Immigration Policies an Ongoing Concern to AI Researchers(unite.ai)
unite.ai
Immigration Policies an Ongoing Concern to AI Researchers
https://www.unite.ai/immigration-policies-an-ongoing-concern-to-ai-researchers/
74 comments
> Compared to the US, which despite its bureaucratic pitfalls and inefficiencies grants over 1 million green cards annually:
Which mostly go to people in the very, very, very long backlog.
Which mostly go to people in the very, very, very long backlog.
> Which mostly go to people in the very, very, very long backlog.
There is an upper limit that restricts the number of greencards given to applicants of any one country to 7%.
The reason there are very very long backlogs for China and India is because they both combined account for only 14% of the green cards awarded each year. The remaining green cards are mostly unused.
There is an upper limit that restricts the number of greencards given to applicants of any one country to 7%.
The reason there are very very long backlogs for China and India is because they both combined account for only 14% of the green cards awarded each year. The remaining green cards are mostly unused.
This is not true. Green cards are distributed across countries respecting the 7% limit, but the remaining green cards are distributed to those in the backlog.
This is specifically not happening. There have been multiple attempts to pass a bill to recapture the unused greencards - none of the bills have been passed.
I am talking about the employment based greencard backlog. I’m not familiar with the situation with other categories.
I am talking about the employment based greencard backlog. I’m not familiar with the situation with other categories.
Aren’t most GCs going to family-based immigration? Or that’s on top? Those are two very different paths to immigrate to the US.
China has 3 times the population of the US and has a smaller economy than that of the US. Thus they have a oversupply of labor.
I'm sorry, but we are constantly told what a wonderful effect immigration has on economic growth. Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, and so many more billionaires are immigrants, and there's no lack of articles telling us so [1,2]. If we apply the same logic, China's smaller economy would need even more immigration than that of the US.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/10/05/a...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/immigrant-billionaires-unite...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/10/05/a...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/immigrant-billionaires-unite...
I’d personally prefer to see them concerned about irrational costs of higher education in US. Perhaps then US wouldn’t need to be concerned about immigration policies as much. Especially from countries where education is very affordable or free. I’d like to hope that similar access to high quality affordable or free education in US may have a positive effect on the number of AI candidates without the need for more open immigration policies.
Btw in terms of immigration, I already would place US as one of the most accessible developed countries in the world.
Conversation below somehow doubting this fact is easily disputed: https://citizenpath.com/countries-with-the-most-immigrants/
US accepts more immigrants than the runners up combined.
Btw in terms of immigration, I already would place US as one of the most accessible developed countries in the world.
Conversation below somehow doubting this fact is easily disputed: https://citizenpath.com/countries-with-the-most-immigrants/
US accepts more immigrants than the runners up combined.
> I’d personally prefer to see them concerned about irrational costs of higher education in US.
This is just based on assumption that these "researchers" are anything different from politicians. I have seen very very few university professors etc honestly talk about degrees their department is offering are just not worth the money especially for people who are taking large education loans.
In his book 'On bullshit jobs' David Gerber talked about lot of bullshit jobs in universities but I think he was too kind on his teaching colleagues at universities
This is just based on assumption that these "researchers" are anything different from politicians. I have seen very very few university professors etc honestly talk about degrees their department is offering are just not worth the money especially for people who are taking large education loans.
In his book 'On bullshit jobs' David Gerber talked about lot of bullshit jobs in universities but I think he was too kind on his teaching colleagues at universities
> I’d personally prefer to see them concerned about irrational costs of higher education in US.
Quite rational. For Chinese to have a kid a chance on settling in the US, their prices are a joke.
For the while the investment immigration to US was working, the price was in many million dollars. $100,000 to move to US in a few years, + a degree for your kid is a much better deal.
Quite rational. For Chinese to have a kid a chance on settling in the US, their prices are a joke.
For the while the investment immigration to US was working, the price was in many million dollars. $100,000 to move to US in a few years, + a degree for your kid is a much better deal.
The same report still says that the US and UK are the most attractive destinations.
Is it not just normal that the countries which are most attractive would restrict their immigration policies?
Is it not just normal that the countries which are most attractive would restrict their immigration policies?
If the immigrants were drug dealers yes, but (1) the survey responders are researchers who published in prestigious AI conferences (ICML and NeurIPS) and (2) there is a positive correlation between immigration and technological innovation.
Based on these points, restricting immigration of AI researchers looks rather dumb.
Based on these points, restricting immigration of AI researchers looks rather dumb.
“Dumb” by what metric? Even high education/income immigrants have cultural incompatibilities that may justify wanting to restrict immigration.
My family is first generation immigrants from Bangladesh, and my wife’s family is descended from the pioneers that settled the west coast. We’re quite westernized, but there are profound cultural disconnects under the surface.
For example, like many Asians, my dad has a very paternalistic view of government and elites. He thinks the job of leaders should be to “educate the common people” to accept what’s good for them. This drives my wife nuts when they argue politics, because she fully embraces traditional American populism (“wisdom of the ‘common man’”).
Even high education/income immigrants change the culture of the country. (And “culture matters” as anyone from Silicon Valley should know.) We can argue whether these changes are good or bad. But there is more to immigration than just economic effects.
My family is first generation immigrants from Bangladesh, and my wife’s family is descended from the pioneers that settled the west coast. We’re quite westernized, but there are profound cultural disconnects under the surface.
