I used to agree with you. I thought merit based was the best system. Until it was pointed out to me that it's a very biased system towards wealthy people from wealthy countries.
Merit based systems are usually based on advanced college degrees. Who are the kinds of people that get advanced college degrees? Well first you have to have had access to good primary education, and then good secondary education, and then a good undergraduate education. People from poor countries tend not to have those things, even the smart people from poor countries.
Our immigration system is to benefit Americans (a better economy is good for Americans). We don’t have the responsibility to make things better in other countries. It’s their government’s responsibility, not ours. Now, if they want to become the fifty first state in the union and we go thru the process and bring them in, ok.
I don't think jedberg's point is that we have a responsibility to make things better in other countries. Rather, I think the point is that if we only focus on indicators of "merit" that correlate with wealth we'll miss out on valuable, smart people who want to come to the US from a less wealthy background.
I think they are using “skills” as a proxy for wealth. As such this poor person with skills to them is being proxied as “wealthy”. Our system doesn’t care. We care that they have skills to bring to the table.
generally most merit systems use education as a proxy for "skills" and jedberg is (aptly) noting that this is generally a proxy for wealth and not for capability/skills across the broader populace.
Let’s say that ends up being the case. It’s their govs responsibility to set up programs to promote those people to us, not ours to hunt them down.
I don’t see why it’s our responsibility to do “equal opportunity” to a foreign population we have no responsibility for. We have this responsibility for our own population, yes, but others are out of scope completely.
If you take the step to agree that this would bias towards wealthy people, I'd take the next step and argue there isn't really evidence that letting only wealthy people become citizens actually makes the US a better place.
"Give me your cold, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to be free". Being an American isn't just about capitalism.
There is plenty of evidence that wealthy people are better citizens. They commit less crime, are more economically productive, and consume more goods and services from other people, thereby boosting the economy. A nation that only accepts wealthy immigrants would be a nation with less of the problems associated with poverty.
The questions are more like: 1. is this fair? and 2. would the reduction in number of immigrants be harmful to economic growth?
You aren't really engaging with the point I'm making. You are thinking in this close minded "What are the Q3 earnings"-sort of way.
What if there is something deep down, something idealistic like "Equality" and "Freedom" that should actually be a right for every person on earth? That you shouldn't have to have a Harvard education to claim? Isn't the USA the place that promises that opportunity? That you can strive and work hard, and make a better life for yourself and your family?
I'm not saying kick out the doctors and ceos, but being a doctor or ceo should not be the bar for entering the US.
That’s a private poem, not a government policy, never was.
We have a responsibility towards fellow Americans. If the Chinese have a bias against people from their countryside, it’s not up to us to fix their mess. We want people who can come here and contribute, not be welfare for them because their own country isn’t doing the right thing. We would not be doing “the right thing” by Americans if we subsidized this either.
> I thought merit based was the best system. Until it was pointed out to me that it's a very biased system towards wealthy people from wealthy countries.
This isn't accurate at all. Sure wealth might help with merit but it's not always the case. I would argue it can sometimes be harmful too (I know people who came from rich background but were later deported back because they failed their program, DUI, did drugs etc). I myself immigrated to Canada from a South Asian country with poor family background. Just because we are poor doesn't always mean we aren't or can't get educated. A lot of people (I am not saying all but I am saying a lot) in the poor parts of my country are the ones which go to public school and take as much advantage of the education opportunities available. Our country's previous President came from an extremely poor background, used to sell newspaper and tea on subway stations when he was a kid but grew up into one of the most recognized rocket scientists, developed 5 missiles and became the president. So poor doesn't always mean we can't work hard to achieve merit.
With my hard work, I was able to secure a decent scholarship in Canada. Canada has a merit based system and it works well. I also appreciate merit based system vs a lottery draw system US has as I would rather have people understand I came here because of my own hard work and merit instead of just because I got lucky or came from a rich background. That was one of the reasons I choose Canada instead of US many years ago for immigration because I would rather be chosen by merit instead of wait in a lottery as the current system in US. A lot of qualified people have been hesitant to try for US because they don't want to play the current lottery game. If US does change to merit going forward, we might continue higher education there.
