4 ms·

The answer to your question is that you shouldn't. The US has some serious immigration problems right now and it's a fact of political life in this country tha

The answer to your question is that you shouldn't. The US has some serious immigration problems right now and it's a fact of political life in this country that getting them worked out quickly is not going to happen. We have a fractured government (not just the two parties holding different reins of power) and a screwed up lobbying system. You are exactly the kind of immigrants we as a nation want, but there is an incredibly shrill minority that shouts down anything that's immigration-related when it looks like that change could benefit "them durn illegalz" who are already here. This article is about trying to get some sort of change through quickly that would allow people who are going to provide direct investment into our country. The price tag puts it out of reach of all but "business people," so the screeching fringe will probably keep its mouth shut. Unfortunately, this is the system US citizens have right now and, for my compatriots who agree with me and would like to see you on a plane tomorrow, ready to study here, graduate, be inspired by, and enrich our society, I am truly sorry we couldn't get the change done in time for you. We're working on it. /buys another ream of paper for more letters to various representatives

ziyadb 15y ago
I commend you on speaking out and pushing towards change. It's people like you who make America the great country that it is. With regard to FUD on the part of the masses driving legislation, I suppose it's an intrinsic part of democracy. Which implies the following: The vast majority of those satisfied by the status quo are the uninformed members of the public. On the other hand, the highly educated and those driving the economy are strong proponents of leniency in immigration, as evident by the frequent discussions on popular forums such as leading publications and HN. The average American believes that more opportunities are made available to them, regardless of whether they're qualified, if they stop immigrants from coming and stealing their jobs. Which I suppose is a reasonable conclusion for an uninformed person to reach. The solution? Inform the public, for after all, the US is a democracy, and it's in their hands to change the system. Explain how immigration is essential to the development and progress of economies, educate people on the implications of immigration. PS: I would be interested to learn if there are any non-profits that run campaigns that aim to educate and inform the public.
- anamax 15y ago
  > I would be interested to learn if there are any non-profits that run campaigns that aim to educate and inform the public. There are thousands of such organizations. During the up-coming campaign, you'll hear lots of screaming that they're "unregulated campaigning" and the like. > if they stop immigrants from coming and stealing their jobs. Which I suppose is a reasonable conclusion for an uninformed person to reach. Unions and all professionals organizations believe that decreasing competition for jobs results increased salaries. We also believe that decreased competition in other products results in higher prices. Are they wrong or is immigrant job competition different? Yes, some immigrants bring skills etc, but not all, and you didn't make that distinction.
- mtviewdave 15y ago
  >Explain how immigration is essential to the development and progress of economies, educate people on the implications of immigration. I'd say that if you want to fix high-skilled immigration, that's exactly the argument you should not make. What you should do is make an argument that appeals to American culture and sensibilities. Most Americans have ancestors who suffered--some a little, some a great deal--to come to America This is such a strong part of American culture that one of our major holidays, Thanksgiving, basically got it start from the spirit of gratitude that comes from surviving the horrors of trying to immigrate to the New World. So an argument that boils down to "we're so awesome, how dare you make us bust our balls to become Americans" is going to rub a lot of voting Americans the wrong way. Especially when coupled with a condescending Vivek-Wadhwa-style "you Americans couldn't possible grow your economy on your own, so you should be grateful we immigrants want to come at all." Most Americans expect immigrants to be grateful for the opportunity to come to America, not the other way around. So, as I said, make an argument that appeals to American culture and sensibilities. In my opinion, the biggest problem with skilled immigration is that 1) H-1B is tied to employment, and 2) so many H-1B visas are consumed fradulantly. So fight against H-1B fraud by insisting on strong enforcement of immigration law. Very few Americans will argue with that, and it will help open up H-1B slots. And push for H-1B to be decoupled from employment, using the (accurate) argument that the current scheme is basically indentured servitude, a concept that most Americans (as part of our founding mythology) know is a Bad Thing. If H-1B wasn't tied to employment, you wouldn't need a Startup Visa. You wouldn't need the permission of an employer to move to the U.S. And it wouldn't matter (as much) if your green card application took years.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
...there is an incredibly shrill minority that shouts down anything that's immigration-related when it looks like that change could benefit "them durn illegalz" who are already here. It's always convenient to blame things on your political opponents, but lets be realistic here. Bush's amnesty bill was shot down by a bipartisan group. Some of them did actually oppose amnesty. But quite a few of them on the opposite side of the aisle had strong opposition to replacing family based immigration with skill based immigration. In reality, the fight about immigration is about importing people to vote for their political party. The politicians don't care about much else.
anamax 15y ago
> You are exactly the kind of immigrants we as a nation want, but there is an incredibly shrill minority that shouts down anything that's immigration-related when it looks like that change could benefit "them durn illegalz" who are already here. Not true. The "smart immigration" proposals keep getting tied to the amnesty proposals by an alliance of the open borders folk and the "smart immigration" folk. And the reason why amnesty is such a tar pit is that we've had it before, with a promise of enforcement after that never happened (hence the current amnesty push). The opponents to amnesty are willing to have smart immigration, but not with amnesy. Are you willing to have smart immigration without amnesty?
wazoox 15y ago
> The price tag puts it out of reach of all but "business people," so the screeching fringe will probably keep its mouth shut. I'm afraid the price tag will mostly put it out of reach of most but drug dealers and similar undesirable people.

