I don't even think the Minutemen types (and I know a few) really oppose this sort of immigration. This is exactly the sort of thing we should be encouraging; highly skilled individuals should be encouraged to come to the U.S. and work.
It's the flood of low-skilled workers that essentially drop the bottom out of the labor market that present a problem.
I don't think there have been any comprehensive studies about Minuteman-types on this subject, but I can offer some anecdotal evidence from my Minuteman chapter in Clint, Texas (near El Paso).
We are a little divided. JerryD and Greg do not like it at all. Dan, Zach and I don't have a problem with it. Jared, our leader, has adopted an intermediate position; he supports such immigration, as long as they're not Mexicans.
I'll bring up the question at the next county-wide meeting in August. I'll tweet the results.
As long as a person is not a criminal or an immediate drain on common resources, more competent people mean more opportunities, more production, more efficiency. And if they're not here, they'll be expanding possibilities elsewhere, eroding the US's relative position. So admitting anyone who brings up our averages is the truly patriotic policy.
From the perspective of maximizing the economy within the current borders of the US, you are correct.
However, this completely neglects the potential cultural and political aspects. Immigration, particularly in large amounts, will dramatically change the cultural and political face of the US. We need to account for these changes before making decisions on immigration.
Not if we're only accepting 'above-average' immigrants. If we have cultural or political aspects that can't survive the arrival of more highly-educated, self-sufficient, productive, law-abiding residents, we should eagerly discard such parochialisms.
Just because a person is smart and productive doesn't mean they aren't racist, sexist, authoritarian or superstitious. A large number of such people could be harmful.
A highly educated, self-sufficient and productive person said this: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."
If we import 50 million such people, the "parochialism" we discard may well be democracy and freedom.
Don't forget: they might be xenophobic too! Or do we need more xenophobia to protect "democracy and freedom"?
I would welcome Jackie Chan if he sought US citizenship, regardless of any peculiar political comments. Peculiar political beliefs are allowed; it's an explicit feature of the American system.
Any number of "Jackie Chans", when mixed in with all other top-performing immigrants with diverse beliefs, total up to zero chance of making make our society coarser or less free. Highly-productive people who leave their country of birth because they prefer the USA are not, as a general class, small-minded enemies of democracy and freedom.
And even where they have some preferences we natives might find peculiar, within one generation, those peculiarities will either prove their enduring value or be discarded by the children raised here.
As it has been for hundreds of years, so it shall be.
And thanks to American cultural/business exports, telecommunications, the rise of worldwide English, and rising world living standards, each wave of immigrants is already more like us, upon arrival, than previous waves were.
I'm not claiming all foreigners display these traits. I'm merely claiming that "above average" is not incompatible with them. Nice snip job, however.
The fact is, some smart and productive foreigners display values which are incompatible with ours. I've met a few. Maybe their numbers are few enough so that it doesn't matter. But such a claim requires evidence beyond vague handwaving.
Note: I'm not arguing against immigration. I'm only arguing for evaluating immigration on all possible dimensions (including cultural and political), not simply economics.
If they truly are at the top of their fields, why require a degree? Would it really make any sense to deny a modern day Edison or Hemingway over a degree?
25 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 73.2 ms ] threadIt's the flood of low-skilled workers that essentially drop the bottom out of the labor market that present a problem.
Do they? Any statistics to support that point?
Edit: Added the line I was questioning.
We are a little divided. JerryD and Greg do not like it at all. Dan, Zach and I don't have a problem with it. Jared, our leader, has adopted an intermediate position; he supports such immigration, as long as they're not Mexicans.
I'll bring up the question at the next county-wide meeting in August. I'll tweet the results.
i can think of a few adjectives other than 'intermediate' to describe that position.
he supports such immigration, as long as they're not Mexicans.
So even geniuses are not welcome if they happen to be Mexican?
>It's the flood of low-skilled workers that essentially drop the bottom out of the labor market that present a problem.
As long as a person is not a criminal or an immediate drain on common resources, more competent people mean more opportunities, more production, more efficiency. And if they're not here, they'll be expanding possibilities elsewhere, eroding the US's relative position. So admitting anyone who brings up our averages is the truly patriotic policy.
However, this completely neglects the potential cultural and political aspects. Immigration, particularly in large amounts, will dramatically change the cultural and political face of the US. We need to account for these changes before making decisions on immigration.
A highly educated, self-sufficient and productive person said this: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."
If we import 50 million such people, the "parochialism" we discard may well be democracy and freedom.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Chan#Comments_during_200... ). This is one example that springs to mind, and is (I hope) fairly non-controversial.
In the end, any system which would disqualify a Shockley is a broken system which will bankrupt the tech industry.
Don't forget: they might be xenophobic too! Or do we need more xenophobia to protect "democracy and freedom"?
I would welcome Jackie Chan if he sought US citizenship, regardless of any peculiar political comments. Peculiar political beliefs are allowed; it's an explicit feature of the American system.
Any number of "Jackie Chans", when mixed in with all other top-performing immigrants with diverse beliefs, total up to zero chance of making make our society coarser or less free. Highly-productive people who leave their country of birth because they prefer the USA are not, as a general class, small-minded enemies of democracy and freedom.
And even where they have some preferences we natives might find peculiar, within one generation, those peculiarities will either prove their enduring value or be discarded by the children raised here.
As it has been for hundreds of years, so it shall be.
And thanks to American cultural/business exports, telecommunications, the rise of worldwide English, and rising world living standards, each wave of immigrants is already more like us, upon arrival, than previous waves were.
The fact is, some smart and productive foreigners display values which are incompatible with ours. I've met a few. Maybe their numbers are few enough so that it doesn't matter. But such a claim requires evidence beyond vague handwaving.
Note: I'm not arguing against immigration. I'm only arguing for evaluating immigration on all possible dimensions (including cultural and political), not simply economics.