"A majority of Americans (66%) say they would prefer to either increase the rate of immigration or keep it the same, according to Gallup. A minority — 31% — want to decrease it."
This is misleading framing.
The percentages from the poll are 31% less, 33% more, 35% same.
You could just as easily say "64% want less or the same amount...and only 33% want more."
It is increasingly common for high-tech immigrants stuck in the green card queue to secure permanent residency in Canada. Canada is thus the most likely beneficiary of our inability to reform immigration laws.
I also heard of a more (to me) amusing case of a high-tech professional from India taking up religious studies on the side. His backup plan, should his green card petition get bogged down, is to apply for an R visa, with the intent of becoming a priest in a Hindu temple. Apparently - and I view this is as a solid plus for America's commitment to religious freedom! - it's a lot easier to get one of those R visas and eventually transition to a green card than to do it as a software engineer on an H-1B. Perhaps Silicon Valley companies could also invest in building temples/mosques/synagogues/etc. and bring in high-tech workers as priests/imams/rabbis/etc. who also happen to write a bit of code or design chips as a side-hustle.
There's an elephant in the room that article doesn't address: entire higher education industry in US and their vested interests. Presently American universities make a ton of money from high tuition fees paid by the foreigners in STEM (mostly Chinese and Indian students). A STEM degree allows a foreign student to work atleast for 3 years in OPT scheme and provides a sub-quota in H1B. If US were to allow foreigners with advanced degrees such as master's and PhD to immigrate (similar to Canada's express entry PR scheme), then it takes away the unique selling point of the American universities and adversely impact their revenue.
If a CS graduate from IIT or Tsinghua can easily immigrate to US, then the so-called prestigious American universities (especially private!) such as CMU, USC etc would lose their shine as their cashcow master's programs would no longer be attractive. I think American universities would lobby hard to stifle any immigration reforms for this precise reason
Very interesting, thanks for covering this topic. I am a working foreign national (used to be international student) in the US and all of these feel all too familiar :)
The current number of skilled immigrants does not come close to eliminating the negative effects of unskilled/semi-skilled immigrants. There's a lot more to falsify it than that, but the above should be enough. If welfare funds were eliminated for all immigrants for 20 years after arrival, that would change things dramatically in favor of your premise, but don't hold your breath on that changing until after the American Empire collapses.
The UK is an interesting case study. We actually had a *low*-skilled labour shortage around the turn of the millennium, which we addressed by allowing the new members of the EU to send us their plumbers/builders. And this is repeating post-brexit - with our most extreme shortages in the lower wage/skilled segments such as fruit picking/building/hospitality.
I understand why they want to focus on high-skilled immigration - and hopefully it can help destigmatize all migrants, but I wonder if the assumption that its the most productive/best type of immigration is a bit reductive.
Any immigration reform has to update the antiquated rules that allow immigrants to sponsor extended family members. It may have made sense a century ago, when communication was by letter and travel was expensive--moving to the US meant never seeing your family again--but times change. If an immigrant family wants to bring a parent over, say to provide child care or work in a family business, that family member should be allowed a guest worker visa, but not be automatically ahead of other qualified immigrants with more relevant skills.
Couldn't agree more on the higher productivity note. I'm an Aussie software engineer in the Bay for a bootcamp, and my experience thus far indicates if I immigrated here I'd be a multiple more productive simply because the rate of learning and growth and opportunity is so much higher. You get this network effect attracting new talent (just like with top universities) which bad immigration policy only serves to stifle.
So... Is there really anyone seriously against high skilled immigration?
I'm not saying systems cannot be badly designed and put intentional and unintentional road blocks in front of high skilled immigrants but it's really attacking a strawman.
It gets tenser (politically and economically) when speaking about low skilled immigration. First, the numbers of people concerned are significantly higher. Second, they tend to be the less westernized/less socially adaptable immigrants. Third, they are the more threatening to local employment (whether this is a real threat, a perceived one or depending on other variables such as whether your local economy is growing or not).
And it get tenser still when you're importing criminals or people prone to violence. Again and again. Check out Europeans/Germans experience with Afghans. It's very very meaningfully different from the US one and I doubt it's all due to Americans being more tolerant of foreigners.
It's very very likely due to the different type of Afghans who ended up in Germany vs. those who ended up in the US.