ziyadb 15y ago

I commend you on speaking out and pushing towards change. It's people like you who make America the great country that it is. With regard to FUD on the part of the masses driving legislation, I suppose it's an intrinsic part of democracy. Which implies the following: The vast majority of those satisfied by the status quo are the uninformed members of the public. On the other hand, the highly educated and those driving the economy are strong proponents of leniency in immigration, as evident by the frequent discussions on popular forums such as leading publications and HN. The average American believes that more opportunities are made available to them, regardless of whether they're qualified, if they stop immigrants from coming and stealing their jobs. Which I suppose is a reasonable conclusion for an uninformed person to reach. The solution? Inform the public, for after all, the US is a democracy, and it's in their hands to change the system. Explain how immigration is essential to the development and progress of economies, educate people on the implications of immigration. PS: I would be interested to learn if there are any non-profits that run campaigns that aim to educate and inform the public.

anamax 15y ago
> I would be interested to learn if there are any non-profits that run campaigns that aim to educate and inform the public. There are thousands of such organizations. During the up-coming campaign, you'll hear lots of screaming that they're "unregulated campaigning" and the like. > if they stop immigrants from coming and stealing their jobs. Which I suppose is a reasonable conclusion for an uninformed person to reach. Unions and all professionals organizations believe that decreasing competition for jobs results increased salaries. We also believe that decreased competition in other products results in higher prices. Are they wrong or is immigrant job competition different? Yes, some immigrants bring skills etc, but not all, and you didn't make that distinction.
mtviewdave 15y ago
>Explain how immigration is essential to the development and progress of economies, educate people on the implications of immigration. I'd say that if you want to fix high-skilled immigration, that's exactly the argument you should not make. What you should do is make an argument that appeals to American culture and sensibilities. Most Americans have ancestors who suffered--some a little, some a great deal--to come to America This is such a strong part of American culture that one of our major holidays, Thanksgiving, basically got it start from the spirit of gratitude that comes from surviving the horrors of trying to immigrate to the New World. So an argument that boils down to "we're so awesome, how dare you make us bust our balls to become Americans" is going to rub a lot of voting Americans the wrong way. Especially when coupled with a condescending Vivek-Wadhwa-style "you Americans couldn't possible grow your economy on your own, so you should be grateful we immigrants want to come at all." Most Americans expect immigrants to be grateful for the opportunity to come to America, not the other way around. So, as I said, make an argument that appeals to American culture and sensibilities. In my opinion, the biggest problem with skilled immigration is that 1) H-1B is tied to employment, and 2) so many H-1B visas are consumed fradulantly. So fight against H-1B fraud by insisting on strong enforcement of immigration law. Very few Americans will argue with that, and it will help open up H-1B slots. And push for H-1B to be decoupled from employment, using the (accurate) argument that the current scheme is basically indentured servitude, a concept that most Americans (as part of our founding mythology) know is a Bad Thing. If H-1B wasn't tied to employment, you wouldn't need a Startup Visa. You wouldn't need the permission of an employer to move to the U.S. And it wouldn't matter (as much) if your green card application took years.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

...there is an incredibly shrill minority that shouts down anything that's immigration-related when it looks like that change could benefit "them durn illegalz" who are already here. It's always convenient to blame things on your political opponents, but lets be realistic here. Bush's amnesty bill was shot down by a bipartisan group. Some of them did actually oppose amnesty. But quite a few of them on the opposite side of the aisle had strong opposition to replacing family based immigration with skill based immigration. In reality, the fight about immigration is about importing people to vote for their political party. The politicians don't care about much else.

anamax 15y ago

> You are exactly the kind of immigrants we as a nation want, but there is an incredibly shrill minority that shouts down anything that's immigration-related when it looks like that change could benefit "them durn illegalz" who are already here. Not true. The "smart immigration" proposals keep getting tied to the amnesty proposals by an alliance of the open borders folk and the "smart immigration" folk. And the reason why amnesty is such a tar pit is that we've had it before, with a promise of enforcement after that never happened (hence the current amnesty push). The opponents to amnesty are willing to have smart immigration, but not with amnesy. Are you willing to have smart immigration without amnesty?

wazoox 15y ago

> The price tag puts it out of reach of all but "business people," so the screeching fringe will probably keep its mouth shut. I'm afraid the price tag will mostly put it out of reach of most but drug dealers and similar undesirable people.