For example, like many Asians, my dad has a very paternalistic view of government and elites. He thinks the job of leaders should be to “educate the common people” to accept what’s good for them. This drives my wife nuts when they argue politics, because she fully embraces traditional American populism (“wisdom of the ‘common man’”).
Even high education/income immigrants change the culture of the country. (And “culture matters” as anyone from Silicon Valley should know.) We can argue whether these changes are good or bad. But there is more to immigration than just economic effects.
> We’re quite westernized, but there are profound cultural disconnects under the surface.
This seems prefaced on the idea that the cultural homogeneity is a desired state.
I certainly acknowledge that immigration has some potential negative effects, particularly where large groups of immigrants congregate in one area, for example the British immigrants in the Spanish Costa del Sol.
Your example doesn't strike me as one which I recognise as a problem. Even if neither your dad nor your wife are willing to give an inch in accepting the other may have a point, is this not better than neither of them having been exposed to that point in the first place?
This seems prefaced on the idea that the cultural homogeneity is a desired state.
I certainly acknowledge that immigration has some potential negative effects, particularly where large groups of immigrants congregate in one area, for example the British immigrants in the Spanish Costa del Sol.
Your example doesn't strike me as one which I recognise as a problem. Even if neither your dad nor your wife are willing to give an inch in accepting the other may have a point, is this not better than neither of them having been exposed to that point in the first place?
> This seems prefaced on the idea that the cultural homogeneity is a desired state.
Cultural homogeneity has upsides and downsides. Some of the most successful countries in the world (Japan, the Scandinavian countries, etc., are culturally homogenous). For example, Tokyo wouldn’t work if it was culturally heterogenous. Culturally heterogenous cities all end up kind of looking like Toronto, London, New York, etc. Interesting and vibrant, but not exactly orderly and organized.
> Your example doesn't strike me as one which I recognise as a problem. Even if neither your dad nor your wife are willing to give an inch in accepting the other may have a point, is this not better than neither of them having been exposed to that point in the first place?
Except at the end of the day they both vote and have to live under the kinds of governments picked by the other. For example during COVID, my dad was completely unable to relate to why some people had civil liberties objections to lockdown orders. (Not just concluding, on the balance, that lockdowns outweighed the impact on civil liberties, but completely unable to understand there was even a balancing process at issue.) He welcomes the centralization of power in DC, the idea that a well-credentialed bureaucracy will tell the backwaters of the country what to do. (One of the things we forget is that elite immigrants are often elite in their home countries. My family is from the same educated, ideologically forward thinking tiny minority of people who decided it would be tenable to impose secularism in the 1972 Bangladesh constitution, on a country that’s overwhelmingly Muslim.) Of course this drives my wife nuts—her family kept moving west to get as far away from the government as physically possible.
Now to some extent this parallels cultural conflicts that already exist in America. But large scale immigration certainly changes the balance. When I was growing up, Northern Virginia was what I’d call “traditional American elitist.” Where there is an elite, but being elite is considered somewhat unseemly, so even the elites pay homage to the “common man.” With the large scale Asian immigration to Northern Virginia over the last 30 years, the culture has changed quite dramatically. What used to be an “under the breath” hostility to the “rest of Virginia” has become an open one.
We can debate about the merits of these views—but that’s not my point here. My point is that this cultural disconnect exists even with educated, high-income immigrants. And it’s entirely reasonable for folks who are already in the US to see that as a reason to oppose large scale immigration. Certainly, if the shoe were in the other foot, and Americans were streaming into Dhaka bringing with them their hedonistic individualism, there would be outrage among Bangladeshis.
Cultural homogeneity has upsides and downsides. Some of the most successful countries in the world (Japan, the Scandinavian countries, etc., are culturally homogenous). For example, Tokyo wouldn’t work if it was culturally heterogenous. Culturally heterogenous cities all end up kind of looking like Toronto, London, New York, etc. Interesting and vibrant, but not exactly orderly and organized.
> Your example doesn't strike me as one which I recognise as a problem. Even if neither your dad nor your wife are willing to give an inch in accepting the other may have a point, is this not better than neither of them having been exposed to that point in the first place?
Except at the end of the day they both vote and have to live under the kinds of governments picked by the other. For example during COVID, my dad was completely unable to relate to why some people had civil liberties objections to lockdown orders. (Not just concluding, on the balance, that lockdowns outweighed the impact on civil liberties, but completely unable to understand there was even a balancing process at issue.) He welcomes the centralization of power in DC, the idea that a well-credentialed bureaucracy will tell the backwaters of the country what to do. (One of the things we forget is that elite immigrants are often elite in their home countries. My family is from the same educated, ideologically forward thinking tiny minority of people who decided it would be tenable to impose secularism in the 1972 Bangladesh constitution, on a country that’s overwhelmingly Muslim.) Of course this drives my wife nuts—her family kept moving west to get as far away from the government as physically possible.
Now to some extent this parallels cultural conflicts that already exist in America. But large scale immigration certainly changes the balance. When I was growing up, Northern Virginia was what I’d call “traditional American elitist.” Where there is an elite, but being elite is considered somewhat unseemly, so even the elites pay homage to the “common man.” With the large scale Asian immigration to Northern Virginia over the last 30 years, the culture has changed quite dramatically. What used to be an “under the breath” hostility to the “rest of Virginia” has become an open one.
