Home
The idea of keeping immigrants out of your country is starting to seem outdated. In many cases you need them more than they need you. Obviously you can't let people cross borders all willy-nilly, but the immigration policy in the United States seems a hodgepodge. I say this not because I have studied our immigration policy but because I wanted to use willy-nilly and hodgepodge in the same sentence.

A better immigration policy would be to make the U.S. as inviting as possible so everyone wants in. Then choose the most worthy applicants based on how much they would contribute to the economy, or how attractive they are. And obviously all applicants would have to pass a physical exam so they don't burden the healthcare system.

I know, I know, it smacks of eugenics. The Nazis gave it a bad name. But every corporation hires employees based on some sense of economic worthiness, or in some cases hotness. Why should a country settle for less. Technically we wouldn't be practicing eugenics if our selectivity was based on what a person can contribute today. Improving the gene pool would simply be a bonus. So get over it.

With this sort of immigration policy our competitive advantage would include anything that made living in the U.S. more enjoyable than living elsewhere. We would focus all of our energy on cleaning the environment and keeping crime low while giving people as much freedom as practical. And of course we would want a top school system and lots of entertainment options to keep our new immigrants happy. Everything we did to attract the cream of the immigrant crop would be good for the current residents. It's a win-win.

Canada is already doing something along these lines. They welcome immigrants who have valuable skills. The U.S. can't match Canada in friendliness, crime rates, personal freedom, or the environment. But no immigrant wants to walk around in a snow suit trying to understand French either. So I think we can be competitive with our buddies to the North.

Game on!
 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +15
  • Print
  • Share

Comments

Sort By:
Mar 5, 2009
@Eglazier

Oddly enough, there is no need for me to look up that otherwise obscure reference to Archie. My father, and his father before him, was a huge fan.

Webster
 
 
Mar 5, 2009
webster
look up 'archy and mehitabel' on google and read the first description of the stories by don marquis. archy found it was sometimes futile to try to explain.
 
 
Mar 5, 2009
@Eglazier

Fair enough, these things happen. The written word is an imperfect form of communication.

Maybe you wouldn't mind taking another stab at what you were trying to say in your response to my comment?

Webster
 
 
Mar 5, 2009
back to webster again who answeed my comments. unfortunately i have no idea what the point is of his comments. one thing i do know is that his words have nothing to do with what i had written, but wot the hell, wot the hell as archie the !$%*!$%*! used to say.
 
 
Mar 5, 2009
@Eglazier

Thank you for your comment on my post, where you said ... "To Webster ... there is always someone who never got the memo. the constitution, the supreme law of the land, is what makes the u.s. what she is. the bill of rights nails it down. i know it is fashionable to deride the bill of rights shown clearly by polling people about various rights in it without telling them where this was written. a majority just thinks they are wrong without ever realizing they, including webster, were able to publically say that because the bill of rights exists."

...

Yes, Eglazier, I did "get the memo", as you so cleverly deride my level of knowledge on the subject. The Constitution AND the opportunity for "we the people" to amend that Constitution "is what makes the u.s. what she is". Not sure why you are avoiding the significance of the ability to amend the Constitution. Possibly YOU didn't get the memo. Regardless, it was in all the papers, certainly in the 18th Century.

By the way, did you know that the US "Bill of Rights" that you reference is simply the collective name given to the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution? Ironic, isn't it? The US Bill of Rights are the Constitutional Amendments. Possibly you believe that there should be no more Amendments ... is that the point of your comment on my comment?

Webster

 
 
Mar 1, 2009
to webster
there is always someone who never got the memo. the constitution, the supreme law of the land, is what makes the u.s. what she is. the bill of rights nails it down. i know it is fashionable to deride the bill of rights shown clearly by polling people about various rights in it without telling them where this was written. a majority just thinks they are wrong without ever realizing they, including webster, were able to publically say that because the bill of rights exists.

my second thought about immigration is that which mexico, where i live, practices. for alcoholics this is a delightful place to live. they only stop selling liquor one weekend every six years when they elect a new president, and you cannot imagine the moaning that goes on among the american expats, as if they could not plan ahead for an event that is front page news for months. however, the copious amouts of cheap booze available serves a useful purpose. those who do drink to excess, a lot of them, who are not stopped at the gate tend to either expire quickly from the constant abuse of their liver or they get on the mexican highways, usually narrow two lanes and without any shoulders, and force themselves off into the boonies never to be heard of again. it is not a perfect system, but stopping them at the gate would remove large amounts of money spent here before they pass on, so the economy does prosper.

personally i would do away with the border guards on both sides and just have two signs as we see when in the u.s. we pass from state to state, except california when we have to pass inspection points. one sees a sign that reads ' you are now leaving beautiful X' and next to it one reading 'you are now entering just as beautiful Y'. it used to be almost exactly that way going to and fro to canada, until the u.s. government decided to scare the hell out of everyone and put up restrictions. a friend and i made a camping trip to canada in about 1947 and it was difficult to tell that one had changed countries, except they wanted different currency there. it was the same in the end of the 1950s when my wife and i drove to montreal for a short vacation, but that was before they started making everyone speak their own verson of french.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 26, 2009
By the time the 3 headed hydra gets done, the US will be so messed up and bankrupt, no one will want in.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 26, 2009
NOTICE: Any further posts expressing disagreement with my views on Freedom of Speech will be investigated by the Federal Government and International Governing Committees and the authors of these posts will be subjected to severe fines, penalties and prosecution. Written or verbal disention on the issue of the importance of Freedom of Speech will NOT be tolerated! (Don't even think it.)
 
