Thesh wrote:Plus, by the same argument that taking educated people here is better for us, it's implicitly worse for the impoverished country. So if we take all of their most educated and promising students, and bring them here and keep them, whose left to be the teachers and do the work in their own country? Shouldn't we do the opposite, just in order to help those countries and shed the need for limits on immigration in the first place?
I very much doubt that claim. Immigrants often go back home and often contribute to their home country. Indeed, its not like the Philippines need nurses, the nurse thing is very much the "get into America" card.
One cousins of mine who like the Philippines are building up startups and business opportunities in their own home. They come to the USA for ideas but his main plan is to start a long-term business in the Philippines. Visiting Silicon Valley and learning about startup culture in the USA was just a part of his journey.
USA gets an engineer for a few years. He gets trained up in the work force, and then heads home to create startups in the Philippines. Seems like a win/win on all sides. Furthermore, the capital he makes and brings back to the Philippines will likely be multiplied. $10,000 isn't much in America, but you can easily create businesses with that kind of money back in the Philippines.
KnightExemplar wrote:So are you against all forms of immigration control?
The fact of the matter is: when creating immigration policy, a rubric has to be created. It seems very natural to grade and prioritize immigrants based on their skills and education level.
I am for immigration control based on safety; I think a thorough vetting process to make sure people who are dangerous don't enter is sensible and necessary. But immigration control that stops someone simply because they aren't smart enough or skilled enough? Sounds like a pathway to eugenics to me. (@everyone: if that last thing is dumb, please let me know. It just seems that way to me.)
Its called the slippery slope argument, or fallacy. When you use the slippery-slope argument correctly, its a valid argument. When you use it poorly, its a fallacy.
If cutting down one tree in a forest has a 95% chance of knocking down another tree... only 20-trees (or so) will fall down. The whole forest doesn't go down. Similarly, if we actually start doing Eugenics, then the political environment will shift, since its a fundamentally different concept than immigration policy.
So in effect, you shouldn't have to worry about "the whole forest going down", even if there are tons of 95% chances for trees to knock each other down.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.