once they learn that the US's infrastructure IS a key reason why the US is the #1 tech country - they'll be back.
The key reason the US is the #1 tech country is because tech workers like to live in the US. If you prevent tech workers from moving here, the tech industry will go where the people go.
Billionaires/millionaires don't need H-1B visas; they simply get an investment visa. I think they effectively "cost" about a million dollars (other countries have them too, but the US is one of the most expensive ones).
Right now, H-1B's are assigned haphazardly to companies regardless of salary; that is, one after another, one H-1B may go to a $60000 programmer, and another to a $250000 expert.
Presumably, under the new rules, H-1B's would go to the highest paid positions first. That is, DHS would sort all visa applications (for the year or quarter) by salary, in descending order, and give out H-1B visas in that order until they run out.
This actually is probably a good change: it means that visas go to the most economically valuable positions and it pretty much ensures that people don't get hired as cheap replacements for US workers. It's similar to the idea of auctioning off the H-1B visas, which has also been discussed.
Oh, this will get you outsourced even faster: instead of hiring a portion of foreign workers, companies will simply move big parts of their operations overseas.
Travel with valid passports and visas is not traditionally risky, at least not among civilized countries.
Well, and it still isn't "among civilized countries": Western Europeans, Americans, Canadians, and Japanese can still travel with no problem between each others' countries.
There's no way a scientific conference should be held in the US now, since anyone from another country presenting a paper and trying to enter with proper documentation can, according to Trump, be arbitrarily barred.
You really don't get out much if you think this doesn't happen in other countries.
Heck, the way things are going, several European countries are poised to move far to the right of even Trump.
Well, if you're a 35 year old male Middle Eastern refugee with no other documentation, I suspect that kind of LinkedIn profile would probably help you a lot.
If you are a 35 year old Swiss national with a passport and no criminal record, they won't even ask for it.
That point is moot, since Trump reversed himself on the entry of people holding green cards.
Nevertheless, a green card doesn't give you an enforceable "legal right". (In fact, there are few rights even citizens can enforce against the federal government.)
Except that Trump is apparently issuing illegal executive orders [...] Heck, the President can pardon people who have been convicted of crimes, but can't convict them himself.
Trump isn't "convicting" anybody, he is temporarily denying entry to people from certain countries. As most people read immigration law, that is well within his authority. It's politically tone deaf, it screws up the lives of immigrants, and it's ineffective, but I have yet to see any evidence that he lacks authority to do it, let alone that it is "illegal".
And, except perhaps to pampered first worlders, this shit happens. I've been in limbo waiting for visas, and friends/colleagues have been turned away at destination airports. The hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the American left and Europeans on this matter are just laughable.
Correct. American border control is looking for evidence that you can be trusted. If they can't find evidence, you don't get admitted. For admission from places like Western Europe and Japan, that evidence is given by official police reports and government records, which the US checks before you even arrive at the border. For places where no reliable information sources exist, the US relies on interviews, giving you a chance to make a good case for yourself.
And neither of those individuals are currently President. If Trump supporters want people to judge him fairly, they need to quit wit the "But Obama..." and "But Hillary..." excuses.
I'm not a Trump supporter, I'm a realist. American presidents often use their powers frequently in unwise ways, and the way to address it is through the political process. And it's been getting worse, since both parties have been shifting more and more power to the federal government.
You want real progress in the US against the unwise use of political power by presidents? Get over your D/R partisanship, oppose progressive/social democratic/conservative conceptions of government, and work towards limiting the power of the federal government altogether.
You know, actual liberalism instead of the authoritarianism we get from both Democrats and Republicans.
I guess you don't read the news, huh. Here's an example of several different judges blocking parts of that executive order:
In different words, you have nothing other than an inference from an injuction. Glad we cleared that up.
Besides, given what a horrible place the US is according to you, in post #53759567. And we both know it's a lie.
No, it's not a "lie" it's my opinion of you, just like I find you to be politically and technically ignorant. You may bristle at that opinion, but that's your problem.