We can debate about the merits of these views—but that’s not my point here. My point is that this cultural disconnect exists even with educated, high-income immigrants. And it’s entirely reasonable for folks who are already in the US to see that as a reason to oppose large scale immigration. Certainly, if the shoe were in the other foot, and Americans were streaming into Dhaka bringing with them their hedonistic individualism, there would be outrage among Bangladeshis.
I think you make some compelling arguments, and largely echo my own on this matter - immigration has long term unintended consequences, cultural among them.
That said, what do you see as a reasonable immigration policy? How many immigrants? Same as now, or way less? Do you see a Canada style points based system as desirable? Or is there a different criteria on which to evaluate potential migrants?
That said, what do you see as a reasonable immigration policy? How many immigrants? Same as now, or way less? Do you see a Canada style points based system as desirable? Or is there a different criteria on which to evaluate potential migrants?
I think ideally we’d want to maintain the foreign born population at something like 10% (it was under 5% in 1970 and is close to 15% today).
I think a big part of the problem is that we simply don’t enforce the law, which creates a lot of resentment. If we don’t have the stomach to deport undocumented immigrants except for criminal offenses, we should just admit that coming here illegally is a de facto path to citizenship and count those immigrants against the overall quota. That would in practice lead to a decrease in overall immigration, which would be fine.
The Canada style points system has advantages, but note that Canada has virtually no illegal immigration. In the US; by contrast, legal immigration as a practical matter is on top of the folks who come here illegally (but also as a practical matter will eventually receive legal status).
I think a big part of the problem is that we simply don’t enforce the law, which creates a lot of resentment. If we don’t have the stomach to deport undocumented immigrants except for criminal offenses, we should just admit that coming here illegally is a de facto path to citizenship and count those immigrants against the overall quota. That would in practice lead to a decrease in overall immigration, which would be fine.
The Canada style points system has advantages, but note that Canada has virtually no illegal immigration. In the US; by contrast, legal immigration as a practical matter is on top of the folks who come here illegally (but also as a practical matter will eventually receive legal status).
Hmm. I think I understand your point: keep foreign born population under 10%, and you avoid some of the pushback against perceptible "demographic change" (ethnic/cultural).
I wonder though how adjusting for undocumented immigrants against the overall number would work, and the impact it would have. The legal immigration system also strongly leans against a large influx of people from any one country & towards a more diverse mix. This isn't the case with most undocumented immigrants, who largely (though not entirely) come from a handful of countries based on geographical access.
Now, for me as an Indian biomedical researcher with a PhD working in the US, the path to immigration today is incredibly steep, almost to the point of non-existent. Adjusting for the undocumented burden would severely curtail the pathway for people like me, so I would be biased against your proposal. I can see the merit in it, though. Still, the fact that my co-worker who is a Spanish citizen faces an exponentially lower barrier to entry does stings.
If the goal is to keep the foreign born population under 10% (or perhaps establish a cap at the present 15%), does it matter where they come from? Or is the country wise quota one of the things that should be retained?
I wonder though how adjusting for undocumented immigrants against the overall number would work, and the impact it would have. The legal immigration system also strongly leans against a large influx of people from any one country & towards a more diverse mix. This isn't the case with most undocumented immigrants, who largely (though not entirely) come from a handful of countries based on geographical access.
Now, for me as an Indian biomedical researcher with a PhD working in the US, the path to immigration today is incredibly steep, almost to the point of non-existent. Adjusting for the undocumented burden would severely curtail the pathway for people like me, so I would be biased against your proposal. I can see the merit in it, though. Still, the fact that my co-worker who is a Spanish citizen faces an exponentially lower barrier to entry does stings.
If the goal is to keep the foreign born population under 10% (or perhaps establish a cap at the present 15%), does it matter where they come from? Or is the country wise quota one of the things that should be retained?
I would not be too worried about possible cultural impact of accepting too many immigrants who do AI research.
I’ve seen you trot out your background as some sort of evidence of requiring Immigration restriction while seemingly ignoring the fact that your very existence as a US citizen is a consequence of the “liberal” immigration policies that let your parents in. So let me put this in terms of your situation: 1) while 1st gen immigrants may hold different values, their kids turn out mostly to hold Americanized values and 2) the fact that they don’t fit in culturally is good, we want people with different perspectives.
> Immigration restriction while seemingly ignoring the fact that your very existence as a US citizen is a consequence of the “liberal” immigration policies that let your parents in.
And? A basic criterion for higher level political thinking is being able to distinguish between what benefits you personally and what’s good policy in general.
> 1) while 1st gen immigrants may hold different values, their kids turn out mostly to hold Americanized values and
It’s not a one way process, especially at the high rates of immigration we’re seeing now. The share of the population that’s foreign born has tripled since 1970, to almost 15%. That degree of immigration changes American culture even as American culture changes the immigrants.
> 2) the fact that they don’t fit in culturally is good, we want people with different perspectives.
I don’t think that applies when you’re talking about a Democratic polity. In fact I think the opposite is true. A basic precept of international law is that different groups have the right to self-determination and cultivation of their own cultures under their own governments, when possible: https://unpo.org/article/4957. Bangladesh, where I’m from, exists because Pakistanis and Bangladeshis didn’t want to be part of the same body politic.
