Actually, very few advocate that. In fact lots of people seem relative favorable to more skilled immigration, but it doesn't seem to happen. I'm sort of puzzled why.
Actually, very few advocate that. In fact lots of people seem relative favorable to more skilled immigration, but it doesn't seem to happen. I'm sort of puzzled why.
A good question would be, considering the billions spent on State education free at point of delivery, why the need to import skilled immigrants? Why can’t enough be produced in-Country?
Why the need to import foreign workers when there are millions of indigenous workers on welfare being paid not to work?
Is it moral for a rich Country to poach skilled people from a poor Country whose resources have been used to educate and train those people but who will now produce no benefit to that economy and provide the rich receiving Country with a benefit for no cost - thereby impoverishing the poorer Country for its own enrichment?
Is it moral to take low skilled people out of a poor economy therefore not available to supply the labour to help develop that economy?
The West has a strange way of helping poor Countries to develop, robbing them of skilled/unskilled labour, putting up tariff and non tariff barriers so they cannot easily sell higher value manufactured goods, only raw materials to which value is taken in the richer Countries.
As a first approximation if there is a highly mutually beneficial transaction to be made (and skilled immigration is surely that) I say remove the obstacle that is preventing it.
Is it possible that if our education system were more effective, there would be no market for immigrants. Maybe. But in the meantime, let's allow those mutually beneficial transactions.
Would allowing more skilled immigration harm the countries from which the immigrants come? Possibly, although much of the investment in producing the human capital that the immigrant brings is self investment and the possibility of immigration would be an incentive for more people to self invest. Plus as a matter of fact immigrants often remit part of the income from their vastly improved productivity. Plus the emigration could provide some incentive to polity reforms that would reduce the difference in wages between the source and destination countries. Compared to the harm done to others by our wars on drugs and terror and CO2 emissions, skill scarfing seems pretty minimal.
‘Would allowing more skilled immigration harm the countries from which the immigrants come?’
Yes!
That Country has invested its limited $$$ educating someone for the USA to take the return on the investment. It’s a Human resource that they have paid for which they cannot use to develop their economy…. it’s made them poorer.
Those poor Countries have considerably fewer trained skilled people than the US - why not export the US’s skilled to them if it’s a mutually beneficial transaction?
I'm fine with more immigration whichever way it goes. I think most countries, rich and poor, would benefit by allowing greater immigration. And if our allowing greater immigration is shown to be harmful to country X then we could use part of the income generated by allowing the immigration as a transfer to the affected country. I just doubt the harm will be great enough to generate much in compensation. But as a political matter, if paying "compensation" to the source countries needs to be part of the deal to allow the immigration, that's fine with me. Do you think concern with the harm to the source country is an important part of the reason we do not allow more immigration? Personally, I do not.
All of them. I pay no attention to what they say, or their mouthpieces say- I pay attention only to the fact that the southern border is open, and no one who isn't on a watchlist is sent back over it, but is instead released inside the border to go where they want.
I agree that we have not invested enough in processing infrastructure to properly carry out our laws regarding asylum and that has encouraged many people not eligible for asylum to take advantage of this weakness. I do not, however, blame that lack of investment exclusively on Democrats.
More importantly, it think border enforcement is a distraction from the real immigration problem, restriction on skilled and educated immigrants.
No, it isn't entirely the fault of the Democrats- I blame the Republicans in D.C. almost as much, but the Democrats are never going to change, the Republicans might if enough of them are replaced in the primaries.
However, you again dodge the issue- it isn't the lack of infrastructure- that is simply the excuse given by Democrats (and Republicans, too) so that actual real adjudication of claims of asylum can be made. Even if the infrastructure was in place, the Democrats would simply wave 99.9% of applicants through the process. It is things like this, Thomas, why don't really trust a thing you write on this Substack. Everything on a political angle is some sort of spin by you.
