7 ms·

The same report still says that the US and UK are the most attractive destinations. Is it not just normal that the countries which are most attractive would re

The same report still says that the US and UK are the most attractive destinations. Is it not just normal that the countries which are most attractive would restrict their immigration policies?

blackbear_ 6y ago
If the immigrants were drug dealers yes, but (1) the survey responders are researchers who published in prestigious AI conferences (ICML and NeurIPS) and (2) there is a positive correlation between immigration and technological innovation. Based on these points, restricting immigration of AI researchers looks rather dumb.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > If the immigrants were drug dealers yes, but (1) the survey responders are researchers who published in prestigious AI conferences They aren't individually rejected though, are they? They're worried about immigration issues, but those aren't usually "immigration policies for AI researchers who published in prestigious AI conferences", but they apply to everyone.
- rayiner 6y ago
  “Dumb” by what metric? Even high education/income immigrants have cultural incompatibilities that may justify wanting to restrict immigration. My family is first generation immigrants from Bangladesh, and my wife’s family is descended from the pioneers that settled the west coast. We’re quite westernized, but there are profound cultural disconnects under the surface. For example, like many Asians, my dad has a very paternalistic view of government and elites. He thinks the job of leaders should be to “educate the common people” to accept what’s good for them. This drives my wife nuts when they argue politics, because she fully embraces traditional American populism (“wisdom of the ‘common man’”). Even high education/income immigrants change the culture of the country. (And “culture matters” as anyone from Silicon Valley should know.) We can argue whether these changes are good or bad. But there is more to immigration than just economic effects.
  - heavenlyblue 6y ago
    > For example, like many Asians, my dad has a very paternalistic view of government and elites. He thinks the job of leaders should be to “educate the common people” to accept what’s good for them. This drives my wife nuts when they argue politics, because she fully embraces traditional American populism (“wisdom of the ‘common man’”). Are you trying to say the whole of America is made of your wives? You say "culture matters" but Silicon Valley would certainly not embrace the "wisdom of the common man". As a matter of fact most of the ideological stuff that comes from SV is hugely paternalistic in nature, such as the cult personalities of their CEOs. On top of that wasn't America made by immigrants so allowing them in is actually a more conservative choice than not?
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      > On top of that wasn't America made by immigrants so allowing them in is actually a more conservative choice than not? There were relatively many immigrants in America at times, and relatively few at other times. However, overall, there were too few immigrants to say that the America was “made” by them, as opposed to being made by people who were born here. At best, you could argue that it was made by people who were descendants of immigrants, but then this is true about most nations of the world, as most nations comprise of people who are descendants to immigrants.
      - pm90 6y ago
        Most nations of the old world have had people living in its constituent lands for several centuries at the least. Immigration has not meaningfully shaped them, unless we talk about specific instances of forced population movement (partition of nations, ethnic cleansing etc.). The US has for most of its history had a significant population of immigrants, rising up to 10% of the population at the turn of the 20th century. It has absolutely been made by immigrants; people who decided to move to the US in search of better opportunities.
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
    > We’re quite westernized, but there are profound cultural disconnects under the surface. This seems prefaced on the idea that the cultural homogeneity is a desired state. I certainly acknowledge that immigration has some potential negative effects, particularly where large groups of immigrants congregate in one area, for example the British immigrants in the Spanish Costa del Sol. Your example doesn't strike me as one which I recognise as a problem. Even if neither your dad nor your wife are willing to give an inch in accepting the other may have a point, is this not better than neither of them having been exposed to that point in the first place?
jmeister 6y ago
Skilled immigration to the US is way harder than say Canada, Australia and even the UK, primarily because skilled-immigration reform is used as a bargaining chip in political negotiations involving the severely controversial illegal/low-skilled immigration reform.
- baybal2 6y ago
  Not to say it's a much less certain route. Canada has an upper hand because you can get papers in just 1-2 years, unlike other countries where you have to bet your everything on being in the mercy of immigration system, and country's politics for 6-7 years.
  - AzzieElbab 6y ago
    While papers are easy, good jobs are hard to come by in Canada. Plenty of highly educated immigrants are delivering food nowadays
    - baybal2 6y ago
      Few even highly paid migrants coming to Canada from places like, say, China would complain.
jariel 6y ago
The US and the UK have the most open policies and are overwhelmingly the most welcoming to migrants. Both in practice and in culture. The hints of Trumpism and Brexit 'nationalism' are essentially bigotry on the part of the author. The paradox is if you have quite a lot of newcomers, that's going to make some people upset, or at least the policy will get attention. If you have few newcomers, it means there's little discussion but that doesn't mean the place is welcoming. And some of it is just a matter of regular cultural barriers: Germany is a tough nut to crack even linguistically, let alone the culture. In America, it's 'English' and beyond that, there's little to worry about. While Brexit has certainly caused some degree of unknowns because a former policy with the EU has changed, I think it will be sorted out. Since there has been some policy change, the premise of the article I think is fair, but the wording was a little bit snide. The data concerning attitudes towards immigrants consistently denies the narrative in the press regarding US/UK migrant populism. Have a look [1]. Survey after survey from generally the most respected institutions tend to reveal the same thing and that is the Anglosphere is considerably more open than other places. I don't consider that any kind of moral basis, however, it is a reality. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/14/around-the-world-more-say-immigrants-are-a-strength-than-a-burden/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/14/around-the-wor... Edit: I should add that the US/UK are not only the #1 destination for migrants, they also accept considerably more migrants per capita than most places, though not as much as Canada/Australia, notably, Anglosphere countries. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable that those places are generally good for migrants, almost all of the data supports it (number accepted, destination, openness, views of migrants etc). As noted below - the US system is rather bureaucratic, but it in the end it does extend status to mangy millions of people a year, a higher number (and per capita than most places so it's not that bad). If you want to contend this, this you'll have to provide evidence other than the rather indirect notion of 'Trump said something mean'.
- pjc50 6y ago
  > The US and the UK have the most open policies and are overwhelmingly the most welcoming to migrants. [citation needed], along with a definition of "welcoming".
  - 6y ago
elevatortrim 6y ago
No, it is not normal. It is one thing to restrict the number of people, another to treat them horribly once they arrive. I do not know about the US, but UK's policies are anything but normal (normal as in humane).
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  Where are you getting this information from? I've had foreign friends who get along fine with the government beurocracy here.
  - elevatortrim 6y ago
    I am an immigrant in the UK. My source of information is the people I speak to in person, and on online forums. They are anecdotal, of course, but there is no shortage of horrible stories, mine own included. Examples from the top of my mind include the anxiety of uncertainty on whether you'll be able to extend your visa, not being able to leave country while your extension applications are in review (I've been stuck in the country for slightly over 2 years over a period of 5 and I've heard no less than 5 people unable to attend their parents' funerals), not being able to switch between employment and self-employment (as opposed to people like you enjoying any opportunity), only being limited to companies that can sponsor visas (as opposed to your colleagues freely jumping between any jobs they like), higher mortgage and interest rates on loans due to banks knowing well about your uncertain future, having to deal with racist job center employees to obtain an NI number and having to pass the "life in the uk" test consisting of detailed trivia.
    - throwaway3699 6y ago
      Sorry, wasn't questioning your claim. I do want to find out why people have such different experiences. Is this part of the failed hostile environment policy from a few years back?
      - elevatortrim 6y ago
        I am not sure but considering that policy was introduced in 2012, it probably is. Not all visa types are the same. For instance, if you are on a Tier 2 visa and happily work for the same company for 5 years (you probably would not have any complaints at all), your experience would be a lot different compared to another person who may decide to start a start-up on their 2nd year (they likely would not even think of doing so), which would be a lot different to than of someone else who lost their job (as they'll have to find another one in 2 months or be kicked out), which would be very differen to a person stuck in their current position and salary due to difficulty of changing jobs on a visa, which would be a lot different to a person who does not have the right to change visas (some visa types are like this, when you switch, your route to ILR starts from scratch), and so on. So, some people will accept what they have for the first 5 years and will not question or complain. Some will be bothered by not having the similar rights or security. Some will run into problems (losing your job is a big one, vague visa extension criteria for non-employment visas are another) and their lives will drastically change for the worse. Even if that is a small percentage, the anxiety it creates is huge.

The same report still says that the US and UK are the most attractive destinations. Is it not just normal that the countries which are most attractive would restrict their immigration policies?

blackbear_ 6y ago

If the immigrants were drug dealers yes, but (1) the survey responders are researchers who published in prestigious AI conferences (ICML and NeurIPS) and (2) there is a positive correlation between immigration and technological innovation. Based on these points, restricting immigration of AI researchers looks rather dumb.

luckylion 6y ago
> If the immigrants were drug dealers yes, but (1) the survey responders are researchers who published in prestigious AI conferences They aren't individually rejected though, are they? They're worried about immigration issues, but those aren't usually "immigration policies for AI researchers who published in prestigious AI conferences", but they apply to everyone.
rayiner 6y ago
“Dumb” by what metric? Even high education/income immigrants have cultural incompatibilities that may justify wanting to restrict immigration. My family is first generation immigrants from Bangladesh, and my wife’s family is descended from the pioneers that settled the west coast. We’re quite westernized, but there are profound cultural disconnects under the surface. For example, like many Asians, my dad has a very paternalistic view of government and elites. He thinks the job of leaders should be to “educate the common people” to accept what’s good for them. This drives my wife nuts when they argue politics, because she fully embraces traditional American populism (“wisdom of the ‘common man’”). Even high education/income immigrants change the culture of the country. (And “culture matters” as anyone from Silicon Valley should know.) We can argue whether these changes are good or bad. But there is more to immigration than just economic effects.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  > For example, like many Asians, my dad has a very paternalistic view of government and elites. He thinks the job of leaders should be to “educate the common people” to accept what’s good for them. This drives my wife nuts when they argue politics, because she fully embraces traditional American populism (“wisdom of the ‘common man’”). Are you trying to say the whole of America is made of your wives? You say "culture matters" but Silicon Valley would certainly not embrace the "wisdom of the common man". As a matter of fact most of the ideological stuff that comes from SV is hugely paternalistic in nature, such as the cult personalities of their CEOs. On top of that wasn't America made by immigrants so allowing them in is actually a more conservative choice than not?
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    > On top of that wasn't America made by immigrants so allowing them in is actually a more conservative choice than not? There were relatively many immigrants in America at times, and relatively few at other times. However, overall, there were too few immigrants to say that the America was “made” by them, as opposed to being made by people who were born here. At best, you could argue that it was made by people who were descendants of immigrants, but then this is true about most nations of the world, as most nations comprise of people who are descendants to immigrants.
    - pm90 6y ago
      Most nations of the old world have had people living in its constituent lands for several centuries at the least. Immigration has not meaningfully shaped them, unless we talk about specific instances of forced population movement (partition of nations, ethnic cleansing etc.). The US has for most of its history had a significant population of immigrants, rising up to 10% of the population at the turn of the 20th century. It has absolutely been made by immigrants; people who decided to move to the US in search of better opportunities.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  > We’re quite westernized, but there are profound cultural disconnects under the surface. This seems prefaced on the idea that the cultural homogeneity is a desired state. I certainly acknowledge that immigration has some potential negative effects, particularly where large groups of immigrants congregate in one area, for example the British immigrants in the Spanish Costa del Sol. Your example doesn't strike me as one which I recognise as a problem. Even if neither your dad nor your wife are willing to give an inch in accepting the other may have a point, is this not better than neither of them having been exposed to that point in the first place?

jmeister 6y ago

Skilled immigration to the US is way harder than say Canada, Australia and even the UK, primarily because skilled-immigration reform is used as a bargaining chip in political negotiations involving the severely controversial illegal/low-skilled immigration reform.

baybal2 6y ago
Not to say it's a much less certain route. Canada has an upper hand because you can get papers in just 1-2 years, unlike other countries where you have to bet your everything on being in the mercy of immigration system, and country's politics for 6-7 years.
- AzzieElbab 6y ago
  While papers are easy, good jobs are hard to come by in Canada. Plenty of highly educated immigrants are delivering food nowadays
  - baybal2 6y ago
    Few even highly paid migrants coming to Canada from places like, say, China would complain.