My wife’s family hunted wild game as their primary source of protein up to her grandparents’ generation. This is totally alien to my dad, who comes from a country where there has been no “frontier” for a thousand years. They don’t see eye-to-eye on say gun control, and they don’t even really have a cultural context in common that would allow them to meaningfully debate the issues.
Now, maybe other factors outweigh these disadvantages. But as far as I can tell, that cultural disconnect is a political challenge to be overcome, not something that’s good in and of itself. I mean, it’s not like we don’t have enough problems in this country with people not seeing eye-to-eye as it is.
And? A basic criterion for higher level political thinking is being able to distinguish between what benefits you personally and what’s good policy in general.
> 1) while 1st gen immigrants may hold different values, their kids turn out mostly to hold Americanized values and
It’s not a one way process, especially at the high rates of immigration we’re seeing now. The share of the population that’s foreign born has tripled since 1970, to almost 15%. That degree of immigration changes American culture even as American culture changes the immigrants.
> 2) the fact that they don’t fit in culturally is good, we want people with different perspectives.
I don’t think that applies when you’re talking about a Democratic polity. In fact I think the opposite is true. A basic precept of international law is that different groups have the right to self-determination and cultivation of their own cultures under their own governments, when possible: https://unpo.org/article/4957. Bangladesh, where I’m from, exists because Pakistanis and Bangladeshis didn’t want to be part of the same body politic.
My wife’s family hunted wild game as their primary source of protein up to her grandparents’ generation. This is totally alien to my dad, who comes from a country where there has been no “frontier” for a thousand years. They don’t see eye-to-eye on say gun control, and they don’t even really have a cultural context in common that would allow them to meaningfully debate the issues.
Now, maybe other factors outweigh these disadvantages. But as far as I can tell, that cultural disconnect is a political challenge to be overcome, not something that’s good in and of itself. I mean, it’s not like we don’t have enough problems in this country with people not seeing eye-to-eye as it is.
That's rather unusual. "A pugnacious Bengali intellectual" would be the more usual stereotype back in the subcontinent.
I’m familiar with the personality type but I’m thinking about something even more basic. Bangladesh is a more hierarchical society, and much more focused on academic accomplishment. By contrast in America, nobody talks about whether someone “is from a good family” and glorifies college dropouts.
> For example, like many Asians, my dad has a very paternalistic view of government and elites. He thinks the job of leaders should be to “educate the common people” to accept what’s good for them. This drives my wife nuts when they argue politics, because she fully embraces traditional American populism (“wisdom of the ‘common man’”).
Are you trying to say the whole of America is made of your wives?
You say "culture matters" but Silicon Valley would certainly not embrace the "wisdom of the common man". As a matter of fact most of the ideological stuff that comes from SV is hugely paternalistic in nature, such as the cult personalities of their CEOs.
On top of that wasn't America made by immigrants so allowing them in is actually a more conservative choice than not?
Are you trying to say the whole of America is made of your wives?
You say "culture matters" but Silicon Valley would certainly not embrace the "wisdom of the common man". As a matter of fact most of the ideological stuff that comes from SV is hugely paternalistic in nature, such as the cult personalities of their CEOs.
On top of that wasn't America made by immigrants so allowing them in is actually a more conservative choice than not?
> On top of that wasn't America made by immigrants so allowing them in is actually a more conservative choice than not?
There were relatively many immigrants in America at times, and relatively few at other times. However, overall, there were too few immigrants to say that the America was “made” by them, as opposed to being made by people who were born here. At best, you could argue that it was made by people who were descendants of immigrants, but then this is true about most nations of the world, as most nations comprise of people who are descendants to immigrants.
There were relatively many immigrants in America at times, and relatively few at other times. However, overall, there were too few immigrants to say that the America was “made” by them, as opposed to being made by people who were born here. At best, you could argue that it was made by people who were descendants of immigrants, but then this is true about most nations of the world, as most nations comprise of people who are descendants to immigrants.
Most nations of the old world have had people living in its constituent lands for several centuries at the least. Immigration has not meaningfully shaped them, unless we talk about specific instances of forced population movement (partition of nations, ethnic cleansing etc.).
The US has for most of its history had a significant population of immigrants, rising up to 10% of the population at the turn of the 20th century. It has absolutely been made by immigrants; people who decided to move to the US in search of better opportunities.
The US has for most of its history had a significant population of immigrants, rising up to 10% of the population at the turn of the 20th century. It has absolutely been made by immigrants; people who decided to move to the US in search of better opportunities.
> If the immigrants were drug dealers yes, but (1) the survey responders are researchers who published in prestigious AI conferences
They aren't individually rejected though, are they? They're worried about immigration issues, but those aren't usually "immigration policies for AI researchers who published in prestigious AI conferences", but they apply to everyone.
They aren't individually rejected though, are they? They're worried about immigration issues, but those aren't usually "immigration policies for AI researchers who published in prestigious AI conferences", but they apply to everyone.
Skilled immigration to the US is way harder than say Canada, Australia and even the UK, primarily because skilled-immigration reform is used as a bargaining chip in political negotiations involving the severely controversial illegal/low-skilled immigration reform.
Not to say it's a much less certain route.
Canada has an upper hand because you can get papers in just 1-2 years, unlike other countries where you have to bet your everything on being in the mercy of immigration system, and country's politics for 6-7 years.
