Slashdot Mirror
The Impact of Immigrant Innovators
Ramakrishnan writes "The Wall Street Journal is carrying a report on immigrant innovators and entrepreneurs. According to the piece, nearly a quarter of all California startups which went into business between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant as a founding member. These businesses, together, employ almost half a million workers and generated about $50 billion in sales in the year 2005. The study seems quite topical, given recent discussions in the U.S. capital. From the article: 'Supporters of an immigration bill are likely to use the study to argue the importance of foreign-born workers to the U.S. economy. An immigration bill passed by the last Congress and heavily lobbied by business groups would have greatly increased the number of green cards available to skilled workers. Business has long argued that the U.S. schools aren't turning out enough scientists, mathematicians and engineers, and that the economy will lose its competitive edge without more skilled foreign workers.'"
The Wall Street Journal is carrying a report on immigrant innovators and entrepreneurs.
You mean like Albert Einstein?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
I'm tired of people not addressing the distinction between skilled workers trying to immigrate and improve their lives while also boosting our economy, and the people who hop the fence illegally just to take advantage of health care they won't have to pay for and a lack of responsibility for income taxes.
Immigration is great. It strengthens America as a whole. Illegal immigration sucks money from the economy and stresses our entire infrastructure. I would say these statistics have near nothing to do with recent discussions in congress, but then again, what do I know? I'm a bear! I suck the heads off fish!
We (I and other) Americans aren't as skilled or hard working as foreigners, so our solution is to just let more immigrants in? How about stepping up to the plate and showing the rest of the world that we can function on our own with as little help from others as possible! If our best solution is to let someone else do the job right, what does that say about our work ethic and ingenuity as a country?
If only the immigrants (or 'economic migrants') in the UK were such visionaries. Right now, they just come to the UK to get a free council house and welfare. They take priority over British citizens, because they are a 'minority'.
Immigrants cost me a fortune in tax. And they can't be bothered to learn the language, so now street signs in London can even be seen in Arabic!
AC for obvious reasons.
If you consider that emmigrating from one country to another generally takes a lot of courage and initiative, these statistics are not really surprising. Talented and educated people who are motivated to make that leap are probably going to be motivated to do a lot more once they get here.
My girlfriend's mom is from the Phillipines, where the economy is pretty much shit-astic. Her dream, as a young girl in the Phillipines, was to come to America and make enough money to support a family and drive a Mercedes--which she accomplished. This report makes sense to me, because it's natural that a lot of people coming from poorer countries come to America because they're sick of living somewhere poor, and thus have a lot of ambition to make good money. Just my thoughts.
Freelance Web Designer - Portfolio
I believe in freedom and liberty for all men.
And by all men, I don't just mean the men in this country.
I don't see how any man can ethically justify excluding others from the land in which they live.
If a man from India, or Zimbabwae, or Sweden - where-ever - wishes to come here, the only basis upon which we could deny them is self-defence.
How can we say - all men are born free and equal - and then say "ah, but you lot can't come in".
Legal immigrants or criminals?
Could our colleges not be producing enough scientists and engineers because those jobs have been outsourced away from America, and not enough entrepreneurs because our colleges are almost all Marxist in ideology?
When I look at the pitiful amount some employers are willing to pay our grads, I don't blame students for choosing another school, like business for instance.
and how are they treated by the common american?
like some kind of 'scum' that came over some from 'third world hell hole', who should be bowing down to every minimum wage redneck in USA, even if he/she is a PHD with several drug discoveries of finance theories to their credit, and if they dont like it, they can go 'the hell back to the rat-hole they came from'. 'this is america, you know'. Those 'smelly, stinking, funny-talking gooks, chinks, gandhis, currys, pollacks,, etc etc etc.'.
right, folks?
A little respect for the hard working immigrants - is it so hard to give? All immigrants I know contribute faaaar more into the system than they take out, if anything they take at all.
I have read TFA, and the linked study.
Dear God, if this is what passes for research at prestigious places like Berkeley these days, I am not surprised that immigrants outperform U.S.-born citizens
And that's just two examples. I am at a loss for words to see such stupidity even get past a professor's review.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Most people lack the initiative to depart from a situation that's familiar, but goes nowhere, to go somewhere that has opportunity and the risk of the unknown. The immigrants that come to America are thus self-selecting for initiative. Since getting here is also challenging, the filter also includes risk-taking, resourcefulness and determination.
Contrast this with some Americans' idiot nephews who are determined to avoid doing anything useful, or leaving home, ever. Unless you can get them drunk and wheelchair them into the Army recruiter's office, there's no getting rid of them.
So for those of you abroad who can read this, come on over to the US. We could use your initiative.
Oh, but don't come to my neighborhood. Very bad here, and we're full.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
"According to the piece, nearly a quarter of all California startups which went into business between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant as a founding member"
And what percentage of these immigrants were poor Mexicans looking for American welfare and minimum wage?
"capitol" != "capital". Though in this case, both are relevant.
Monstar L
If all we have to worry about in America is illegal immigration, I'd say things are not going too bad for us. If you want to live in a country that doesn't have to worry about illegal immigration, move to Mexico.
It's stupider than patents. I have several friends caught up in this crap, and it is bad for everyone. Let me explain how the H1B forces down wages for American workers (who it was supposed to protect): once you get an H1B person over here they are pretty much locked in their job, so the company can massivly underpay them, which makes American born workers even less desirable. If the H1B's had job mobility, they might come in on the cheap (like college kids do anyways), but they'd job-hop and be sucked into American consumerism and they'd demand more and wages would go up for everyone. Well, everyone who can do a decent job.
And that's just it -- the entire immigration debate (from the high-tech workers to strawberry pickers) is simply an effort to protect our lazy and/or stupid people at the expense of everyone else in the country and the world. Worried about there being too many people who come to take advantage of the system? And what controls are there for keeping US citizens from popping out more babies than they or the government can take care of? None. At least most of the immigrants want to work. The immigration debate is a thinly veiled double standard that has it's roots in racism and fear of legitimate competition.
Even with the illegal strawberry pickers, the fact that we don't give them legal status forces them to make shady deals with their employers, which in turn allows the employers to pay them less and refuse them benefits they'd have to pay for legal workers. Who suffers? Not just the illegal immigrants -- but also the citizens since they can't reasonably compete with what amounts to slave labor. Every attempt at protecting ourselves backfires.
And don't just say we need to increase security. That just does not work. We can't get security in Iraq even having the country overrun by military. Force can not stop a people who truly believe their life is only worth living if they violate the laws of that force. And even if it were possible to succeed in that endeavor... what? We get the honor of being like all the lousy countries who have fought to close their borders over the years? Name them for me... not a prestigious list. Rather, we should be finding ways to make the most of the reality that people want to come here, take advantage (in the positive sense of the word) of the people who want to be a part of America. Stop trying to change, outlaw, or discourage them. They are customers of the American lifestyle and economy.
Here's a vague starting point: make the rule that anyone who wasn't a convicted felon in their country could come here for 3 months. If they could find a job and stay off the streets during that time, they (and their dependents) could stay as long as they were working somewhere. After 5 years, they'd be citizens. That would give them the motivation to become a group we can appreciate, perhaps even better than your average natural born American.
Cheers.
"I'm from a Mexican-American family that immigrated here two generations ago (legally) so I realize the opportunities this country can offer but at a certain point (that I believe we are *way* beyond) we have to look out for our own country's own national interests and be fair to those who have waited years to immigrate legally. I guarantee that for every brain surgeon climbing the fence there are a million unskilled workers behind him. And we wouldn't dare to create a law that allowed people in based on skill level (not that we would bother to enforce it anyway) because the ACLU would say that it is unconstitutional profiling or something similar."
"In California our schools and hospitals are not collapsing because of an influx of English-speaking rocket scientist either. I can safely say that California (and now the wider South West) is the primary social welfare system of Mexico and I believe that it is the root cause of the issue. It's not really a national immigration policy debate it's a U.S.-Mexico relations debate and whether or not the distinction between the two countries should still bother to be made or whether they should be melded into one entity. Pro-immigration policy activists are generally not fighting tooth and nail to allow Ethiopian nationals to receive U.S. entitlements; they are looking out for Mexican interests. Its that seldom mentioned detail that I believe makes the entire concept of pro-immigration policy unfair to all foreign nationals waiting their turn to immigrate legally. Is there anyone among us who is not pro-immigration? No. This country was born by immigrants (including Mexican). But I'm not pro-"illegal"-immigration."
I think the better question for this forum is how many of those companies fit the "but you told us you weren't evil!" form?
Everyone who wants tighter border controls is the decendant of someone who immigrated to this country before there were border controls. Think about that. If you want those tighter controls, tell me which country you'd have liked your family to have been stuck in, where you'd be living today.
Fact is, this country is wholly built by immigrants. Get used to it.
Cheers.
it just happens to be the case.
Your electronics are assembled in China as the labour costs are lower there. In the few cases where labour intensive, low pay areas where work has to be done onsite in the US (or your Western Country of choice), food growing, harvesting, preparation, construction, domestic etc etc, you get a high proportion of illegal labour to keep the costs down.
It's not a valid argument, it's just a truth and a result of market pressures (risk of financial loss due to illegal being found is less than the financial gain from employing an illegal).
In the EU we have a strange effect due to the expansion to the East, where highly skilled people are coming into the UK to do low paid work (i.e. Polish lawyer mixing cocktails in your local bar). Now this makes me feel a bit uncomfortable as well - but everybody seems to be happy with the situation (well apart from our local right-wing parties and the unskilled unemployed).
The "could come here for 3 months" part is a problem. If they fail to find a job, good luck finding them!
No, you need to have a job lined up before you come here. You also need to know English well enough to properly deal with a car loan, an apartment lease, a credit card agreement, and all the typical employment-related agreements. These two things are critical. English ability is especially important when importing people who would be likely to isolate themselves in an ethnic ghetto; it's not a big issue with people coming from uncommon origins.
We might also ask that people be free of contagious or serious disease, be drug-free, and know some basic math.
The real key phrase is skilled immigrants here. The problem that needs to be addressed isn't the legal immigrants, it is the swarm of illegal(if they come in without permission, they are breaking the law) and generally unskilled immigrants who don't speak English and who take the money they earn in this country and send it south of the border.
"I absolutely agree; I think borders that are used as anything other than an administrative and organizational convenience are immoral."
I thought the only thing atheists believed in was ethics.
"Why exactly should an accident of birth guarantee someone more wealth than another? "
The same way an "accident" determined that japan would be an oil poor country, while saudi arabia would be rich in oil.
