6 ms·

but the vast majority of immigrants to the US take jobs and don't win Nobels.... so? :)

mynameishere 17y ago
Yeah, yeah. The headline is: It's crazy to drive away talented young scholars. Presumably, an equivalent headline would be, It's crazy to invite illiterate crime-prone peasants. Yet, no major newspaper has that vastly more pertinent op-ed. I wonder why. (Ironic sigh......) I wonder if there's an overarching, unstated purpose to such mendacity.
- ez77 17y ago
  You mean cost-reducing peasants? The fact that these "commodities" have now become a dispensable burden doesn't mean the unofficial policies of the 80's and 90's of massive illegal immigration were pointless.
- tensor 17y ago
  This sort of attitude is disgusting. As if the the majority of US citizens can not be classified as crime-prone peasants in one wanted to say it. The US is a county of immigrants. The US is only 300 years old and it's hugely amusing to see US citizens talk poorly about the countries of their parents, grand parents, and great grandparents. If you've ever wondered why the rest of the world tends to think poorly of the US, this is it.
  - codexon 17y ago
    I see this sort of argument far too often. Of course the US is a country of immigrants just as every other country except Africa is a country of immigrants. There comes a point where it is prudent for the current residents to limit hordes of competitors pouring in to take the resources and infrastructure built within the past hundreds of years when their ancestors cozily stayed in their home countries while pioneers busted their nuts off as indentured servants or lived in isolation without "modern" infrastructure. Are you arguing that 300 years is too new? How about 400 years? Or 800 years? Where do we draw the line? How old does a country need to be to not offend the rest of the world in trying to keep their resources and infrastructure from being spread too thinly?
    - drats 17y ago
      "Of course the US is a country of immigrants just as every other country except Africa is a country of immigrants." Africa is not a country.
      - codexon 17y ago
        Yes you are correct, but there is a loss of meaning by being pedantic. My comment would be meaningless to most people if instead of Africa I said a small region of Ethiopia, which probably wasn't even a country at that time, and probably a vastly different place due to continental shift.
  - prodigal_erik 17y ago
    The census says the native born population has been over 86% for well over a century, so (assuming commonplace xenophobia) most of us have no living ancestors who immigrated. And I think there has long been a perception that emigration is such a drastic step that most were either raised by a poorly-functioning society (which they are now fleeing) or not highly valued by their society (which basically got rid of them). Even the proverbial "poor, tired, huddled massses" weren't eagerly welcomed, and they were racially and culturally more similar to the average native (and more willing to assimilate) than many immigrants today.
    - foldr 17y ago
      >and they were racially and culturally more similar to the average native You're speaking as if there were some completely objective and ahistorical measure of racial and cultural similarity. Many of these groups are considered to be racially and culturally similar to the "average native" today precisely _because_ they immigrated some time ago. Italians, for example, were not considered to be white even up to the mid 20th century.
      - prodigal_erik 17y ago
        There are degrees of it. Italians got the "slaves of the antichrist pope" and "don't let your kid marry one" hate, but not the "they don't have souls like human beings" or "they're secretly cannibals" hate.
  - catzaa 17y ago
    I agree with the above poster. The US government must act in the best interest of their citizens and no one else. That means that they should give green cards and VISAs to people that will add value to the USA (scientists, college graduates). But they should not allow the social problems of other countries in (i.e. the bottom of the pile). The lower echelons of 3rd world society are often drawn to immigrate to 1st world countries since they can earn a decent salary w.r.t their lack of qualifications and get free health care/social services. > If you've ever wondered why the rest of the world tends to think poorly of the US, this is it. Europe has extremely strict immigration policies. Japan is stricter than 99% of all other countries. Yet the world does not think poorly of those countries. Why would the USA be an exception?
    - hnhg 17y ago
      I can't help thinking that you're conflating being poor with being socially problematic. Poorer and less educated immigrants often do the jobs that no one else wants in their new home and take opportunities that were denied them in their home countries. Just think of all the past generations of poor Chinese, Irish and Italians that were vilified for being poor - and how things have moved on since then.
      - yardie 17y ago
        I would take care with a statement like this. Because I used to believe it than found out it wasn't true. Case in point. I grew up in an area with high immigration and they did do the jobs that no one else wanted. And because I only saw immigrants (Carribean, South and Central American) doing these jobs, cutting grass for example, I assumed it must be true. So imagine my surprise when I went to a university in the appalachians and I saw white people cutting grass. I was shocked to see white people cut grass because 1) I never saw it happen before, 2) I was always told cutting grass was done by immigrants because no one else wanted the job. So no, there is no such thing as a job no one wants. A job market works like the free market. If the wage is too low you can increase the wage until someone takes it. Using cheap immigrant labour distorts the free market the same way buying knockoffs does. A job no one wants is not a valid defense to support immigration.