Canada has an upper hand because you can get papers in just 1-2 years, unlike other countries where you have to bet your everything on being in the mercy of immigration system, and country's politics for 6-7 years.
While papers are easy, good jobs are hard to come by in Canada. Plenty of highly educated immigrants are delivering food nowadays
Few even highly paid migrants coming to Canada from places like, say, China would complain.
The US and the UK have the most open policies and are overwhelmingly the most welcoming to migrants.
Both in practice and in culture.
The hints of Trumpism and Brexit 'nationalism' are essentially bigotry on the part of the author.
The paradox is if you have quite a lot of newcomers, that's going to make some people upset, or at least the policy will get attention. If you have few newcomers, it means there's little discussion but that doesn't mean the place is welcoming.
And some of it is just a matter of regular cultural barriers: Germany is a tough nut to crack even linguistically, let alone the culture. In America, it's 'English' and beyond that, there's little to worry about.
While Brexit has certainly caused some degree of unknowns because a former policy with the EU has changed, I think it will be sorted out.
Since there has been some policy change, the premise of the article I think is fair, but the wording was a little bit snide.
The data concerning attitudes towards immigrants consistently denies the narrative in the press regarding US/UK migrant populism. Have a look [1].
Survey after survey from generally the most respected institutions tend to reveal the same thing and that is the Anglosphere is considerably more open than other places. I don't consider that any kind of moral basis, however, it is a reality.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/14/around-the-wor...
Edit: I should add that the US/UK are not only the #1 destination for migrants, they also accept considerably more migrants per capita than most places, though not as much as Canada/Australia, notably, Anglosphere countries.
The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable that those places are generally good for migrants, almost all of the data supports it (number accepted, destination, openness, views of migrants etc). As noted below - the US system is rather bureaucratic, but it in the end it does extend status to mangy millions of people a year, a higher number (and per capita than most places so it's not that bad).
If you want to contend this, this you'll have to provide evidence other than the rather indirect notion of 'Trump said something mean'.
Both in practice and in culture.
The hints of Trumpism and Brexit 'nationalism' are essentially bigotry on the part of the author.
The paradox is if you have quite a lot of newcomers, that's going to make some people upset, or at least the policy will get attention. If you have few newcomers, it means there's little discussion but that doesn't mean the place is welcoming.
And some of it is just a matter of regular cultural barriers: Germany is a tough nut to crack even linguistically, let alone the culture. In America, it's 'English' and beyond that, there's little to worry about.
While Brexit has certainly caused some degree of unknowns because a former policy with the EU has changed, I think it will be sorted out.
Since there has been some policy change, the premise of the article I think is fair, but the wording was a little bit snide.
The data concerning attitudes towards immigrants consistently denies the narrative in the press regarding US/UK migrant populism. Have a look [1].
Survey after survey from generally the most respected institutions tend to reveal the same thing and that is the Anglosphere is considerably more open than other places. I don't consider that any kind of moral basis, however, it is a reality.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/14/around-the-wor...
Edit: I should add that the US/UK are not only the #1 destination for migrants, they also accept considerably more migrants per capita than most places, though not as much as Canada/Australia, notably, Anglosphere countries.
The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable that those places are generally good for migrants, almost all of the data supports it (number accepted, destination, openness, views of migrants etc). As noted below - the US system is rather bureaucratic, but it in the end it does extend status to mangy millions of people a year, a higher number (and per capita than most places so it's not that bad).
If you want to contend this, this you'll have to provide evidence other than the rather indirect notion of 'Trump said something mean'.
> The US and the UK have the most open policies and are overwhelmingly the most welcoming to migrants.
[citation needed], along with a definition of "welcoming".
[citation needed], along with a definition of "welcoming".
Neighbors welcoming immigrants isn't remotely the same thing as immigration policy.
Our (US) immigration policy and process is an expensive, painful, broken mess. That fellow residents welcome you after all the legal expense, time-wasted, and plain old stress, if besides the point.
Our (US) immigration policy and process is an expensive, painful, broken mess. That fellow residents welcome you after all the legal expense, time-wasted, and plain old stress, if besides the point.
Yes, the US has a byzantine migration bureaucracy, as do other nations, but that's a separate issue from notions of 'welcoming' or 'integration' or 'opportunities' etc..
It's also weird how the US has all the best talent in the world and some of the more ill-equipped bureaucracies.
It's also weird how the US has all the best talent in the world and some of the more ill-equipped bureaucracies.
Sure, but the parent post asserted "The US and the UK have the most open policies" which isn't true. And the article was about policy, not neighborhood acceptance.
The US has some of the best talent because of the economy, which is arguably a result of WWII (Germany, UK, Japan, etc all had to rebuild, we did not).
And, in my possibly jaded opinion, the bureaucracy is a feature not a bug. Politicians don't really want to fix anything because that would remove one of the drums they beat come election time.
The US has some of the best talent because of the economy, which is arguably a result of WWII (Germany, UK, Japan, etc all had to rebuild, we did not).
And, in my possibly jaded opinion, the bureaucracy is a feature not a bug. Politicians don't really want to fix anything because that would remove one of the drums they beat come election time.
There's a citation there, and I think people are smart enough to understand what the term 'welcoming' might mean.
