Ironically, the 'secret' is one that everyone but the American government and the majority of the American population are aware of.
A NY Times article [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/googles-immigration...] published not too long ago outlined how much Google was spending on H-1B visas and their demand for the cap to be raised. If you read the comments or the backlash which followed, it made you very aware how the American public is still convinced immigrants are 'stealing their jobs'.
My current company was closing down. So I started looking for a new job, and I was really worried as an H-1B that I am, companies are really reluctant to hire in this environment, b/c of the huge amount of paper work, and cost required for them to eventually sponsor me.
Within two weeks I got 3 job offers, and getting one more next week (they are doing background checks), with a lot of money. I mean a lot more than I thought I could make. What it shows me, that there is a real demand for highly skilled engineers, even in a downturn, and a lot of "i am an American, I can't find a job lets send the h-1bs home", are probably voices from people that have no talent, or desire to work.
This is truly work Americans can't do, as I am not cheap at all, actually very expensive, money and paperwork wise.
The secret in the Silicon Valley is that 80% of the code is produced only by 20% of the engineers. If I have my own company, (or you had your own), I'd want to hire from that 20% pool, no matter what their race, ethnicity, or immigration status they are. Unfortunately, you have people on the 80% pool, that scream (or wishfully thinking) that if immigrants weren't here, there would be able to command higher salaries, and find job easily.
It is often much easier to blame others, instead of just looking in the mirror.
Good post.
The other end of the spectrum: I used to write code for autonomous UAVs back home (commercial and military). After completing my second degree in the US, I made it through to 90% of the interviews and selection process at the top firms that play in such applied heuristics. At that point I didn't think I was wasting my time, given my background and experience.
In the end, I was apologized to almost everywhere as they couldn't offer me a position because of my immigration status and there were existing federal restrictions limiting their hiring of foreign workers. Nonetheless, almost all those companies still e-mail me today asking whether I would take a position at their operations in my home country because there just aren't that many good people who do this kind of shit in the US.
Why, I ask?
Later, I got multiple offers from companies back home who were willing to pay 5 times as much and were either in direct competition to the folks in the U.S. or were selling them patented technologies that cost billions in licenses every year.
I think the simple solution to the H1B program is to have companies biding on slots. When people see companies are willing to pay 10-20k+/year extra to higher the highest levels of talent few are going to complain.
Also, I once worked for a body shop which cared little for talent and just wanted people to fill the spots as cheaply as possible. And unlike at that paperwork this would stop them for using H1B's.
Bidding is often not a bad idea, as it does help to uncover the "true" value. But it's not the solution to the H1B program. That solution is simply to let any and every qualified person into the country -- indeed court their attention and residence. Anything else is selfish, chauvinist myopia.
Where you looking for positions at military contractors or directly DoD work? If so, you should know that there are very strict laws on who can work in US military (and government) positions. Very often, you must be a US citizen to gain even lower level employment in sensitive military contracts. I know for a fact that not only do you have to have to be a natural American citizen (born in the United States), but you also have to have lived abroad only temporarily for a certain amount of time and lived consecutively in the US (for 10 years, I think?) to be eligible to earn the highest security clearances. Government work will probably remain the domain of US citizens, as very often its viewed as a national security risk otherwise.
Reminds me of a story of a Chinese-born scientist who was harrased by FBI for being possibly a communist. He got fed up with that and left the US to China, where he ended up playing key role in Chinese rocket program. You're in good company.
I have heard this from a lot of H1 engineers - especially ones with a couple of years of experience. I myself was one but never bought this reasoning - though cannot deny there may be some truth in it. My own understanding is that mostly this applies to startup companies:
1) They generally have a harder time recruiting so supply/demand forces them to pay higher generally.
2) Their spending extra on the work visa or residency processing is a way to buy insurance against the employee leaving any time soon(till the green-card is processed which is a period of 2yrs-infinity)
3) They generally prefer hiring recent graduates (and there are only so many US citizen graduates every year). Why they do so? Again I think because of a few reasons (though cannot deny there may not be any truth in these):
a) Recent graduates are cheaper and are hungrier and a lot of the work does not need specialized phds but good computer science fundamentals.
b) Freshly minted MS may not necessarily be better engineers/programmers but are more in tune with the latest tools in fashion which startups tend to use.
