5 ms·

Zuckerberg said: "We have a strange immigration policy for a nation of immigrants". The economist says "insane" would be a better term. I actually agree that

by geebee 14y ago

Zuckerberg said: "We have a strange immigration policy for a nation of immigrants". The economist says "insane" would be a better term. I actually agree that we should be more welcoming to highly skilled immigrants in general, but the "nation of immigrants" rhetoric is getting irritating. The US currently takes 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year. This will be true regardless of whether we award large numbers of work visas to the sort of people Zuckerberg would like to hire. Our immigration system is more based on family reunification than the hiring priorities of the high tech industry. I would agree that there are better ways to decide who will get to come to the US. But this isn't really about immigration per se, the specific legislation under consideration is about awarding visas or green cards directly to people with graduate STEM degrees. A good idea sure, but why does nobody at the economist point out that US takes huge numbers of immigrants every year and will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this legislation?

k-mcgrady 14y ago
Nobody is saying the US doesn't take in a large number of immigrants. The problem is that they make it incredibly difficult for people to get in and also difficult to stay. The "nation of immigrants" comments refer to the fact that the US got to where it is thanks in large part due to immigrants (e.g. by 1860 1/4 of the people living in New York had been born in Ireland and another 1/4 were from Germany).[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Early_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Early_history
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Not to mention, as GP mentioned, the bulk of immigration in the US is family reunification. While other developed nations are using immigration policy as an economic driver, importing the best and brightest from elsewhere, the US's immigration policy does not support its own economic goals. The argument being made by tech lobbyist groups, among other immigration reform groups, is that the US needs to start wielding its immigration policy as a strategic economic tool rather than the somewhat directionless policy which exists today where small allowances are made for the importation of talent but which does not appear to be part of any cohesive overarching policy.
WildUtah 14y ago
Actually, the only immigration legislation that will be considered by the US Senate as currently constituted is omnibus ("comprehensive") immigration legislation. It will address several guest worker programs, amnesty for unauthorized migrants, border enforcement, personnel issues at CIS and Border Patrol, fees and budget authority, naturalization,and more. The leadership of the senate chose that strategy in order to require tech company management and others to lobby in favor of a bill with both benefits for them -- like driving down tech wages -- and other changes that are unpopular with the public -- like amnesty. It's a gambit they use to get both sets of changes through instead of only the popular or best funded ones.
krschultz 14y ago
Why is the 1.2 million number fixed in stone? I would be happy to have 10 million a year. 1.2 million is clearly below the market demand, and the market demand is what is driving the whole thing. It was really enlightening for me that illegal immigration dropped when the economy went down in the last few years. If we align immigration with the market everything would be better. Obviously there is a number where our infrastructure would be completely swamped, but nothing grows the economy faster than a pile of immigrants. Especially when they are permanent immigrants. The current system encourages a lot people to come for a short period and then go home, which isn't really great for the country long term.
- Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
  Why not a hundred million a year? You could get that many from Africa alone. Because nothing grows the economy faster than a pile of immigrants, except maybe an extinction-level mega-tsunami of immigrants racing toward the coastline at hypersonic speed. Yep, that would really be great for the economy. Which is of course exactly the same thing as the country.

by geebee 14y ago

k-mcgrady 14y ago

Nobody is saying the US doesn't take in a large number of immigrants. The problem is that they make it incredibly difficult for people to get in and also difficult to stay. The "nation of immigrants" comments refer to the fact that the US got to where it is thanks in large part due to immigrants (e.g. by 1860 1/4 of the people living in New York had been born in Ireland and another 1/4 were from Germany).[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Early_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Early_history

potatolicious 14y ago
Not to mention, as GP mentioned, the bulk of immigration in the US is family reunification. While other developed nations are using immigration policy as an economic driver, importing the best and brightest from elsewhere, the US's immigration policy does not support its own economic goals. The argument being made by tech lobbyist groups, among other immigration reform groups, is that the US needs to start wielding its immigration policy as a strategic economic tool rather than the somewhat directionless policy which exists today where small allowances are made for the importation of talent but which does not appear to be part of any cohesive overarching policy.

WildUtah 14y ago

Actually, the only immigration legislation that will be considered by the US Senate as currently constituted is omnibus ("comprehensive") immigration legislation. It will address several guest worker programs, amnesty for unauthorized migrants, border enforcement, personnel issues at CIS and Border Patrol, fees and budget authority, naturalization,and more. The leadership of the senate chose that strategy in order to require tech company management and others to lobby in favor of a bill with both benefits for them -- like driving down tech wages -- and other changes that are unpopular with the public -- like amnesty. It's a gambit they use to get both sets of changes through instead of only the popular or best funded ones.

krschultz 14y ago

Why is the 1.2 million number fixed in stone? I would be happy to have 10 million a year. 1.2 million is clearly below the market demand, and the market demand is what is driving the whole thing. It was really enlightening for me that illegal immigration dropped when the economy went down in the last few years. If we align immigration with the market everything would be better. Obviously there is a number where our infrastructure would be completely swamped, but nothing grows the economy faster than a pile of immigrants. Especially when they are permanent immigrants. The current system encourages a lot people to come for a short period and then go home, which isn't really great for the country long term.

Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
Why not a hundred million a year? You could get that many from Africa alone. Because nothing grows the economy faster than a pile of immigrants, except maybe an extinction-level mega-tsunami of immigrants racing toward the coastline at hypersonic speed. Yep, that would really be great for the economy. Which is of course exactly the same thing as the country.