3 ms·
Yes, a preference system similar to the Canadian one, which has a points system based on a variety of factors. Especially factoring in the fields with the most
by ktta 7y ago
Yes, a preference system similar to the Canadian one, which has a points system based on a variety of factors. Especially factoring in the fields with the most need and also education level (or equivalent experience that is actually verified). That is a more clearer approach than a lottery based one. This is what I would suggest if I was American.
Speaking as a non-American:
I have issues with the intent too, because I am not happy about the fact that this is a country developed by immigrants, yet there is anti-immigrant sentiment. People have to 'prove' themselves to get in, and even there's no guarantee of success there with clear goalposts, and only extra-ordinary ability people (O-1 visa) can get in without much headache. A bit like locking the door behind you IMO.
I want to say that I understand the problems unrestricted immigration will place on the country. However, there is a position that will allow many more immigrants than current immigrant visa system allows for, and we are not close to that.
I believe the reason is that people aren't comfortable possibly having their salaries drop by a small percent. The hypocrisy is what really gets to me though. America is touted as a free market economy, especially by the Republicans who fight for less government intervention in business, yet they're the ones advocating for tighter immigration controls which is the opposite of free market.
Apologies if this seems like a rant. You might not get what I'm trying to convey because you probably not know the feeling of being dealt the shitty hand of being born in a place that isn't a first world country.
- henvic 7y agoI'd disagree on the salaries drop. Imagine if poor immigrants weren't allowed in the US. Bathrooms wouldn't clean itself (maybe in Japan?). What would happen is that many more Americans would be working on entry-level jobs than currently: this is something hard to see because we take what we have for granted, and seeing what we wouldn't have is harder. Another point is that we produce just a couple of things our whole lives, but consume hundred of thousands. The more diverse the knowledge, expertise, and wish to work of people around us, the better we tend to be.
- ktta 7y agoI don't disagree with you, and actually phrased it as a 'possible' situation, not a definite one. There is also another way of looking at it, that I actually believe, which is that immigrants create more jobs than they take in the long term (not talking generations). If you look at the big startups right now and even the Fortune 500, you'll find that many are founded by first generation immigrants, and a lot more second generation immigrants. However, your Joe six-pack doesn't see that far, and neither has the long term health of America in mind, because if he did, he would venture out to think more critically. He's worried about what is going to happen to his job a year or two from now. Unfortunately, that affects policy to a greater effect, because that affects who he votes for and what political platform he agrees with. I'll end this discussion with my opinion that specific immigration policies like the H1-B can hurt avg. salary because they tie the employee to the company. And the company can abuse this by paying a lower wage than market rate. The solution to this is to allow free movement within companies without fear of being kicked out, and you won't see the abuse everyone brings up when they talk about H1-B. I haven't seen a proper discussion about this on HN. The discussion almost always oscillates between two entirely different topics, one of which is if we should allow immigrants to come in and work at all, and the other topic being how staffing companies abuse the lottery system and inflexibility of the H1-B visa.