And how do you make sure your getting students on Merit and not on wealth or social status how do you get the self taught Steve Woznick from say Nigeria, Keynya or Argentina
In the UK one establishment in London was shut down as they found a massive number of their "students" working in restaurants in brick lane.
I hate to break this to you, but if you're rich enough, you can already essentially buy an EB-5 visa by doing the right sort of investing:
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent...
Also, the USCIS is self-funded from application fees, so letting a few rich people pay huge amounts could actually lower fees for everyone else.
But yes, overall, the system is hell to navigate as I know from having hired lawyers and filed papers with them myself. It's already quite unfriendly to anyone who isn't capable of jumping through complicated hoops.
For example, recently they started rejecting applications that leave any field blank, so you must write N/A or 0 or whatever as discussed in the instructions.
Except the PDF validation doesn't allow a slash in there, so how do I ensure the system doesn't think I have 5 kids named NA NA NA? And 00/00/0000 isn't exactly a valid birthday, either. And some sections say "only fill this out if xyz" making it unclear whether the instructions to leave nothing blank or those instructions should take precedence.
Oh, and the Adobe digital signature thing is broken, so you can't actually fill it out with Adobe Acrobat... which they specifically recommend and have to find other PDF software.
They also specifically state that height should be entered with a leading zero, their example being 5' 09" ... and the PDF does not permit that leading zero, leaving you with 5' 9" contradicting their own example in the instructions.
Yeah, I filled out what I could in a different PDF viewer, printed it, then complied with the instructions by fixing the problems with a pen because we can lose status if they had decided not to accept the application in time. It worked, but the whole thing is just an exercise in frustration.
What was the name of the university?
Foreign students are generally allowed to work part-time in the UK, so there has to be a bit more to the story than this.
Grad School programs are not that hard to get into or even pass.
'True H1Bs' - used what they are meant for and not as 'Infosys Visas' possibly altered a little bit for flexibility, I think are closer to what is needed.
If you take the best talent from the developing world and move them all to America for education and then capture their talents through migration, you deprived the developing world of the talent they need to develop and thrive, which puts the developing world even further behind!
Seems like if we want to help the developing world we need to train and equip their talented people and ensure they have the security and infrastructure to build their homelands into developed nations with established trade routes, etc.
Or we can continue to exploit developing countries by snatching their top talent. It’s not modern day slavery, but it seems to be uncomfortably close in its exploitation.
People won't return until the country improves, and the country won't "strive to improve" until the educated return.
Yes. Research shows that when more people are educated abroad (i.e. 'siphoned off') this tends to improve attitudes towards democracy and liberal values in the source country. This directly addresses one of the main factors explaining expats' attitudes towards coming back.
"Migration is an important yet neglected determinant of institutions. This paper documents the channels through which emigration affects home country institutions and considers dynamic-panel regressions for a large sample of developing countries. The authors find that emigration and human capital both increase democracy and economic freedom. ...Simulations show an impact of skilled emigration that is generally positive, significant for a few countries and for many countries once incentive effects of emigration on human capital formation are accounted for."
In that case whether justified of not, whether it should be stopped or not it is not a "win" for the home country people are leaving.
I am not arguing for or against, I am arguing that the pointed problem is not fabricated.
You move to America and work there.
How does the source community gain from the loss of their doctor?
Should people really have to swim upstream all their lives in societies they don’t want to be in?
As an emigrant, and the owner of a brain, I find that idea abhorrent.
I see many famous athletes who go to their hometown in America and invest in under developed neighborhoods they grew up in, and see that as a model for investing in communities on a global level.
It seems better than taking the best talent and allowing the cycle of poverty to continue.
Why is extracting talented humans from the developing world good for the developing world?
But those athletes became famous and successful precisely because they were allowed to leave and pursue their dreams - had they been stuck in their hometowns they wouldn't have achieved anything of the same caliber. If it's okay to leave your hometown, why isn't it okay to leave your home country?
The notion that people are beholden to the country they're born in is absolutely braindead. You're basically saying that a person born in a gutter should stay in that gutter because the gutter might benefit from it.
And there’s another dimension: what if the source country didn’t welcome the emigré? Should someone be forced to contribute to a society if they are not wanted?
I was surplus to requirements in my birth country so I left. Others I know left their birth nations for the new world because they are gay or atheist or a minority and didn’t feel welcome.
Talented or not, these people should be able to apply to move where they want to go.
Why would you want to deny those individuals their right to wealth and a more comfortable life?
Is it fair to the less talented people of a developing nation that America takes the best doctors and teachers? Doesn’t that harm the development of that nation?
> I want to distribute the talent and opportunity for success to bring up the standard of living globally instead of focusing all the success, opportunity and wealth in developed countries
This is assuming that talent in developing countries will be able to leverage their talent in those countries. These individuals are more than capable of sending back capital that they earn in the US if they choose to do so. Also, global standards of living continue to improve due to the advancements made in developed countries.
>Is it fair to the less talented people of a developing nation that America takes the best doctors and teachers?
The US isn't taking anything, individuals are moving to where they will be most productive.
>Doesn’t that harm the development of that nation?
Possibly? Do the developing countries that these people are coming from appreciate their talent?
Pick a single country and a few cities, and run a pilot project.
Take a bunch of people and train them in the USA, and send them home with a security force, and construct the basic infrastructure required and slowly expand the city with clean water, food, businesses.
But by bit build a better world.
Or, continue to capture the best and brightest, and ignoring the brain draining of the developing world and hope that they figure it out on their own.
I would love to see this kind of interventionism but after Iraq this isn't politically feasible. Also I don't think most developing countries would support this.
>Or, continue to capture the best and brightest, and ignoring the brain draining of the developing world and hope that they figure it out on their own.
Developing countries get to leverage advances made in developed countries which also them to develop much more quickly.
Honduras is betting big on it. Called a ZEDE ('Zona de Empleo y Desarrollo Económico'). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_for_Employment_and_Econom...
I'm trying to divine the origins of this "right" that highly talented individuals have, to move where they whilst to best avail themselves of opportunities, and what sort of strength and dominance they can contribute to the place they move to...that, if these qualities do emerge from highly talented individuals, why did they do them no good in the place they're moving _from_?
Because institutions and environments matter. Einstein wouldnt have been able to contribute nearly as much to humanity 5000 years ago as he could 80 years ago.
Why would you want to deny those individuals their right to wealth and a more comfortable life?
So now, it is not a right, but merely a beneficial arrangement so obvious as to be axiomatic?
Yes, institutions and environments matter...so much so, that one should be very, very careful about how they might be changed or altered, and how the benefits are calculated, and by whom...
High talent immigrants are objectively beneficial to the US and to those individuals.