouse. Because the spouses gets judged on their own qualifications like degree, English language ability etc. I think that article is incorrect. Try the points here yourself:- http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/crs-tool.asp http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/crs-tool.asp
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      It's correct. Canada includes spouses in the comparison, like you say, but with far less weighting than the principal applicant. Usually the numbers don't work out to penalize the couple for the less qualified spouse in all but the most extreme Canadian immigration examples. A spouse having the opposite impact (helping the numbers) is far more common. Under Trump's proposal, having a modestly less qualified spouse would hurt the principal applicant, unlike the normal Canadian immigration outcome. I should note that the link you gave is not the points system used for approval, just the one that affects who can apply when, using certain of the many application pathways. A different points system is used for approval. Source: immigrated to Canada myself. I don't have a spouse but I had reason to study the rules closely.
      - iamshs 8y ago
        You score lower points in Canadian system too, if your spouse is less qualified. But the point impact is maximum 40 points. It can absolutely hurt some people. Here's the spousal impact:- https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/eligibility/criteria-comprehensive-ranking-system/grid.html#pointsB https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se... Source: Immigrant to Canada and Australia. Helped at least 10 people immigrate through provincial nominee and Express Entry programs. Edit:- Your Quebec reply. My brother immigrated through Quebec route too. Also, the spousal changes happened very very recently August 2nd. And Quebec is not the route that most immigrants to Canada take, it is Express Entry.
        jkaplowitz 8y ago
        Updated my comment. It's possible for it to hurt, but that's an unusual outcome. The marriage usually helps in Canada even when the spouse is less qualified, unlike Trump's proposal. [Edited to remove inaccurate info about the 40 points] You may also be interested in Quebec's system, which as of August 2 makes children purely positive to the skilled worker points system there, and never removes points for spouses. (The marriage only mildly raises Quebec's approval threshold, usually outweighed by the spouse's qualifications even if far lesser than the principal applicant.) Source for the Quebec comments: the specific way I immigrated to Canada was via Quebec. I have friends who want to immigrate on both sides of the provincial border, so I continue to pay close attention to both systems.
  - vmlinuz 8y ago
    I have direct personal experience of Hong Kong's points-based scheme, the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme - which, it should be noted, is a very niche scheme, largely unknown even amongst expats. The vast majority of skilled immigration comes on a simple sponsored work visa... QMAS gives you a few extra points (5) if you are applying alongside a degree-level-educated spouse, and a few more if you're bringing children (5 or 10 for 1 or 2 children). Given that the 'pass mark' is 80 - which doesn't guarantee a visa, just allows you to apply - it's neither a trivial amount nor a particularly significant one.
    - iamshs 8y ago
      The article is absolutely wrong. It states Canadian immigration scores you out of 67 points, that system has been phased out in 2017, before this article was written. Also, Canada absolutely gives weightage to your spouse's age, English/French skills, education etc. up to 40 points.
      - jkaplowitz 8y ago
        The system with the 67-point pass mark very much still exists: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=692&top=29 http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=692&... The Express Entry system introduced in 2015 (not 2017) is just a change to who can apply to the system indicated above and the other systems integrated with Express Entry, rather than being first come first served. It doesn't determine approval. (Though for the provincial nomination programs, some of the other hard parts happen before Express Entry, not after.)
        iamshs 8y ago
        Yes, it was 2015, typo. Express Entry amalgamated FSW/T and CEC streams and digitized the process, for which you used to have to send paper applications before. The Quartz link made 67 points the centrepoint of the article, which that is the first step, you still have to enter yourself into Express Entry pool, where spousal points are calculated separately and in fact does impact your final points tally.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    I understand the various points-based systems will have differences but I don't think it's worth splitting hairs over. Generally a points-based system will move the needle towards those who are more qualified.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  Canada is getting plenty of less educated irregular migrants right now, primarily those departing from the US after the Trump administration ended their Temporary Protected Status programs which had let them stay legally in the US. Any of those affected who are highly educated are probably using the points system you describe to enter through regular channels. Also, Canada has exactly the same birthright citizenship policy as the US, though it's merely in Canada's statutory law, not also in its constitution. (Edited to replace "those people" with "those affected" - I just meant a neutral reference, not a phrase that racists often give a derogatory meaning.)
firic 8y ago
> it would strip citizenship from the children of green-card holders and illegal immigrants alike, leaving millions of American citizens suddenly without a country. Would it take a person with citizenship and remove their citizenship, or would it simply not grant them citizenship?
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  What it would purport to do depends on the precise wording. What it would actually do is get quickly struck down by the courts with no effect, since executive orders can't validly contradict federal statutory law or the Constitution. Both sources of law currently protect birthright citizenship, except for the children of foreign diplomats who already don't benefit from it today (no new executive order needed).
jarym 8y ago
The H1B study sounds suspicious and the defence of the H1B program weakened an otherwise strong article. H1B abuses have been long documented so while there are legitimate benefits to it, they are outweighed by the problems.
- Daishiman 8y ago
  Your assertion that the problems of H1B visas outweigh the benefits is pure conjecture and, for the most part, not supported by facts.
  - cylinder 8y ago
    It's all much ado about nothing anyways. 85,000 new H1 visas a year for a population of 330 million? Give me a break. Even if these all went to Wipro it wouldn't even be worth thinking twice about. And the refugee intake is only 49,000 a year. An absolute disgrace.
    - xtreme 8y ago
      I am genuinely curious to find out which number or percentage you'd consider a reasonable number or immigrants to admit each year, and how you arrived at that number. Are there any published studies that have tried to calculate this?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- mav3rick 8y ago
  You just made a claim too without any results let alone sources for those results.
  - jarym 8y ago
    So? I said the abuses have been long documented - and a quick Google search will bring up said documentation. I see no need to present sources and results - I'm not claiming anything as fact, just stating opinion in a comment.
grosjona 8y ago
Current policies will give more opportunities for Americans. Trump understands something that technology elites don't; the wealth pie is limited and you have to be deliberate in how you slice it and who you give those slices to.
- Jarwain 8y ago
  Life doesn't have to be a zero sum game.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Real estate is.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      Can't you just build higher? Or then into space? It's not really, is it.
- nickserv 8y ago
  Shutting out skilled, educated immigrants doesn't magically make natives more skilled nor better educated. Take a look at the UK and Brexit, they're having problems hiring enough health care professionals precisely because of their desired post-EU immigration policies. This before they even apply any new rules!
  - growlist 8y ago
    Another way to put this is to say the NHS is insufficiently funded to survive without ongoing imports of cheap labour from poorer countries. The problem would be better solved by reforming the NHS/its funding so that we incentivise the existing population to provide its workforce. Surely propping it up with ceaseless immigration is a ponzi scheme?
- Daishiman 8y ago
  A poor kid in the US Midwest isn't being held back by a Chinese PhD candidate in the coastal city when the latter can help local companies grow and acquire capital thus facilitating the hiring of locals not just for the company but for the surrounding economy. The argument is clearly stated in the article. And your assertion about opportunities does not really align with our understanding of immigration policies.
NTDF9 8y ago
Americans probably don't even realize how evil current administration is towards legal immigrants. They are actively pushing away legal immigrants who contribute to society. I don't see the following people wanting to live in a racist, anti immigrant, anti intellectual country: - Nobel Laureates (budding geniuses especially)? - Top scientists? - Good engineers? - Medical practitioners? - Researchers? - People who are family oriented? Can anyone imagine a well-to-do, well-educated immigrant from a good country ever wanting to deal with US immigration nonsense? Especially, if they can be kicked out or denaturalized? I certainly can't. In fact, the only people who would come to the US (now that the curtain on American racism is up) are the exact people their politicians over emphasize on aka gang members, asylum seekers, fleeing shitty conditions back home, have nothing else going on. Such a paradox!
sparkling 8y ago
> "Cities’ productivity would increase, as would the wages of native-born high-skilled Americans, if more H-1B workers and skilled permanent residents were allowed to come." Please stop with this non-sense. You can be for or against the H-1B program, i don't care, but there is zero doubt that US citizens would be collecting way higher paychecks if the H-1B program did not exist. Thats simply supply and demand on the (tech-)labour market.
- marcell 8y ago
  Disagree. There may be a short term bump, but long term it would be damaging. Tech workers are value creators. Having a hub of talent like SV increases value and salaries for everyone here because it attracts companies here, increasing demand along with supply. If there’s no talent in SV, there’s also no companies here. They’ll just move overseas to where the talent lives.
  - nickserv 8y ago
    Exactly. If you really care about being competitive, invest in education and social services. Then the locals can compete effectively for high value jobs.
  - garyfirestorm 8y ago
    Again, I have mentioned this in different threads. H1B isn't just for SV. There's way more companies in US like automotive industry that needs multidisciplinary engineers (mechanical, controls, signal processing, programming, active system knowledge). It's just impossible to find people. My team has about 3 empty vacancies with job postings everywhere, we just can't find people with skills (I am on H1B, there aren't enough people in many fields) stop applying H1B = cheap tech jobs logic. Also, the Masters degree I pursued (in mechanical engineering - Dynamics/Vibrations/Acoustics) had barely a couple of American kids vs ~8 foreign kids.
- Daishiman 8y ago
  If the entire value a tech worker creates is properly captured by their salary, sure. But if that were the case then no one would bother with spending the insane amounts of money it costs to get qualified foreign labor. Talent is global and the difference a skilled individual adds to a company has a multiplicative effect.
extralego 8y ago