I've worked with good engineers on H1-B's and bad engineers on H1-B's. Just because you're coming from somewhere else doesn't make you any better. It just means you came from somewhere else. And honestly, I don't think the ratio is all that much better.
The thing that I do not like about H1-B's regardless is that they are a temporary invitation (at least on Wall Street). I would much rather the system be set up as a funnel towards getting smart people into this country so that they could become citizens.
Finally, a pet peeve: When I was in High School and College, the importance of clarity in written communication was drilled into my skull like a maddened dentist attacking the mother of all cavities. If you're out there, and you're reading this, and English isn't your first language (or if it is and you just suck at it): Please, please, please spend more time when creating written communications of a technical nature. An absent punctuation mark, a poorly chosen phrasing, a confusing grammar structure can all pervert the original meaning of what you've written and slow work down, or at worst, cause something to be done incorrectly.
I don't think most Americans have a problem with truly bright engineers. I think the problem is when large corporations abuse the system to keep wages down.
Plus, yes the complaining will always come from the lower 80%; the top 20% usually have a way to solve their problems - that's the benefit of being on top.
The 'abuse to keep the wages down' is worked into the H1-B system. Reform is needed, but the spirit behind the program is valid.
Under the H1-B program, once you enter a certain stage of Department of Labor processing, you cannot get a promotion. Promotiotions = raises. Either the H1-B worker takes upon much more responsibility than they are being paid for, and therefore floors down the price the employers are willing to pay for an equiv. worker, OR they get stuck in a dead-end job and are first to get axed.
Ideally, this processing would take only a year or two. Thus, the demand of not changing the employee's title wouldn't be /so/ ridiculous (only a little ridiculous). However, in these post 9/11 delayed processing days, it ends up taking 3-4 years (especially if you're Chinese or Indian--the H1B Program has 'country of origin'-quotas (NOT citizenship, ORIGIN.))
The H1B program is idiotic. Immigration laws just need to be reformed. We need to stop importing nearly a million third world peasant laborers a year and start easily allowing in smart people who already speak English.
Mrs Browl, who qualified as a laser engineer and now runs operations at a thriving information management company, is the offspring of two third world peasant laborers who arrived here when she was 3. As it happens, I'm European, have an IQ of 142 and speak perfect English, but I'm the less economically productive one.
I do think immigration laws need to be reformed and the US should lead in the redefinition of labor as a commodity and work towards open borders, which I believe will eventually do more to improve global productivity and security than any number of tariffs and background checks. However, I hope the people in charge do not share your dismissive attitude towards those who are so foolish as to get born in the wrong place.
You're cherry-picking one example. The fact remains that the vast majority of Hispanics do not even complete college, even after the third or fourth generation as Americans. You have to put aside your personal prejudice and look at the bigger picture.
no, as I already have an H-1B. But, as an H-1b holder I am only authorized to work with one company at a time (the sponsor of the visa).
For me to start working in a new company I need:
1. A H-1B visa transfer. Cost about 2,5k - 3k on fees and lawyer work.
2. Eventual green card sponsorship, as my current max allowed time will eventually expire in a couple of years. That's about 10k of lawyer/paperwork costs.
For an employer, to pay you really well, and put up the costs, you can't be only 10%-20% better than the average american programmer, you have to be a magnitude better.
Fortunately, in engineering there is a huge variance in skills (up to 10 times), and good employers recognize this.
Ardit33,
your information is not correct. There is nothing like H1 transfer. Every time you switch employer, you have to apply for H1 visa. This also means you can hold as many h1 visas as you can get. But you can work for only one employer at any given point of time.
You are correct in that one does not transfer the H1B, one gets a new one. However, if you already hold H1B status then you are generally not subject to the H1B cap. In those times when the cap has been reach this means that you do not need to wait until October 1st to start your new job.
"Application Type: I129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER"
-- Yes you are right. I guess, technically is called a petition for a non immigrant worker, and while it is not a 'transfer' per se, it is not a filing of a brand new h-1b either (that is a slightly different procedure) as you have to be part of the cap.
