| > That's not really the important status quo of today, though. On this point, you need to educate yourself more. It's cleared you've consumed the lies of right new media outlets. Immigrants contribute a lot more than they consume. See the National Academy of Sciences report[1], or read some articles from the Cato Institute, or even the short summary of the Libertarian Party's position[3]. The problem is that this country's laws hate and despise skilled and educated immigrants. My company tried for two years in a row, to bring a developer from our Paris office over into the US. A brilliant developer, who had been with us for a year, and proven himself. Someone who had graduated from EPFL (one of the best higher-education institutes in Europe -- the equivalent of CMU/MIT here). Someone who was being offered a $140,000/year base salary. Someone who spoke fluent English. And he was rejected (lost the H1B lottery) twice, thanks to the US skilled immigration policy. That is the status quo today. Which is a far cry from what is morally right. I don't think even a preference system for educated/skilled immigrants is morally right. The only morally righteous immigration system is one that permits the free immigration of people that are peaceful/non-voilent and who are self-sufficient/self-reliant (i.e. they'll have no access to welfare, and must be able to support themselves). [1] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23550/the-economic-and-fiscal-co... [2] https://www.cato.org/research/immigration [3] https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/ |
Some do. Many don't. And even among those that do contribute more than they consume, it seems very unlikely that the contributions and the drawbacks would be distributed evenly throughout the population. Some people will be made better off by their presence, and others (perhaps even a greater number, but totaling a smaller dollar value) will be made worse off. Do you disagree with that?
>The problem is that this country's laws hate and despise skilled and educated immigrants.
I don't lock my doors because I hate the people outside. I lock my doors because I want to protect the people inside.
>And he was rejected (lost the H1B lottery) twice, thanks to the US skilled immigration policy.
Right, but do you deny that many companies make enormous amounts of money off of the H1B programs and that they can bring down salaries of the local people that compete with their labor? Do you deny that people that come in via H1B are less likely to have loyalty to this country and its people?
>Which is a far cry from what is morally right.
Whether it's morally right or not depends on what moral system you're using to evaluate it. I can pick one that says what I want just as easily as you can.
>people that are peaceful/non-voilent
How do you know their descendants will be peaceful and non-violent, and that their interests and those of their descendants will tightly overlap with the interests of the current population and their descendants?
Why would the current inhabitants want to let people in if they don't have strong reason to believe that the interests of the immigrants and their descendants will strongly align with the interests of the current inhabitants and their descendants?