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The idea of keeping immigrants out of your country is starting to seem outdated.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:
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 24, 2009
South people? Excuse me, but while all of those progressive blue states (ie california) are experiencing double digit billion dollar budget deficits and an imploding housing market, Texas has an 11 billion dollar budget surplus (search for the article about texas at reason.com), a still growing real estate market, and the governor has said that he may not even accept a large portion of the stimulus that is earmarked for our state. In the near future, businesses and anyone seeking value and a shelter from skyrocketing taxes (those needed to cover the debt being created in all of those "progressive" states that are so much more advanced than the colorful, backwards land of Texas) will run to places like dallas and houston. Texas is already an industrial, financial, and agricultural juggernaut. It wasn't "southern people" in Texas that created the real estate bubble. Our home values have always been relatively low, and grow primarily at a sustainable pace. Texas has a population that is actually 80 percent urban and largely foreign born or born in another state. We have large tech interests (Texas Instruments, NASA at Houston, and Texas's own silicon valley: Austin), domestic oil and natural gas production, the NAFTA highway, access to major ports in the Gulf of Mexico, and more colleges than I can name. Many other states have similar capacities for productivity, but very few have the low cost, low tax. low regulation economy that Texas has.


Oh yeah, and it irks me that we never got any credit for taking in all of the people who survived hurricane Katrina while the rest of the country was debating how much of an idiot Bush was supposed to be. Many other states actually turned evacuees away. I suppose we'll always be "southern people" to you cranks, though.
 
 
Feb 24, 2009
Good luck with that... Maybe here in Canada you need a snow suit and understand French, but in the north US you have snow too, and in the South, well no snow, but, "South people" you know... :P
 
 
Feb 24, 2009
Of course, everything you say is what we are SUPPOSED to be doing.

Why wouldn't we want to make our country the most inviting country to live in? (Why wouldn't any country want that if they could achieve it?) Why wouldn't we want clean air and water and low crime and freedom? And why wouldn't we want a high standard of iving?

And I thought that our immigration policy was supposed to be selective. And if you read Muppet's post, it seems to describe a very thorough physical exam.

I recently heard (from someone who had worked there) that a company I will not name has laid off thousands of their highly skilled workers. They were told they could have their jobs back if they moved to India and worked for Indian wages. Of course, even though the cost of living is lower, they could never save enough to come back and live in the U.S. after retirement. What is this, a reverse immigration policy?

Just think of it, we can import our middle class to another country (India needs more people, after all! ;)) and only the very rich and very poor live here. I guess that makes sense if you are among the very rich (who, of course, are the ones who really set U.S. policy, anyway).
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 24, 2009
There should be requirements for admitting immigrants here, like college education. However, the problem is he/she then brings in many family members who are "not qualified".
Also, from what I heard, we need the illigal Mexicans to do cheap farm work and cut grass, the jobs which no American wants to do. The problem is they have 6 kids which burdens the school system and health care.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 24, 2009
language -

Yeah, I was totally kidding. I'm not happy unless I'm being productive and contributing in some way.
 
 
Feb 24, 2009
This argument is going to be reaaaalllly funny to look back on when all you Americans are begging to be let into a country with health care, a currency that isn`t a joke, and food that isn`t 50% recycled soy.
 
 
Feb 24, 2009
Now if only you could figure out a way of getting rid of those pesky undesirable residents...
 
 
Feb 24, 2009
How dare you propose something logical and sane? The nerve. I think that for every good looking smart immigrant we allow in, we expel two fat dumb walmart pattern drones, who have no function except as consumers. Think of the improvement, aesthetically if nothing else.

Of course this will mean the death of the Republican Party, but we do have to make sacrifices for the common good.

Scott, now that you are on the hate list, you might as well come out and say you believe in Global Warming and Evolution and go for the trifecta
 
 
Feb 24, 2009
I think I've been hoodwinked. I think Scott knew that the current system already covers all the bases he addressed, and he wanted to point out the absurdity by describing a clubhouse scenario with clique rules to establish who gets let in and who doesn't. Oh, and in response to "What happened to 'send me your huddled masses?'" I would say that in the past, some immigrants integrated, ad some didn't. The ones who came here as part of a huddled mass transplant operation gave all immigrants a bad name.

The immigrants that everybody seems to complain about are the ones who create entire towns that speak the old language, and bring their old form of government here in the form of gangs. Everybody on a certain side of immigration issues says they are against illegals, but they really complain about a certain group of illegals in particular. That group had the transplant mentality more than any other.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 24, 2009
This post has so many flamebaits in it it's amazing.