If you want a different example ("oh, that Afghan stuff is just an unlucky one off") - consider the UK experience with Indian vs. Pakistani immigration. Differences cannot be genetic. People sometimes like to blame religion but I call BS. Almost all religions can be extremist or modern in its outlook. It all depends on the worshippers. It's down to Indians being high skill and Pakistani being low skill.
While this is a decent post on the immigration topic it misses the other half of this problem, low-skilled immigration. There are still several million low skilled jobs in the US that are filled by immigrants. Some of these such as in agriculture are filled by guest workers (I'm not sure this is the correct term) on a seasonal basis. Some of these jobs such as slaughterhouse work are ongoing. In my area (suburban DC) most of the landscaping, roofing, moving, housekeeping, kitchen restaurant, and there are a number of others, are staffed by recent immigrants (mainly Latino). I don't know what the demographic breakdown of warehouse workers that serve e-commerce is but I would not be surprised if there was a significant immigrant component to this.
While it is good to focus on hi-skill immigration, that is not the only type of worker the US needs.
The text states: "Facing ever-growing wait times for green cards in the United States, talented immigrants are increasingly looking abroad for opportunities. According to a survey released last year by Boston Consulting Group, for the first time Canada has replaced the U.S. as the most desirable location for migrants moving for work."
But the survey report itself doesn't talk about "green cards", and in fact measures the stated desire/interest in relocating. In fact, the element highlighted in the study as significant in influencing country preferences has to do with Covid response.
The report itself states:
"When the question is about working for a foreign employer remotely versus having to pull up stakes and move to a country where the employer has physical offices, the preferred destinations shift in some interesting ways. The US is the most desirable destination under this scenario, suggesting that American employment retains a lot of appeal if you take away the political and social risks that come with living in the country."
That is, if we take this study at face value, then the problem is not visas, but that less foreigners consider the USA an attractive place to live, in comparison to other options like Canada or Australia.
Great article, don't disagree with a word.
Well done. I promise I will never comment on this subject again.
"A majority of Americans (66%) say they would prefer to either increase the rate of immigration or keep it the same, according to Gallup. A minority — 31% — want to decrease it."
This is misleading framing.
The percentages from the poll are 31% less, 33% more, 35% same.
You could just as easily say "64% want less or the same amount...and only 33% want more."
It is increasingly common for high-tech immigrants stuck in the green card queue to secure permanent residency in Canada. Canada is thus the most likely beneficiary of our inability to reform immigration laws.
I also heard of a more (to me) amusing case of a high-tech professional from India taking up religious studies on the side. His backup plan, should his green card petition get bogged down, is to apply for an R visa, with the intent of becoming a priest in a Hindu temple. Apparently - and I view this is as a solid plus for America's commitment to religious freedom! - it's a lot easier to get one of those R visas and eventually transition to a green card than to do it as a software engineer on an H-1B. Perhaps Silicon Valley companies could also invest in building temples/mosques/synagogues/etc. and bring in high-tech workers as priests/imams/rabbis/etc. who also happen to write a bit of code or design chips as a side-hustle.
There's an elephant in the room that article doesn't address: entire higher education industry in US and their vested interests. Presently American universities make a ton of money from high tuition fees paid by the foreigners in STEM (mostly Chinese and Indian students). A STEM degree allows a foreign student to work atleast for 3 years in OPT scheme and provides a sub-quota in H1B. If US were to allow foreigners with advanced degrees such as master's and PhD to immigrate (similar to Canada's express entry PR scheme), then it takes away the unique selling point of the American universities and adversely impact their revenue.
If a CS graduate from IIT or Tsinghua can easily immigrate to US, then the so-called prestigious American universities (especially private!) such as CMU, USC etc would lose their shine as their cashcow master's programs would no longer be attractive. I think American universities would lobby hard to stifle any immigration reforms for this precise reason
Very interesting, thanks for covering this topic. I am a working foreign national (used to be international student) in the US and all of these feel all too familiar :)
I'm afraid your main premise (Immigration is America’s superpower) in toto is demonstrably false:
https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs
The current number of skilled immigrants does not come close to eliminating the negative effects of unskilled/semi-skilled immigrants. There's a lot more to falsify it than that, but the above should be enough. If welfare funds were eliminated for all immigrants for 20 years after arrival, that would change things dramatically in favor of your premise, but don't hold your breath on that changing until after the American Empire collapses.
The UK is an interesting case study. We actually had a *low*-skilled labour shortage around the turn of the millennium, which we addressed by allowing the new members of the EU to send us their plumbers/builders. And this is repeating post-brexit - with our most extreme shortages in the lower wage/skilled segments such as fruit picking/building/hospitality.
I understand why they want to focus on high-skilled immigration - and hopefully it can help destigmatize all migrants, but I wonder if the assumption that its the most productive/best type of immigration is a bit reductive.
How about we spend money training the existing American citizens before we start importing more people as competition for them?
Any immigration reform has to update the antiquated rules that allow immigrants to sponsor extended family members. It may have made sense a century ago, when communication was by letter and travel was expensive--moving to the US meant never seeing your family again--but times change. If an immigrant family wants to bring a parent over, say to provide child care or work in a family business, that family member should be allowed a guest worker visa, but not be automatically ahead of other qualified immigrants with more relevant skills.
Couldn't agree more on the higher productivity note. I'm an Aussie software engineer in the Bay for a bootcamp, and my experience thus far indicates if I immigrated here I'd be a multiple more productive simply because the rate of learning and growth and opportunity is so much higher. You get this network effect attracting new talent (just like with top universities) which bad immigration policy only serves to stifle.
So... Is there really anyone seriously against high skilled immigration?
I'm not saying systems cannot be badly designed and put intentional and unintentional road blocks in front of high skilled immigrants but it's really attacking a strawman.
It gets tenser (politically and economically) when speaking about low skilled immigration. First, the numbers of people concerned are significantly higher. Second, they tend to be the less westernized/less socially adaptable immigrants. Third, they are the more threatening to local employment (whether this is a real threat, a perceived one or depending on other variables such as whether your local economy is growing or not).
And it get tenser still when you're importing criminals or people prone to violence. Again and again. Check out Europeans/Germans experience with Afghans. It's very very meaningfully different from the US one and I doubt it's all due to Americans being more tolerant of foreigners.
It's very very likely due to the different type of Afghans who ended up in Germany vs. those who ended up in the US.
If you want a different example ("oh, that Afghan stuff is just an unlucky one off") - consider the UK experience with Indian vs. Pakistani immigration. Differences cannot be genetic. People sometimes like to blame religion but I call BS. Almost all religions can be extremist or modern in its outlook. It all depends on the worshippers. It's down to Indians being high skill and Pakistani being low skill.
While this is a decent post on the immigration topic it misses the other half of this problem, low-skilled immigration. There are still several million low skilled jobs in the US that are filled by immigrants. Some of these such as in agriculture are filled by guest workers (I'm not sure this is the correct term) on a seasonal basis. Some of these jobs such as slaughterhouse work are ongoing. In my area (suburban DC) most of the landscaping, roofing, moving, housekeeping, kitchen restaurant, and there are a number of others, are staffed by recent immigrants (mainly Latino). I don't know what the demographic breakdown of warehouse workers that serve e-commerce is but I would not be surprised if there was a significant immigrant component to this.
While it is good to focus on hi-skill immigration, that is not the only type of worker the US needs.
One thing struck me as odd.
The text states: "Facing ever-growing wait times for green cards in the United States, talented immigrants are increasingly looking abroad for opportunities. According to a survey released last year by Boston Consulting Group, for the first time Canada has replaced the U.S. as the most desirable location for migrants moving for work."
But the survey report itself doesn't talk about "green cards", and in fact measures the stated desire/interest in relocating. In fact, the element highlighted in the study as significant in influencing country preferences has to do with Covid response.
The report itself states:
"When the question is about working for a foreign employer remotely versus having to pull up stakes and move to a country where the employer has physical offices, the preferred destinations shift in some interesting ways. The US is the most desirable destination under this scenario, suggesting that American employment retains a lot of appeal if you take away the political and social risks that come with living in the country."
That is, if we take this study at face value, then the problem is not visas, but that less foreigners consider the USA an attractive place to live, in comparison to other options like Canada or Australia.
This is what we need to get done. Re-reading after the most recent post on immigration and wages.
Agree, but high-skill immigration reform has seemed like a stones throw away for the past decade now.