3 ms·

Keep in mind 1) The US economy has no choice, it needs immigrants to keep the population from declining. This is why the southern border is what it is. We've t

Keep in mind 1) The US economy has no choice, it needs immigrants to keep the population from declining. This is why the southern border is what it is. We've trade an economic problem for an immigration problem. 2) In some - many? - cases these immigrants are a brain drain from their home country. That is, when "the best" come here instead of staying home to improve their on country, is that a net positive? We pat ourselves on the back but no one talks about how this hurts the from countries.

chiefalchemist 2y ago
Down voted? Why? At least stand up and counter. HN ain't what it used to be. Sad really.
- spacebacon 2y ago
  I don’t know the exact algorithm, but I can give you a good idea why this might have happened. I hope you feel I’m not being critical, but rather trying to help explain that this is probably not personal… 1. Sensitive Topic 2. Rhetorical Questions and Ambiguity 3. Implied Criticism 4. Complex Sentence Structure (I’m guilty of writing in the same format as my thoughts too) 5. The Typo (“own country” instead of “on country”) This effectively describes why you were likely algorithmically downvoted.
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    Ok. But 0 would be: obvious (to me) facts. Fact: The US economy needs the headcount, esp since birthrates are down. Fact: When we "win" the best & the brightest, the country they came from loses. Imagine if instead of fighting the American Revolution, everyone picked up and moved to (e.g.) Canada. The US loves to brag about the win, but never comes clean on the countries that lose. These key facts are too often not mentioned in the context of this topic, because they alter the myth and change the narrative. So the solution is... DV'ing? Anywhere else, that would be funny. On HN it's sad.
    - spacebacon 2y ago
      There is a place for us bottom readers on HN’s too. Honor the downvote.
      - chiefalchemist 2y ago
        I do. But what bother me is how consistently these an off topic comment and then a long subdiscussion that continues the irrelevance. I come here to avoid random smalsmall minded down voting. It doesn't help at all
justin66 2y ago
> no one talks about how this hurts the from countries It's a fairly common topic when people talk about foreign aid and assistance. The classic dilemma is that we'd like to make sure top people all over the world get as much education as they can use, but we'd also like them to stay in their home countries and do the work of development even though they might rationally view the opportunities someplace else for a highly educated person as quite attractive.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  Do we do that? Or when pressed say just that? In general, those who leave are the most able; those who don't less so. We accept at least some of the former, therefore we're skimming at least some cream off the top (for ourselves). In all the discussion and debates about immigration I've witnessed, I've never heard a single leader / decision maker say, "but we have to be careful not to take too many of their best...". Instead, it's always about how great we are about immigration. It can't be both.
  - justin66 2y ago
    In other words, "did you make up that thing you just wrote?" As it turns out, no, I did not. But I'm delighted you would imply that I did! At times my faith in online discourse gets a little too high, and it's healthy to recalibrate. One example of what I was talking about (merely the first I was able to quickly google): the requirement for Fulbright scholars, who are paid to study at the graduate level in the United States, to return to their home countries, at least for a time, before trying to come back to the US: You and your dependents are subject to Code of Federal Regulations rule 212(e), the two-year, home-country residence requirement associated with the J-visa. As noted throughout this guide, the spirit of the Fulbright Program is to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchange. When you have completed your grant, you are expected to return home to share the knowledge you have gained. This means that until you have resided and been physically present in your home country for a combined total of two years following your departure from the United States, you and your dependents are ineligible to apply for status in the United States as: Permanent residents, Temporary workers or trainees (visa status H) Fiancé(e)s (visa status K) Intracompany transferees (visa status L) Grounds for applying for a waiver of the two-year, home country residence requirement are extremely limited, and approval of waiver requests is rare. IIE cannot assist in this process. Waivers should not be requested as a means of continuing your grant activities.

chiefalchemist 2y ago

Down voted? Why? At least stand up and counter. HN ain't what it used to be. Sad really.

spacebacon 2y ago
I don’t know the exact algorithm, but I can give you a good idea why this might have happened. I hope you feel I’m not being critical, but rather trying to help explain that this is probably not personal… 1. Sensitive Topic 2. Rhetorical Questions and Ambiguity 3. Implied Criticism 4. Complex Sentence Structure (I’m guilty of writing in the same format as my thoughts too) 5. The Typo (“own country” instead of “on country”) This effectively describes why you were likely algorithmically downvoted.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  Ok. But 0 would be: obvious (to me) facts. Fact: The US economy needs the headcount, esp since birthrates are down. Fact: When we "win" the best & the brightest, the country they came from loses. Imagine if instead of fighting the American Revolution, everyone picked up and moved to (e.g.) Canada. The US loves to brag about the win, but never comes clean on the countries that lose. These key facts are too often not mentioned in the context of this topic, because they alter the myth and change the narrative. So the solution is... DV'ing? Anywhere else, that would be funny. On HN it's sad.
  - spacebacon 2y ago
    There is a place for us bottom readers on HN’s too. Honor the downvote.
    - chiefalchemist 2y ago
      I do. But what bother me is how consistently these an off topic comment and then a long subdiscussion that continues the irrelevance. I come here to avoid random smalsmall minded down voting. It doesn't help at all

justin66 2y ago

> no one talks about how this hurts the from countries It's a fairly common topic when people talk about foreign aid and assistance. The classic dilemma is that we'd like to make sure top people all over the world get as much education as they can use, but we'd also like them to stay in their home countries and do the work of development even though they might rationally view the opportunities someplace else for a highly educated person as quite attractive.

chiefalchemist 2y ago
Do we do that? Or when pressed say just that? In general, those who leave are the most able; those who don't less so. We accept at least some of the former, therefore we're skimming at least some cream off the top (for ourselves). In all the discussion and debates about immigration I've witnessed, I've never heard a single leader / decision maker say, "but we have to be careful not to take too many of their best...". Instead, it's always about how great we are about immigration. It can't be both.
- justin66 2y ago
  In other words, "did you make up that thing you just wrote?" As it turns out, no, I did not. But I'm delighted you would imply that I did! At times my faith in online discourse gets a little too high, and it's healthy to recalibrate. One example of what I was talking about (merely the first I was able to quickly google): the requirement for Fulbright scholars, who are paid to study at the graduate level in the United States, to return to their home countries, at least for a time, before trying to come back to the US: You and your dependents are subject to Code of Federal Regulations rule 212(e), the two-year, home-country residence requirement associated with the J-visa. As noted throughout this guide, the spirit of the Fulbright Program is to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchange. When you have completed your grant, you are expected to return home to share the knowledge you have gained. This means that until you have resided and been physically present in your home country for a combined total of two years following your departure from the United States, you and your dependents are ineligible to apply for status in the United States as: Permanent residents, Temporary workers or trainees (visa status H) Fiancé(e)s (visa status K) Intracompany transferees (visa status L) Grounds for applying for a waiver of the two-year, home country residence requirement are extremely limited, and approval of waiver requests is rare. IIE cannot assist in this process. Waivers should not be requested as a means of continuing your grant activities.