sfnhltb 17y ago
Except for every immigrant that comes in taking a job, they also come with an indivisible consumer unit that makes other people jobs. Strangely almost always in an average $1:1 ratio. This probably explains things like why the population of the US roughly trebled over the last 100 years and yet unemployment didn't rise to 66%+ of the working population during that time.
- lupin_sansei 17y ago
  Exactly. It's because immigrants spend close to 100% of their money in the US, and any they send overseas either gets converted to a local currency (which brings the dollars back to the US since you can't usually spend them overseas), and the few countries that do use US dollars contribute to reversing inflation ;)
- codexon 17y ago
  I don't understand this. There is no proof that immigrants spend nearly all the money they earn. In fact, I would argue that they are frequently more frugal so the money is locked away from the economy. And I would also not attribute immigrants as the main factor to why unemployment did not rise to 66%. The main reasons that the number of jobs grew rapidly can be attributed to the auto and computer industry.
  - wynand 17y ago
    >> I would argue that they are frequently more frugal so the money is locked away from the economy. The money is typically locked away in the country where they're residing. That money can work as investment money. You're also forgetting about the taxes they pay.
    - codexon 17y ago
      > The money is typically locked away in the country where they're residing. That money can work as investment money. Investment money isn't as good as money spent for goods. There is limited demand for loans and stocks without a corresponding rise in productivity. Try making an economy where people don't spend anything and simply save. Or you can save yourself the trouble and see how well that worked out for Japan in the 90's. > You're also forgetting about the taxes they pay. Many illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Immigrants as a whole are paid less (very few are unique geniuses that are paid more), which means that they are actually netting less tax money than if a native was hired. They are also on a lower tax bracket so that is a double whammy. I really don't see how anyone could be arguing otherwise unless they were trying to exploit H-1B labor themselves.
jamesbritt 17y ago
The proper title of the article is "Immigrant Scientists Create Jobs and Win Nobels" Sadly, the HTML title for the page omits that key qualifier. It should be in the post here, as well, though.
- yarapavan 17y ago
  Oops. My mistake. I tried to change later but couldn't get it done.
InclinedPlane 17y ago
The idea of "taking jobs" reveals an extreme ignorance of the fundamentals of economics. People doing valuable work and earning appropriate compensation do nothing but help the economy, whether they were born in this country or not. The economy is not a zero sum game, when people contribute to the economy positively it's not "stealing".
- giardini 17y ago
  You'd be correct if the simple assumptions of fundamental economics applied, but they don't: Most immigrants are _not_ "people doing valuable work" - in fact, most are at hairdresser level or below. Few Nobels there - more likely B ship passengers in the Ark. Most immigrants do not earn "appropriate compensation". Survey some H1-B slaves (among the highest paid immigrants) for their opinion. It is quite simple: new immigrants take jobs from US citizens by working for less. Businesses that need workers like that; US citizens who want jobs do not. The situation is obvious all around you. Don't try to confuse the issue by making it more complex than it is. Certainly cheap immigrant workers lower costs for business and "contributes positively to the economy", but don't try to cover over the fact that they push current workers out of jobs, causing dislocation and social upheaval. US citizens suffer, non-citizen immigrant workers benefit, business benefits. Which of those three groups cast ballots in an election? Is there supposed to be any benefit to being a citizen of the country you inhabit? You're effectively saying "No." and I disagree.
  - pfedor 17y ago
    Which part of your argument cannot be used to argue against the use of machines instead of physical labor? The machines cost less, ergo they push current workers out of jobs, US citizens suffer, businesses benefit. Do you want to call the industrial revolution off?
    - giardini 17y ago
      Your statement is correct. Technology does cause the same problems as cheap labor. But it doesn't change what I said. We're not talking about replacing men with machines, We're addressing the simple substitution of an inexpensive non-citizen for a more expensive citizen in a job. There apparently aren't machines available for these jobs so business seek out the cheapest human beings instead. If we didn't have our current political structure which attaches certain rights and privileges to citizenship then the USA would be like China where workers are treated like light bulbs. Once machines can do everything a man can your argument will be pertinent. But remember that, should the time come that machines are the full equal of men, you may need to answer certain questions such as "Does this machine have civil rights or a vote in society?", "Can I trust this machine to do this job?", and "What sort of salary, if any, should I pay a machine for doing this job?". That is topic for another discussion and a real can of worms that I don't feel like opening right now.

Yeah, yeah. The headline is: It's crazy to drive away talented young scholars. Presumably, an equivalent headline would be, It's crazy to invite illiterate crime-prone peasants. Yet, no major newspaper has that vastly more pertinent op-ed. I wonder why. (Ironic sigh......) I wonder if there's an overarching, unstated purpose to such mendacity.

ez77 17y ago
You mean cost-reducing peasants? The fact that these "commodities" have now become a dispensable burden doesn't mean the unofficial policies of the 80's and 90's of massive illegal immigration were pointless.
tensor 17y ago
This sort of attitude is disgusting. As if the the majority of US citizens can not be classified as crime-prone peasants in one wanted to say it. The US is a county of immigrants. The US is only 300 years old and it's hugely amusing to see US citizens talk poorly about the countries of their parents, grand parents, and great grandparents. If you've ever wondered why the rest of the world tends to think poorly of the US, this is it.
- codexon 17y ago
  I see this sort of argument far too often. Of course the US is a country of immigrants just as every other country except Africa is a country of immigrants. There comes a point where it is prudent for the current residents to limit hordes of competitors pouring in to take the resources and infrastructure built within the past hundreds of years when their ancestors cozily stayed in their home countries while pioneers busted their nuts off as indentured servants or lived in isolation without "modern" infrastructure. Are you arguing that 300 years is too new? How about 400 years? Or 800 years? Where do we draw the line? How old does a country need to be to not offend the rest of the world in trying to keep their resources and infrastructure from being spread too thinly?
  - drats 17y ago
    "Of course the US is a country of immigrants just as every other country except Africa is a country of immigrants." Africa is not a country.
    - codexon 17y ago
      Yes you are correct, but there is a loss of meaning by being pedantic. My comment would be meaningless to most people if instead of Africa I said a small region of Ethiopia, which probably wasn't even a country at that time, and probably a vastly different place due to continental shift.
- prodigal_erik 17y ago
  The census says the native born population has been over 86% for well over a century, so (assuming commonplace xenophobia) most of us have no living ancestors who immigrated. And I think there has long been a perception that emigration is such a drastic step that most were either raised by a poorly-functioning society (which they are now fleeing) or not highly valued by their society (which basically got rid of them). Even the proverbial "poor, tired, huddled massses" weren't eagerly welcomed, and they were racially and culturally more similar to the average native (and more willing to assimilate) than many immigrants today.
  - foldr 17y ago
    >and they were racially and culturally more similar to the average native You're speaking as if there were some completely objective and ahistorical measure of racial and cultural similarity. Many of these groups are considered to be racially and culturally similar to the "average native" today precisely _because_ they immigrated some time ago. Italians, for example, were not considered to be white even up to the mid 20th century.
    - prodigal_erik 17y ago
      There are degrees of it. Italians got the "slaves of the antichrist pope" and "don't let your kid marry one" hate, but not the "they don't have souls like human beings" or "they're secretly cannibals" hate.
- catzaa 17y ago
  I agree with the above poster. The US government must act in the best interest of their citizens and no one else. That means that they should give green cards and VISAs to people that will add value to the USA (scientists, college graduates). But they should not allow the social problems of other countries in (i.e. the bottom of the pile). The lower echelons of 3rd world society are often drawn to immigrate to 1st world countries since they can earn a decent salary w.r.t their lack of qualifications and get free health care/social services. > If you've ever wondered why the rest of the world tends to think poorly of the US, this is it. Europe has extremely strict immigration policies. Japan is stricter than 99% of all other countries. Yet the world does not think poorly of those countries. Why would the USA be an exception?
  - hnhg 17y ago
    I can't help thinking that you're conflating being poor with being socially problematic. Poorer and less educated immigrants often do the jobs that no one else wants in their new home and take opportunities that were denied them in their home countries. Just think of all the past generations of poor Chinese, Irish and Italians that were vilified for being poor - and how things have moved on since then.
    - yardie 17y ago
      I would take care with a statement like this. Because I used to believe it than found out it wasn't true. Case in point. I grew up in an area with high immigration and they did do the jobs that no one else wanted. And because I only saw immigrants (Carribean, South and Central American) doing these jobs, cutting grass for example, I assumed it must be true. So imagine my surprise when I went to a university in the appalachians and I saw white people cutting grass. I was shocked to see white people cut grass because 1) I never saw it happen before, 2) I was always told cutting grass was done by immigrants because no one else wanted the job. So no, there is no such thing as a job no one wants. A job market works like the free market. If the wage is too low you can increase the wage until someone takes it. Using cheap immigrant labour distorts the free market the same way buying knockoffs does. A job no one wants is not a valid defense to support immigration.