"Property is an invention of the state "
So why don't you walk onto a pit bulls "property" and tell him that? I'm certain he'll understand how wrong he is.
Who in this country, besides a trivial, insignificant minority, really believes that all immigration to the U.S. should be halted?
The problem I see is when people use terms like "Immigrant Rights" to describe both legal and illegal immigrants, regardless of the fundamental difference between the two. It's done deliberately to try to paint opponents of illegal immigration as being against ALL immigration. It's a tactic I find divisive and intellectually dishonest, and I would encourage all of us here, at least, to not stoop to such levels.
Now if you want to discuss reforming current immigration laws, that's something else. The fact remains that current law draws a very clear distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
nearly a quarter of all California startups which went into business between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant as a founding member.
Being that California's population is more than a quarter non-native born, this statistic does not mean much.
Table-ized A.I.
So what? Who cares? Lets break down the numbers...
Foreign run high-tech startups contributed $52 billion to the economy in 2005
- Not really, startups where at least one person was foreign born contributed this much.
- In a 12.49 trillion dollar economy, $52 billion is about %0.4
- Americans spent about that much on shoes last year, or lawn care
These companies employed 450,000 people
- 0.3% of the work force producing %0.4 of GDP
- That's great until you realize that these are 450,000 high tech workers who should be producing many magnitudes more GDP than the average. A semiconductor worker != a dish washer.
Yet, for some reason, both the article and study draw the conclusion that they've uncovered something significant. As far as I can tell, they've uncovered the fact that nothing significant exists in this data in any way.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of foreigners coming to the US and starting businesses. Its a big middle finger to their home countries who never implemented the financial and legal systems necessary to allow business to flourish. One of our family friends is from Iran. He decided that the ruling system there was screwed beyond fixing, escaped for American, and is now a self made millionaire. Brilliant!
But, I'm not for collecting a bunch of completely average statistics, pointing to them and exclaiming: Incredible!
in college a number of chinese students got popped cheating on exams. i knew one of them, he just grinned at me and said it was "just part of the game". my dad did a lot of business in mainland china and he heard the same thing quite often...if you don't get caught, it's legal. this kind of "alien" thinking concerns me...although this is not to say people of every culture/nation do the same thing to some extent, apparently such thinking borders on lifestyle in many non-western countries. so how many native americans own businesses in america? isn't WSJ basically a shill for the executive class anyway? of course they want the engineering/science community flooded with immigrants, keeps the pay down and the applicants up.
You know the AC above really should be modded up. Also one point should be made in this whole debate. The fact that there's an illegal immigration problem speaks volumes about mexico's failures as a nation. Is anyone going to address those? How about other nations? There really wouldn't be an illegal immigration problem ANYWERE if nations could take care of themselves.
Simple. The solution is appearance.
Guys, wear nice clothes and a nice suit if possible. Drive a nice car, not a rusted 1992 Ford.
Ladies, sign up for some fitness and body-toning classes and wear professional clothes that do gives out that sexy and smart vibe.
You are treated as you look like here in the US. Looks like a respectable person and you will be treated as such. Look shabby and you will be treated as such. No-one knows you have a PhD with several drug discoveries. You show you have all this by buying nice things with your huge salary that you get with your big PhDs. If not, figure out how to dress like a professor.
The real factor is that Americans grow up in the land of plenty and hence are conditioned as consumers and not as savers/investors/producers. It's great that somebody can work hard, work smart -- that'll qualify you for many 9-to-5 jobs. The real underlying source of why immigrants are such a big percentage of economic growth is rather simple -- they have the ability to save up enough money to startup businesses. All the fairy tales about government grants or angel/VC funding or SBA loans -- doesn't happen. Most businesses are launched using founders' personal pockets. Meanwhile, Americans learns from a very young age that consuming gives the appearance of wealth and success. Considering we have a negative savings rate in the U.S., it's not surprising immigrants -- living in what Americans consider poverty (and saving/investing the difference) -- are involved in a disproportionally high percentage of new business activity.
The children of immigrants are not immune to this factor. Study after study have shown children of immigrants who grow up in the U.S. become just like Americans. They work less hard, consume more, save less -- and few have what it takes to compete with the next wave of new immigrants. This is a reason why it is key for a country to continually bring new immigrants in because the old batch becomes fat and content just like the average American worker bee.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
These studies are used by the WSJ and others to promote increases in the quotas for H-1B visas. But the foreigners with the H-1B visas are not the ones starting companies. The H-1B visas are mainly used by big companies to cut their labor costs, and get employees who will not leave to join start-up companies.
How often did the British colonials learn local languages?
If you knew an ounce of North American history, then you'd know that they learned the local languages very often. Even into the 1800s, most colonials (be they British, Spanish, French, etc.) were well-versed with the languages of the Native American tribes in their region.
Just look at the hundreds of thousands of places around Canada, the US and Mexico that directly use a Native American word or phrase as their name. Hell, the name "Canada" comes from the language of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians, and basically means "settlement". If you're an American, there's a very good chance that the state you're living in had its name derived from the language of the local natives. That wouldn't have happened if the colonials weren't familiar with the languages of the native population.
Canada and the US have a very long history of trading with numerous Native American tribes. The fur trading network was extensive throughout the heartland of the United States and Canada. As you are likely aware, trade doesn't happen without communication. Virtually all traders were well-versed with the language of at least one Native American tribal group. Successful ones were reported to know at least five or six. Most settlers were also familiar with the local languages, even if they weren't traders.