The data is very consistent - whatever words you want to use, the US and UK come out pretty well in terms of their respect and openness to migrants. [1][2]
The issues I have mostly is with the false narrative created in the press, particularly around Brexit although using Trump's words as evidence is not entirely unfair, it's still a little misrepresented.
[1] https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/19/british-att...
The data is very consistent - whatever words you want to use, the US and UK come out pretty well in terms of their respect and openness to migrants. [1][2]
The issues I have mostly is with the false narrative created in the press, particularly around Brexit although using Trump's words as evidence is not entirely unfair, it's still a little misrepresented.
[1] https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/19/british-att...
If the US and UK have the most open policies, it certainly doesn't show up in the statistics. Both have fewer foreign-born residents than is average for their region (North America and Western Europe respectively)[1].
And I don't think it's bigotry to point out that a central notion of Brexit and Trumpist nationalism is the belief that their respective countries have accepted far more immigrants than other countries. I'm more familiar with Brexitism - where xenophobic images and messages concerning immigrants were used liberally during the campaign.[2]
Of course, it's possible that the US and UK have the most open immigration policies but then, to explain why they have proportionally fewer immigrants than their neighbours, this would require that they are less welcoming or desirable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-...
And I don't think it's bigotry to point out that a central notion of Brexit and Trumpist nationalism is the belief that their respective countries have accepted far more immigrants than other countries. I'm more familiar with Brexitism - where xenophobic images and messages concerning immigrants were used liberally during the campaign.[2]
Of course, it's possible that the US and UK have the most open immigration policies but then, to explain why they have proportionally fewer immigrants than their neighbours, this would require that they are less welcoming or desirable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-...
the difference in your list is minimal: the UK and US are within 2% of the first large/medium sized country on the list (Germany)
The claim was that "the US and the UK have the most open immigration policies". If you have any statistics to support this claim, please provide a reference. The statistics I referred to (proportion of foreign born residents) seem to clearly indicate that this claim is untrue.
And "within 2%" is a disingenuous response: why not say "below"? And why compare the percentages by absolute difference? A 2% difference when we're talking about proportions around the 15% level is significant.
And "within 2%" is a disingenuous response: why not say "below"? And why compare the percentages by absolute difference? A 2% difference when we're talking about proportions around the 15% level is significant.
it's not my claim, so I have no need to defend anything
in terms of the G7, from your list we have:
in terms of the G7, from your list we have:
Canada (21.3%)
Germany (15.7%)
US (15.4%)
UK (14.1%)
France (12.8%)
Italy (10.4%)
Japan (2%)
This has gotten a bit bizarre.
The OP made a claim that the US and the UK have the most liberal immigration policies.
I responded that that doesn't seem to be case and provide OECD numbers which support my contention.
You express disagreement - while re-quoting numbers which show that the US and UK do NOT have the most liberal immigration policies.
I honestly don't know what you are arguing because nothing you've said has supported the original contention.
The OP made a claim that the US and the UK have the most liberal immigration policies.
I responded that that doesn't seem to be case and provide OECD numbers which support my contention.
You express disagreement - while re-quoting numbers which show that the US and UK do NOT have the most liberal immigration policies.
I honestly don't know what you are arguing because nothing you've said has supported the original contention.
> The US and the UK have the most open policies and are overwhelmingly the most welcoming to migrants.
Yes you can see how open those policies are when you apply for a visa or are interrogated at any point of entry of these countries.
Yes you can see how open those policies are when you apply for a visa or are interrogated at any point of entry of these countries.
Individual experiences may vary. As a tourist, my two points of entry in US were a smooth experience, just a question of "how long are you staying" "what do you plan to do here". But my entry to Canada was a barrage of questions, "how long are you staying", "why are you traveling alone", "do you have any family here", "do you have a flight ticket home", "are you going to other provinces", etc.
[deleted]
I have been an immigrant / temporary resident in both countries. Ad-hominem is not helping.
Good so you should know how long does it take to obtain a H1-B visa (or any work visa in the US, maybe with the exception of the TN ones). Or the issues surrounding the Home Office in the UK (which I do give you is more welcoming than the US)
Hyperboles don't help neither
Hyperboles don't help neither
No, it is not normal. It is one thing to restrict the number of people, another to treat them horribly once they arrive. I do not know about the US, but UK's policies are anything but normal (normal as in humane).
Where are you getting this information from? I've had foreign friends who get along fine with the government beurocracy here.
I am an immigrant in the UK. My source of information is the people I speak to in person, and on online forums. They are anecdotal, of course, but there is no shortage of horrible stories, mine own included.
Examples from the top of my mind include the anxiety of uncertainty on whether you'll be able to extend your visa, not being able to leave country while your extension applications are in review (I've been stuck in the country for slightly over 2 years over a period of 5 and I've heard no less than 5 people unable to attend their parents' funerals), not being able to switch between employment and self-employment (as opposed to people like you enjoying any opportunity), only being limited to companies that can sponsor visas (as opposed to your colleagues freely jumping between any jobs they like), higher mortgage and interest rates on loans due to banks knowing well about your uncertain future, having to deal with racist job center employees to obtain an NI number and having to pass the "life in the uk" test consisting of detailed trivia.
Examples from the top of my mind include the anxiety of uncertainty on whether you'll be able to extend your visa, not being able to leave country while your extension applications are in review (I've been stuck in the country for slightly over 2 years over a period of 5 and I've heard no less than 5 people unable to attend their parents' funerals), not being able to switch between employment and self-employment (as opposed to people like you enjoying any opportunity), only being limited to companies that can sponsor visas (as opposed to your colleagues freely jumping between any jobs they like), higher mortgage and interest rates on loans due to banks knowing well about your uncertain future, having to deal with racist job center employees to obtain an NI number and having to pass the "life in the uk" test consisting of detailed trivia.
Sorry, wasn't questioning your claim. I do want to find out why people have such different experiences.
Is this part of the failed hostile environment policy from a few years back?
Is this part of the failed hostile environment policy from a few years back?
I am not sure but considering that policy was introduced in 2012, it probably is.
Not all visa types are the same. For instance, if you are on a Tier 2 visa and happily work for the same company for 5 years (you probably would not have any complaints at all), your experience would be a lot different compared to another person who may decide to start a start-up on their 2nd year (they likely would not even think of doing so), which would be a lot different to than of someone else who lost their job (as they'll have to find another one in 2 months or be kicked out), which would be very differen to a person stuck in their current position and salary due to difficulty of changing jobs on a visa, which would be a lot different to a person who does not have the right to change visas (some visa types are like this, when you switch, your route to ILR starts from scratch), and so on.
So, some people will accept what they have for the first 5 years and will not question or complain. Some will be bothered by not having the similar rights or security. Some will run into problems (losing your job is a big one, vague visa extension criteria for non-employment visas are another) and their lives will drastically change for the worse. Even if that is a small percentage, the anxiety it creates is huge.
Not all visa types are the same. For instance, if you are on a Tier 2 visa and happily work for the same company for 5 years (you probably would not have any complaints at all), your experience would be a lot different compared to another person who may decide to start a start-up on their 2nd year (they likely would not even think of doing so), which would be a lot different to than of someone else who lost their job (as they'll have to find another one in 2 months or be kicked out), which would be very differen to a person stuck in their current position and salary due to difficulty of changing jobs on a visa, which would be a lot different to a person who does not have the right to change visas (some visa types are like this, when you switch, your route to ILR starts from scratch), and so on.
So, some people will accept what they have for the first 5 years and will not question or complain. Some will be bothered by not having the similar rights or security. Some will run into problems (losing your job is a big one, vague visa extension criteria for non-employment visas are another) and their lives will drastically change for the worse. Even if that is a small percentage, the anxiety it creates is huge.
One would think that this would be a perfect case for a "global job" that doesn't depend on your location, and that immigration wouldn't be an issue at all for this.
in the last 3 months I receive myself a lot more job offers (UK) in linkedin: is it just my perception or IT staff are a bit running away from the UK? :)
A few reasons:
1) More confidence in the economy, increased hiring.
2) A lot of Europeans moved back to Europe
3) People are more likely to jump jobs,hence more vacancies.
4) More companies restarting previously paused projects,so an increases need for various services providers/consultants.
My main concern is that looking at the job ads, there are a lot of companies that expect to hire on cheap, considering the current situation.Some salaries in job ads are outright absurd. Again, not all sectors, not all skill groups.
1) More confidence in the economy, increased hiring.
2) A lot of Europeans moved back to Europe
3) People are more likely to jump jobs,hence more vacancies.
4) More companies restarting previously paused projects,so an increases need for various services providers/consultants.
My main concern is that looking at the job ads, there are a lot of companies that expect to hire on cheap, considering the current situation.Some salaries in job ads are outright absurd. Again, not all sectors, not all skill groups.
I guess a lot of citizens of EU countries would have moved out.
An honest question (as a UK Citizen living in the EU) - have they? And in the context of IT-related jobs in metropolitan areas (which I assume this commentator alludes to)
I don't know anyone in my network that fits the bill who has.
I don't know anyone in my network that fits the bill who has.
I don't know either hence my "I guess" and "would" statements, like - someone says increased recruitment from area, I can think of one reason why lots of people from overseas might have decided to leave that area recently.
Whatever the net rate of migration in IT workers, it's not something an individual is going to notice in terms of offers.
The UK is severely underrated by mainstream media because of Brexit and conservative govt:
“I’ll say it again, whether it is AI, the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine, the speed of the current vaccination program, this switch to greener energy, the reemergence of Oxbridge, the new Dominic Cummings-inspired DARPA-like science funding plan, or London being the world’s best city — current Great Britain remains grossly underrated.”
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/02/co...
“I’ll say it again, whether it is AI, the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine, the speed of the current vaccination program, this switch to greener energy, the reemergence of Oxbridge, the new Dominic Cummings-inspired DARPA-like science funding plan, or London being the world’s best city — current Great Britain remains grossly underrated.”
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/02/co...
> the new Dominic Cummings-inspired DARPA-like science funding plan
This is a massive cut to research.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/17/the-government-must-urg...
https://sciencebusiness.net/framework-programmes/news/uk-sci...
The unwillingness of anyone to take credit for decarbonising the UK is very odd.
This is a massive cut to research.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/17/the-government-must-urg...
https://sciencebusiness.net/framework-programmes/news/uk-sci...
The unwillingness of anyone to take credit for decarbonising the UK is very odd.