Check out which country has the most pending backlog in green cards with estimated waiting list of 70 years for people going into the queue now a good no of which have higher education in USA.
We have better birthrates because we oppress more of our native population. Uneducated and/or poor people tend to have more kids because this is a rational strategy to grow a supportive family unit
Japan has almost negligible immigration. I don't think they even record statistics on it - last time they did a few years ago it was a total of 8000 people for a population of 125 million, compared to sweden which took 180,000 with a population of 10 million.
Japan is probably the closest the world has to an ethnostate and could well be described as ethno-supremacists. They don't cop any flack for this because they're not westerners and only white people can be guilty of racism and xenophobia because colonialism (which ignores the fact that japan was a brutal colonial overlord to korea and taiwan).
I don't think Japan is really a model you want to copy. The decades of a stagnant economy despite low interest rates shows that something is wrong.
Also, highly-qualified people aren't the only ones who make things better for everyone. Some sort of citizenship path for entrepreneurs would help, given that our number of new businesses have been in decline for years.
Not just Japan, Canada has it too. I immigrated from a South Asian country to Canada and even though it was a long and tiring process, it makes me appreciate this country more because it ensures the clean background, hard working and skilled ones get to come in. It took me 7 years to get my PR after University and another 2 years for citizenship.
> If a citizen is in the country and they want to bring their family over, that should be their right.
I do not agree. What constitutes family is arbitrary, but there are generally allowances (in most countries) for spouses and children who are still minors (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law). The allowances for spouses and children are not ubiquitous around the world.
The Clinton administration had a bit of trouble figuring out custom rules to what constituted "family". How many generations? What about anyone married to them and then from there on. It's legally logical to assume there's no connection between my French citizenship (received as an adult) and my brother (who is an adult).
US immigration law already has strict quotas for siblings. The backlog for sibling greencards stretches back decades. So sponsorship is possible in theory, but little used in practice.
The main sponsorship that's currently easier in the US than other countries is parents of citizens, who are considered immediate relatives and are not subject to quota.
Except Europe, Canada, the UK, Australia, China and almost every other country in the world would disagree. Immediate family is one thing, however US immigration family preference means that a illiterate cousin of an applicant has priority over a highly accomplished person with no family in the US. Spouse and minor children, certainly, and Trump’s proposal is in line with Europe and Canada in the regard. In fact, his proposal is more like Canadian immigration policy.
Honestly, Trump could propose single payer healthcare or universal pre-K and the anti-Trump crowd would oppose it.
A helpful exercise for people of both parties is to ask if you would agree with a given policy if “your guy” had said it.
It seems like a very outdated part of America's immigration philosophy, but it is such a fundamental part of American culture, that I'm shocked it has recently been relabeled and scorned as "chain migration".
Sure, "Talented Doctor Immigrant" migrates to the US and sponsors "Illiterate Cousin", but IC finds a less skilled role, and still has the familial support of TDI. In fact, oftentimes, this takes the form of small business loans. It's basically how every ethnic community in the US flourished, from German migrants settling the midwest to recent immigrant-fueled boons like the Indian population in Edison, NJ.
The system may be a little outdated in the globalized world, but it's a source of labor that mitigates the risk of antisocial consequences (IC turns to crime, is exploited at work, becomes a burden on the government, etc). I don't entirely agree that it's the "right" of a new immigrant, but eliminating it could have far greater consequences on the future of American than it may seem.
Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It destroys intellectual curiosity, which the site exists for.”
If you want to make a comment about the First Lady, you could have said “I wonder if Mrs. Trump would have qualified under the proposed standards.” That could have then led to a discussion of how visas had been allocated in the past. Calling her a mail order bride adds nothing to the conversation and instead just serves as a cheap shot based on a dislike of Trump rather than a debate on the policies.
>Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It destroys intellectual curiosity, which the site exists for.”
Half the posts on 'hacker' 'news' are for inciting political/ideological battles, including this article. It has nothing to do with the guidelines for what types of articles should be posted on 'hacker' 'news'. Or did you selectively choose to ignore those?
The way I see it, only those highly qualified shall apply. If an american can do the job, then an american should do it.