I am confused about something that seems very basic, and hoping somebody can help me out with this. I have always supported left politics, and I think I understand the basics of supply-and-demand economics. If immigrants come to the US looking for work instead of bringing work, there should be a higher supply of labor, driving the low-end pay-rate down. Given that the low-end rate has gone down significantly throughout the 3 decades that I have been alive, how do we on the left reason that immigration is not a factor? Or is it? Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies. Am I wrong about that? My parents voted for Trump, (or we might say they voted against Clinton). They have since decided to support Bernie Sanders next time, but they point to immigration’s effect on the labor supply as the reason to keep the border closed. I would like to think we can address this with far more dignified solutions than what is being popularly proposed, but first things first; what am I missing?
- tormeh 8y ago
  Low-end wages are affected by automation, globalization and immigration. In that order, I believe. To his credit, Trump is trying to tackle the last two. If you provide unskilled services (e.g cleaning) then unskilled immigration is very bad for your income. I don't think any reasonable economist would object to that. The "job pool" does expand over time to match the labor pool, but if immigrants don't have the same skill profile as "the natives", then some of the natives are gonna lose.
- michaelscott 8y ago
  A higher supply of cheaper labour does contribute to the reduced pay but by far the biggest influence is the stagnation of wages over those 3 decades (i.e. it's not that wages have gone down, they just largely haven't gone up). Average, inflation adjusted wage growth has been projected as low as 0.2% year on year in some cases, and this affects most forms of work not just the low end.
  - laughingman2 8y ago
    With all the productivity gains, if the wage growth has been far less, it's clear who is to take a huge part of the blame, hint hint, big corporations who also evade paying taxes. Its almost as if they don't want a vibrant middle class to spend, thereby dooming themselves in the long run with stagnation.
peterburkimsher 8y ago
Immigration policies already set a very high barrier to entry, especially considering that 20% of the US population is functionally illiterate [1]. Immigration is the only hope for me to ever have a family. I was born in Switzerland to British parents who lived in France (in Geneva this is not unusual). Because I'm a citizen by descent, I can't pass on nationality to future children. My girlfriend is Taiwanese, and I'm a conscientious objector who will not take on Taiwanese nationality because of their mandatory conscription. My life plan revolves around immigration visa requirements. I studied Electronic Systems Engineering at Lancaster University in the UK. That got me a Masters degree from a Washington Accord accredited university, in an English-speaking country (language requirements), in a STEM field (usually on the skill shortage list). Then I used Working Holiday visas to get experience in many countries, before deciding to stay in Taiwan for 4 years to get years of continuous relevant work experience. Now I have the pre-requisites, I'm trying to find a job, but the majority of job listings require me to already have a visa. Any leads for jobs would be helpful. I was focusing on New Zealand, Canada, or Australia, but by now I'm getting desperate and I'll take anything. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy
- halflings 8y ago
  If you work in software (not clear from your post) you should be able to easily find a job in the UK. Companies will usually take care of VISA sponsorship. Otherwise, France now has a new VISA policy for talented engineers and similar profiles ("Passeport Talent"[0]). [0] https://france-visas.gouv.fr/web/france-visas/passeport-talents https://france-visas.gouv.fr/web/france-visas/passeport-tale...
  - peterburkimsher 8y ago
    Yes, I work in software (industrial control systems and network admin). For now I could work in France while the UK is in the EU, but I would need that visa after it leaves.
- amf12 8y ago
  > I was focusing on New Zealand, Canada, or Australia You should look into this for Canada and Australia. You don't need a job to apply for these if you meet the criteria: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se... https://www.immigrationdirect.com.au/work-visa/skilled-independent-189.html https://www.immigrationdirect.com.au/work-visa/skilled-indep...
Anita_kiss 8y ago
1. Infants are not automatically US citizen when born in the US 2. The US needs more highly qualified workers. How is the birthright changing that? (argument that every baby could be the next Einstein is not sufficient)
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  It represents an anchor to their adopted community. This is good for integration. Remove it, and the immigrant can decide to go back for whatever reason. Birthright citizenship is one of the defining reasons for America's continued economic and cultural dominance. The American dream as we know it does not exist without it.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  1. They are. 2. The US definitely needs more highly qualified skilled workers, and pretty much anyone to just keep the population where it is as a birth rate of 1.84 children per couple is below replenishment rate. As for birthright citizenship, I agree, it's not a necessary part of a fair and reasonable immigration system. It's really only a new-world concept and it's declining in the new world too. Australia had and then rolled it back. I'm neutral on this. Obviously I don't think it should be taken away from anyone who already has it, that's a dangerous line to tow, but I wouldn't be opposed to birthright permanent residency with a path to citizenship should the individual choose to immigrate on their own, or of course if they'd otherwise be left stateless. Hong Kong for instance doesn't afford citizenship to anyone not ethnically Chinese meaning HKIDs are the end of the road for anyone not Chinese.
belorn 8y ago
Arguing immigration policy is usually better to do based on morality. Economic grounds is a hard proposition, since assuming the government budget is balanced we can split any given population in two groups; one which under a given time frame increases budget deficit when grown and the other which causes surplus when grown. If we only look at the economical aspect then the question about immigration is simply a crass question about averages. If the average applicant with their dependents are in the later group for the defined time frame then its a good policy to allow and encourage growth, and if its not then its better to prohibit. Here in Sweden a researcher did such study and unsurprisingly the result showed that for the time frame of 20 years the state economics from immigration is a net negative. It is very possible that over an enough large time frame that result will change but their study could not make such predictions. The averages for H1B applicants and their dependents could be different but the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants. Its a good incentive for doing more studies but I would focus the moral perspective of liberty and humanitarian aid when it comes to immigration policy. I have strong doubt that a rigorous economic study would fall in favor of immigration for any time frame less than 50-100 years, based on my own reasoning, guesses and historical knowledge.
- amf12 8y ago
  > Here in Sweden a researcher did such study and unsurprisingly the result showed that for the time frame of 20 years the state economics from immigration is a net negative. I would be very interested to read this study. Can you please provide a source? What kind of immigration does the study account for? Is it refugee based or diversity based immigration which, naturally, could be a burden on the country because these most likely are not medium-high skilled immigrants. However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program which is only for employment based high-skilled applicants (granted some of these could be medium-skilled but these applicants are definitely not low-skilled) and contribute to the economy by paying taxes and contributing to the local economy by spending. > the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants. If there is an economic growth for the local companies, this certainly might correlate with the economic growth for the economy of the country. But I do agree with you that there should be a more focused study for this.
dropit_sphere 8y ago
This is a throwaway account, but, hey, they have their place. I'm a regular HN commenter under another name(that you wouldn't recognize, I'm not secretly patio11 or something). The article frustrates me, because it echoes a thought complex that seems almost willfully obtuse. It fails to address the actual reasons behind a desire for caution on immigration. This is somewhat forgivable because those with the most reason to want caution are the least likely to be able to explain why, or to have the confidence to do so. But it is somewhat unforgivable because presumably it is the job of those who write articles to tease that sort of thing out. The article gives a litany of problems for which high-skilled immigrants are the solution: pensions, tax bases, shoring up the population of "declining regions." We are told that the "dark nativist rumblings of right-wing intellectuals like Anton, are doing the U.S. economy an enormous disservice." This is Bloomberg, so that is the unpardonable sin, hurting the economy. But maybe there's more to life than the economy? Consider Sen. Elizabeth Warren's The Two-Income Trap [0]. She posits that much of the income a family gains from working women goes to positional goods, like housing or (credentialed) education---but since other women are working as well, the net gain is much, much lower than what the simple income numbers would suggest. Perhaps a simpler example is simply housing in SF. Sure, you get paid a lot, but if your rent is correspondingly high, well...hmm. And that's assuming that you are being paid a lot. Money is an abstraction. Sometimes it's a leaky abstraction. What price air? What price true love? How much do loving, still-together parents cost? How much to block all ads on the Internet, forever? Just because you can't buy these things doesn't mean they're not wealth, in the pg "wealth is what people want" sense. If you held Google stock, and they doubled the amount of ads you see, Bloomberg would say you were up. But, well, now the internet sucks for you. So...how much is your vote worth? How much is it worth to live somewhere where the opinions of most of the electorate match up with yours? How much would you pay for your child to attend a school where you're comfortable with the racial mix of the other students? This is taboo---even my villanous throwaway persona cringes writing it---but in practice people go to a lot of trouble. [2][3] How much is social cohesion worth? [4] How much is a monolingual environment---and more specifically, the security of the implied cultural hegemony---worth?[5] To really drive home the ridiculousness of the article, let's flip the scenario: imagine new research came out that demonstrated unequivocally that "immigrants are Bad for the Economy," and mirror-universe Evil Bloomberg wrote an op-ed citing such. Might you take issue with that, holding that they bring benefits not measured in GNP, and that this was a case of looking for keys under the streetlight? I'm not arguing for any specific policies, which is good for all of us because I know jack shit about such. Rather, I'm arguing for the basic legitimacy of the nativist impulse. Humans of any origin like living in safe countries that they control. "But though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy" - http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm [0]http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-income-trap/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-inc... [1]https://www.newsweek.com/why-schools-still-cant-put-segregation-behind-them-622278 https://www.newsweek.com/why-schools-still-cant-put-segregat... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/housing-segregation-is-holding-back-the-promise-of-brown-v-board-of-education/?utm_term=.d7a2840d2896 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/housi... [3]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128026... [4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/08/researchers-put-two-spanish-speakers-on-a-train-and-changed-commuters-views-of-immigration/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.114e6eb28740 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/08/resea...