Maybe you should make seminars on stirring irrational discussion on the web. That could be called "The Dilbert School of Dysfunctional Rhetoric". You could market it to internet community managers, bloggers, viral marketers: anyone who could benefit from understanding, detecting and deflecting flamebaits. Or from spurring them...

Congratulations for the fine piece of psychology.
 
 
Feb 24, 2009
@N1TRO

i hope you are joking and don't wish to be a lazy king. what you will find is that our govt doesn't have any particular care to support an egalitarian lifestyle for its fat citizens. they view you as the little people just like the illegals. you are of the mud people who are serfs to their lordship, vassals to their power.
 
 
Feb 24, 2009
scott, i don't get your post.

it starts with blanket statement saying we should not stop immigration like we are, then ends saying be selective about it.

we are already selective about it, plus our selection process is being subverted by foreigners who don't respect our choice.

we should stop immigration that is not part of our method of selection. WE SHOULD ENFORCE IT.
 
 
Feb 24, 2009
... In canada you pay 60% taxes, rich or poor...

If that's sarcasm, I'll say "Oh. Gotcha. Sorry." If it's not, can you explain where you get the 60% number? Canada Revenue lists a rate less than half of that - and only for those making over $126,264. Even adding in provincial taxes doesn't get us to 60%. And people making a more normal $30-$40K are only paying 15%.
 
 
Feb 23, 2009
The immigrants don't learn French, they settle in Toronto and, being hard workers, have hard-working kids. The difficulty people have is with people who are here as sort of refugees from countries like Somalia, where a few people give a group a bad name. Also oot and aboot. Eh. (for the record I've never heard this "aboot" and people don't think I speak oddly when I'm down in the US. People in places like Kentucky do speak oddly, though. Also, some people in Juysey.)
 
 
Feb 23, 2009
For some reason I found it really funny that Scott used the words willy-nilly and hodgepodge in the same sentence...
 
 
Feb 23, 2009
<i>So your personal freedoms part is way wrong.</i>

The State of World Liberty Project uses 4 factors to determine the "freedom" of a country:

The Fraser Institute and The Cato Institute Economic Freedom of the World: Canada ranks 7th, USA tied for 8th (2008 report, 2006 data)

The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom: Canada 7th, USA 6th (2009 report)

Freedom House Freedom in the World: Both countries got the top score (2008 report)

Reporters without Borders Press Freedom Index: Canada 13th, USA tied for 36th (2008 report)

So even using the "money = freedom" metric (which I happen to disagree with vehemently), you see no difference between the countries. The only substantial difference is in freedom of the press, where Canada whomps the US.
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 23, 2009
I say let them all in, give them all the jobs, and then tax the crap out of them so the government can support me and my family very comfortably while we vacation 365 days a year (and everyone else here who is legal) . :-) We could all live like kings.
 
 
Feb 23, 2009
I would like to continue the line of thinking that Phantom II started.

This is already our policy. The three most common legal ways to enter the country and stay here are:

H1B Visa
Student Visa
Citizenship through marriage

H1B and Student Visas only go to people with skills we need or at least the aptitude to acquire those skills.

I would assume that anybody who can marry has to be attractive in some way. I would prefer that I myself get to judge each case, but at least somebody who is already here found them attractive enough to marry.

There is no medical screening, but one would hope that none of the companies sponsoring H1B visas or people looking to get married would pick lepers.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 23, 2009
I studied in a primary school. Without the luxury as an elementary student, how the fudge do I apply these willy-nilly and hodgepodge appropriately? Rock it
 
 
Feb 23, 2009
"HMCIV said:
Whatever happened to this?
'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.'

Answer:
Welfare."

Indeed. As Milton Friedman once said, "You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state."

But that's not the strongest argument for selectivity; indeed, Friedman's statement can, and has, been used to argue for greater immigration just for the sake of increasing popular opposition to welfare. The real issue is opportunity cost. Yes, low-skill immigration may be close to economically neutral, compared to not admitting them. But compared with admitting skilled immigrants, who aren't even close to economically neutral? Our social and physical infrastructure has a fairly high, but still finite, capacity for assimilation. This capacity is a major resource, and we should use it strategically rather than enslaving our policy to the coincidence of Mexico's geographic proximity.

It's also worth noting that Deng Xiaoping did far, far more for the Chinese people than any country accepting Chinese immigrants. If you really care about the welfare of Mexicans, you wouldn't focus on our immigration policy; instead, you would focus on creating the conditions within Mexico for better government.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog