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 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".
Even in Britain, hardworking immigrants greatly outnumber the useless twats like Omar Bakri.
Immigrants cost me a fortune in tax.
Indolent people cost you money, whether they're immigrants or home-grown. Don't kid yourself, there are plenty of native-born losers there too.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
-jcr
It's still an easier pill to swallow for the people who were born and raised here, than people coming to the UK to deliberately defraud the government out of welfare. Heck, a lot of losers have never worked a day in their lives (I know several people like this, all British) but at least their parents probably worked and paid tax. It is a big problem in the UK, because we are so open to 'refugees' etc, and there is a lot of upset within the populace of England about these "damn foreigners" coming to steal our tax, just so they can send the money back home. We don't get the inventive kind of immigrant here, generally just the mooching kind.
There's an interesting point the article implicitly makes: Who's doing the complaining about lack of skilled workers? Businesses.
Our econonmy hasn't collapsed yet, so I would say that there are enough skilled workers to meet the needs of business employment. Businesses want more of such skilled workers simply so the market will be flooded, and they can pay their workers less, demand more from them (You want to keep your job, don't you?), and overall make it an employer's market.
This is pure self-serving bullshit, not concern for the US economy.
My dad immigrated from India to the U.K., and then moved to Ireland. He's a plastic surgeon and helped fix a lot of terrible injuries. Hes now an Irish citizen. He bought his own house and his own car and happily pays taxes that go towards keeping other people of the dole. His story isn't my any means unique and he is the sort of person this article is talking about. Sure, there are economic migrants and many of them don't do well. That is the point of this article - a point you appear to have completely missed. There is a good number of skilled immigrants that are very good for the economy. You are just trolling by stereotyping all of them as parasitic.
With respect to your can't be bothered to learn the language" comment which I'm sure will have a number of US citizens nodding their heads vigorously in agreement.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/national_language.jpg
How often did the British colonials learn local languages?
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
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.
The immigration for mooching isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is that you've chosen to pay people for doing nothing, and let them keep living on tax money indefinitely. Change those policies, and you'll get a better sort of immigrant.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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 didn't choose these policies. A labour government, and Bliar implemented these if I remember correctly. Wouldn't have had this shit under Thatcher. Bliar I think has taken on the title of "Worst Prime minster ever", at least in my eyes.
I didn't choose these policies.
I was speaking in the plural, not about you personally.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
" "damn foreigners" coming to steal our tax, just so they can send the money back home."
While it think open immigration is a good idea the sending money out of the local economy isn't. In both England and the US we need a strong levy on "money sent home". If someone immigrates here then this needs to be "home". You spend your cash here, you speak the native language, you embrace the native customs, you fly the native flag. (yes the last one is a sore point with me)
We are all just people.
"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."
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!
Really? I came to the UK with a VC funded company I co-founded. We brought with us 20 people, all of who paid tax. We employed 30 more for a while. The company had to scale back a few years ago, but every single one of the people who left found other high paid jobs and are helping to fund UK. I currently work for another startup and pay almost as much in tax every year as the average UK person earn. Over the last year I was also offered another position in another UK startup, VC funded and again started by two immigrants. For that matter, most of the local businesses where I live in South London were started and and are run by immigrants. Relying on anecdotal evidence will invariably give us biased viewpoints.
But, as I've found out, apparently my experiences in the matter "doesn't really count" because I'm white, from Europe (Norway to be precise), and not muslim. Conveniently, people complaining about immigration almost invariably find ways to redefine the "immigrants" to mean "low paid poor people that look different from us" - I hope you're not one of the people stooping that low.
They take priority over British citizens, because they are a 'minority'.
Really? Can you cite proof, please?
In fact, people who arrive in the UK without a proper work permit, visa or right to work (as a EU/EEA member state citizen for instance) risk being put in detention centers. Of the ones that don't, most are hard working and pay their taxes.
Ever noticed how most parking attendants in the UK are black? Turns out almost the only people prepared to take the level of abuse a parking attendant gets are Nigerian immigrants. Similar situations are found in many other professions that "native" British people just don't want to take, or aren't performing well.