Times and demographics have changed since then. So no, most Americans today probably do not know the languages of the Native American tribes that inhabited the area in which they live. But then again, if you knew anything about North American history, you'd know that many of the tribes themselves weren't exactly "native" to the region in which they were in. As semi-nomadic people, they'd regularly move into regions dominated by other native tribes. So it's not even possible in many cases to determine who was actually there first, considering displacement occurred frequently in many regions.
I don't care much about flags, but your other points are right on. In addition, I'd like to mention that I feel the US allows too many dual citizenships. If you want to be a US citizen, you should give up any other citizenships you may have.
The illegaly immigrated Mexicans tend to leave the young, old and infirm at home when they cross the border, and they send money back for their care.
Which is better...do we want them to bring their entire extended family here to use US services...or just let them send that money back home?
It seems that this illegal immigration thing only works well when it's mostly able-bodied workers who come here and work.
Blar.
That your average Mexican illegal immigrant has much of an education to be the next Einstein.
But there's plenty of illegal Mexicans who start just looking for a few bucks to send home. And they scrimp and save and use meagar savings to springboard to small business opportunities like taco carts. And over the course of several decades, they graduate to running bonafide local brick & mortar businesses producing more economic output for the community than the typical priviledged American-born.
While I personally advocate neither solution, it seems odd that they are never brought up in any discussion about illegal immigration.
This is not a "controversial" issue, it is quite simple. It's a question of right and wrong Right: apply for a visa. Wrong: Jump a Fence at Two in the morning, breaking the law. You are so very right, it is quite simple. It's a question, why reward someone that broke the law to get here. Non, I will repeat that, NON of the Illegal Immigrants are law abiding. They broke the law to get here. Quite simple indeed.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben
Possession is a rule of force and an objective fact. Property is a rule of law and a legal fiction. Without a state to enforce property rights -- by means of police and prisions and the monopoly of violence -- the shirt on my back is only mine so long as I can't stop you from taking it. Property isn't a natural right.
The question, then, which is largely ignored by everyone these days (but ironically, most particularly, libertarians and other laissez-faire capitalists), is what makes a better or worse system of property rights. In other words, recognizing that property rights are artificial, and that they exist to serve a social end, we have to look at the purposes they're meant to serve and whether or not the reality matches up with what we want out of economy, society, etc.
If it wasn't for the immigrant community, my dream of a pair of trousers with an outboard motor attached might be dead forever.
You know, like thog builds a spear, thog's neighbor wants that spear but he doesn't know how to build one. Thogs says to neighbor "build your own spear damnit".
~= scwizard =~
Thog say to all cavemen: "if you try to build a spear, I'll kill you because I came up with spear first"
Other caveman build better spear in secret.
Other caveman throw better spear through Thog.
BTW I believe in open borders.
~= scwizard =~
It's just that US education is worth absolutely nothing compared to Asian or European education. Foreign countries refer to US universities as day care for rich parents.
"Business has long argued that the U.S. schools aren't turning out enough scientists, mathematicians and engineers"...and this is because of what?
Two things: emphasizing professional team sports as the number one school identity and activity, and 2-society not rewarding scientists or engineers or technicians enough.
We see who becomes famous and well received, globalist businesspirates and sports gods, with a lot of entertainment gods thrown into the mix. That's what our society wants, so that's what we get. Knock that stuff down a lot, start in the schools, get that pro sports crap OUT. Now, start to de-brainwash the adult population. We have public airwaves, it is NOT in the public's best interest to have one third the local news be devoted to professional team sports-and yes, I class high school and college level to be professional as well, let's just admit the amateur ranking is a total farce. They use the public airwaves, they shouldn't even remotely be allowed to take a half an hour news show, add commercials, then devote an entire third of what time is left to sports. Mandate they stop that by law or no license to use the airwaves. And hollywood "news"? What for?
You get what you pay for, if society can't see how they are getting shafted by the bread and ciruces dodge the elite always use, along with the assault on wealth producing types of jobs, maybe it's time society collapsed. If science and engineering aren't important, some other place will make it so. If US kids and their parents want to stay with the old ways, let them lose on a planetary scale then, no pity. If the government thinks 300 billion a year to fight a war in a nation that didn't even approach that in total GDP-let them lose if they can't see the insanity and utter stupidity in that. If a people-a nation- has so little national pride in their own folks and own culture that they can't do their own work without relying on outsiders, let them lose just like the romans did when they got fat and complacent and thought that anyone but them would do the work and they could sit around and enjoy the games and gluttony of all types. It didn't take long before they collapsed once they started using massive influxes of foreigners to do their work and be in their armies. The same will happen in the US. There might be a temporary boost as others seem to do all the work, but it won't be long before they realise they don't have to come to the US-california or anyplace else-to do that work and succeed. Then what? Everyone becomes a professional ball player, Tv star, "management" type or musician or gov drone worker? Oh ya, that's gonna work out just fine-not!
The US is currently suffering from less then 5% unemployment. When you have under 5% unemployment it means that you have a labor shortage. The only things corporations, especially ones that work at the fringes of profitability, can do is hire illegals or go out of business. We have a finite amount of labor in this nation. Once it is used up, it is gone. If a farm needs 300 people do manual labor and can't get them without offering enough money to put them out of business, then it goes out of business. Now, I am all for businesses going out of business, but not when there is an ample supply of people willing to work just across the border. Little is gained when a corporation goes out of business in a full employment market. Cutting off immigration just murders a pile of US industries that are out merrily providing us with cheap goods and services.