 
Feb 25, 2009
Scott,

The experts tell me (and lord knows I take them at their word... they've used the powers of SCIENCE....) that the Northwest Passage is going to free up, much of the Northern ice melt, and that portends much milder climate in Southern and Central Canada. It means the US Midwest and South may become deserts. (If you believe that sort of thing)

If this happens to be true, you can lose the snowsuit. French is spoken near Quebec and in Quebec, but you won't find many French speakers anywhere else (except perhaps Cape Breton and Manitoba). Go to the West Coast and you'd be further ahead learning Japanese, Mandarin or Cantonese.

At any rate, we do have less gun violence, a better banking and financial system (we haven't had to nationalize a lot of our banking system and watch the sell off of most of our investment firms yet), a decent multicultural society (with some issues in some locations, to be fair), and some pretty good natural resources. We've also got some nice folks, lots of excellent choices of food or beer, and most of us who aren't idiots are fond of our American allies and neighbours.

You would be welcome up here. Might have to pay a bit more tax, but your green-ish-ness would be well liked. And you'd get to come to a place with a more reasonable fiscal situation, which might matter to a rich guy like you.

The whole 'Human Rights Commission' thing isn't 100% wonderful, but in the end result, the right people are getting vindicated. Eventually I expect this silliness to be amended or done away with entirely. The idea I can understand (don't necessarily agree with), but the implementation sucks as is at present. But that will change.

One thing we Canucks don't do is get all excited over the problems of the day. Things will get sorted out and life will go on pretty well - we've got an overall good system and a lot of good people.

So if you want to come to see and maybe settle here, we're always glad to have smart, open minded people.

And I don't know what you are worrying about: the whole speaking French thing, you're already headed that way down there: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html (and the French have better selections of cheeses and at least as good of a selection of wines)
 
 
Feb 25, 2009
On the FREEDOM OF SPEECH debate;

You are all correct, and incorrect, sort of ...

The United States of America is the ONLY major western democracy that has not introduced legislation that limits something commonly known around the globe as 'hate speech". Canada is one of the many western nations that has 'hate speech' legislation, of course.

These 'laws' against 'hate speech' take different forms in different countries, but share a single purpose; to restrict written (public) statements that degrade, humiliate, intimidate, or incite violence against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc etc.

This leaves us with the core question: If all other western democracies have this sort of legislation, why not the United States of America?

The answer resides in the immovable force of the First Amendment (Free Speech) to the US Constitution -- in combination with State powers also granted under the US Constitution.

This is also why the United States of America is the only western democracy that has not limited, in any significant way, the proliferation of hand guns and semi-automatic weapons. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is an immovable force.

So, Americans will continue to see unfettered hate speech in their media, and firearm violence on their streets, until such as time as the First and Second Amendments are ... well, amended by Amendment.

 
 
Feb 25, 2009
As a trained Dilbert Futurist, I can contribute to this post:

In the future, America's biggest problem will be keeping immigrants INSIDE the country.

If the US economy doesn't stop plummeting, Canada and Mexico will be obliged to build a 22' fence along their borders -- if only to keep the unemployed, wet-back Wall Street brokers out.
 
 
Feb 25, 2009
As a trained Dilbert Futurist, I can contribute to this post:

In the future, America's biggest problem will be keeping immigrants INSIDE the country.

If the US economy doesn't stop plummeting, Canada and Mexico will be obliged to build 22' fence along their borders -- if only to keep the unemployed, wet-back Wall Street brokers out.
 
 
Feb 25, 2009
How can you say freedom of speech is 'GOOD" in Canada when you are at the mercy of these Human Rights Commissions to decide whether your speech is acceptable or not? It was not obvious at all to the people being investigated at the time that they were on solid legal ground. Not only that, there was the cost and time involved in defending all these complaints in multiple jurisdictions. To quote Maclean's on this: "...we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience." This would never happen in the U.S. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to pursue people who say things you disagree with in the legal system or through "human rights commissions".
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 25, 2009
From thelaker "Look up the nonsense that Mark Steyn and Maclean's had to put up with from the Human Rights Commissions and tell me ...that Canadian freedom of the press is that great..."

I'm confused thelaker, I looked up the link you posted and it said all the complaints against the publications were dismissed. That seems to indicate freedom of speech in Canada is "GOOD". Unless you are making the point that someone complained about them in the first place. But if they weren't allowed to do complain, then freedom of speech in Canada would be "NOT GOOD" (or "bad").

We shouldn't knock our neighbors to the North too hard, that is our reserve land once Global Warming kicks into high gear.
 
 
Feb 25, 2009
From TreeRol: "The only substantial difference is in freedom of the press, where Canada whomps the US."

Are you kidding me?? Look up the nonsense that Mark Steyn and Maclean's had to put up with from the Human Rights Commissions, and tell me with a straight face that Canadian freedom of the press is that great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean's_magazine). The U.S. does have a First Amendment that is taken seriously by the courts. Canada has no such equivalent.
 
 
-2 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 25, 2009
We'll need a plan to make room for the desirables. Here's a simple 4 step recommendation:

Step 1: Hire all the illegal immigrants we can to build a wall along the borders.

Step 2: Have them paint the U.S. side.

Step 3: Unlock the gate and have them paint the Mexican side.

Step 4: Lock the gate.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 25, 2009
oh, sweet irony.
I don't know, may be the adds one sees depend on the IP geography or something. But I see "You have won! Come and work in US for one year FREE!" while viewing the blog entry.

 
 
Feb 24, 2009
To solve your problems in the US, you need some emigration. Package up the toxic people in packages with some good ones on top and sell them to some unsuspecting country. After all, it worked with the sub-prime loans! Probably help with the unemployment rate too!!
 
 
Feb 24, 2009
I believe Australia was doing something like this a very long time ago, but I could be mistaken.
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 24, 2009
Or why not do what the Thai military did to their Burmese refugees? Pack all the legal and illegal immigrants, residents on to a boat and send it to sea.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog