It was interesting listening to a fairly liberal guest on Bloomberg/Charlie Rose the other day, who claimed the search for "comprehensive" immigration reform was the biggest enemy of high-skill immigration reform right now.
Essentially everyone agrees on easier and longer (to permanent) visas for future or currently-legal but temporary visa entrepreneurs, high skill immigrants (for various definitions), etc. There isn't a clear consensus on how to handle pre-existing other immigrants, or future low-skill immigrants. There are also weird corner cases caused by long-term illegal/undocumented presence by children, which is what the DREAM act is supposed to address -- a child who was brought here shortly after birth, who grew up a US citizen, graduated high school, college, etc., really doesn't seem the same as an adult who recently and of his own free will crossed the border.
Part of it is racial/racism, but a lot of it is economics; trying to paint enemies of mass unskilled immigration or immigration amnesty as just racists is doing everyone a disservice. But it's also undeniable that the high-skill immigrants with problems are generally from India and China (where the H1B system is most broken due to nationwide quotas) and from other parts of Asia, Europe, etc., and the illegal/low skill immigrants are largely from Mexico, Guatemala, and other Latin American countries.
There is also some confusion about credentials vs. actual skills, too -- I'd rather bring Bill Gates in than most people with BA's from diploma mills or even legitimate PhDs.
The problem with comprehensive reform (as championed by the democrats and Obama) is that it's all or nothing, vs. incrementally solving each class. The proponents of comprehensive believe (probably rightly) that solving the most obvious and pressing problem (the 1 million or so skilled immigrants who are all currently legal) will take away the drive to solve the 12 million unskilled/illegal immigrants already here, or the many million who would immigrate without skills if it were easy and open. It would also quite possibly lead to a more restrictive regime for the unskilled vs. skilled.
Ultimately we seem to be solving the immigration problem by destroying the US economy (outside high tech and government, neither of which employs a lot of illegals), thus depressing wages and job opportunities for illegal/unskilled immigrants, while mexico continues to develop its economy -- it makes more sense to work there legally for 10% the cost of living and 30% the wage in many cases.
> It would also quite possibly lead to a more restrictive regime for the unskilled vs. skilled.
What I'm worried is that it'll also lead to more market distortion, as the government tries to micromanage specific industries and quotas, which will inevitably be based on which industries lobby the most. If it were a fairly general skilled/unskilled distinction, like Canada's points system, I'd support that, though.
>But it's also undeniable that the high-skill immigrants with problems are generally from India and China (where the H1B system is most broken due to nationwide quotas) and from other parts of Asia, Europe, etc., and the illegal/low skill immigrants are largely from Mexico, Guatemala, and other Latin American countries.
So what? The goal of any immigration policy should be what's good for the host country, not what the racial makeup of the immigrants is.
Essentially everyone agrees on easier and longer (to permanent) visas for future or currently-legal but temporary visa entrepreneurs, high skill immigrants (for various definitions), etc. There isn't a clear consensus on how to handle pre-existing other immigrants, or future low-skill immigrants. There are also weird corner cases caused by long-term illegal/undocumented presence by children, which is what the DREAM act is supposed to address -- a child who was brought here shortly after birth, who grew up a US citizen, graduated high school, college, etc., really doesn't seem the same as an adult who recently and of his own free will crossed the border.
Part of it is racial/racism, but a lot of it is economics; trying to paint enemies of mass unskilled immigration or immigration amnesty as just racists is doing everyone a disservice. But it's also undeniable that the high-skill immigrants with problems are generally from India and China (where the H1B system is most broken due to nationwide quotas) and from other parts of Asia, Europe, etc., and the illegal/low skill immigrants are largely from Mexico, Guatemala, and other Latin American countries.
There is also some confusion about credentials vs. actual skills, too -- I'd rather bring Bill Gates in than most people with BA's from diploma mills or even legitimate PhDs.
The problem with comprehensive reform (as championed by the democrats and Obama) is that it's all or nothing, vs. incrementally solving each class. The proponents of comprehensive believe (probably rightly) that solving the most obvious and pressing problem (the 1 million or so skilled immigrants who are all currently legal) will take away the drive to solve the 12 million unskilled/illegal immigrants already here, or the many million who would immigrate without skills if it were easy and open. It would also quite possibly lead to a more restrictive regime for the unskilled vs. skilled.
Ultimately we seem to be solving the immigration problem by destroying the US economy (outside high tech and government, neither of which employs a lot of illegals), thus depressing wages and job opportunities for illegal/unskilled immigrants, while mexico continues to develop its economy -- it makes more sense to work there legally for 10% the cost of living and 30% the wage in many cases.