Don't get me wrong, I am against illegal immigration. However, the solution is not build better fences or waste billions of dollars trying to root out every single smuggler and forcing people into more dangerous methods of crossing. The solution is to make it so that a poor Mexican who will happily work for close to minimum wage in some marginal industry can legally cross. We want to know these people are here. Want to run background checks and make them come in through legal points of entry. So long as our immigration system is so badly fucked up where it takes a decade a pile of money to get across, people are going to illegally immigrate.
As much as I hate a lot of what Bush does, he had a damn good immigration plan that the Republican congress (and a few Dems) murdered. He opened up legal ways for guest workers and immigrants to come here. Allowing legal crossing would have shut down smugglers, saved lives, and resulted in collecting tax money, better health and safety oversight, and all the benefits you receive when workers work legally.
Black markets (even in labor) create crime, poverty, and misery. The only way to bring down a black market is to legalize and regulate the market. This is what we need to do with immigration.
The demographics in the US are getting much older. We've seen no net new workers in the 25-64(?) range SINCE 2000.
That means people are aging out or dying as fast as new ones come in. It's only going to get worse.
We must have an influx of workers in the future to do things like run our shops, keep services running, etc.
If we don't, there will be no tax base to pay for medical care for the elderly, etc.
Never mind that we will have to import doctors and other very educated types, since there will definitely be a shortage of geriatricians, etc.
Look at France and Germany, they're already having to import workers. Which is why we're seeing more stories about ethnic conflict, racism, and the return of fascism.
But it has to happen.
This summery and article are blending two seperate issues: legal immigration that there is not thing qwrong with and illegal immigration where American employers are breaking our laws and illegal immigrants are breaking our laws.
Successful legal immigrants is as American as it gets.
The US schools aren't generating enough experts because they don't teach students to think on their own. They teach kids to be cogs in the system, bricks in the wall, not the next entrepreneur or great scientist/mathematician/what have you - because bricks in the wall help the powers that be, intelligent people are a threat to the powers that be.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
eBay founder Pierre Omidyar from France
PayPal co-founder Max Levchin from Ukraine
Google co-founder Sergey Brin from Russia
and it's only short list
So i think for you it's better to invite fresh brains to states,
cheers
One reason is that your parents choose to align themselves with a civil society that over many generations had improved itself far beyond lesser societies. They choose to cooperate in a nation of laws for the greater good, where people in poor countries do not. Your birth is an expression of your parent's optimism for the future of their society. If you were wise you would value that sacrafice. Most of the rest of the world lacks the inspiration of your forefathers. Don't want to defend the society you inherited?
Illegal immigration is mainly one mediocre society (Mexico), with unique proximity to a successful one, exporting its poverty for a gain in remitances. It hurts our fellow citizens ability to make a decent living. Whose side are your on?
an ill wind that blows no good
Everyone who wants tighter border controls is the decendant of someone who immigrated to this country before there were border controls.
_ history.asp
You are misinformed. There was screening of immigrants and border control. Every hear of Ellis Island? Note the "illegal contract laborer" reference.
"Only two percent of the arriving immigrants were excluded from entry. The two main reasons why an immigrant would be excluded were if a doctor diagnosed that the immigrant had a contagious disease that would endanger the public health or if a legal inspector thought the immigrant was likely to become a public charge or an illegal contract laborer."
http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/ellis_island
There is a significant block of American society bent on self-destruction. You will offer every orifice to any enemy for unfathomable reasons. Is is guilt? I can't change that. I can only vigorously defend the great ideals and institutions of America against lesser nations that would harm it. That is not racism, it is nationalism, and it is a good thing. God smiles on America.
an ill wind that blows no good
And how do we know how big the total pie would have been without such immigration?
Where are the control experiments?
Here's what really happened:
The American people were unwillingly subjected to an experiment by an industry lobby criminally bent on lowering wages of US IT workers for the short term bottom lines of the Fortune 1000 execs -- the folks to whom the WSJ panders. Yes criminal. It is criminal to knowingly use the H-1b visa to lower US wages and that is clearly what happened from 1995 to 2005: A lowering of real wages, ie: wages adjusted for the cost of reproduction (survival is mere existence, reproduction is life).
The DotCon bubble raised and then lowered wages back to their pre-1995 levels but at the same time real estate -- the primary cost of reproduction component -- went through the roof driven largely by demand placed on real estate by "temporary" workers who, due to better ethnic networking to hold onto scarce jobs during hte the purging of US workers that occurred during the DotCon bubble collapse, have now virtually take over the US IT industry and are becoming permanent real estate holders.
If I were from India working in the US after this kind of horrendous abuse of US citizens, I would count on no more than 5 years of this party before I'd have my gold, women and children back in India.
Seastead this.
Illegals help the mega corps and they help keep their unstable dictatorship economies running in whatever country they're from. They do not help this country as a whole in any real way.
Instead of spending all that energy to violate our laws, often multiple times in order to be cheap labor for some mega corp so you can get cheap lettuce, how about they stay home and fix their home country's problems?
That might require real effort, though. Much easier to just come to the U.S. and abuse our very generous system.
I also find your earlier statement that the U.S. has draconian immigration policy to be false as well as ridiculous. Try to establish residency or g-d forbid citizenship in any of the prosperous EU countries. It is nearly impossible. Or hey, try crossing into Mexico from further south. See if they don't shoot you at their southern border. And oh btw, you *are* aware that Spanish is the official language in Mexico? They do not print every government form in 18 languages.
We have a *very* generous immigration policy in the U.S.
We even almost have a border that we sometimes, very rarely, do something to control. Sort of.
How does it feel to be on the same side as GWB with your no-borders policy?
This is exactly what I'm referring to. If we excluded only 2% of the people trying to get here today, do you think that would be considered border control? It was basically 50 cents and a quick look to get in. If the people who are clamouring for tighter border control want that, then fine. I have a feeling they want a little more restriction, thus my post.
Cheers.
The difference between legal immigration, and illegal immigration is roughly the same as the difference between shopping and shop-lifting.
Lumping legal immigration with illegal immigration is like lumping shoppers and shop-lifters together and saying we should not prosecute shop-lifters because stores need the business.
In Soviet Russia you go to Amerika so that innovation will find you
Table-ized A.I.
All nice in theory but in practice I've worked at tech places that were mostly H1B that posted the same bogus job descriptions for years, never interviewed for them, never did anything at all, with the specific intention of bypassing the H1B hiring requirements.
I suspect most of the readers here have seen similar situations if they're in a tech outfit with their eyes open. You're not fooling anyone here.
Skilled H1Bs receive salary levels higher than the median salary level of the entire population. Even if they are driving down salary levels for some industries, it is not adverse to a point of increasing poverty, or causing subsistence hardships to skilled engineers. It is just the hard truth of limited resources and increasing population, and individuals' buying power will be adjusted accordingly.
If anyone is seriously troubled by his/her attenuated wage potential, an effective and smarter solution is to work towards the next promotion and advance to a higher level in the food chain.
You appear to have lost track of what the United States is here for. Let me give you a reminder, starting with a few things it's not.
It's not here to guarantee you a bigger car than the guy in the next country over.
It's not here to guarantee you a job.
It's not here to let you tell other people how to spend their money.
It's not here to compete with other countries.
It's not here to put you in a master class based on which side of some line on a fucking map you were born on.
It's here to give people a place to do as they will, and to give everybody a chance to compete with one another, if they so choose, on a level playing field. It's here to give them that because they deserve it, because they're people, not because of where they're from or who their parents were.
The United States is an instrument created for a purpose. Insofar as it has lost track of that purpose, it is not worthy of the loyalty of any human being... and even if it follows that purpose, the true loyalty ought to be to the purpose, not the country... and sure as hell not to every fuckwit with an inflated sense of entitlement who happens to have been born within its borders.
You nativist idiots, the my-country-right-or-wrong assholes, the xenophobic safety-obsessed cowards, and all the other lame excuses for Americans who seem to run the joint these days, are a disgrace to the principles the USA used to think it stood for.
You make me sick.
I read a book called the Millionaire Next Door about people who really are "prodigious accumulators of wealth" or PAW as they put it. It pointed out that a typical PAW would be first generation American because anyone who has the motivation to leave most of what they know, move to another country, drag their family along and start over is probably someone who has the entrepreneurial spirit, and they're not afraid to take risks. It's not surprising that so many immigrants are innovators.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
yeah yeah yeah. you love simple explanations, dont you?
it is NOT appearance. even if you dress flashily, your accent will give you away. your skin color will give you away. That's the ony thing that will matter to the likes of such.
You might be surprised the disrespect with which someone with an accent gets treated over a customer service phonecall. Another reason why Indian customer service is better - no big attitudes, esp when you have an accent. And a lot more courtesy.
I finally visited NYC this summer and I cannot tell you how great of an experience it was. The Parks and Recreation guy that gave the speech at the base of the statue of liberty made a pretty damn moving speech. Sure, he's had a lot of practice, but even so -- mission accomplished.
What could be a more basic expression of human freedom than the freedom to choose which space you physically occupy, which nationality or society you choose to be a part of? Which flag you'll lend allegience to, and which nation your sweat and tears will help build?
I don't care how skilled or unskilled you are - we should make it as easy and as affordable as possible to enter the United States. Economics is not a zero sum game - the more people we have, the more mouths to feed, the more clothes to make, the more houses to build - these are all jobs for all kinds of people.
People that worry about immigrants simply collecting benefits are misplacing their fears for two reasons.
1) i don't think most immigrants (certainly illegal ones) collect any significant welfare. how could they if they're illegal?
2) your complaint should be that we have a pervasive cradle-to-grave entitlements system, rife with corruption and buearocracy, which collects significantly more dollars than it distributes, and which provides little incentive to ever leave the public dole. Fix this, and then we don't have to care who or who doesn't benefit from a safety net.
I'd argue that it should be as easy as possible to enter this country legally. A basic health check, some evidence that you can do some sort of work, and some sort of background check, and that's it. If we make it easy for people to do the right thing, we can punish with impunity those who insist on doing the wrong thing.
The large influx of people from the world over who wanted to live in a society that had free trade and strong individual liberties was what made this country great. We need to make it easier to absorb people, not harder, and we need to make it easier for them to succeed once they get here (i.e. fewer regulations and back-door manipulation for starting small businesses, etc).
