5 ms·

Seems like you're giving access to the people that need it the least. Seems like you're simply shifting the self-interested (I don't mean this in a derogative s

Seems like you're giving access to the people that need it the least. Seems like you're simply shifting the self-interested (I don't mean this in a derogative sense) motivation of making this country better by not allowing 'job-stealing' immigrants to the equally self-interested one of making this country better by only allowing those who will improve it. I'm not completely sure how I feel about the issue, to be honest, but I'm an immigrant (my parents brought me when I was an infant), and I probably wouldn't have made it here under either the criteria that exist now nor the ones you are promoting. What I know is that the dream of immigration to the US is about having a better life for you and your children. Don't the poor and uneducated deserve that dream just as much as anyone else?

geebee 15y ago
"Don't the poor and uneducated deserve that dream just as much as anyone else?" Of course! The question is, how many poor and uneducated immigrants would you advocate naturalizing every year in the United States? 100K? 500k? 1.2 Mil? 4 mil? No limit? I feel that until people answer that question (and it will vary from person to person), there's no way to have a meaningful conversation about illegal immigration, which is about setting and enforcing limits.
- philwelch 15y ago
  I think quotas are the wrong way to frame the question, at least until we start running out of land. I'd be glad to let 100 million Einsteins and Teslas immigrate if they were available.
  - pyre 15y ago
    How about two separate systems. A quota-system and a points-system. You don't fall into the quota-system if you score high enough in the points-system.
  - geebee 15y ago
    Part of the problem is that it can be difficult to identify the Einsteins early enough to give them the visa when it would still matter. However, I don't think it would be difficult for an established scientist to gain US residency even under the current miserable system. Top athletes, entertainers, business people, scientists, and so forth inhabit a completely different universe. As for "running out of land"... that's actually a little ambiguous. California could probably triple in population, and we'd still have some rural-ish areas in the extreme north. Japan, because of the density of its cities, actually preserved its rural character in some areas, and this is a country with a population density of 337.1/km2! In other ways, California has already "run out" of land. Ever drive from Orange county down to Tijuana? With the exception of a military base, it's basically sprawl all the way down. I suppose we could increase the coastal population by building high density housing on the coast...
ori_b 15y ago
> Don't the poor and uneducated deserve that dream just as much as anyone else? Yes, but how do you prioritize? How do you control the drag on the social support systems of the country? How do you handle the gargantuan task of integrating these people into society?

geebee 15y ago

"Don't the poor and uneducated deserve that dream just as much as anyone else?" Of course! The question is, how many poor and uneducated immigrants would you advocate naturalizing every year in the United States? 100K? 500k? 1.2 Mil? 4 mil? No limit? I feel that until people answer that question (and it will vary from person to person), there's no way to have a meaningful conversation about illegal immigration, which is about setting and enforcing limits.

philwelch 15y ago
I think quotas are the wrong way to frame the question, at least until we start running out of land. I'd be glad to let 100 million Einsteins and Teslas immigrate if they were available.
- pyre 15y ago
  How about two separate systems. A quota-system and a points-system. You don't fall into the quota-system if you score high enough in the points-system.
- geebee 15y ago
  Part of the problem is that it can be difficult to identify the Einsteins early enough to give them the visa when it would still matter. However, I don't think it would be difficult for an established scientist to gain US residency even under the current miserable system. Top athletes, entertainers, business people, scientists, and so forth inhabit a completely different universe. As for "running out of land"... that's actually a little ambiguous. California could probably triple in population, and we'd still have some rural-ish areas in the extreme north. Japan, because of the density of its cities, actually preserved its rural character in some areas, and this is a country with a population density of 337.1/km2! In other ways, California has already "run out" of land. Ever drive from Orange county down to Tijuana? With the exception of a military base, it's basically sprawl all the way down. I suppose we could increase the coastal population by building high density housing on the coast...

ori_b 15y ago

> Don't the poor and uneducated deserve that dream just as much as anyone else? Yes, but how do you prioritize? How do you control the drag on the social support systems of the country? How do you handle the gargantuan task of integrating these people into society?