Slashdot Mirror
Immigrants Crucial To Innovation
gollum123 sends this excerpt from the NY Times:
"Arguing against immigration policies that force foreign-born innovators to leave the United States, a new study (PDF) to be released on Tuesday shows that immigrants played a role in more than three out of four patents at the nation's top research universities. Conducted by the Partnership for a New American Economy, a nonprofit group co-founded by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, the study notes that nearly all the patents were in science, technology, engineering and math, the so-called STEM fields that are a crucial driver of job growth. ... The Partnership for a New American Economy released a paper in May saying that other nations were aggressively courting highly skilled citizens who had settled in the United States, urging them to return to their home countries. The partnership supports legislation that would make it easier for foreign-born STEM graduates and entrepreneurs to stay in the United States. ... The study notes that nine out of 10 patents at the University of Illinois system in 2011 had at least one foreign-born inventor. Of those, 64 percent had a foreign inventor who was not yet a professor but rather a student, researcher or postdoctoral fellow, a group more likely to face immigration problems."
this is always confusing to me. People here illegally live somewhere. They have to at least pay rent, and at some point, the landlord or property owner is paying property taxes. This funds local government and schools, and seems to me that is just as much of a contribution to those as any other non-home-owning tenant. Also, working does often require a tax id or ssn. These are often forged or stolen for illegal workers. There is tax paid on the money earned, but it is credited to someone else who actually owns the ID being used. The illegal immigrant will never recoup the social security paid in this way.
no one wants to end immigration to america, our country was built on that concept, We simply want it done correctly. like our ancestors did
Kill everyone who's already living here, throw the survivors in reservations, and strip-mine all the resources? 0_o
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
This whole thing about immigration (legal or not) is simply ridiculous.
Like most industrialized nations, the rate of population growth of the US is declining. We would be under replacement rate already were it not for immigration.
The population growth rate is in decline even with the current rate of immigration, which is at historically unprecedented levels (about twice as many as the early 1920's).
Illegals make up a disproportionally large segment of the prison population, but overall, violent crime is way down. (Blacks also have a disproportionally large prison population.)
Thinking that the country cannot sustain the influx, or that these people will somehow reduce our standard of living by requiring more services, or increase the crime rate is simply not supported by the evidence.
Then there's the innovation. Jobs come not from existing businesses, but from starting new businesses, and from new-ish businesses growing large. Immigrants tend to make the most of their opportunities by inventing new things, starting new businesses, and encouraging their children get educated and become successful (source).
Then there's the infrastructure. Illegal immigrants don't contribute to the infrastructure by paying taxes (as much), but at the same time they become a burden on the infrastructure by avoidance. They avoid the hospitals until something becomes an emergency, they don't alert the police to minor situations before they get out of hand, and so on.
Then there's the exploitation. Illegal immigrants have no recourse when their employer abuses them.
It would almost seem, from a completely neutral viewpoint, that just allowing illegals to become citizens would be a win all around.
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is.
Perhaps someone can craft a reasonable sounding "what if" scenario that outlines the sophistry for me? I'm not having any luck identifying any evidence-based reasons.
"The Supreme Court TRIED to stop that practice by issuing decisions that the Indians did not need to move, but the slave-owning Democrats who were in charge (like Andrew Jackson) decided the Supreme Court can shutup, and moves the Indians anyway."
And this is an example of why the executive branch cannot and should not decide WHAT laws to to enforce a la cart. Imagine if Eisenhower decided he didn't like Brown v Board of Education (and he didn't) and wouldn't enforce it. These are dangers waters to wade...