[exstudent]

I live in the US and I'm not ensured any of those things. Allowing more people into the country could only improve our economy.

We would be more "selective"? How would we select?

[afafsd]

Whom should you select to let into your country? The same people you select as employees, only more so.

We use "skilled migration" as a proxy for what we really want, which is people with good genes. If you have skills and good genes then you'll enrich the country not only in this generation but in all future generations to come.

So an ideal immigration policy would involve some combination of testing for intelligence, physical fitness and (dare I say it) good looks.

[exstudent]

Good genes?! This is the most racist thing I've read on HN. I see why you have a throwaway account.

[afafsd]

Uhhhhh, nobody mentioned race until you did.

If you think "good genes" is correlated with race, then I'd suggest that you are the one who is racist.

[Dewie]

If he had just said "talented", I suspect it would not have been controversial (at least that part). But "talent" often hints at heritage.

[exstudent]

There are plenty of untalented natives in any country. I do not think the government is particularly good at spotting talent. We should just let everyone in IMO.

Besides, "talent" can mean many things. Is the Mexican mother who can't speak English and doesn't have a college degree (maybe not even high school), but can make BAD ASS food and is capable of raising a family of 5 talented?

[scotth]

Pfffft