That's of course my pie in the sky 'we can get congress to agree on things' version. If I were president, I would simply make the h1b go to the highest bidder, so the people that enter the US are, supposedly, the cream of the crop. Yeah, that would make students return home vs someone with more skills and experience. The whole point of the h1b is to bring over people with skills we can't find here in the US.
Those countries are only afloat because of immigration. Their homegrown economies are uncompetitive ones based on resource extraction and the trades, and their populations are uneducated and unambitious.
According to who? You? One of the countries you specifically just listed has just tamped down on some immigration efforts [1].
[1] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-responds-unsu...
It's very interesting how NET migration figures are rarely mentioned when this happens. Yes migrants are entering NZ in record numbers but citizens and migrants alike are also leaving in record numbers. (not uncommonly for the exact reasons I mentioned - the NZ economy is not competitive and it's not a place educated, ambitious, career minded people can maximize their potential)
Still waiting for your citation about how to measure a populations "ambitions" and how that factors into economics. Maybe work on the source citing, and a bit less on the personal attacks.
It has definitely been noticed how immigrants don’t tend to work in the trades. It is one of the key issues reducing support for immigration due to a shortage of tradesmen and housing only becoming more extreme when you take in doctors and computer scientists instead of carpenters and plumbers. If these governments took in more people who actually were skilled tradespeople, there likely would be more support for immigration, but I honestly think the people who set immigration policy are mostly white collar types who do not respect tradespeople or understand the desperate need for them and just see them as uneducated bogans to turn your nose up at. It’s incredible to me how you observed one of she biggest problems with contemporary immigration but completely misinterpreted the situation instead of thinking “hmm, why are all these Australians working in a different line of work than me, maybe they know something I don’t!”
Canada only instituted a category based immigration system specifically to take in more tradesmen to START to remediate this problem in May 2023. If we were taking in way more tradesmen a long time ago, contemporary political issues wouldn’t even be issues because as we took more people in they would have been building enough houses for their countrymen to keep cost of living under control.
The problems with the economy you're mentioning are because of the exact reasons I mentioned - Australia and Canada are simple aren't competitive, dynamic economies, they're essentially glorified banana republics trying to pretend you can have a healthy economy based on resource extraction, fixing up each others houses for tax breaks, with a sprinkling of property developers building condos for foreign investors on top.
"resource extractions and the trades are some of the most objectively productive sectors of the population" "why are all these Australians working in a different line of work than me, maybe they know something I don’t" <-- this is comical, and so is attributing policies failing to immigration and immigrants.
In any case, people who think like you are in control so congrats and good luck with it.
Millions would come even from second tier countries if they could. Look at any war conflict, refugees would come to the western countries too, if allowed.
except even when white Western Europeans from first world countries immigrate, that too is also a problem because - you guessed it - they too be stealing dose jerbs
never mind that we’re talking about points based, highly selective visas for educated, experienced professionals, coming to work in fields the homegrown population don’t
> second tier countries
Maybe you didn't intend it, but your comment reads like you have an issue with immigrants of certain racial profiles. I'd suggest rewording, unless of course that was your intent behind the comment.
It also comes off as racist/supremacist to term certain countries as "second tier". Unless of course, that is intentional on your part.
Notice the phrasing, if you are against immigration, you are demonizing IMMIGRANTS. Not for instance the politicians who set immigration policy, it’s not them being demonized, it’s the immigrants being demonized!
Immigration being a net benefit to the economy is also a given. It is still a consensus to have immigration. Even far right parties want immigration. The question is more that if you take in more and more immigrants do you have unending economic benefits for the average member of the population and is more immigrants simply always better regardless of who they are or what they do?
We got to the point where immigration levels in Canada in 2022 were such that the population expanded by 2.7% year over year, which is enough to double the population in 26 years, despite the population having well under sub replacement fertility. Is that too slow to reap the real economic benefits of immigration? Should we ignore the provocateurs and believe studies and try to double the population every 13 years?
“Schools” would open up in strip malls and most of the students wouldn’t show up which existed simply to justify visas.
Some enterprising types would go out and take out mortgages and buy a house and have a dozen plus people living in it.
Public services like the healthcare systems and food banks saw overflowing demand. People were allowed to come to Canada to study with proof of just 10k of credit, which you will obviously blow through long before you complete a 4 year program, and that’s not actually enough to live in Canada.
Housing prices absolutely exploded in no small part to all of this, and in case you’re thinking maybe the immigrants will build more houses, Canada has about 9% of its population working construction compared to 2% of immigrants, because for some reason the immigration ministry was unconcerned with taking in immigrants who can build homes during a housing shortage.
GDP per capita has actually been backsliding, and while this is largely demographics and an aging workforce and low productivity, national bank of Canada economists pointed to there simply being more people and this spreading our economic output thinner. I do notice how immigration numbers are multiples of the number of new jobs in the statscan data. The jobs are also going down in pay over time.
Of course you are correct about these economies being uncompetitive but framing them as resource extraction economies is reductive and mostly wrong. These are service based economies for the most part. If anything, the main economic driver in recent times has been building and selling houses and products and services to people who want to live in the beautiful lands and breathe in the clean air of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia to new money bringing fistfuls of cash. You aren’t wrong about these counties being kept afloat by immigration, but this sort of thing is taking the air out of the rest of the economy though because it’s inflating cost of living and gutting the cost competitiveness of other businesses. Also we took in a whack of students who were fuck poor and went to school at a fake strip mall school they did not attend which does not seem like a wise strategy if we want this educated economic juggernaut of a population.
Framing these countries as uneducated is somehow even more wrong, Canada has repeatedly topped the entire world in numbers of those with a post secondary education despite grads constantly bleeding south. In no small part because Canada both has a shitton of student immigrants as I just mentioned and all these students subsidize the education for the rest of the students. It seems like education is not actually the key to economic success and in practice actually results in people getting bachelor degrees to do menial work so they can get hired over somebody with a mere diploma, while the most economically productive graduates fuck off to America.
You then have to have a whistleblower program to stop the inevitable practice of inflating the total comp on the understanding that most of it will be kicked back to the employer.
The article makes clear that many H1B aspirants are manipulated into indentured servant like conditions and debt. Selling H1Bs would just amplify that class divide.
I think the goal of the H1B system is to benefit American labor market, it's not a sort of "Ivy League" that is for elite reproduction.
Side note: my understanding is that there’s already a secondary lottery for people who hold a US masters (the advanced degree petition). If you are not selected in the first lottery, and you meet that condition, you get placed in a second lottery which has much better odds as there are far less people who meet this criteria (it also makes up almost 25% of the total H1-Bs granted). So basically each year you have 2 chances, and there are better odds for one of those chances.
It's not fair to uproot someone from a life they've already established, just to give someone else a chance.
Also, this is a US policy meant to serve US goals. Absolute fairness to some overseas person is not the point. It makes sense to favor an existing immigrant over a potential immigrant in similar way as it makes sense to favor a citizen over an immigrant.
So what? I don't see how that's relevant to the question, unless you're being unreasonably legalistic.
Also, I've known only one person in my career who came to the US on temporary visa who intended to leave. Everyone else's ultimate goal was a green card.
I also know immigrants who left after a few years, but only one had planned/wanted to do so from the start (and that's just because he didn't want to bother the uncertainty of trying for an H1-B).
If you propose that you have to defend it on policy grounds. I don’t like that idea at all, that decision is the function of a democratically elected government.
Who said anything about "admissions committee of private colleges"? 99% of the immigrant college grads I've known went to public colleges, most of which were not particularly selective.
And even if "admissions committee of private colleges" were given that exclusive power, that sounds a lot better to me than the mindless operation of an unjust lottery.
IMHO, all OPT visa holders should be given first dibs on H1-Bs, in front of the likes of HCL and Google bringing new people in.
It's not. A lottery is infinitely more fair than letting an unelected and unaccountable group of people on a college campus decide basic questions like who does and does not get to become long term members of our country's society.
You are the owner of a house and you have a tenant person X, that's living in that house. You let person X to live in your house. They in turn, paid you the rent regularly, took care of your house, and never gave you any reason to complain. Personally, person X built a garden in the backyard, got a dog, got married while living in that house and now live with their partner and 3 other kids that go to school, have friends and consider your house to be their house.
You were fair though. You were very clear to person X at the very beginning that at the end of every year, you will put them in a lottery system where the winning odds are 1 in six, and the other 5 people you are pitting them against can potentially replace them from your house. And if they don't win for three consecutive years, you will throw them out and get a new person, person Y that won the lottery to live in your house for 6 years. But you don't know anything about person Y, i.e. if they will pay you the rent, if they will take care of your house. But you are completely fine with it.
You were clear to them so it's not your fault. They should have been more careful about getting that dog or getting married because they knew there is a rather high chance that they would be kicked out. But they are dumb and they did it either ways. So its them not you.
However, if you put yourself in person X's perspective, you were doing everything right. You were a great tenant, you were paying rent, taking care of the house, and even got attached to the house, knowing fully that there was a high chance of you being kicked out.
I guess people are just dumb that way.
An immigrant has the right to live a life with dignity and not be deprived from human experience and oppressed and exploited just to have a chance to stay in the country and get a visa. What's shocking to me is that you think such a person is stupid!! Are you okay?
> Sponsored green cards take like 1.5+ years to process, so someone could be OPT the whole time but the employer would have to get the application rolling quickly after hiring or else risk their employee having to go back to their home country for some period of time when OPT runs out and the green card is approved.
Add to that:
1. Some (many?) companies do not file for green cards right away, because they like to keep their employees tied down with an H1-B. I think my employer has a policy of not applying for a green card until the employee has 5 years or service or something.
2. IIRC, there are country-based quotas for employment-based green cards, so it could take very much longer than 1.5 years to get one. E.g. I think it can take 10+ years for an Indian to get one. Though I think having an active application for one is enough to stay in country for H1-B holders (though I'm even less sure about OPT holders).
Did some policy change in the last 10 years to cause the wait times to go up? Because I just checked the USCIS backlog, and it looks like they're now processing Indian green card applications from 12 years ago, and I've known people who've gotten employment-based green cards in approximately that amount of time.
https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-pr...
I did scan some Cato institute blog post that claimed the wait is 134 years, but they're a biased advocacy organization (so have reason to exaggerate for political effect) and what they say conflicts with what I've personally seen.