Immigrants invest in U.S. businesses in exchange for visas
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
You could also let the market price the visas for you if you want, via an auction mechanic or something similar.
I'd like to see visas disappear.
The domino effect can happen – one state collapses and the people move to another state, which strains that state’s government and collapses that economy too.
I live in South Africa, and we basically have an open border policy (since the laws do not get implemented). There are a lot of illegal immigrants which significantly increases crime, puts strain on services and creates social problems. We have a broad unemployment rate of 40% - we can’t even provide jobs for our own people, let alone 4+ million illegal immigrants.
It's entirely for selfish reasons that I would like such a world to come about because it is the only future that I can envision where enough people will be pulling in the same direction to start solving the problems that we have.
We are currently wasting roughly 60% of the worlds mental capacity, we can not afford to continue to live in such a wasteful way much longer.
Pieces of paper to hold people out of places that they wish to go to ought to be a thing of the past.
I've lived in poverty and I've been too rich for my comfort and pretty much all the stages in between, there is no way that 4 million illegal immigrants would converge on any place in the world because they would be bringing their homes with them, literally.
What will happen is that just like with water vessels connected by a tube there will be a period of 'sloshing', overcompensating back and forth until some kind of equilibrium weighted by local conditions is arrived at.
That probably won't be a pleasant thing for many of us, but the sooner we get it over with the better.
The only people scared of that are those that are afraid to compete, and with the headstart that we've got competition should be the least of our worries.
The alternatives are very much worse.
As long as you are thinking in terms of 'our own people' you are completely missing my point, there is but one people.
The result of such an approach would be a repeated one step back (as with the above process I described).
> It's entirely for selfish reasons
There is nothing wrong with rational self-interest. Whether you like it or not, you act in your own self-interest repeatedly. Nothing prevents you from moving to 3rd world countries (instead of moving a third world country to you).
> Pieces of paper to hold people out of places that they wish to go to ought to be a thing of the past.
Why? People only come into my home when I invite them inside. Why should it be different with countries?
> there is no way that 4 million illegal immigrants would converge on any place in the world because they would be bringing their homes with them, literally.
You would be surprised.
> The only people scared of that are those that are afraid to compete, and with the headstart that we've got competition should be the least of our worries.
Competition is the least of your problems. The first and biggest problem is crime – crime levels (including organised crime and violent crime) that increases extremely rapidly.
The second problem is any public services that will simply get flooded – a good example in my country is health care. You will simply end up without access to decent health care.
The third problem is private property. Immigrants will squat on your land depriving you of its use (without compensation). If you own land near the land where they squatted, it will be virtually worthless because of the associated theft and crime (see point one).
And fourthly, if immigrants vote, they will most likely vote for a kleptocratic socialist-lair which will increase your taxes and thoroughly destroy what is left of the country.
The only thing that changed is that the element in society that had it easy to parasite on the rest found that they suddenly had a harder time of it.
For the rest of us it is business as usual, with a whole bunch of advantages thrown in for free.
People that don't like a level playing field can't be much of a player.
There is a huge difference. For a country to go into the EU, it has a lot of requirements - it isn't just an arbitrary opening of the borders.
The EU would never allow a backwards developing country to become part.
> People that don't like a level playing field can't be much of a player.
The effect of mass immigration is usually worse on the lower strata of society (plumbers, manual labourers) - not me and you.
And yes, there are people who would not be able to compete - we can't all be rocket scientists.
In spite of those 'requirements' the differences are vast, and yet, for the most part people still live where they lived before the borders opened up. Not as stark as in South Africa, for sure, but very real nonetheless.
The plumbers and the manual labourers have some increased competition but nothing they can't handle.
The only difference probably is that what used to be illegal labourers are now legal labourers, with (for the most part, though there definitely have been documented cases of very bad exceptions) better living conditions.
We don't all have to be rocket scientists in order to be able to compete for work at a fair rate. If a Polish guy could do my job they'd be welcome to it, I'd do my best to educate myself to a level where I could compete again.
I've been self employed for a long time, and in spite of a huge influx of Polish, Romanian, Czech, Hungarian and former Jugoslavian citizens there has been hardly a ripple in the market. In fact, some of these people set a new standard for quality of workmanship, something the 'locals' had gotten a little laid back about for lack of competition.
Borders are arbitrary constructs created to foster areas of artificial scarcity and control of people, the world is a much better place without them.
It seems to me that you are scared of something, South Africa is a place that has a history of very strong inequality, likely the shockwaves of the change there will reverberate for a long time, especially because of the enormous differences between those that have and those that don't.
For Europe, the opening of the borders has been a major boost in the average quality of life here for many, it will still take decades before the distribution is more uniform but at least we're underway. 50 year too late.
All the poorer countries in the EU are stable democratic countries. They are poorer, but are set for enormous growth (that is why the richer countries wants them part of the EU – because they have much better growth potential than the most developed countries).
Also note that those crossing borders in the EU can’t vote in their newly adopted country (since they are still citizens of their home country). So there are restrictions on many government services also.
> Borders are arbitrary constructs created to foster areas of artificial scarcity and control of people, the world is a much better place without them.
Private property is also an “arbitrary construct” but it doesn’t mean that they are bad. Borders allow government investment of taxpayer money in a country (this being used to benefit the tax payers).
> It seems to me that you are scared of something, South Africa is a place that has a history of very strong inequality, likely the shockwaves of the change there will reverberate for a long time, especially because of the enormous differences between those that have and those that don't.
Illegal immigration could cause the government to collapse, sending South Africa into a downward spiral and de-industrialising the country.
You have not addressed any of my concerns, but try to justify it with the EU (which is only a union with very select and stable countries, with them not becoming citizens of their “adopted” country).
A) In what country of the world could an American college graduate in a high-tech major field get off the plane and immediately start working with the prospect of long-term employment and permanent residence?
B) In what country of the world could a college graduate from India or China in a high-tech major field get off the plane and immediately start working with the prospect of long-term employment and permanent residence?
C) In what country of the world could a college graduate from an arbitrary country with an arbitrary college major get off the plane and immediately start working with the prospect of long-term employment and permanent residence?
D) In what country of the world could a person from an arbitrary country with no schooling beyond compulsory instruction get off the plane and immediately start working with the prospect of long-term employment and permanent residence?
E) More generally, which countries in the world enjoy net immigration rather than net emigration?
I know for sure that Canada has a different immigration policy from the United States. Here I would be curious to know whether most hackers think that Canada's policies are easier on, harder on, or about the same as United States policies for would-be hacker immigrants.
Features like these are pretty appealing to hacker types.
It is very rare for American companies to hire foreigners not already present in the US. They usually hire young people who've come to the US to study for a BS/MS/PhD. It's a myth that people can "get off the plane immediately start working".
It's exceedingly difficult for a foreigner to get hired to work in the US unless he's already in the US (IMHO, mostly because of the costs/hassles in doing an in-person interview, and the cornucopia of talent in the US).
Having said this, I still think the US has one of the best visa policies in the world.
To answer your question: so far as I know, India's work visa program is easier than USA's. But that means nothing because there's very little demand to go work in India. :)
Your statement is correct. My questions were asking for general information, and were not meant to imply anything about policy in the United States.
Having said this, I still think the US has one of the best visa policies in the world.
That's what I wanted to get a reality check about by asking my questions in the grandparent comment. I appreciate seeing your point of view.
The usual US process:
1. Find a company willing to employ you, even though you are not a US citizen / GC holder.
2. Find some way to start working for this company. For some nationalities (ex. Canadian), this isn't actually too bad. For most nationalities, though, if the company wants you to start working right away, they'll have to base you at a foreign office until you become eligible for an intra-company transfer visa, or are able to get an H1-B.
3. The company applies on your behalf for an H1-B. The big problem here is that there is an H1-B quota which is usually exhausted very early on. In years where the quota is exceeded, the system switches to a lottery, so even if you've been trying for the visa for many years, there's no guarantee you'll get it this year if the quota is exceeded.
4. The company applies on your behalf for a Green Card. There's a whole pile of stumbling blocks here:
-- There are overall quotas for the number of GCs that can be issued by way of employer sponsorship.
-- There are national origin quotas. If you're from western Europe, you're probably OK, but good luck if you're from India/China.
-- The employer has to do a labor market search to show that they can't employ a US citizen / GC holder for your job.
5. Apply for citizenship after 5 years
Usual Canadian process:
1. Apply for permanent residency. This is done on a points based system. The calculator is here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLish/immigrate/skilled/assess/index....
Some permutations that will let you through:
-- BSc + MSc + 2 years work experience + excellent English skills
-- BSc + MSc + 1 year work experience + excellent English + basic French
-- BSc + 1 year work experience + job offer in Canada (requires labor market check) + excellent English
-- BSc + 3 years work experience + excellent English + basic French
-- BSc + 4 years work experience + excellent English
2. Apply for citizenship after 3 years
Advantages of the Canadian system:
- The Canadian system has no quotas (either based on visa class or on national origin). Apparently, the government publishes "targets", but they don't cut off applications if the target is exceeded.
- In the Canadian system, no one is "sponsoring" you -- your flow through the immigration system is a matter between you and the government. This removes a whole much of incentives your employer might have to keep you at certain stages of the immigration process.
- Once you're admitted as a PR, you can work for anyone you like. There's no period where you are stuck on visas that tie you to a particular company. If you feel the business you're working for isn't paying you enough, you can simply quit and take a job elsewhere without jeopardizing your immigration status.
- Once you have a few years of experience, you don't even need a job offer to get PR in Canada. This lets you enter the country first, and then once you've settled, start looking for a job.
By the way, you highly skilled americans are welcome to work and live here ;-)
P.S. - I'm an Indian.
Even within the EU there is plenty of that, witness the friction between western Europeans and immigrants from Poland or Romania.
We have a long way to go in this respect.
Unfortunately some of the nicest countries it is difficult (e.g. Ireland).