Actually, very few advocate that. In fact lots of people seem relative favorable to more skilled immigration, but it doesn't seem to happen. I'm sort of puzzled why.
A good question would be, considering the billions spent on State education free at point of delivery, why the need to import skilled immigrants? Why can’t enough be produced in-Country?
Why the need to import foreign workers when there are millions of indigenous workers on welfare being paid not to work?
Is it moral for a rich Country to poach skilled people from a poor Country whose resources have been used to educate and train those people but who will now produce no benefit to that economy and provide the rich receiving Country with a benefit for no cost - thereby impoverishing the poorer Country for its own enrichment?
Is it moral to take low skilled people out of a poor economy therefore not available to supply the labour to help develop that economy?
The West has a strange way of helping poor Countries to develop, robbing them of skilled/unskilled labour, putting up tariff and non tariff barriers so they cannot easily sell higher value manufactured goods, only raw materials to which value is taken in the richer Countries.
As a first approximation if there is a highly mutually beneficial transaction to be made (and skilled immigration is surely that) I say remove the obstacle that is preventing it.
Is it possible that if our education system were more effective, there would be no market for immigrants. Maybe. But in the meantime, let's allow those mutually beneficial transactions.
Would allowing more skilled immigration harm the countries from which the immigrants come? Possibly, although much of the investment in producing the human capital that the immigrant brings is self investment and the possibility of immigration would be an incentive for more people to self invest. Plus as a matter of fact immigrants often remit part of the income from their vastly improved productivity. Plus the emigration could provide some incentive to polity reforms that would reduce the difference in wages between the source and destination countries. Compared to the harm done to others by our wars on drugs and terror and CO2 emissions, skill scarfing seems pretty minimal.
‘Would allowing more skilled immigration harm the countries from which the immigrants come?’
Yes!
That Country has invested its limited $$$ educating someone for the USA to take the return on the investment. It’s a Human resource that they have paid for which they cannot use to develop their economy…. it’s made them poorer.
Those poor Countries have considerably fewer trained skilled people than the US - why not export the US’s skilled to them if it’s a mutually beneficial transaction?
I'm fine with more immigration whichever way it goes. I think most countries, rich and poor, would benefit by allowing greater immigration. And if our allowing greater immigration is shown to be harmful to country X then we could use part of the income generated by allowing the immigration as a transfer to the affected country. I just doubt the harm will be great enough to generate much in compensation. But as a political matter, if paying "compensation" to the source countries needs to be part of the deal to allow the immigration, that's fine with me. Do you think concern with the harm to the source country is an important part of the reason we do not allow more immigration? Personally, I do not.
LOL! The Democratic Party, by its very actions supports open borders, Thomas. Stop pretending otherwise.
Exactly which actions do you have in mind?
All of them. I pay no attention to what they say, or their mouthpieces say- I pay attention only to the fact that the southern border is open, and no one who isn't on a watchlist is sent back over it, but is instead released inside the border to go where they want.
You want to be a mouthpiece, that is fine by me.
I agree that we have not invested enough in processing infrastructure to properly carry out our laws regarding asylum and that has encouraged many people not eligible for asylum to take advantage of this weakness. I do not, however, blame that lack of investment exclusively on Democrats.
More importantly, it think border enforcement is a distraction from the real immigration problem, restriction on skilled and educated immigrants.
No, it isn't entirely the fault of the Democrats- I blame the Republicans in D.C. almost as much, but the Democrats are never going to change, the Republicans might if enough of them are replaced in the primaries.
However, you again dodge the issue- it isn't the lack of infrastructure- that is simply the excuse given by Democrats (and Republicans, too) so that actual real adjudication of claims of asylum can be made. Even if the infrastructure was in place, the Democrats would simply wave 99.9% of applicants through the process. It is things like this, Thomas, why don't really trust a thing you write on this Substack. Everything on a political angle is some sort of spin by you.
Now you are speculating, not talking facts. I have no interest in disputing your speculation. You started off talking about actions. What are those?