49 points by shreyanshd 8y ago

I find many popular arguments about immigration lack nuance and are sometimes purposefully misleading. I'm not fan of Trump, but he wants to institute a 'points based' system, along the lines of what Canada or Australia has. Immigrants to Canada tend to be fairly educated, more so than those coming to the us partly due to this policy, partly due to the irregular migrants coming to the US. The article's title and opening argument are basically inconsistent with reality: a points-based immigration system would likely mean more qualified migrants, not fewer.

aaronbrethorst 8y ago
[A] special clause in the bill could actually take away points if the applicant tries to bring his or her spouse...Drafters of the proposal said that it was modeled on similar systems used by Canada and Australia. But this is actually not how other countries treat family members under their points systems. In the five countries we examined that currently use similar points systems–Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, South Korea and New Zealand, spouses of applicants do not negatively impact the overall accumulation of points. https://qz.com/1195155/trumps-merit-based-immigration-proposal-would-dock-points-for-spouses/ https://qz.com/1195155/trumps-merit-based-immigration-propos...
- iamshs 8y ago
  I find US proposal exact same as Canadian one. Under Canadian system, a person without any family is able to gain more points than one with spouse. Because the spouses gets judged on their own qualifications like degree, English language ability etc. I think that article is incorrect. Try the points here yourself:- http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/crs-tool.asp http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/crs-tool.asp
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    It's correct. Canada includes spouses in the comparison, like you say, but with far less weighting than the principal applicant. Usually the numbers don't work out to penalize the couple for the less qualified spouse in all but the most extreme Canadian immigration examples. A spouse having the opposite impact (helping the numbers) is far more common. Under Trump's proposal, having a modestly less qualified spouse would hurt the principal applicant, unlike the normal Canadian immigration outcome. I should note that the link you gave is not the points system used for approval, just the one that affects who can apply when, using certain of the many application pathways. A different points system is used for approval. Source: immigrated to Canada myself. I don't have a spouse but I had reason to study the rules closely.
    - iamshs 8y ago
      You score lower points in Canadian system too, if your spouse is less qualified. But the point impact is maximum 40 points. It can absolutely hurt some people. Here's the spousal impact:- https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/eligibility/criteria-comprehensive-ranking-system/grid.html#pointsB https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se... Source: Immigrant to Canada and Australia. Helped at least 10 people immigrate through provincial nominee and Express Entry programs. Edit:- Your Quebec reply. My brother immigrated through Quebec route too. Also, the spousal changes happened very very recently August 2nd. And Quebec is not the route that most immigrants to Canada take, it is Express Entry.
      - jkaplowitz 8y ago
        Updated my comment. It's possible for it to hurt, but that's an unusual outcome. The marriage usually helps in Canada even when the spouse is less qualified, unlike Trump's proposal. [Edited to remove inaccurate info about the 40 points] You may also be interested in Quebec's system, which as of August 2 makes children purely positive to the skilled worker points system there, and never removes points for spouses. (The marriage only mildly raises Quebec's approval threshold, usually outweighed by the spouse's qualifications even if far lesser than the principal applicant.) Source for the Quebec comments: the specific way I immigrated to Canada was via Quebec. I have friends who want to immigrate on both sides of the provincial border, so I continue to pay close attention to both systems.
- vmlinuz 8y ago
  I have direct personal experience of Hong Kong's points-based scheme, the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme - which, it should be noted, is a very niche scheme, largely unknown even amongst expats. The vast majority of skilled immigration comes on a simple sponsored work visa... QMAS gives you a few extra points (5) if you are applying alongside a degree-level-educated spouse, and a few more if you're bringing children (5 or 10 for 1 or 2 children). Given that the 'pass mark' is 80 - which doesn't guarantee a visa, just allows you to apply - it's neither a trivial amount nor a particularly significant one.
  - iamshs 8y ago
    The article is absolutely wrong. It states Canadian immigration scores you out of 67 points, that system has been phased out in 2017, before this article was written. Also, Canada absolutely gives weightage to your spouse's age, English/French skills, education etc. up to 40 points.
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      The system with the 67-point pass mark very much still exists: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=692&top=29 http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=692&... The Express Entry system introduced in 2015 (not 2017) is just a change to who can apply to the system indicated above and the other systems integrated with Express Entry, rather than being first come first served. It doesn't determine approval. (Though for the provincial nomination programs, some of the other hard parts happen before Express Entry, not after.)
      - iamshs 8y ago
        Yes, it was 2015, typo. Express Entry amalgamated FSW/T and CEC streams and digitized the process, for which you used to have to send paper applications before. The Quartz link made 67 points the centrepoint of the article, which that is the first step, you still have to enter yourself into Express Entry pool, where spousal points are calculated separately and in fact does impact your final points tally.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  I understand the various points-based systems will have differences but I don't think it's worth splitting hairs over. Generally a points-based system will move the needle towards those who are more qualified.
jkaplowitz 8y ago
Canada is getting plenty of less educated irregular migrants right now, primarily those departing from the US after the Trump administration ended their Temporary Protected Status programs which had let them stay legally in the US. Any of those affected who are highly educated are probably using the points system you describe to enter through regular channels. Also, Canada has exactly the same birthright citizenship policy as the US, though it's merely in Canada's statutory law, not also in its constitution. (Edited to replace "those people" with "those affected" - I just meant a neutral reference, not a phrase that racists often give a derogatory meaning.)

firic 8y ago

> it would strip citizenship from the children of green-card holders and illegal immigrants alike, leaving millions of American citizens suddenly without a country. Would it take a person with citizenship and remove their citizenship, or would it simply not grant them citizenship?

jkaplowitz 8y ago
What it would purport to do depends on the precise wording. What it would actually do is get quickly struck down by the courts with no effect, since executive orders can't validly contradict federal statutory law or the Constitution. Both sources of law currently protect birthright citizenship, except for the children of foreign diplomats who already don't benefit from it today (no new executive order needed).

jarym 8y ago

The H1B study sounds suspicious and the defence of the H1B program weakened an otherwise strong article. H1B abuses have been long documented so while there are legitimate benefits to it, they are outweighed by the problems.

