Honest Immigrant discussion

agip wrote:

In the past unskilled immigrants could get decent work in factories and move up the ladder...that is a much smaller path now.

This is one reason that we are not seeing any increase of unskilled immigrants, legal or illegal. And this trend will continue as more unskilled jobs will be replaced by machines. Sooner or later this question of "illegal immigrants from Latin America" will be a dated issue for most people.

However, that will shift the focus of contention to the IT workers from Asia. H-1B is already becoming a highly controversial issue.

agip wrote:

I don't know enough about how immigration levels are decided. I doubt many of us do - my sense it that the system is complicated and often non-sensical and dysfunctional.

Why don't you educate yourself? The information is not that hard to find. Here is a good place to start.

L L wrote:

But it seems like PA, OH and MI voted based on the immigrant issue.

What's the evidence for this? Exit polls?

agip wrote:

Is it wrong to help Asians immigrate vs. Latin Americans?

Yes, It is a violation of a federal law. (The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.) You could argue that we should repeal the law and go back to the policy of 1920s when we had nationality quotas. (The current Attorney General is a strong advocate of this.)

If you meant skilled workers vs. unskilled workers, that's the policy we have now. H-1B has a max of 6 years, and it can lead to a green card. H-2A and H-2B have shorter max periods (3 years), and it is nearly impossible to get a labor certificate for green card if you are "unskilled."

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

agip wrote:

Is it wrong to help Asians immigrate vs. Latin Americans?

Yes, It is a violation of a federal law. (The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.) You could argue that we should repeal the law and go back to the policy of 1920s when we had nationality quotas. (The current Attorney General is a strong advocate of this.)

If you meant skilled workers vs. unskilled workers, that's the policy we have now. H-1B has a max of 6 years, and it can lead to a green card. H-2A and H-2B have shorter max periods (3 years), and it is nearly impossible to get a labor certificate for green card if you are "unskilled."

yeah - that's why in a previous post I said I was much more comfortable discussing immigration theory rather than practicalities. I don't know enough of the law.

You could be making up every word of that post and I'd have no idea.

agip wrote:

Is it wrong to help Asians immigrate vs. Latin Americans?

It is necessary for some business and profession to hire immigrant educated skilled labor. This is because there are not enough technical americans coming out of college.

So the problem with immigration is where to draw the line.

part of "hire american buy american" is to change h1-b visa laws.

think i read administrations bright idea is to up the minimum salary to 130K. (now 65k?)

this will mean we have to hire american college students for new and < 5year experience type engineering jobs. This would be fine if they existed...but they dont.

i have tried filling many positions w/ salary range 60-120k and 8.5/10 applicants require the h1-b. The other 1.5 are dopes.

Certain business will have to slowly move these jobs overseas where they they can get the talent....doesnt seem like the best plan for the USA.

agip wrote:

yeah - that's why in a previous post I said I was much more comfortable discussing immigration theory rather than practicalities. I don't know enough of the law.

So do you think it would be a good idea to discriminate people based on their national origin if it were not illegal?

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

agip wrote:

yeah - that's why in a previous post I said I was much more comfortable discussing immigration theory rather than practicalities. I don't know enough of the law.

So do you think it would be a good idea to discriminate people based on their national origin if it were not illegal?

sure

in effect we do since no one country can be more than 7% of the total legal flow

downhill fast wrote:

It is necessary for some business and profession to hire immigrant educated skilled labor. This is because there are not enough technical americans coming out of college.

....

.

"technical americans" should be the next grievenace group since there are such a small number of them. There must be some discrimination against them.

agip wrote:

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

So do you think it would be a good idea to discriminate people based on their national origin if it were not illegal?

sure

in effect we do since no one country can be more than 7% of the total legal flow

Why is it better than separating immigrants based on their skill levels?

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

agip wrote:

sure

in effect we do since no one country can be more than 7% of the total legal flow

Why is it better than separating immigrants based on their skill levels?

because I'm culturist. I look at results in America and I see Indians, Chinese, Koreans etc...doing astonishingly well. I see Latin Americans doing a lot less well.

So I want more Indians, Chinese, Koreans.

It's not more complicated than that. In my theoretical mind anyway. I understand in the real world it's far more complicated.

agip wrote:

...

because I'm culturist. I look at results in America and I see Indians, Chinese, Koreans etc...doing astonishingly well. I see Latin Americans doing a lot less well.

So I want more Indians, Chinese, Koreans.

It's not more complicated than that. In my theoretical mind anyway. I understand in the real world it's far more complicated.

Uh-oh. Look out.

We really should be letting people in based on their ability to carry their own weight. Or, we can get rid of the welfare state and let people sink or swim on their own, much like we used to do before 1965, and then we could be more loose about the immigration without threatening to overwhelm our system. That would have the added benefit of spurring the work ethic across the board.

So you think "national origin" is a better indicator of how successful an immigrant is likely to be, than each person's level of education and professional experience?

The idea is fundamentally anti-American. I am glad you don't have any position in the government. That's even worse than Jeff Sessions and Tim Cotton.

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

So you think "national origin" is a better indicator of how successful an immigrant is likely to be, than each person's level of education and professional experience?

No, he doesn't. It's not an either/or situation. You can differentiate people by national origin AND skill level.

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

So you think "national origin" is a better indicator of how successful an immigrant is likely to be, than each person's level of education and professional experience?

The idea is fundamentally anti-American. I am glad you don't have any position in the government. That's even worse than Jeff Sessions and Tim Cotton.

I hear you.

you are suggesting some sort of 'points' system - where a experience, skills, degrees gets you in. Australia has that - it hasn't worked all that well. Quite high unemployment rates from those selected.

I'm not going to apologize for looking at data that clearly and indisputably say that immigrants from some regions do much, much better than others.

I understand that legally and practically the application of that data is difficult in the real world.

But you have to be willfully blind to take say 1,000 randomly selected Koreans and 1,000 randomly selected Guatemalans and expect their success or failyure as immigrants to be roughly the same.

I mean that's absurd and you can't believe it.

HardLoper wrote:

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

So you think "national origin" is a better indicator of how successful an immigrant is likely to be, than each person's level of education and professional experience?

No, he doesn't. It's not an either/or situation. You can differentiate people by national origin AND skill level.

this too

1,000 randomly selected Koreans are likely to be more educated and have better professional experience than 1,000 randomly selected Guatemalans. Select 1000 Koreans with degrees from US colleges and 1000 Guatemalans with degrees from US colleges, with equal age, equal distribution among majors and equal job experiences. The differences will disappear.

And the article you cite clearly states than the current point system is "a lot better than the racist immigration policy that Australia had pursued before the 1960s." it also does not say whether it is better or worse than the current US system.

agip wrote:

But you have to be willfully blind to take say 1,000 randomly selected Koreans and 1,000 randomly selected Guatemalans and expect their success or failyure as immigrants to be roughly the same.

I mean that's absurd and you can't believe it.

If it was random, they might actually have similar success/failure rates. The problem is that they aren't random. Koreans that come here have money, education, etc. They have to have enough money to get there. They have a huge advantage before they even arrive. They're not peasants and farmers, which is effectively what the Guatemalans are. The Guatemalans are walking here, with nothing.

Oh please... wrote:

agip wrote:

But you have to be willfully blind to take say 1,000 randomly selected Koreans and 1,000 randomly selected Guatemalans and expect their success or failyure as immigrants to be roughly the same.

I mean that's absurd and you can't believe it.

If it was random, they might actually have similar success/failure rates. The problem is that they aren't random. Koreans that come here have money, education, etc. They have to have enough money to get there. They have a huge advantage before they even arrive. They're not peasants and farmers, which is effectively what the Guatemalans are. The Guatemalans are walking here, with nothing.

So you're saying we should let walking Guatemalans come into the country illegally, while educated Koreans have to go to the end of the immigration line and hope for an H1-B?

Wouldn't it make more sense to reverse that?