On the other end, there are thousands of companies that use H1B as an excuse to get cheap labor. These companies advertise for jobs as required by law and dump the resumes they get so they can claim there is no available talent within U.S. These are not conspiracy theories but rather well established practices.
True. There is a lot of irony to making it difficult for motivated immigrants to work in the US. When I started a company in the US by partnering with an American - which was the only way I could legally work for my company, despite it being perfectly legal for a foreigner to incorporate in the US - we ended up providing salaried jobs and benefits for 4 Americans, along with part-time wages for 20 or 30 more people. And this company is a lightly-funded, lean, 2y old biz.
Imagine what allowing, say, 10k foreigners in to start companies would do to the long-term health of the country?
Immigration law actually deters innovation of the top immigrants. These students come to US to study at top universities, undergrad or grad and afterward they cannot legally start a business on their own. They have to wait to get a green card, which is years away. By then, as people become older, they lose some of the hunger.
The next best thing for them is to team up with Americans.
As a foreigner in the US about to finish a MS degree in IT and travel back home, I find Friedman's words apropos. The limitation on H-1B visas does more harm than good. I've met many young, intelligent knowledge workers about to get their advanced degrees who, unfortunately, find themselves unable to stay in this country because of visa restrictions. Sending those brains back home is a mistake. A new approach is required if the US veritably wants to foster innovation and entrepreneurship.
It's good to see more and more people are joining us and voicing their opinions loudly. Evidently, the H-1B program needs some major tweaking. The more people know and understand the implications of what's at stake here, the better.
Yeah, I hate it when companies hire dolphin engineers instead of humans. Dolphin programmers will work for half of what a human one will -- often times being paid under-the-table in fish.
I've heard, though, that they have an uncanny habit of disappearing one day, just before disaster strikes, with nothing more than a "so long, and thanks for all the fish".
Just a random guess, but I bet if you added up all the costs of dolphin engineers in the US, they cost twice as much. They need those giant aquariums to keep them happy!
I wonder what will happen if people around the world can sell their citizenship.
Of course host governments have to do a background check etc and sign off on the bidders/buyers. Everybody wins, right? And I bet you can IPO 'eBay for citizenship' overnight.
Citizenship of a given country is a commodity in that piece is no differnt than any other piece, so it will be traded on an exchange and not in an auction house.
This is not much different from how Gmail invites were sold on eBay. While the invites themselves were no different from each other, auctioning helped the market find the 'fair' price.
Auction price will reflect the current supply and demand, affected by economic conditions and a million other factors. Remember that I proposing that people, not countries, sell their citizenship and move out to a country where they have bought new citizenships.
Good point. I suppose this will depend on the trade volume - no one will set up an exchange for the low-volume stuff so one arises on top of the nearest thing such as ebay. If volume is high and exchange must form tho.
Imagine the news roll: "Canadian citizenship was 5 points up today on soaring energy prices and the new healthcare proposal". Hilarious, but also kind of makes sense.
one that targets the best and brightest around the globe and makes it easy for them to become permanent residents. We should be recruiting the world’s best talent the same way top companies recruit the best talent.
No! Google ostensibly hires all of the "best talent" in the industry, yet what do you see of it?
If the government takes on some policy of allowing the world's "best and brightest" to immigrate, you're not necessarily getting the people who would have produced the most value. Instead you'll get people who have tons of qualifications and degrees.
Let's say France had this same immigration idea back in 1980. Would Bill Gates have been considered one of the brightest and greatest and allowed in? No. Would Larry Ellison? No. Would Steve Jobs? No. It's next to impossible to pick out the true people who provide value before the deed is done.
Unfortunately this strategy does not have the potency it once did. The two largest possible sources of talent for the US, India and China, have rapidly growing economies and plenty of opportunity. I don't know all that much about India but if you're smart and "hungry" in China there is a ton of opportunity. Why on earth would you go to the US? Same, to a lesser degree perhaps, for Brazil et al.
I suppose the attractiveness of migration to the USA remains high in ex-communist states, the middle east, Africa, etc, so it's certainly possible they could make up the numbers, but the days of automatically assuming Chinese and Indians dream of building their companies in the USA are over, IMO.
if you're smart and "hungry" in China there is a ton of opportunity. Why on earth would you go to the US?
There are various reasons. I'm sure others will mention the obvious political and government things. I'll risk the ensuing flame war and suggest that the lifestyle in America is better. My roommate's girlfriend is from a small town in mainland China, and by small town she means 1 million people. Her parents live in a 2 room apartment in one of those gigantic concrete high-rise complexes. In order to escape that sort of lifestyle you actually do have to be the cream of the crop entrepreneurial engineer with the blessing of the government. Even then, when you succeed you're just living in the same type of city, but maybe in a nicer apartment.
In contrast my parents are from a small town in the USA and they have a big house and 3 cars and play golf every thursday morning and have 4 kids and a bunch of nice stuff and can afford to travel to hawaii, or arizona, or montana, or wherever. And they are just normal, average people who didn't even start their own multi million dollar business with the blessing of the government.
There are definitely people who prefer the bustle of the city and for whom work and achievement trumps all else, including creature comforts. But for people who are into the 2nd type of lifestyle I've described, there's only a few places in the world where it's relatively easy to achieve: the USA, Canada and Australia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I know about China, I don't believe that sort of lifestyle is possible for anyone.
Well, it's no secret that inland areas of China have climbed the prosperity ladder at a slower pace than the coastal cities. If you're going to compare an immature developing country to a mature rich developed country, maybe a better comparison would be to the richer cities, as that is the direction things are moving.
I have no wish for a flamewar either, but the attractions of a quiet suburban lifestyle, however opulent, are not universal. A big city is dynamic, convenient, connected and sophisticated in a way suburban life can never be - personally I find suburbia isolating and depressing. But honestly I don't know, I'm going to ask some of my friends what they think about that now :D
Hm, suburban life would be possible for some but you're right, you'd have to be rich. There is certainly not the low density, expansive McMansion suburbs you see en masse in the US. Houses do exist, especially further out of the cities, but they are smaller and very expensive relative to local pay, which varies wildly through the country, as your friend will no doubt attest. In rural areas it would be possible to live in a house more cheaply but at the cost of local amenity and lack of non-farming jobs, which are not famous for their high pay. So basically, no, not as we know it.
Anyway, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say China is some kind of utopia or even generally pleasant. Just that there are good points and bad points to both countries. Your parents would never want to move to a high rise in Shanghai; my Chinese friends would never want to move to a small town in the US, seriously.
if you're smart and "hungry" in China there is a ton of opportunity. Why on earth would you go to the US?
The freedom to criticize the government openly and vote in contested elections for the national leadership? That works for a lot of the Chinese immigrants I know in the United States. (Net immigration flows from China to the United States are still strongly positive in the direction of smart people leaving China and settling in the United States.) India actually presents the more interesting example, as people in India enjoy press freedom and free elections, but still find reason to move to the United States.
Consider the possibility that the Chinese people you know are self-selected democracy fans in general and US democracy fans in particular. While the number of such people might be quite high in absolute terms, relatively speaking I don't believe they comprise a large or even significant part of the Chinese population.
A typical American might be quite surprised to learn that his/her country's democratic process is not viewed with universal envy or even respect. Out of the Chinese people I know I have never heard even once that they would like to move to the USA because they seek political "freedom". In fact, quite the opposite; if anything they'd move to the USA despite the government. And it is hard to disagree; I personally have difficulty viewing democracy in the USA as a system worth copying. Don't think I'm singling out the USA either; many 1st world countries are single party states in all but name, IMO, Japan the undisputed leader in that ignominious race.
Anyway, this is a huge topic and not well dealt with in this format. If you're interested, here is an interesting translation I read recently of a Chinese perspective on democracy. I found it well written, accurate and fairly representative.
legitimate question: are you one of the information/opinion disseminators under charge of the Chinese government?
i'm not trying to be a dick, i really am curious. i'm not so closed-minded as to disregard what was written in your post, rather, it was that my "copypasta" alarms went off when i read it (and the linked article.)
I cannot believe you would seriously ask such a question, but the answer is "of course not".
