High Skilled Immigrants

Is there any reason, moral or economic, for having the absurd restrictions on high-skilled immigrants that America does today?

Literally America tries as hard as possible to discourage the world's best and brightest from applying to universities; then, if they do, they try to get them to graduate and leave as rapidly as they can, thus consciously minimizing their economic value to us. Literally certain political segments of the U.S. are trying to go for a brain drain away from the United States. It's kind of comical, actually.

Archaic immigration laws? I dunno can u cite examples

Demographics are too high. Most illegals and refugees create problems in first world countries, also, if youre highly skilled in your own country, why would you leave?

Stricter immigration creates more high skilled immigrants, but it complicates foreign policy and UN relations.

@Sin: An anecdotal example would be a friend of mine who is one of the most brilliant software engineers I've ever met, yet is struggling to renew his visa because he didn't make it through the lottery and technically doesn't fall under any of the categories favored by the national interest waiver. Meanwhile, xenophobic, low-IQ trump supporters who wouldn't be able to implement fizz-buzz if they had fifteen years to prepare are waiving their flags and talking about how immigrants are ruining our economy. 🙄

Originally posted by Its2016
Demographics are too high.

You mean we're running out of room? That's absurd - it's equally absurd to think that a highly skilled immigrant would require a net draining of resources, given that their economic contribution would presumably be far above the mean anyway.

Most illegals and refugees create problems in first world countries,

Not the thread topic.

also, if youre highly skilled in your own country, why would you leave?

Is this a serious question? Better opportunities? Better pay? Better living conditions?

Stricter immigration creates more high skilled immigrants, but it complicates foreign policy and UN relations.

How?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
You mean we're running out of room? That's absurd - it's equally absurd to think that a highly skilled immigrant would require a net draining of resources, given that their economic contribution would presumably be far above the mean anyway.

Its not just one guy doing that lol.

Not the thread topic.

Is this a serious question? Better opportunities? Better pay? Better living conditions?

How? [/B]

Originally posted by Its2016
its not absurd. Increased immigration saturates job markets and house markets. This is partly why illegal immigrants live in bulks and squat all over the world.

Its not just one guy doing that lol.

still relevant to my argument of demographics. Were discussing immigration.

We're discussing highly skilled immigration.

okay, that ill admit was ignorance on my part. Having said that, high skilled in poor countries still end up getting shitty jobs in the rich countries. Polish graduates in UK factories or Russian scientists as US janitors for eg.

This just isn't true, at least not when the free market that you purport to love is able to function. A very high proportion of our universities and technical professionals are immigrants.

Stricter immigration prioritises the highly skilled for specific jobs. It benefits those workers.

That doesn't make sense. How does stricter immigration make it easier for highly skilled immigrants to get in? You're acting like low-skilled and high-skilled immigrants are competing with one another for jobs, which typically isn't true because they work in different fields.

It complicates foreign relations and the un because poor countries still be poor and human rights arguments and global economics. **** the UN.

Well, human rights are definitely important, although they aren't the focus of this thread. But the "stricter immigration" you champion hurts highly skilled labor as well, especially given how stupidly designed it is in the status quo.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
We're discussing highly skilled immigration.

Well, human rights are definitely important, although they aren't the focus of this thread. But the "stricter immigration" you champion hurts highly skilled labor as well, especially given how stupidly designed it is in the status quo.

Originally posted by Its2016
i seriously doubt any of that is true.

It's what the data tells us. Thirty six percent of Silicon Valley is foreign born; likewise, all six American nobel prize winners this year were first generation immigrants.

stricter prioritises the highly skilled. Im not telling you again.

🙄 All prioritization would do would be to mitigate its negative effect on the highly skilled; it wouldn't necessarily produce a net positive over the control (having looser policies). If your stricter policy reduces low-skilled immigration by 70% and highly-skilled by 20%, that's still 20% worse for the latter than the status quo. Likewise, the best case scenario is break even. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Even if i take out the demographics argument,

Which you still haven't articulated on in any capacity, except to blabber about low-skilled immigration which, as you can see, isn't the subject matter.

highly skilled immigrants dont always get high priority jobs. i dont think highly skilled immigrants get the jobs you think they get.

As usual, you base this completely on your gut. But even if we want to appeal to your intuition, your conclusion still doesn't make any sense. Why would a migrant farm worker be competing with a foreign software engineer for a job at Google? How does this conflict work exactly? Please elaborate.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
It's what the data tells us. Thirty six percent of Silicon Valley is foreign born; likewise, all six American nobel prize winners this year were first generation immigrants.

As usual, you base this completely on your gut. But even if we want to appeal to your intuition, your conclusion still doesn't make any sense. Why would a migrant farm worker be competing with a foreign software engineer for a job at Google? How does this conflict work exactly? Please elaborate.

Originally posted by Its2016
not everywhere is silicon valley.

The implication being that there's something about the Valley that allows high-skilled immigrants to succeed there and nowhere else? Wrong; they dominate graduate programs, science and engineering, nobel prizes (previously mentioned), and a variety of other professions.

Where's your counter-evidence?

no. Limiting immigration means higher standards immigrants must abide by, STEM, for example. This will lower the demographics, which is why i brought them up earlier. noted.

You didn't even remotely address what you just quoted. "limiting demographics" may decrease low-skilled immigration, but it won't increase high-skilled immigration. The best case scenario if we assume 100% vetting efficacy is break even. This isn't a matter of discussion - it's literally you not making coherent sense.

And in actuality, the vetting process we have today is horribly inefficient and frequently makes things difficult for highly skilled immigrants based on arbitrary quotas, underlined by the xenophobic sentiments shared by certain Americans such as yourself.

Your imagination is wilder than i previously thought.

You're so horribly ignorant about the subject matter it's kind of comedic. But what's worse is that I just provided you with a bunch of figures regarding the specific example (.i.e. Silicon Valley), and you proceed to ignore them in favor of your gut. You're willfully ignorant.

An engineer might end up with a sales assistant job due to being an immigrant.

You don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. Where are you getting this from? It's possible for some immigrants to under-perform, but the course of American history suggests that the net effect is the opposite. The Manhattan Project was mainly driven by immigrants, as was the NASA space program. Most of our nobel laureates are recent immigrants. And the tech industry loves them, given that they employ them as almost half of their workforce.

They dont really know the countries theyre in that well.

Cultural adaptation is usually doable, especially given that there's such a high demand😖upply ratio among employers for these employees.

I don't think you even understand your own arguments at this point, since you're basically arguing against yourself; you say that high-skilled labor is good so we should have stricter laws for some reason, but now you're saying that high-skilled labor just ends up in menial jobs anyway and therefore presumably isn't very good. Which is it?

Since low skills saturate the job market for migrants, the highly skilled are overlooked and ignored and blended with the majority of immigrants.

Once again, they're not competing in the same industries. Engineers and migrant farm workers do not go looking for the same work.

Barriers are created and its overall bad for everyone. Kinda like communism.

Your homespun pseudo-economics is literally the exact opposite of what anyone who has worked for a week in the tech industry, or any other highly technical field, would tell you.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The implication being that there's something about the Valley that allows high-skilled immigrants to succeed there and nowhere else? Wrong; they dominate graduate programs, science and engineering, nobel prizes (previously mentioned), and a variety of other professions.

Where's your counter-evidence?

Your homespun pseudo-economics is literally the exact opposite of what anyone who has worked for a week in the tech industry, or any other highly technical field, would tell you.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
@Sin: An anecdotal example would be a friend of mine who is one of the most brilliant software engineers I've ever met, yet is struggling to renew his visa because he didn't make it through the lottery and technically doesn't fall under any of the categories favored by the national interest waiver. Meanwhile, xenophobic, low-IQ trump supporters who wouldn't be able to implement fizz-buzz if they had fifteen years to prepare are waiving their flags and talking about how immigrants are ruining our economy. 🙄

Why bring up trump supporters in this for?

Because he's one of those incredibly naive people that feel only Trump supporters have low IQs.

Which actually means his IQ must be in the single digits.

I mean, because it's not like when people say immigrants are ruining the economy they are referring to the ones who come here and take up shitty jobs for much less pay, right? Nor is it the fact that the average illegal takes out more than he puts in. Or that around only half pay income taxes, nope! Those aren't factors.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Is there any reason, moral or economic, for having the absurd restrictions on high-skilled immigrants that America does today?

Literally America tries as hard as possible to discourage the world's best and brightest from applying to universities; then, if they do, they try to get them to graduate and leave as rapidly as they can, thus consciously minimizing their economic value to us. Literally certain political segments of the U.S. are trying to go for a brain drain away from the United States. It's kind of comical, actually.

If they're there legally then you usually have to pay them decent wages.

The current laws are probably there to reinforce the trend of underpaid IT-workers from India.

Originally posted by krisblaze
If they're there legally then you usually have to pay them decent wages.

The current laws are probably there to reinforce the trend of underpaid IT-workers from India.

Isn't it also possibly that the number of illegals that continually flood into this country..could have a factor on how easy it is to LEGALLY come here?

But wait no that can't be true, surely nobody would come here illegally if they knew it would have any kind of negative effect on legal citizens.

Originally posted by SquallX
Why bring up trump supporters in this for?

The people with low IQ are the ones voting for a career criminal who Russia paid $145,000,000 for 1/5 of all our Uranium.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
@Sin: An anecdotal example would be a friend of mine who is one of the most brilliant software engineers I've ever met, yet is struggling to renew his visa because he didn't make it through the lottery and technically doesn't fall under any of the categories favored by the national interest waiver. Meanwhile, xenophobic, low-IQ trump supporters who wouldn't be able to implement fizz-buzz if they had fifteen years to prepare are waiving their flags and talking about how immigrants are ruining our economy. 🙄

Originally posted by The Ellimist
@Sin: An anecdotal example would be a friend of mine who is one of the most brilliant software engineers I've ever met, yet is struggling to renew his visa because he didn't make it through the lottery and technically doesn't fall under any of the categories favored by the national interest waiver. Meanwhile, xenophobic, low-IQ trump supporters who wouldn't be able to implement fizz-buzz if they had fifteen years to prepare are waiving their flags and talking about how immigrants are ruining our economy. 🙄

Oh ok. Well im not good at quoting statistical analysis
..but speaking from personal experience I've yet to see a highly skilled immigrant fail at getting good employment. For example i work with alot of foreign contractors for the DoD. Mostly linguists and logisticians who help out with the war on terror. These guys make about low six figures to a quarter mill a year easy. Many have multiple degrees and are highly intelligent. The only detractors they say are the xenophobic natures of some Americans they encounter in the workplace. But many chop it up to ignorance as opposed to outright racism.

Im told that any issues with immigration generally affect those who dont have the capital to "buy" their way in.

Originally posted by Surtur
Because he's one of those incredibly naive people that feel only Trump supporters have low IQs.

Which actually means his IQ must be in the single digits.

A statement if P then Q does not necessarily imply the inverse that if not P then not Q. .i.e., saying that Trump supporters tend to have low IQs does not imply that only Trump supporters have low IQs.

Ironically, you try to insult my intelligence while failing logic 101.

Originally posted by Its2016
location. But you pretty much made my argument for me.

Can you state your positions a little more coherently? Saying "location" doesn't work when I presented data pertaining to several locations across the US from universities to tech industries, and moreover, it isn't an active argument for your claim that highly skilled immigrants don't do very well. Where is your active evidence for that?

im not american, i do think slack immigration control saturates the job market, and i think high skilled migrants suffer the most from what i already posted.

In another thread, you were complaining about people not responding to you and T.I.'s arguments. One of the reasons why people don't bother is that whenever concepts become remotely complicated, you just decide to bunker down and repeat your original statement over and over again, without responding to outside stimuli. TI, who shares many suspicious similarities with you, often times literally just quotes his original post.

I will repeat my point for the last time to you: low-skilled immigrants are not competing with high-skilled immigrants for the same work! Your claim that the latter are not valued by employers is something you haven't bothered to produce one shred of evidence for; it's especially unbelievable when you consider all of the companies that actively lobby for immigration reform.

so, we should actively seek out the best globally for the most important projects? Well, i do agree with that. I dont think it applies to high skilled immigrants.

So you want to have the best people...but you don't want highly skilled people? What are you talking about?

both.

The reason why I asked the question was that it was a contradiction; you think high-skilled immigrants are valuable, but then say that nobody wants to hire them and they don't end up doing much. Please clarify this discrepancy.

they look for work, they take what they can get in most places. Not everything is as hunkydory as silicon valley.

And what they get is still beneficial to the american economy (or else they wouldn't be getting hired), and still not in competition with migrant farm workers.

Not every expert started at the top. Even einstein did shitty work. except were talking about jobs and immigration. Which i dont think you fully understand yourself.

Do you have any actual data or statistics, or heck, even some vaguely articulated anecdote to support your point? You know, I've been asking for incredibly simple debate requirements like "supporting arguments" for several exchanges now, and you just seem to ignore them. It's kind of surreal how non-responsive to external stimuli you are.

Because it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to immigration in technical industries, and when I show you the statistics and my own experience operating in this sector, you just shove your fingers in your ear and make a cringe-worthy Einstein analogy.