Daishiman 8y ago
Your assertion that the problems of H1B visas outweigh the benefits is pure conjecture and, for the most part, not supported by facts.
- cylinder 8y ago
  It's all much ado about nothing anyways. 85,000 new H1 visas a year for a population of 330 million? Give me a break. Even if these all went to Wipro it wouldn't even be worth thinking twice about. And the refugee intake is only 49,000 a year. An absolute disgrace.
  - xtreme 8y ago
    I am genuinely curious to find out which number or percentage you'd consider a reasonable number or immigrants to admit each year, and how you arrived at that number. Are there any published studies that have tried to calculate this?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
mav3rick 8y ago
You just made a claim too without any results let alone sources for those results.
- jarym 8y ago
  So? I said the abuses have been long documented - and a quick Google search will bring up said documentation. I see no need to present sources and results - I'm not claiming anything as fact, just stating opinion in a comment.

grosjona 8y ago

Current policies will give more opportunities for Americans. Trump understands something that technology elites don't; the wealth pie is limited and you have to be deliberate in how you slice it and who you give those slices to.

Jarwain 8y ago
Life doesn't have to be a zero sum game.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Real estate is.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Can't you just build higher? Or then into space? It's not really, is it.
nickserv 8y ago
Shutting out skilled, educated immigrants doesn't magically make natives more skilled nor better educated. Take a look at the UK and Brexit, they're having problems hiring enough health care professionals precisely because of their desired post-EU immigration policies. This before they even apply any new rules!
- growlist 8y ago
  Another way to put this is to say the NHS is insufficiently funded to survive without ongoing imports of cheap labour from poorer countries. The problem would be better solved by reforming the NHS/its funding so that we incentivise the existing population to provide its workforce. Surely propping it up with ceaseless immigration is a ponzi scheme?
Daishiman 8y ago
A poor kid in the US Midwest isn't being held back by a Chinese PhD candidate in the coastal city when the latter can help local companies grow and acquire capital thus facilitating the hiring of locals not just for the company but for the surrounding economy. The argument is clearly stated in the article. And your assertion about opportunities does not really align with our understanding of immigration policies.

NTDF9 8y ago

Americans probably don't even realize how evil current administration is towards legal immigrants. They are actively pushing away legal immigrants who contribute to society. I don't see the following people wanting to live in a racist, anti immigrant, anti intellectual country: - Nobel Laureates (budding geniuses especially)? - Top scientists? - Good engineers? - Medical practitioners? - Researchers? - People who are family oriented? Can anyone imagine a well-to-do, well-educated immigrant from a good country ever wanting to deal with US immigration nonsense? Especially, if they can be kicked out or denaturalized? I certainly can't. In fact, the only people who would come to the US (now that the curtain on American racism is up) are the exact people their politicians over emphasize on aka gang members, asylum seekers, fleeing shitty conditions back home, have nothing else going on. Such a paradox!

sparkling 8y ago

> "Cities’ productivity would increase, as would the wages of native-born high-skilled Americans, if more H-1B workers and skilled permanent residents were allowed to come." Please stop with this non-sense. You can be for or against the H-1B program, i don't care, but there is zero doubt that US citizens would be collecting way higher paychecks if the H-1B program did not exist. Thats simply supply and demand on the (tech-)labour market.

marcell 8y ago
Disagree. There may be a short term bump, but long term it would be damaging. Tech workers are value creators. Having a hub of talent like SV increases value and salaries for everyone here because it attracts companies here, increasing demand along with supply. If there’s no talent in SV, there’s also no companies here. They’ll just move overseas to where the talent lives.
- nickserv 8y ago
  Exactly. If you really care about being competitive, invest in education and social services. Then the locals can compete effectively for high value jobs.
- garyfirestorm 8y ago
  Again, I have mentioned this in different threads. H1B isn't just for SV. There's way more companies in US like automotive industry that needs multidisciplinary engineers (mechanical, controls, signal processing, programming, active system knowledge). It's just impossible to find people. My team has about 3 empty vacancies with job postings everywhere, we just can't find people with skills (I am on H1B, there aren't enough people in many fields) stop applying H1B = cheap tech jobs logic. Also, the Masters degree I pursued (in mechanical engineering - Dynamics/Vibrations/Acoustics) had barely a couple of American kids vs ~8 foreign kids.
Daishiman 8y ago
If the entire value a tech worker creates is properly captured by their salary, sure. But if that were the case then no one would bother with spending the insane amounts of money it costs to get qualified foreign labor. Talent is global and the difference a skilled individual adds to a company has a multiplicative effect.

extralego 8y ago

I am confused about something that seems very basic, and hoping somebody can help me out with this. I have always supported left politics, and I think I understand the basics of supply-and-demand economics. If immigrants come to the US looking for work instead of bringing work, there should be a higher supply of labor, driving the low-end pay-rate down. Given that the low-end rate has gone down significantly throughout the 3 decades that I have been alive, how do we on the left reason that immigration is not a factor? Or is it? Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies. Am I wrong about that? My parents voted for Trump, (or we might say they voted against Clinton). They have since decided to support Bernie Sanders next time, but they point to immigration’s effect on the labor supply as the reason to keep the border closed. I would like to think we can address this with far more dignified solutions than what is being popularly proposed, but first things first; what am I missing?

tormeh 8y ago
Low-end wages are affected by automation, globalization and immigration. In that order, I believe. To his credit, Trump is trying to tackle the last two. If you provide unskilled services (e.g cleaning) then unskilled immigration is very bad for your income. I don't think any reasonable economist would object to that. The "job pool" does expand over time to match the labor pool, but if immigrants don't have the same skill profile as "the natives", then some of the natives are gonna lose.
michaelscott 8y ago
A higher supply of cheaper labour does contribute to the reduced pay but by far the biggest influence is the stagnation of wages over those 3 decades (i.e. it's not that wages have gone down, they just largely haven't gone up). Average, inflation adjusted wage growth has been projected as low as 0.2% year on year in some cases, and this affects most forms of work not just the low end.
- laughingman2 8y ago
  With all the productivity gains, if the wage growth has been far less, it's clear who is to take a huge part of the blame, hint hint, big corporations who also evade paying taxes. Its almost as if they don't want a vibrant middle class to spend, thereby dooming themselves in the long run with stagnation.

peterburkimsher 8y ago

Immigration policies already set a very high barrier to entry, especially considering that 20% of the US population is functionally illiterate [1]. Immigration is the only hope for me to ever have a family. I was born in Switzerland to British parents who lived in France (in Geneva this is not unusual). Because I'm a citizen by descent, I can't pass on nationality to future children. My girlfriend is Taiwanese, and I'm a conscientious objector who will not take on Taiwanese nationality because of their mandatory conscription. My life plan revolves around immigration visa requirements. I studied Electronic Systems Engineering at Lancaster University in the UK. That got me a Masters degree from a Washington Accord accredited university, in an English-speaking country (language requirements), in a STEM field (usually on the skill shortage list). Then I used Working Holiday visas to get experience in many countries, before deciding to stay in Taiwan for 4 years to get years of continuous relevant work experience. Now I have the pre-requisites, I'm trying to find a job, but the majority of job listings require me to already have a visa. Any leads for jobs would be helpful. I was focusing on New Zealand, Canada, or Australia, but by now I'm getting desperate and I'll take anything. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy

halflings 8y ago
If you work in software (not clear from your post) you should be able to easily find a job in the UK. Companies will usually take care of VISA sponsorship. Otherwise, France now has a new VISA policy for talented engineers and similar profiles ("Passeport Talent"[0]). [0] https://france-visas.gouv.fr/web/france-visas/passeport-talents https://france-visas.gouv.fr/web/france-visas/passeport-tale...
- peterburkimsher 8y ago
  Yes, I work in software (industrial control systems and network admin). For now I could work in France while the UK is in the EU, but I would need that visa after it leaves.
amf12 8y ago
> I was focusing on New Zealand, Canada, or Australia You should look into this for Canada and Australia. You don't need a job to apply for these if you meet the criteria: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se... https://www.immigrationdirect.com.au/work-visa/skilled-independent-189.html https://www.immigrationdirect.com.au/work-visa/skilled-indep...

Anita_kiss 8y ago

1. Infants are not automatically US citizen when born in the US 2. The US needs more highly qualified workers. How is the birthright changing that? (argument that every baby could be the next Einstein is not sufficient)

akhilcacharya 8y ago
It represents an anchor to their adopted community. This is good for integration. Remove it, and the immigrant can decide to go back for whatever reason. Birthright citizenship is one of the defining reasons for America's continued economic and cultural dominance. The American dream as we know it does not exist without it.
arcticbull 8y ago
1. They are. 2. The US definitely needs more highly qualified skilled workers, and pretty much anyone to just keep the population where it is as a birth rate of 1.84 children per couple is below replenishment rate. As for birthright citizenship, I agree, it's not a necessary part of a fair and reasonable immigration system. It's really only a new-world concept and it's declining in the new world too. Australia had and then rolled it back. I'm neutral on this. Obviously I don't think it should be taken away from anyone who already has it, that's a dangerous line to tow, but I wouldn't be opposed to birthright permanent residency with a path to citizenship should the individual choose to immigrate on their own, or of course if they'd otherwise be left stateless. Hong Kong for instance doesn't afford citizenship to anyone not ethnically Chinese meaning HKIDs are the end of the road for anyone not Chinese.

belorn 8y ago

Arguing immigration policy is usually better to do based on morality. Economic grounds is a hard proposition, since assuming the government budget is balanced we can split any given population in two groups; one which under a given time frame increases budget deficit when grown and the other which causes surplus when grown. If we only look at the economical aspect then the question about immigration is simply a crass question about averages. If the average applicant with their dependents are in the later group for the defined time frame then its a good policy to allow and encourage growth, and if its not then its better to prohibit. Here in Sweden a researcher did such study and unsurprisingly the result showed that for the time frame of 20 years the state economics from immigration is a net negative. It is very possible that over an enough large time frame that result will change but their study could not make such predictions. The averages for H1B applicants and their dependents could be different but the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants. Its a good incentive for doing more studies but I would focus the moral perspective of liberty and humanitarian aid when it comes to immigration policy. I have strong doubt that a rigorous economic study would fall in favor of immigration for any time frame less than 50-100 years, based on my own reasoning, guesses and historical knowledge.

amf12 8y ago
> Here in Sweden a researcher did such study and unsurprisingly the result showed that for the time frame of 20 years the state economics from immigration is a net negative. I would be very interested to read this study. Can you please provide a source? What kind of immigration does the study account for? Is it refugee based or diversity based immigration which, naturally, could be a burden on the country because these most likely are not medium-high skilled immigrants. However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program which is only for employment based high-skilled applicants (granted some of these could be medium-skilled but these applicants are definitely not low-skilled) and contribute to the economy by paying taxes and contributing to the local economy by spending. > the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants. If there is an economic growth for the local companies, this certainly might correlate with the economic growth for the economy of the country. But I do agree with you that there should be a more focused study for this.

dropit_sphere 8y ago

This is a throwaway account, but, hey, they have their place. I'm a regular HN commenter under another name(that you wouldn't recognize, I'm not secretly patio11 or something). The article frustrates me, because it echoes a thought complex that seems almost willfully obtuse. It fails to address the actual reasons behind a desire for caution on immigration. This is somewhat forgivable because those with the most reason to want caution are the least likely to be able to explain why, or to have the confidence to do so. But it is somewhat unforgivable because presumably it is the job of those who write articles to tease that sort of thing out. The article gives a litany of problems for which high-skilled immigrants are the solution: pensions, tax bases, shoring up the population of "declining regions." We are told that the "dark nativist rumblings of right-wing intellectuals like Anton, are doing the U.S. economy an enormous disservice." This is Bloomberg, so that is the unpardonable sin, hurting the economy. But maybe there's more to life than the economy? Consider Sen. Elizabeth Warren's The Two-Income Trap [0]. She posits that much of the income a family gains from working women goes to positional goods, like housing or (credentialed) education---but since other women are working as well, the net gain is much, much lower than what the simple income numbers would suggest. Perhaps a simpler example is simply housing in SF. Sure, you get paid a lot, but if your rent is correspondingly high, well...hmm. And that's assuming that you are being paid a lot. Money is an abstraction. Sometimes it's a leaky abstraction. What price air? What price true love? How much do loving, still-together parents cost? How much to block all ads on the Internet, forever? Just because you can't buy these things doesn't mean they're not wealth, in the pg "wealth is what people want" sense. If you held Google stock, and they doubled the amount of ads you see, Bloomberg would say you were up. But, well, now the internet sucks for you. So...how much is your vote worth? How much is it worth to live somewhere where the opinions of most of the electorate match up with yours? How much would you pay for your child to attend a school where you're comfortable with the racial mix of the other students? This is taboo---even my villanous throwaway persona cringes writing it---but in practice people go to a lot of trouble. [2][3] How much is social cohesion worth? [4] How much is a monolingual environment---and more specifically, the security of the implied cultural hegemony---worth?[5] To really drive home the ridiculousness of the article, let's flip the scenario: imagine new research came out that demonstrated unequivocally that "immigrants are Bad for the Economy," and mirror-universe Evil Bloomberg wrote an op-ed citing such. Might you take issue with that, holding that they bring benefits not measured in GNP, and that this was a case of looking for keys under the streetlight? I'm not arguing for any specific policies, which is good for all of us because I know jack shit about such. Rather, I'm arguing for the basic legitimacy of the nativist impulse. Humans of any origin like living in safe countries that they control. "But though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy" - http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm [0]http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-income-trap/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-inc... [1]https://www.newsweek.com/why-schools-still-cant-put-segregation-behind-them-622278 https://www.newsweek.com/why-schools-still-cant-put-segregat... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/housing-segregation-is-holding-back-the-promise-of-brown-v-board-of-education/?utm_term=.d7a2840d2896 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/housi... [3]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128026... [4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/08/researchers-put-two-spanish-speakers-on-a-train-and-changed-commuters-views-of-immigration/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.114e6eb28740 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/08/resea...