I can't speak for the article I linked to - it might have been copied from somewhere, though I hadn't seen it before if so, and I believe that blog to be pretty reliable. But my comment was composed on the spot. I am not sure if being mistaken for professionally written propaganda is a compliment or not - I guess so? I was just trying to add an alternative perspective, and not even a very controversial one.
Just out of interest, what exactly did I say to make you ask such a thing?
very proper and well written, with detached and unspecific wording. a general sense of disapproval towards americans and japanese. an implication that people have a misunderstanding of the world in terms of governance and foreign perception (which i agree with.)
you could have used that post body as a reply to many things, it's very generic.
you can get mad mad at me if you want; i wasn't trying to piss you off, i wanted to see what would happen if i asked up front.
So people immigrate because they want to vote in US elections? What kind of change in American policy do they wish to effect? Wanting to vote seems like a very abstract motivation for making such an immense personal sacrifice. All of the Chinese immigrants I know moved for more obvious reasons (personal gain, marriage, etc.) And none of them seem particularly critical of the US government, or the Chinese government, for that matter. (But most of them work in academia, so take that with a grain of salt.)
People move to somewhere they will have a say in local government. Casting a vote now and then is a very small part of that participation. Or maybe they're interested in politics and are sick of not being able to have a real debate.
maybe they're interested in politics and are sick of not being able to have a real debate.
This correctly characterizes many of the Chinese people I met in the United States in 1989 as part of the democracy movement at that time. Many of them were physical scientists or biological scientists or students about to enter those occupations when I met them, but they were deeply interested in politics and organized a "salon" with some very interesting discussions of politics, including guest speakers from newly post-communist Poland and public speeches by democracy movement activists who were able to escape from China after the post-Tian An Men Square Massacre crackdown.
People like to go where the money and success is. If you're not American, the USA looks like a giant version of Disneyland, just as someone from a small town in the midwest may be drawn to a coastal metropolis like New York Or San Francisco or Los Angeles.
In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.
I am not saying cultures should disappear. What I meant was national and other imaginary boundaries have engendered wars, genocides and other evils. Bringing boundaries down will not makes us clones in a 1984 like manner but may give rise to even more diversity due to the mixing. And these indigenous cultures are of no use when people are not free to roam the world!
Mixing doesn't create diversity, it eliminates it as people gravitate towards a common basis of law and culture. Entire languages are either extinct or spoken only by small fringe minorities thanks to cultures mixing together in the same country (or even the same nation-state, or previous membership in the same nation-state as in the case of Eire).
And it turns out that having separate countries protects cultural diversity too. What's the law in a country shared between people who have polygamous traditions and people who have a tradition where only monogamy is allowed?
War and genocide predate the nation state. It's perhaps as easy to argue that the nation state has been a force for restraint of violence and a bulwark against broader tyranny. Violence is worst in the modern world where nations are weakest and least independent. The endless wars in Europe only wound down when national boundaries were finally properly drawn along ethnic lines.
> more diversity due to the mixing
You are confusing diversity within a place with diversity between places.
Whereas London was once an English city with a distinctive English character, it is now a "multi-cultural" stew that is much like any of five other large global multi-ethnic cities. The loss of an English London is a loss of diversity.
Nation states are not without utility, but this doesn't mean they are the ultimate form of social organization. Redrawing of European national boundaries along ethnic lines was offered as a justificiation for much of the aggression resulting in World War 2. Strangely, Europe seems not to have fallen into inter-ethnic confusion following the implementation of the Schengen agreement, which did not abolish Europe's internal borders but basically made them fully porous, such that Europeans can now live and work wherever they see fit.
As for your distress over the multi-cultural stew that is modern London, don't you think that just might have something to do with UK's past history of traveling the world, meeting exotic people, and conquering them? Just as you can go to London's Brick Lane and wonder whether you unknowingly took a trip to South Asia, you can go to Mumbai and wonder why so many people express themselves in Victorian-themed English.
English London has been replaced by multi-cultural London. There is no net loss of diversity here. Old cultures die and new ones form (just like languages, species etc). There is nothing to cry over here. I am in favor of a global state which prevents broader evil and within this state there should be no borders. One nation state. People get scared by this notion believing it will lead to 1984 but that is only one of many possible outcomes. Are cultures and languages more important than the universal freedom to go anywhere in the world without fetters?
Why is being able to go wherever you desire so important to you? And how exactly do you plan to reconcile fundamentally different belief systems (such as, say, modern liberalism and fundamentalist Islam)? By imposing some global beauracratic tyranny, I presume?
People with fundamentally different belief systems are not hostile to each other. I have seen people with very radical beliefs who are very accepting of people with opposite views. Almost always it is the politicians and people in charge of nation-states who divide so that they can rule easily (us vs. them mentality). We can achieve harmony and unity through means other than tyranny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence) .
I don't think you know very much about London's history. It's been a multi-cultural melting pot since about the 12th century, and people have been complaining about it losing its quintessentially English character for nearly as long.
(Read Peter Ackroyd's "London: The Biography" for a good overview)
I buy into the conclusion that immigration is good for the United States in general and particularly good as a source for innovation. Having lived overseas, in one of the countries that is a big source for immigrants to the United States (Taiwan), I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that what is going on here is mostly selection of people from very high-IQ echelons of source countries, and those people then doing things that lower-IQ people INHERENTLY can't do.
Most human beings don't come close to maximizing the realization of their potential. And many of the countries that are the biggest sources of immigrants to the United States have very much of a "growth mindset"
in general in their cultures, and particularly in the subcultures that supply most of the immigrants to the United States, such that those immigrants, whatever their IQ scores, do more to realize their potential than people with "fixed mindset." Indeed, there is a whole book on this subject, James R. Flynn's Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ.
The IQ threshold for eminent achievement and even "genius" (as carefully defined by psychologists) is not particularly high, but is only about 120 on a currently normed IQ test. That, by definition of IQ standard scoring, is less than two standard deviations above the population mean.
FTA: So I would argue further that the “innovation probability” of a high I.Q. individual whose family has been in the U.S. for many generations is less than that of someone who’s new to our nation and has a comparable intellect, but far more desire.
It sounds to me like the author stating an obvious, and often repeated, point. Perseverance/hard work is a much better predictor of success than raw intelligence. Immigrants, for a couple of generations at least, have the work ethic. Based on other posts to this discussion, this fizzles our by the fourth generation, so you're stuck on a tread mill of bringing in new hard workers to fuel the engine. Is that really the only way to handle this? It doesn't seem to address the root cause.
As far as the requirement to post a job to prove no American worker could fill the role, I think it's common knowledge that this aspect of the system is heavily (and easily) gamed.
The H1-B program does need to be reworked. It seems like the H1-B visa should provide more freedom to the individual to innovate--start their own company and not be so beholden to their sponsor. I am making an assumption that the hard working, hungry H1-B holder is more likely to start their own company. This is where innovation creation thrives and, therefore, where there is great potential value in H1-B visa reform.
This narrative where the second generation immigrants ascend economically is not actually true. For certain ethnic groups it may have been true at one time, but the data actually show that Hispanics descend economically after the first generation, for one example.
"Throughout this book, our statistical models have shown that the low education levels of Mexican Americans have impeded most other types of assimilation, thus reinforcing a range of ethnic boundaries between them and white Americans."
As is well known, American-born Mexicans average more years of education than do their Mexican-born immigrant ancestors. Unfortunately, as Telles and Ortiz report, the third and fourth generations of Mexican Americans do not continue to close the gap relative to non-Hispanic whites:
"In education, which best determines life chances in the United States, assimilation is interrupted by the second generation and stagnates thereafter."
The fourth generation (whose grandparents were born in America) was particularly unaccomplished:
"Sadly and directly in contradistinction to assimilation theory, the fourth generation differs the most from whites, with a college completion rate of only 6 percent [compared to 35 percent for whites of that era]."
The fourth generation Baby Boomers averaged 0.7 years less schooling than the second and third generation Mexican Americans born in the same era.
Telles and Ortiz found:
"...the educational progress of Mexican Americans does not improve over the generations. At best, given the statistical margin of error, our data show no improvement in education over the generations-since-immigration and in some cases even suggest a decline."
This hardly seems to justify your sweeping assertions above, and the review (by Steve Sailer, who I'm afraid I do not consider an objective commentator) seems to suggest that the fault lies entirely with the population in question, ignoring the book authors' own conclusion that institutional discrimination is a major limiting factor in Mexican-American economic development.
Sailer writes: Their book is a monument to disinterested, objective social science. but seems uninterested in reporting the context in which these trends take place, preferring an interpretation of racial degeneracy.
The publisher's description and one other review present a considerably more nuanced picture than the one you chose to quote (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871548488/ref=cm_rdp_produ...) I do not think a selective book review from a tinfoil-hat-wearing race baiter makes the cut.
You quoted and linked to the review rather than original source material, and as such you own the selectivity and bias too. The quoted sections do not, in any case, validate your original argument, but only offer partial support for one of your assertions.
I already gave my points about immigration in some earlier posts, but my opinion is: Immigration is irrelevant to prosperity of country. Several reasons for that:
1. The countries many immigrants are from, you know they have very affordable medicine and education (former Soviet Union, for example), so in fact any modern American big software company parasite on this cheap facilities, without any interest in developing similar things domestically.
2. There plenty of examples of countries with high rates of innovation, but with low immigration rates: Sweden (ericsson), Finland (Nokia), Japan.
3. I dare to claim, that immigration erodes values of American society.Imagine a person from China or India (the country where 60 million people literraly live in poop, they are born in cast of poop-cleaners-by-bare-hands), the person comes to USA and imeddiately becomes middle class (upper sometimes). Well, this new middle class built from immigrants from ugly places, thet have a lot higher tolerance for injustice and corruption.
Systems are more powerful than the people caught up in them.
The person who is escaping the "cast of poop-cleaners-by-bare-hands" is trying to escape the system that casts him thus. If you (America) ensure that only the best and the brightest are granted entry, then you get to both
a) preserve your system, without dilution of it's core principles
b) allow new entrants into the system who are hungry and desperate to succeed and start a new life
What the article correctly identifies is that someone who is desperate to succeed will go much further than others. This kind of inner motivation is extremely valuable and is what fuels the engine of America's growth.
So, so tired of the BS. The reason you think immigration is so wonderful is because you have been brainwashed since childhood. Period.
But really, look at this:
Smart immigration policies will do more for American innovation and productivity than better math and science education, more spending on basic research and additional venture capital combined.
Boil this off...what is he saying:
"You should not improve the people...you should replace the people."
The US soccer team is mostly out of first-gen recent immigrants, or people that were given a passport just to play here.
I think a fair-er comparison is of Noble prize laureates by ethnicity or country where they were born. You probably will see a lot more even distribution.
Americans are not any smarter then, lets say Europeans. It is just they have more means.
You will probably see a great correlation to economic output and noble price laureates because:
1. Richer countries attract smart people. You are smart, you probably are smart enough to be given great jobs/research positions and the best places to live in this earth, which happen countries that are rich already.
2. To do nobel price research, you probably need a lot of financial/instutinational backing, which you are most likely to find in rich countries..
"I think a fair-er comparison is of Noble prize laureates by ethnicity or country where they were born. You probably will see a lot more even distribution."
Ha. You seriously believe that, don't you? I'm impressed almost. In the U.S., 13% of the population is black. 2% is Jewish. Guess who get Nobel prizes and who don't.
Evolution is a nasty, nasty theory that happens to be true. The magical equality fairy theory is beautiful, full of peace and love, and is wrong and stupid.
"You should not improve the people...you should replace the people."
We're not looking to "replace" people. We're looking to add them. We have the envious position of being able to use our already considerable wealth to attract more of the worlds very best and brightest. This will allow us to build even more wealth and attract even more of the best... etc.
We've got the benefit of a virtuous cycle that would, if unchecked, allow the US to virtually monopolize all talent in the world. Severely limiting the use of this advantage may be the best thing the Americans can do to help the poorer emerging counties reach for prosperity of their own. How's that for unintended consequences?
A NY Times article [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/googles-immigration...] published not too long ago outlined how much Google was spending on H-1B visas and their demand for the cap to be raised. If you read the comments or the backlash which followed, it made you very aware how the American public is still convinced immigrants are 'stealing their jobs'.