sfnhltb 17y ago

Except for every immigrant that comes in taking a job, they also come with an indivisible consumer unit that makes other people jobs. Strangely almost always in an average $1:1 ratio. This probably explains things like why the population of the US roughly trebled over the last 100 years and yet unemployment didn't rise to 66%+ of the working population during that time.

lupin_sansei 17y ago
Exactly. It's because immigrants spend close to 100% of their money in the US, and any they send overseas either gets converted to a local currency (which brings the dollars back to the US since you can't usually spend them overseas), and the few countries that do use US dollars contribute to reversing inflation ;)
codexon 17y ago
I don't understand this. There is no proof that immigrants spend nearly all the money they earn. In fact, I would argue that they are frequently more frugal so the money is locked away from the economy. And I would also not attribute immigrants as the main factor to why unemployment did not rise to 66%. The main reasons that the number of jobs grew rapidly can be attributed to the auto and computer industry.
- wynand 17y ago
  >> I would argue that they are frequently more frugal so the money is locked away from the economy. The money is typically locked away in the country where they're residing. That money can work as investment money. You're also forgetting about the taxes they pay.
  - codexon 17y ago
    > The money is typically locked away in the country where they're residing. That money can work as investment money. Investment money isn't as good as money spent for goods. There is limited demand for loans and stocks without a corresponding rise in productivity. Try making an economy where people don't spend anything and simply save. Or you can save yourself the trouble and see how well that worked out for Japan in the 90's. > You're also forgetting about the taxes they pay. Many illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Immigrants as a whole are paid less (very few are unique geniuses that are paid more), which means that they are actually netting less tax money than if a native was hired. They are also on a lower tax bracket so that is a double whammy. I really don't see how anyone could be arguing otherwise unless they were trying to exploit H-1B labor themselves.

jamesbritt 17y ago

The proper title of the article is "Immigrant Scientists Create Jobs and Win Nobels" Sadly, the HTML title for the page omits that key qualifier. It should be in the post here, as well, though.

yarapavan 17y ago
Oops. My mistake. I tried to change later but couldn't get it done.

InclinedPlane 17y ago

The idea of "taking jobs" reveals an extreme ignorance of the fundamentals of economics. People doing valuable work and earning appropriate compensation do nothing but help the economy, whether they were born in this country or not. The economy is not a zero sum game, when people contribute to the economy positively it's not "stealing".

giardini 17y ago
You'd be correct if the simple assumptions of fundamental economics applied, but they don't: Most immigrants are _not_ "people doing valuable work" - in fact, most are at hairdresser level or below. Few Nobels there - more likely B ship passengers in the Ark. Most immigrants do not earn "appropriate compensation". Survey some H1-B slaves (among the highest paid immigrants) for their opinion. It is quite simple: new immigrants take jobs from US citizens by working for less. Businesses that need workers like that; US citizens who want jobs do not. The situation is obvious all around you. Don't try to confuse the issue by making it more complex than it is. Certainly cheap immigrant workers lower costs for business and "contributes positively to the economy", but don't try to cover over the fact that they push current workers out of jobs, causing dislocation and social upheaval. US citizens suffer, non-citizen immigrant workers benefit, business benefits. Which of those three groups cast ballots in an election? Is there supposed to be any benefit to being a citizen of the country you inhabit? You're effectively saying "No." and I disagree.
- pfedor 17y ago
  Which part of your argument cannot be used to argue against the use of machines instead of physical labor? The machines cost less, ergo they push current workers out of jobs, US citizens suffer, businesses benefit. Do you want to call the industrial revolution off?
  - giardini 17y ago
    Your statement is correct. Technology does cause the same problems as cheap labor. But it doesn't change what I said. We're not talking about replacing men with machines, We're addressing the simple substitution of an inexpensive non-citizen for a more expensive citizen in a job. There apparently aren't machines available for these jobs so business seek out the cheapest human beings instead. If we didn't have our current political structure which attaches certain rights and privileges to citizenship then the USA would be like China where workers are treated like light bulbs. Once machines can do everything a man can your argument will be pertinent. But remember that, should the time come that machines are the full equal of men, you may need to answer certain questions such as "Does this machine have civil rights or a vote in society?", "Can I trust this machine to do this job?", and "What sort of salary, if any, should I pay a machine for doing this job?". That is topic for another discussion and a real can of worms that I don't feel like opening right now.