They should be handed a permanent resident card with their doctorate. Maybe even Masters degrees, at least in STEM.
In other words, language requirements are not something we should copy from Canadian immigration policy.
I guess it worked "ok" for America historically because America abused and exploited so many immigrants for so long (go read "The Jungle"), but I don't think that's really something to emulate.
Just because a geographic concentration originated from forced-segregation policies over a century ago does not automatically mean those bad policies and pejorative status continues today.
> It's not really a good recipe for a safe, prosperous nation. [...] exploited so many immigrants
Hold up, I think the goalposts are moving a bit here: Earlier you said it was about "supporting themselves" economically.
However now it sounds like no amount of economic-self-sufficiency is enough--you're saying those people ought to be blocked/deported unless they can satisfy some ill-defined requirement about where they live and who they socialize with.
> bring in millions of people and all they can do is work as exploited workers in restaurants
I am doubtful that millions of people who *checks comment-thread* have doctorate degrees and PhDs will be arriving to work for the rest of their lives in restaurants.
If they do... well, then they're probably choosing it to escape something crappy enough that we should be letting them in for humanitarian reasons anyway.
1. If being unable to support themselves is the concern, why not make that the actual requirement to stay... Versus of an indirect and error-prone language requirement set by what are probably a bunch of old white monolingual men in Washington, DC?
2. Automatic translation tools have advanced by leaps and bounds over the last few decades.
That's a good idea. That's how it is here in Japan: knowing the language is good, and gets you some points on your visa, but it's not a requirement. If you have a high-paying job offer from a sponsoring company, and a good educational and professional background (or other factors, like if you're in academia), then that's good too. They figure you'll learn the language on your own in that case.
If you have no education and no way to support yourself, and can't communicate with anyone, why would they want you? Unless it's to exploit you. I don't think we should be promoting exploitation.
>Versus of an indirect and error-prone language requirement set by what are probably a bunch of old white monolingual men in Washington, DC?
US doesn't have a language requirement. We're talking about Canada, so you mean a bunch of white bilingual (English/French) people in Ottawa.
There are large pockets of all kinds of folks all kinds of places. There is even a city in Mexico with a huge Chinese population.
Americans travel all over expecting to just use English and get by (myself included).
You can absolutely do so, I've known many, Americans in Paris, Chinese in Mexico, French in America, on and on
Don't know who or what kind of analysis they did to pull that 1 billion number. It just shows how inane and stupid the entire US immigration and laws are.
Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2022/07/14/phd-i...
People who graduate are stuck in a weird love-hate relationship. You can't hate it because of the generous funding; you can't not hate it because of the insane politics behind immigration that tied to all sorts of historical notions of racial supremacy and so on.
I believe highly trained individuals in any field should be welcome and treated with respect and equal opportunity. Almost every field supplement each other and the society in some war or the other. I'd urge everyone to look at the declining quality of teachers everywhere. And what it results in? Go figure.
So, yes, if there are enough citizens and permanent residents meeting the current requirements and enough in school to meet projected demand, there's no need to offer a faster route in those fields.
I’ve got nothing against anthropology as a field or anthropologists themselves, but they wouldn’t even show up on the tech tree. You don’t need a PhD to be a school teacher and, frankly, we would be a lot better off if instruction was done by practitioners instead.