Notice how Polish immigrants are changing the UK building industry? It's because British builders are shit - they overcharge, don't show up on time, and do an overall crappy job, while the Polish and other builders that come here do their jobs well and deliver on time. In fact, given the choice between hiring a British builder and a Polish builder, I'd likely pick the Polish guy even if I had to pay more. I have used a couple of skilled British builders, but they're the exception rather than the rule, and even the skilled ones tend not to understand the concept of delivering to an agreed timeframe.
Notice how nurses in the UK are often African or South Asian? In fact, this is one of the areas where immigration to the UK IS a problem, though not to the UK - the UK is sucking many developing nations dry of skilled workers, especially in the health field.
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!
Actually, immigrants save you a fortune in tax. It costs the UK far less to import skilled labour than paying child benefit, health care, school and university costs for a child born here and loose the tax revenues from the mother during maternity leave etc., and the immigrants that do come here to work far outnumbers the few that end up on benefits. Immigration is a net economic benefit to most industrialized countries that have reasonable unemployment rates.
The main issue with immigration is that in some professions it's "reverse aid" from developing nations to the developed nations.
And if you even think of bringing up citizens of poorer EU/EEA states, keep in mind that they are required to pay for themselves or leave unless they've been working in the UK for four years and apply for indefinite leave to remain (i.e. even though I've worked here for 6 years, if I become unable to pay my way myself, I could get throw straight out despite having paid around GBP 150k in taxes and n
Eh.. Yes, you had this exact same "shit" under Thatcher. People just didn't talk as much about it because too much else went to hell thanks under her rule. "British welfare" is a joke compared to most of the rest of Europe, and Labour haven't done much to reverse the brutal cuts of the Thatcher era.
As an immigrant myself, who is paying on average around 25K GBP a year in taxes and NI (in other words, I'm paying about an average UK salary), who's never received a single penny in welfare payments, I get rather pissed off at assholes like you making generalizations. In fact, all the immigrants I know fall in the "inventive" kind - at least half a dozen of which are co-founders of VC funded startups, and paying similar levels of tax as I am.
Your comical (literally) argument is a bit flawed. You are operating under the assumption that not learning the local language will not hinder the immigrant. This is hardly the case. Sure, forcing immigrants to learn English may seem like a "racist" or "intolerant" idea, but lets look at it realistically: If you move to the US not knowing anything but Spanish (or move to France not knowing anything but English, for that matter), you are going to have a hard time making money and operating in our economy and our political system. When you can't read road signs, can't read tax forms, legal documents, or even a voting ballot, and can't speak to the majority of the other citizens of this (or any) country, you are going to have a difficult time being a productive member of society. This, then, is the primary reason that we (and most other countries) require english proficiency as a requirement for legal immigration. If you have a subset of the country that can't speak the language, then whether they are laborers or brain surgeons they are going to be a drain on the country, as they cannot be as productive as english-speakers, and money must be spent either to teach them the language (which many would probably not do), or spent ensuring that they can survive without work, or with a low-income job. Plus, you have the issue of safety. I worked construction in the summers when I was in college, and in Kansas, we had a large number of mexican immigrants working as laborers (most of whom, no doubt, were illegals or descendents thereof). A large portion of those I worked with either didn't speak english, or spoke it very poorly. Trying to tell someone who doesn't speak your langauge what to do (for instance: MOVE! Something is about to fall!), is not an easy task. If that person can't understand, and subsequently is hit by falling debris, how are they going to inform the hospital workers what is wrong if they are injured (or sick)? How are they going to be able to read road signs or understand safety hazards on labelling?
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.
Without legal status of British resident, immigrants have no right to welfare or housing. If the status is granted, all British residents have the same priority. There are many immigrants who come to the UK to work hard and improve theirs and their family's way of life. There are also many British born layabouts, drug dealers, illiterate ASBO holders and other burdens on society. Do you focus on the immigrants because they are willing to work for what you want and because some of them aren't white?
Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
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.
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
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 =~
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.
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
"But there's plenty of illegal Mexicans who start just looking for a few bucks to send home"
No doubt. I don't blame them, Given the level of corruption and crime in Mexico I would do the same myself. I do blame our corrupt government that fails at it's most basic duty, to guard our borders.
I do resent that the VAST MAJORITY of illegal Mexicans become the lowest level workers in our society being exploited as, essentially, a slave labor force. This impedes the development of equipment that would do this "moron" labor because slaves are sooo much cheaper. That means not just cheap labor jobs are lost but engineering jobs, manufacturing jobs, jobs that pay a living wage to people that would CONTRIBUTE to society rather than leach off of it. Illegals, in general, increase crime, increase automobile accidents, vastly increase the number of illegal drugs floating around, feed off welfare they have NO entitlement to (as illegals) and generally take advantage of a situation that weakens the US and makes many peoples lives worse. Remember that silly garbage when all the wet backs went on strike in LA and we had the best traffic day in 20 years!! That's what illegals do for us.
We need to seal the border and ship the illegals home. If they want to return, fine, let them do it the legal way. Maybe if they were forced to stay in Mexico they'd find a way to make that country worth living in rather than damaging ours.
Though this is our governments fault I can't help resenting those that do the damage.
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.
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.
The language issue is a red herring.
First off, the vast majority of immigrants to the U.S. want to learn English. They aren't stupid. They understand that learning the local language gives them many advantages and opens up opportunities. My sister taught ESL in New York City for a while. The classes were always full. The problem isn't an unwillingness to learn, it's a lack of educational resources. Another way we have disinvested in our country and its people.
The first-generation Germans, Italians and Hungarians that emigrated to the U.S. didn't know English either and generally had the same difficulties learning it. But guess what? Their children soaked it up.
In my opinion, the REAL immigration problem is the illegal Swedes up in northern Minnesota. Believe me, they are up here. Bastards.
Clever.
Neither of us is talking about a no-borders policy.
I am happy to work with whomever can help make our society more just. If that is George W. in this case, so be it. I am not the rabid partisan you make me out to be.
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
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.
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.
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
Illegal immigrants are physically in the territory being governed, but they aren't being governed themselves.
They do not fit within the legal system, and as such cannot be held civilly or crimially liable. Many other similar disparities exist, so I don't see how they can be considered "governed".
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Not too good considering there are about 10,000,000 mexicans in California.
All I can say is that you must have a stunningly good accountant! I'm also an immigrant to the UK, and I pay between £30-35k per year in taxes and NI. That's even AFTER coming off of my emergency tax code that I had when I got here.
:)
Having said that, the area I live in has recently been flooded with new EU immigrants. There are a lot of LT, RO and PL number plates on cars in my neighborhood and some of these people really are taking from the rest of us. Most of the vehicles are not paying road tax (although they do still contribute through fuel tax), many are uninsured from the police I've had conversations with in the neighborhood, and very few of them would get through an MOT so they are more dangerous to other cars.
The big plus I guess is that they don't pay the congestion charge
Many immigrants from the recently added EU countries are unskilled or manual labourers. I know that a lot of them have struggled to find work despite the construction and hospitality industry in London booming. They're not mooching off of welfare though (I'm not even sure that they are entitled), but are instead living miserable lives.
While this may not be related, drug and vice related crime in my area has soared since the additions of these new countries, and many of the suspects / alleged doers are of eastern European origin from the recently added countries.
I guess what you can learn from this is that while immigration is a good thing, you need to have a structured system in place to support these people, especially in the case of mass immigration as we are seeing now. There needs to be some way to help these people find the right place in the country to be, where their skills are the most needed and their chances of finding gainful employment are at their highest.
So what if he does 'pocket his options and sod off back to Norway' ? He's already directly contributed £150,000 to our government through tax and NI. A conservative guess based on that tax figure, he's probably also contributed about £150,000 to the economy unless he's been saving everything to go home. That's all beyond the jobs he's created and economic contributions that result from that.
Yeah, you're right... he's an evil conniving furrin git just here to rape our horses and steal our wimmin... Oh no, wait - even those are better where he comes from (well, the women at least, I am not familiar with Norwegian horses)
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.