[jsnk]

I understand your point, but if you prefer to allow the market to set employment and wage level, you should be for much looser immigration. The government regulating immigration is anything but free market. If the government were to loosen requirement for STEM immigrants, that is having freer market, not less.

[geebee]

This is a huge disagreement between us. If you loosen immigration in general, then you may have freer markets. But if you loosen them only in a narrow segment of the economy and while restricting mobility in others, you may end up creating severe market distortions that don't resemble a free market in any way.

If almost every country and profession had equally liberal immigration policies, then yes, I'd agree. But we're not doing this evenly, and I think this is why so many people who hold a favorable general view of immigration nonetheless object to these targeted visa/green card programs. As it stands, I think that adding a green card to every STEM degree (but not every JD, MD, MBA, DDS, etc) will end up creating market distortions that will probably just further deter US citizens from entering this field, amplifying the cycle of "shortages" and perhaps eventually creating exactly the "crisis" that the policy is intended to address.

[jsnk]

I am not making judgment on whether or not if freer immigration is good for economy or not. I am not making any qualitative judgment on the issue. And you may be right that it may create severe market distortions. I don't know and that's not what I am disputing.

I am only stating that freer immigration is having freer market, even if freer immigration were to be applied to small group of STEM people.

Consider what I am saying with taxation. If the federal government were to exempt income tax for a portion of population making less than $50,000/year, then this is having a freer market, not less. Yes, it will lead to reduction in government revenue. Yes, it may lead to deteriorating public infrastructure. But it is still free market policy.

[rayiner]

There is an externality to letting in more people though. The hiring companies get all the upside in form of more workers, but the public as a whole takes on the downside risk of supporting them if they're unemployed, retraining them if they're unemployed, integrating them culturally, etc. The public commits to educating those peoples' kids for free for 12-13 years and at subsidized prices for college, supporting them if they ever use welfare services, etc. It's not a clear cut: "more free, less free" situation, but a "who pays for it?" situation.

[jsnk]

I actually agree with you on that point. If having a freer immigration policy leads to populating a country with people who aren't for free market, is the freer immigration policy actually a free market policy? It's a difficult question for sure.