UK’s vaccine rollout is one of the most efficient in the world. It’s as if they were right about the EU holding them back. I’m not a huge fan of the state, but it’s quite impressive. That will certainly give the expats some confidence.
What makes UK more attractive option over Germany? Language, existing communities (say, for Indians)?
I may have a wrong impression, but outside of London, the salaries are not that good, and living in London may kill any gaps in salaries. You can have a better living in many cities in Germany being an AI researcher or just a regular software engineer.
I may have a wrong impression, but outside of London, the salaries are not that good, and living in London may kill any gaps in salaries. You can have a better living in many cities in Germany being an AI researcher or just a regular software engineer.
Language is probably a strong one, English is taught in school in Germany, but very much not spoken by a majority. That won't be much of an issue if you're working in an office in Berlin or Munich, where you'll have international colleagues, and everyone is expected to be fluent in English. But it's a very different affair when you're in a grocery store, or need to talk to some government office. I had a friend from the US who had lived in Germany for many years and still refused to go to the immigration office for visa renewals without his lawyer present because the office people refused to speak English and he was afraid that his (very good) German would fail him and he'd make a mistake.
Taxes and salaries are likely another point. Germany is somewhere in the highest taxed countries in the world.
Taxes and salaries are likely another point. Germany is somewhere in the highest taxed countries in the world.
UK has 40% tax on 50k pounds and Germany has 42% tax on the equivalent 58k euros, doesn't sound like big deal unless I'm missing something here.
Taxes are a lot more complex in Germany - you need to in add in social security charges (e.g., health insurance, nursing contribution, pension contribution, etc, etc), and you'll generally pay more in tax in Germany than you would for an equivalent number of pounds in the UK. I know, because that's what happened to me (I received a large enough pay rise to balance it out, so net income was the same either way).
The exception is once you go over £100,000 and hit the brief 62% tax bracket (remember to include NI) - then it starts to equal out again.
The exception is once you go over £100,000 and hit the brief 62% tax bracket (remember to include NI) - then it starts to equal out again.
It's the UK tax that is more complex for me as i'm not familiar with it. Isn't the NI more or less the equivalent of social security charges?
But now I understand where my math is wrong - I got the UK tax brackets wrong. For Germany I took ~42% (actually 39%) as what the state will take from a 58k€ salary but in the UK the state will take 25% of the £50k salary (most of the income in the 20% bracket). That is indeed significantly less.
But now I understand where my math is wrong - I got the UK tax brackets wrong. For Germany I took ~42% (actually 39%) as what the state will take from a 58k€ salary but in the UK the state will take 25% of the £50k salary (most of the income in the 20% bracket). That is indeed significantly less.
What are the bands and allowances though? I moved from the UK to Finland - I was in the 40% bracket, but now I'm 'only' in the mid twenties (plus about 8% insurances / pension) - but in the UK the first 11K is 0 rated, whereas Finland gives you nothing.
[deleted]
This paper seems very biased on several points. An example: “ A 2010 report revealed that between 1940-2000 there was a 9-18% growth in patents per capita for every percentage point increase in foreign college graduates in the population.”
Explained like this it seems there is a direct, linear, causal link between accepting more skilled immigrants and growth in patents. It is not explained how they obtained this and how confident they are in this link and the corresponding paper is behind a paywall. However:
1. The Simple heuristic of changing the order of the causation gives indeed something that seems plausible: countries or states with a more dynamic research environment will produce more patents & attract more foreign students in their colleges.
2. Using the number of patents to measure the benefits of skilled immigrations seems a bit ad-hoc. By carefully choosing the right metrics (patents issued with foreign students in college) instead of one of the considerable number of other possible choices (e.g. stock prices of tech companies with total skilled immigrants population) one can find the conclusion he wants
Explained like this it seems there is a direct, linear, causal link between accepting more skilled immigrants and growth in patents. It is not explained how they obtained this and how confident they are in this link and the corresponding paper is behind a paywall. However:
1. The Simple heuristic of changing the order of the causation gives indeed something that seems plausible: countries or states with a more dynamic research environment will produce more patents & attract more foreign students in their colleges.
2. Using the number of patents to measure the benefits of skilled immigrations seems a bit ad-hoc. By carefully choosing the right metrics (patents issued with foreign students in college) instead of one of the considerable number of other possible choices (e.g. stock prices of tech companies with total skilled immigrants population) one can find the conclusion he wants
Any article talking about increasing immigration will attract the ugly nativism in this forum almost immediately.
Immigration has been shown to greatly benefit a developed economy like the US, and high skilled immigration even more so. The next few decades will require the US to not only maintain its edge but stay several steps ahead of China in its capacity to innovate. We desperately need to allow for more people to enter this country.
I will not provide any citations. Please look up established research by social and political scientists.
Immigration has been shown to greatly benefit a developed economy like the US, and high skilled immigration even more so. The next few decades will require the US to not only maintain its edge but stay several steps ahead of China in its capacity to innovate. We desperately need to allow for more people to enter this country.
I will not provide any citations. Please look up established research by social and political scientists.
Look at China’s rank in the survey, and then consider how China grants only a few hundred permanent resident cards per year:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-03-24/Is-China-moving-to-loo...
Compared to the US, which despite its bureaucratic pitfalls and inefficiencies grants over 1 million green cards annually:
https://www.boundless.com/blog/biden-immigration-bill-increa...