3 ms·

This sounds like a horrible idea. I think it would tip the scales even further towards only allowing the rich in (for which the current system is already biase

by wheels 18y ago

This sounds like a horrible idea. I think it would tip the scales even further towards only allowing the rich in (for which the current system is already biased). You want the best and brightest. It seems he's using this money as a metric for determination, but I suspect it'd be more a discriminator for wealth. I think Paul's idea of allowing founders in and his terms suggested sound like a better predictor of determination.

thingie 18y ago
50.000 dollars (or any similar number) is an unimaginable amount of money outside US, EU and few other happy countries. No one can afford that, no matter how hard he would try, even a plane ticket is worth savings of whole family for just one person. I guess only organized crime would profit -- provide the money and then blackmail everyone. The immigrant whose whole family is in giant debt, the family... For US it would mean communities of hopeless immigrants from poor countries, entrapped by a vision of better life, held as captives by a mafia. This already happens, and it could only worsen.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  Even in that case, we'd be more likely to get an electrical engineer with a PhD than an illiterate farmer. What would happen in a system like this is that the employers would pay for it. If GE, IBM, or Microsoft got the chance to bring in people like this, they would take it.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    These people probably already get H1-B Visas - which is one of the few (only?) work visas that also implies intent to become a permanent resident, so they can file for a green card if their company sponsors them. H1-B Visas aren't exactly what's being proposed because there's still a limited number of them each year, but there is a cost to the company for sponsoring someone.
- robotrout 18y ago
  Actually, $50,000 seems like a good number. Remember that coyotes charge $5000 per head, just to cross the border from Mexico. If you're coming further, it can be $80,000 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1642271... I think $50K to be legal, and not even needing to come up with the money up front, but instead being given a loan, would be considered a bargain.
- patrickg-zill 18y ago
  FWIW there are plenty of well-off people in any number of third-world countries. Consider the Philippines - current population is 90 million; thus top 10% of people (who will have money) is 9 million. Given the wide disparity in income, it is reasonable to believe that it would be trivial for any of those 9 million to raise $50K.
- lacker 18y ago
  That's why the article also proposes a loan system similar to college loans. Investing in immigration is very similar to investing in education for the individual - it's a large up-front cost that you expect to be well worth it over a lifetime.
mhb 18y ago
Why wouldn't a country want to bias its immigration policy towards rich immigrants (for whatever unstated definition of "rich" you are using)? Isn't wealth a reasonable proxy for some characteristic for which you would want to select? Would an accreditation board do better?
- wheels 18y ago
  If it were personal wealth it might be a reasonable proxy, though in much of the world weath and corruption often go hand in hand. Do you really want to allow in every rich kid in the world that thinks it'd be cool to screw off in the US for a few years at the expense of someone who's distinguished themselves in their field?
  - mhb 18y ago
    Why would a lot of corrupt, rich foreigners want to leave the place where they have a proven ability to profit in order to go to a place where the cost of living is higher and with which they are unfamiliar? Also there would be some sort of screening for criminals.
    - wheels 18y ago
      For fun. That's the problem. Not all people with weath are goal-driven. I'm not so much picturing Pinochet as the Paris Hiltons of the world.
      - mhb 18y ago
        So it's primarily an aesthetic issue? Shouldn't your argument be that paying to immigrate would not let enough productive immigrants in? You seem to be saying that the problem is it will also allow a few other undesirables to attend the cocktail party.
    - zupatol 18y ago
      Being able to travel to rich countries is a strong status symbol in poor countries, and corrupt rich foreigners risk not being welcome in their country at some point. But in a sense you are right, such a scheme would lock out the foreigners who have most to gain from immigration.

by wheels 18y ago

thingie 18y ago

50.000 dollars (or any similar number) is an unimaginable amount of money outside US, EU and few other happy countries. No one can afford that, no matter how hard he would try, even a plane ticket is worth savings of whole family for just one person. I guess only organized crime would profit -- provide the money and then blackmail everyone. The immigrant whose whole family is in giant debt, the family... For US it would mean communities of hopeless immigrants from poor countries, entrapped by a vision of better life, held as captives by a mafia. This already happens, and it could only worsen.

byrneseyeview 18y ago
Even in that case, we'd be more likely to get an electrical engineer with a PhD than an illiterate farmer. What would happen in a system like this is that the employers would pay for it. If GE, IBM, or Microsoft got the chance to bring in people like this, they would take it.
- scott_s 18y ago
  These people probably already get H1-B Visas - which is one of the few (only?) work visas that also implies intent to become a permanent resident, so they can file for a green card if their company sponsors them. H1-B Visas aren't exactly what's being proposed because there's still a limited number of them each year, but there is a cost to the company for sponsoring someone.
robotrout 18y ago
Actually, $50,000 seems like a good number. Remember that coyotes charge $5000 per head, just to cross the border from Mexico. If you're coming further, it can be $80,000 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422719 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1642271... I think $50K to be legal, and not even needing to come up with the money up front, but instead being given a loan, would be considered a bargain.
patrickg-zill 18y ago
FWIW there are plenty of well-off people in any number of third-world countries. Consider the Philippines - current population is 90 million; thus top 10% of people (who will have money) is 9 million. Given the wide disparity in income, it is reasonable to believe that it would be trivial for any of those 9 million to raise $50K.
lacker 18y ago
That's why the article also proposes a loan system similar to college loans. Investing in immigration is very similar to investing in education for the individual - it's a large up-front cost that you expect to be well worth it over a lifetime.

mhb 18y ago

Why wouldn't a country want to bias its immigration policy towards rich immigrants (for whatever unstated definition of "rich" you are using)? Isn't wealth a reasonable proxy for some characteristic for which you would want to select? Would an accreditation board do better?

wheels 18y ago
If it were personal wealth it might be a reasonable proxy, though in much of the world weath and corruption often go hand in hand. Do you really want to allow in every rich kid in the world that thinks it'd be cool to screw off in the US for a few years at the expense of someone who's distinguished themselves in their field?
- mhb 18y ago
  Why would a lot of corrupt, rich foreigners want to leave the place where they have a proven ability to profit in order to go to a place where the cost of living is higher and with which they are unfamiliar? Also there would be some sort of screening for criminals.
  - wheels 18y ago
    For fun. That's the problem. Not all people with weath are goal-driven. I'm not so much picturing Pinochet as the Paris Hiltons of the world.
    - mhb 18y ago
      So it's primarily an aesthetic issue? Shouldn't your argument be that paying to immigrate would not let enough productive immigrants in? You seem to be saying that the problem is it will also allow a few other undesirables to attend the cocktail party.
  - zupatol 18y ago
    Being able to travel to rich countries is a strong status symbol in poor countries, and corrupt rich foreigners risk not being welcome in their country at some point. But in a sense you are right, such a scheme would lock out the foreigners who have most to gain from immigration.