All countries were settled by immigrants (except for maybe five in Central Africa.) Japan? Just ask the Ainu who's an immigrant. England? My people moved there shortly after the year 1066. Pick a country, go back into history and find the most recent influx of people - every country has one. Every country eventually decides (for one reason or another) that it doesn't want/need any more newcomers. Some day, maybe soon, the US will realize that we have plenty of people already and we don't want any more. To say the US was settled by immigrants is to say nothing useful. Of course it was, but so was every other country.
One man's immigration program is always another man's invasion. Just ask Native American/American Indians if the US was/is being settled by immigrants or by invaders. Yes, that includes you Quakers who wouldn't harm a fly.
Immigration and emigration is a zero sum game - if the US gets a new, high-quality worker then some other country just lost that same high-quality worker. Quite honestly, the other countries need these people more than we do. These are the best and the brightest and the hardest working and the most motivated. These are the people who will turn their homelands into functional democracies instead of the basket cases they must be (or these people wouldn't be so keen on coming here.)
If the US is super strong and all the other countries are weak and poor, then we just shot ourselves in the foot. It's a gobal world, people, we cannot stand alone. If India and China and Mexico are in worse shape so that the US can be in better shape, then what have we really gained? A weak Mexico exports both workers and instability. A poor India is too poor to import goods produced in the US. We want all these countries to be strong and rich and democratic and the only way that will happen is if they keep their educated workers who are determined to improve their life; so determined that if they have the choice, they are willing to come here cuz the US offers a better life. The US is rich enough and strong enough to let other countries be strong and rich, too.
The economics behind H1-B visas is very obvious - increase the supply to lower the cost. This is basic ECO 101 lecture stuff. If there were no H1-B visa holders filling these jobs, then the compensation offered to workers would rise to satisfy the demand. Business owners just realized that it was much cheaper to pay the politicians to raise the quota of imported workers rather than pay for workers directly.
Slashdot Mirror
He wishes he was the language police and since he's a judge, he thinks he knows everything.
The meaning of words changes over time. In the context of computers, the word "delete" has a very specific meaning.
This comment from the bench speaks much more about the madness of our current judicial system than it does about computers or programming.
Speaking of clarification on this issue -
All countries were settled by immigrants (except for maybe five in Central Africa.) Japan? Just ask the Ainu who's an immigrant. England? My people moved there shortly after the year 1066. Pick a country, go back into history and find the most recent influx of people - every country has one. Every country eventually decides (for one reason or another) that it doesn't want/need any more newcomers. Some day, maybe soon, the US will realize that we have plenty of people already and we don't want any more. To say the US was settled by immigrants is to say nothing useful. Of course it was, but so was every other country.
One man's immigration program is always another man's invasion. Just ask Native American/American Indians if the US was/is being settled by immigrants or by invaders. Yes, that includes you Quakers who wouldn't harm a fly.
Immigration and emigration is a zero sum game - if the US gets a new, high-quality worker then some other country just lost that same high-quality worker. Quite honestly, the other countries need these people more than we do. These are the best and the brightest and the hardest working and the most motivated. These are the people who will turn their homelands into functional democracies instead of the basket cases they must be (or these people wouldn't be so keen on coming here.)
If the US is super strong and all the other countries are weak and poor, then we just shot ourselves in the foot. It's a gobal world, people, we cannot stand alone. If India and China and Mexico are in worse shape so that the US can be in better shape, then what have we really gained? A weak Mexico exports both workers and instability. A poor India is too poor to import goods produced in the US. We want all these countries to be strong and rich and democratic and the only way that will happen is if they keep their educated workers who are determined to improve their life; so determined that if they have the choice, they are willing to come here cuz the US offers a better life. The US is rich enough and strong enough to let other countries be strong and rich, too.
The economics behind H1-B visas is very obvious - increase the supply to lower the cost. This is basic ECO 101 lecture stuff. If there were no H1-B visa holders filling these jobs, then the compensation offered to workers would rise to satisfy the demand. Business owners just realized that it was much cheaper to pay the politicians to raise the quota of imported workers rather than pay for workers directly.