It might also make it APPEAR that you are harmless.
My Facebook and LinkedIn profiles are many years old, with hundreds of American friends each, each of which themselves have been on those services for many years. How are you going to fake something like that?
And if I were an immigrant stuck at the border with little other documentation, I certainly would hope that saying "here is my LinkedIn profile, see I have been working in the US and with Americans for a long time" could help my case. This is really no different from the other personal interview questions US border control ask. You can eliminate those questions and stick to easily documented facts, but that would simply exclude many people from third world countries altogether.
It is about as useful as looking at a persons skin color. Oh.
Actually, in any given country, ethnicity tends to correlate strongly with factors like wealth, crime, education, etc., in particular when other sources of information are unavailable. In the US, we choose not to use it in decision making because we value equality, not because it doesn't give you useful information.
So actual terrorists need only create some fake social media accounts with photos of cats and a few likes on bacon recopies to establish how harmless they are.
What I'm interested in is the notion that it is immoral to do something that is against the law or contrary to the legislative branch, or to straight up ignore democracy entirely.
Legality and morality are two separate concepts. Furthermore, democracies frequently produce laws that don't represent the preferences of the people. So, why would it be automatically immoral to violate laws?
Do you consider the matter settled and it is definitely immoral
Do I consider what matter settled? The question of how immigration should function in progressive welfare states and democratic nation states? I think that matter is pretty much settled: nobody has a right to immigrate into a progressive welfare state. That's pretty much universally recognized.
or are people like anarchists sufficient enough to have the matter still be in the unresolved category?
That's a different question. Under an anarchical, minarchical, or libertarian form of government, restrictions on immigration are unacceptable, immoral, and unnecessary; that's because under those forms of government, I can choose personally not to associate with people I judge to be hostile to me, to discriminate against them in housing and employment. In a democratic nation state, I don't have those choices, but I do have the choice to vote against letting such people immigrate. If you deprive me of both the personal choice and the political choice, then the society has ceased to be free in any meaningful sense and become authoritarian.
President Obama neither wrote nor signed the order
Indeed he didn't. I'm just pointing out that Obama determined that these countries were of special concern for the purposes of immigration, so Trump's choice of these countries isn't arbitrary.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, data says...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124...
What does that have to do with what I said?
The NYT doesn't have anything concrete either:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
As for the judge, she only imposed a stay for people who have already landed on US soil, and that's not an issue anymore.
And what does that have to do with anything I said?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The key reason the US is the #1 tech country is because tech workers like to live in the US. If you prevent tech workers from moving here, the tech industry will go where the people go.
Billionaires/millionaires don't need H-1B visas; they simply get an investment visa. I think they effectively "cost" about a million dollars (other countries have them too, but the US is one of the most expensive ones).
I agree. And it makes you wonder why Obama didn't manage to do this in eight years in office. This really seems like a no brainer.
Right now, H-1B's are assigned haphazardly to companies regardless of salary; that is, one after another, one H-1B may go to a $60000 programmer, and another to a $250000 expert.
Presumably, under the new rules, H-1B's would go to the highest paid positions first. That is, DHS would sort all visa applications (for the year or quarter) by salary, in descending order, and give out H-1B visas in that order until they run out.
This actually is probably a good change: it means that visas go to the most economically valuable positions and it pretty much ensures that people don't get hired as cheap replacements for US workers. It's similar to the idea of auctioning off the H-1B visas, which has also been discussed.
Oh, this will get you outsourced even faster: instead of hiring a portion of foreign workers, companies will simply move big parts of their operations overseas.
Well, and it still isn't "among civilized countries": Western Europeans, Americans, Canadians, and Japanese can still travel with no problem between each others' countries.
You really don't get out much if you think this doesn't happen in other countries.
Heck, the way things are going, several European countries are poised to move far to the right of even Trump.
Well, if you're a 35 year old male Middle Eastern refugee with no other documentation, I suspect that kind of LinkedIn profile would probably help you a lot.
If you are a 35 year old Swiss national with a passport and no criminal record, they won't even ask for it.
I don't. I think Trump is a lousy president, inexperienced, and not very smart. I also think this immigration order was a bad move. Nevertheless...
Mostly that comment just brands you as politically ignorant, and probably a fascist yourself.
Sorry, but you're delusional.
Well, except for Clinton.
That point is moot, since Trump reversed himself on the entry of people holding green cards.
Nevertheless, a green card doesn't give you an enforceable "legal right". (In fact, there are few rights even citizens can enforce against the federal government.)
Trump isn't "convicting" anybody, he is temporarily denying entry to people from certain countries. As most people read immigration law, that is well within his authority. It's politically tone deaf, it screws up the lives of immigrants, and it's ineffective, but I have yet to see any evidence that he lacks authority to do it, let alone that it is "illegal".
And, except perhaps to pampered first worlders, this shit happens. I've been in limbo waiting for visas, and friends/colleagues have been turned away at destination airports. The hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the American left and Europeans on this matter are just laughable.
Glad to hear it!
Correct. American border control is looking for evidence that you can be trusted. If they can't find evidence, you don't get admitted. For admission from places like Western Europe and Japan, that evidence is given by official police reports and government records, which the US checks before you even arrive at the border. For places where no reliable information sources exist, the US relies on interviews, giving you a chance to make a good case for yourself.
I'm not a Trump supporter, I'm a realist. American presidents often use their powers frequently in unwise ways, and the way to address it is through the political process. And it's been getting worse, since both parties have been shifting more and more power to the federal government.
You want real progress in the US against the unwise use of political power by presidents? Get over your D/R partisanship, oppose progressive/social democratic/conservative conceptions of government, and work towards limiting the power of the federal government altogether.
You know, actual liberalism instead of the authoritarianism we get from both Democrats and Republicans.
In different words, you have nothing other than an inference from an injuction. Glad we cleared that up.
No, it's not a "lie" it's my opinion of you, just like I find you to be politically and technically ignorant. You may bristle at that opinion, but that's your problem.
My Facebook and LinkedIn profiles are many years old, with hundreds of American friends each, each of which themselves have been on those services for many years. How are you going to fake something like that?
And if I were an immigrant stuck at the border with little other documentation, I certainly would hope that saying "here is my LinkedIn profile, see I have been working in the US and with Americans for a long time" could help my case. This is really no different from the other personal interview questions US border control ask. You can eliminate those questions and stick to easily documented facts, but that would simply exclude many people from third world countries altogether.
Actually, in any given country, ethnicity tends to correlate strongly with factors like wealth, crime, education, etc., in particular when other sources of information are unavailable. In the US, we choose not to use it in decision making because we value equality, not because it doesn't give you useful information.
You are welcome to test that theory.
Legality and morality are two separate concepts. Furthermore, democracies frequently produce laws that don't represent the preferences of the people. So, why would it be automatically immoral to violate laws?
Do I consider what matter settled? The question of how immigration should function in progressive welfare states and democratic nation states? I think that matter is pretty much settled: nobody has a right to immigrate into a progressive welfare state. That's pretty much universally recognized.
That's a different question. Under an anarchical, minarchical, or libertarian form of government, restrictions on immigration are unacceptable, immoral, and unnecessary; that's because under those forms of government, I can choose personally not to associate with people I judge to be hostile to me, to discriminate against them in housing and employment. In a democratic nation state, I don't have those choices, but I do have the choice to vote against letting such people immigrate. If you deprive me of both the personal choice and the political choice, then the society has ceased to be free in any meaningful sense and become authoritarian.
Indeed he didn't. I'm just pointing out that Obama determined that these countries were of special concern for the purposes of immigration, so Trump's choice of these countries isn't arbitrary.
That's why I said a social media account can be used to help you establish that you are harmless. It can obviously also hurt you.