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Looking at the article, I have a problem with the starting point. The starting point is that businesses are reportedly having a hard time finding scientists and engineers coming out of our educational system. I would like a bit of clarification noted on this. First of all, there seems to be no real shortage of startups in highly technical fields finding the people they need to get started. Startups failing because they can't figure out how to turn a profit? Sure, no shortage of those either, but that is rarely because they didn't have any scientists.
In almost every case what we are actually hearing reported is that 'big' businesses are having problems finding qualified candidates for their postings. Or more specifically they are having problems getting people to apply for the postings they submit. So the question is why are They having this problem? I think it boils down to two factors.
First of all people applying for work are not fascinated with any posting that reads "Salary commensurate with experience.", "Competitive salary", "pay by industry standard guidelines" or the like. We want to know what you are willing to offer someone who meets the minimum requirements to be hired, and what the top end of the scale for a new hire with you is. We can then look at the job requirements, determine where we fit in the scale, and decide for ourselves if you are offering a wage that matches those claims or not. I certainly don't want to waste your time as a hiring manager if I am not going to be satisfied with my wages, and not telling me what you think they should be is telling me you aren't interested in attracting my attention.
Next up is the fact that a really large number of 'Big' companies do all of their posting and searching through their own tools. There is no interface with Monster. Or Dice. Or any of the other job search sites in existence. So far as I can tell, these companies seem to think that every prospective candidate will spend every free moment of their life looking through every possible businesses web site for job postings. Most of them do not have a way for you to set up a notice to you when a posting that may be of interest to you shows up.
There are many good reasons for both of the situations above. I am not saying that there are not. All I am saying is that electing to use those two tactics for searching for new employees is a pretty sure way to get the sort of results that seem to be showing up with some regularity. I. e. the only people that seem to apply are people who know someone already in the company. It makes it 'look' like there is no one qualified available, which feeds into the impression that you have to start looking internationally.
You never know...
Take the cocaine away from your management, make bribery of public officials illegal, make Hollywood who actually led a lot of this silly behaviour actually pay tax and you may see some more responsible attitudes.
What you are saying does not match up to practice. Most the immigrants that came to America came in waves, in large waves, and we handled it. After WW2, the tiny area of Hong Kong was literally flooded with poor people, more people, and lots of people - and they not only handled it, they thrived. People are not burdens. Your lifeboat analogy implies that every time one comes in, that it ads more harmful pressure on the system. Well, I'll give that it does to the welfare state, and all the other freebies that the government hands out coerced at other peoples expense. So what, those kinds of programs need to die anyhow.
When a poor person comes to the US and takes advantage of our having more freedom to create wealth and opportunity that never existed before - that benefits us, it benefits them, and it benefits the world. That we should tell them "well, get in line and wait and starve while we process a bunch of formalities that takes 5 years to complete" is bullshit. Isn't the whole point of a free country that peoples liberties shouldn't revolve around the permissions of those that govern?
By "immigrant", are we talking about illegal aliens or legal immigrants?
It's more like the difference of driving the speed-limit and driving 1 mph over the speed-limit. Your "shop lifting" analogy implies that they're taking something from us by comeing here. An honest hard working illegal imigrant contributes just as much to society as an legal one.
There are hundreds of millions of people around the world living in dire poverty (far WORSE than in Mexico and Central America). These people would love to come too. Should we allow them ALL in, tripling our population in a matter of a few years, or will you recognize that there has to be some limits, orderliness, and fairness to the system? Allowing the people who cut in line to stay at the front is not it. I say we kick out every illegal and replace them with someone who DID follow the rules. There are probably thirty people willing to come for every one who has cheated. I am sure we can find at least one that is a better find than a demonstrated cheater and criminal. If you think its too hard to kick them out, it isn't. We just have to have the guts to punish them. How about we give them six months to get out, and after that, its ten years in a cage if you are caught here. Let them deport themselves.
We currently allowe about 500,000 legal immigrants every year. I could buy the argument that we should expand this, say to a million or so. But to have 500,000 legals and twice that many cheaters is not fair, not safe, and not sane.
You are unfathomably stupid. Ever hear of Ellis island? Seriously, you are too stupid to live. Slit your wrists. Now. FUCKING DO IT!!!!
I came to the country 6 years ago and my current visa will expire next year. My current company started the Green Card process but will take 4 to 6 more years, and until then I'm stuck with the same job. I cannot move to an other company, I cannot accept a promotion, and my wife is not allowed to work or even study.
My wife has been in US for years, legally, and she cannot have a SSN, which mean ti was difficult for her to get a health insurance, she does not have a Credit History (all her credit card applications are refused because she has no SSN) which is a problem when you want to buy a house, and I have a savings account where the bank refuse to put her name on.
So now I'm leaving to an other company where I will have the same green card done in about 18 months (I can still do that as my visa has not expired yet). I have an extremely unique skills set and while we have looked for over a year to find someone to back me up we haven't found anyone. I feel bad for my current coworkers and I know that the company will take a while to recover from my departure.
My current company is a major name in it's industry (Billion dollar range), and the one I'm leaving to is 20 times bigger. I'm not trying to brag and that's partially why I'm posting Anonymously. The thing is that I'm quitting because the green card process just takes way too long and until then I have the constant threat that if I loose my job I have to leave the country within weeks, and it can be pretty tough. It's not fun to be a legal immigrant and the current immigration process is not making it any easier.
In the end my current company might end up loosing a few millions because of a slow green card.
The United States isn't here to provide the best lifestyle possible for its citizens? Meaning We the People is we the people of the world? And how does one vote in a world economy? The level playing field you describe would only work if everyone on earth is willing to not overpopulate or destroy the earth or set up dictatorships or allow serfdom and such is not the case. Its not even altruism if you are proposing a system where by everyone loses.
Business has long argued that the U.S. schools aren't turning out enough scientists, mathematicians and engineers, and that the economy will lose its competitive edge without more skilled foreign workers.'"
You know, if business would demand, and put resources behind, a reform of our educational system that put more empahsis on, say, LEARNING, instead of self-esteem and football, they wouldn't have this to complain about. You know why it doesn't happen? Because if they did do this, they wouldn't be able to hire people for 20% of market rate. It's all about greed, and destroying the American standard of living, while fattening the pockets of the ultra-rich.
I live in yet-another-third-world-country, and it's not in my plans "the american way of life", if you know what i mean.
But in my country the us embassy has a (IMHO) fair rules for the people that want to inmigrate to US, diversification visas 50000 for year. I see no problem with that, as i see your problem is the border with Mexico. So why not invest in the industrialization of Mexico, so the people don't cross the border?
You're missing the point. It's not because you're a taxpayer that you have a say in government. It's because you are governed that you have a say.
Morally, the "government" belongs to all the people it governs, including illegal immigrants.
Mexico happens to have universal health care coverage. It might not be perfect, but then neither is the pharma-medial-legal complex that impoverishes anyone who happens to enter a US hospital without comprehensive insurance. See:
- 4.asp
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2005/Jan/vol51-jan-letters
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9421-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Most immigrants are not here to take advantage of the US health care "system" such as it is (any sensible person would much prefer taking advantage of Cuba's). Most immigrant are here because the US economic system affords opportunities at all levels of skill that are far superior to those available in other countries.
I have yet to meet a US immigrant who considers health care a factor in their decision to move. Any thinking person to whom that mattered would move to Canada.
-- Equity lord of the Trill Consortium
The most credible and thorough study, from Harvard, indicates that in the net illegal immigration is at worst a wash in economic terms, at best is a slight benefit. See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/business/yourmo
quoting:
The President is wrong. The current tenor of the debate in Congress is wrong, especially the position taken by Senators McCain and Kennedy. Voting for any bill carrying amnesty or too generous guest worker programs would be a mistake and a huge disservice to the American people.
This is not a partisan issue. My entire family--including my wife, my mother, my mother-in-law, my brothers, my brother-in-law and his wife--spans quite a broad swath of the political spectrum from Reagan Republicans to Kerry Democrats, are all united on this issue. Nor is this a racial issue; if these people were streaming in from Canada by the millions, we'd be having the same discussion.
It is certainly true that many of the illegal aliens have been in this country for some time, working hard and trying to be a respectable part of the community and I empathise with their desire to improve their lives. But the fact remains that they are constantly violating any number of laws and an amnesty for illegal aliens implicitly forgives these violations. If I violated the same laws, I'd be fined thousands of dollars and put into prison for several years. But the President and many others in Congress want to grant them eventual citizenship and all the benefits thereof instead.
First they knowingly and with forethought violate any of several immigration laws when they enter this country: they come without visas, they do not come through a legal port-of-entry, they bypass customs, they are not registered and fingerprinted as required by Title 8 of Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR). That is, there is little or no presumption of lawful admission as required by 8 CFR.
Once they are here, they are likely to continue to violate other laws. Fraudulent papers are often used to obtain work. This may include Social Security numbers and related documentation, falsified work visas, and so on. In this case, it seems that Title 18 Â1028 "Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information" should come into play.
If they bypass the fraudulent paperwork and simply work for cash "under-the-table" they are certainly involved in some level of tax evasion. In this country, people who earn income by any means (including illegal means) are required by the Internal Revenue Code to report this income when filing annual tax returns. But they usually don't claim this income, let alone file the required return, because doing so would serve as an admission of guilt. They are also more likely to be working at less than the minimum wage, facilitating their employer's choice to bypass Title 29 Â206 "Minimum wage" as well as requirements to withhold and pay their portions of the FICA and Medicare payroll taxes.
An aside here: often the claim is made that "They do jobs Americans won't do" when the reality is really "They do jobs that Americans won't do at those wages." Thousands of employers are also violating our laws, notably Title 8 Â1324a "Unlawful employment of aliens", by hiring illegal aliens and by paying them under-the-table to avoid our laws about minimum wage, overtime, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, family leave, Americans with disabilities and so on. They must also be stopped and prosecuted.
When illegal aliens drive a car, they are doing so without a license and probably without insurance (a requirement in most states). It is not uncommon for many illegal aliens to share a single house or apartment, in violation of local codes. The list of violations could go on and on.
Bear in mind that amnesty comes disguised under various euphemisms. These include guest worker program, Mexican ID cards, the DREAM Act (to give in-state college tuition), driver's licenses, 245(i)visas, H-1B and L-1 visas, anchor babies with their birth-right citizenship. History proves that amnesty programs, by any name, serve only to drive ever higher rates of illegal immigration.
Honest, hard-working citizens of this country are fed up with the "
Not too good considering there are about 10,000,000 mexicans in California.
My only policy idea was to actually punish illegals, rather than dropping them off half a mile across the border, so they can re-cross again the next day.