jariel 6y ago

The US and the UK have the most open policies and are overwhelmingly the most welcoming to migrants. Both in practice and in culture. The hints of Trumpism and Brexit 'nationalism' are essentially bigotry on the part of the author. The paradox is if you have quite a lot of newcomers, that's going to make some people upset, or at least the policy will get attention. If you have few newcomers, it means there's little discussion but that doesn't mean the place is welcoming. And some of it is just a matter of regular cultural barriers: Germany is a tough nut to crack even linguistically, let alone the culture. In America, it's 'English' and beyond that, there's little to worry about. While Brexit has certainly caused some degree of unknowns because a former policy with the EU has changed, I think it will be sorted out. Since there has been some policy change, the premise of the article I think is fair, but the wording was a little bit snide. The data concerning attitudes towards immigrants consistently denies the narrative in the press regarding US/UK migrant populism. Have a look [1]. Survey after survey from generally the most respected institutions tend to reveal the same thing and that is the Anglosphere is considerably more open than other places. I don't consider that any kind of moral basis, however, it is a reality. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/14/around-the-world-more-say-immigrants-are-a-strength-than-a-burden/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/14/around-the-wor... Edit: I should add that the US/UK are not only the #1 destination for migrants, they also accept considerably more migrants per capita than most places, though not as much as Canada/Australia, notably, Anglosphere countries. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable that those places are generally good for migrants, almost all of the data supports it (number accepted, destination, openness, views of migrants etc). As noted below - the US system is rather bureaucratic, but it in the end it does extend status to mangy millions of people a year, a higher number (and per capita than most places so it's not that bad). If you want to contend this, this you'll have to provide evidence other than the rather indirect notion of 'Trump said something mean'.

pjc50 6y ago
> The US and the UK have the most open policies and are overwhelmingly the most welcoming to migrants. [citation needed], along with a definition of "welcoming".
- 6y ago

elevatortrim 6y ago

No, it is not normal. It is one thing to restrict the number of people, another to treat them horribly once they arrive. I do not know about the US, but UK's policies are anything but normal (normal as in humane).

throwaway3699 6y ago
Where are you getting this information from? I've had foreign friends who get along fine with the government beurocracy here.
- elevatortrim 6y ago
  I am an immigrant in the UK. My source of information is the people I speak to in person, and on online forums. They are anecdotal, of course, but there is no shortage of horrible stories, mine own included. Examples from the top of my mind include the anxiety of uncertainty on whether you'll be able to extend your visa, not being able to leave country while your extension applications are in review (I've been stuck in the country for slightly over 2 years over a period of 5 and I've heard no less than 5 people unable to attend their parents' funerals), not being able to switch between employment and self-employment (as opposed to people like you enjoying any opportunity), only being limited to companies that can sponsor visas (as opposed to your colleagues freely jumping between any jobs they like), higher mortgage and interest rates on loans due to banks knowing well about your uncertain future, having to deal with racist job center employees to obtain an NI number and having to pass the "life in the uk" test consisting of detailed trivia.
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    Sorry, wasn't questioning your claim. I do want to find out why people have such different experiences. Is this part of the failed hostile environment policy from a few years back?
    - elevatortrim 6y ago
      I am not sure but considering that policy was introduced in 2012, it probably is. Not all visa types are the same. For instance, if you are on a Tier 2 visa and happily work for the same company for 5 years (you probably would not have any complaints at all), your experience would be a lot different compared to another person who may decide to start a start-up on their 2nd year (they likely would not even think of doing so), which would be a lot different to than of someone else who lost their job (as they'll have to find another one in 2 months or be kicked out), which would be very differen to a person stuck in their current position and salary due to difficulty of changing jobs on a visa, which would be a lot different to a person who does not have the right to change visas (some visa types are like this, when you switch, your route to ILR starts from scratch), and so on. So, some people will accept what they have for the first 5 years and will not question or complain. Some will be bothered by not having the similar rights or security. Some will run into problems (losing your job is a big one, vague visa extension criteria for non-employment visas are another) and their lives will drastically change for the worse. Even if that is a small percentage, the anxiety it creates is huge.