Interesting chart, I wonder how the point system would apply based on these factors. Why is Africa considered as a country?

While some Indian professionals wishing to move to the U.S. to work might have benefitted under the "points" system, it's unclear what the effect would have been on Indian families. While spouses and children would still be allowed in relatively quickly, I think siblings, cousins, and in-laws would have had a harder time. This is bothe good and bad. Plenty of people (not just Indians) have gamed the system, to bring in relatives to work in their own businesses, often for wages that were less than the market-rate if they hired a non-family member. OTOH, I can't help but think that the reason many Indians still like the U.S. is because bothe countries have benefitted from the closer interaction between the two over the past 10 years. Trying to slow down that interaction seems counterproductive.

Opinions on the immigration will vary, but I have a feeling that it will resemble conversations about affirmative action. Just as I believe that affirmative action is a net minus for Indian-Americans, so too does an immigration system that favors unskilled labor over skilled harm the interests of Indian-Americans, as well as the country as a a whole.

oz & kanada have a points system. how's that working out for brownz? if you care about that. if you really prioritize/weight people of your own race/culture in your utility maximization functions, then i am a little confused as to why people leave their "racial homelands" in the first place.

Why is Africa considered as a country?

there was no heading for country, read the graph closely. they just amalgamated based on the size of the cohorts from each country. obviously south america isn't a country either.

It's Desis, not Desi's!!! 10 points off for bad grammar.

Just as I believe that affirmative action is a net minus for Indian-Americans, so too does an immigration system that favors unskilled labor over skilled harm the interests of Indian-Americans, as well as the country as a a whole.

immigration is a bigger issue for everyone, especially minorities, than AA. after all, the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action in the aggregate on whites, because of the entry of women into the labor force.

based on the size of the cohorts from each country. obviously south america isn't a country either.

Thanks

What is this point system in Canada that everybody is talking about.

It seem like that almost every brown immigrant in Canada is an un-educated jatt who can't speak a word of English and gonna move to some punjabi ghetto just outside of Vancouver in places like Surrey and Abbotsford. Most of these people get into having family in Canada already.

oz & kanada have a points system. how's that working out for brownz?

Don't know about Aussies - but Canada seems to be two tracks, Indians and other browns are increasingly visible in Canadian media and politics, but business is still an old boys club. When we have Canadian Bangalis visit us, they're always a bit surprised with the prominence of Indians in business, academia, and such - but don't have Punjabi gangs.

Rahul, I couldn't bear it either, so I fixed it. ;)

if you really prioritize/weight people of your own race/culture in your utility maximization functions, then i am a little confused as to why people leave their "racial homelands" in the first place.

Maybe they assign a higher utility to money, rule of law etc. and assign a smaller utility benefit to living with their own. So it makes sense to move to the US. Once they arrive in the US, it will make sense to get more of their own as they do assign some utility to living with their own and they already have the money, rule of law etc.
It would be a rational desire unless living with their own will somehow bring the overall utility down.

With such an important issue at hand, the supporters of this bill should hire the top most lobbying firms on Capitol Hill. That could turn the tide in their favor.

So called 'merit' based bill was a slap in the face for people waiting for their 'green card'.
Reduce number from 140K to 90 K, limit number of visa from a single country to 10%. i.e. only 9000 per year can come from India (including spouse and children).
Your birth country decided your luck in new system.A highschool diploman holder from Italy/Ireland will have a better chance than a PhD from India.

oz & kanada have a points system. how's that working out for brownz?

The emphasis on English has resulted in decreasing immigration from traditional Asian sources such as China and Vietnam and increased immigration from South Asia particularly India. India was the third largest annual supplier of immigrants to OZ in recent years after UK & NZ.

NZ doesn't count since they have a reciprocal arrangement where the Kiwis can live in OZ indefinitely without any immigration hassles.

At present a score of 6 on IELTS gives you 20 points and a score of 5 gives 15, it will be changed later this year to a score of 7 gives you 25 points while scrapping the score of 5. So it will become easier for desis to come down.

With regard to Australia - it is working very well for the browns. Met heaps of Mallu Nurses in the last few weeks.

I immigrated here in 2005 on a skilled migration points based system. I believe it is a very fair albeit quite time consuming system. The documentation is also onerous. Would I have preferred to be in the USA - Yes but only if it were not such a pain to get a Green Card.

The salient points are :

1) Certain occupations are deemed to be in demand and are placed on a list which carries certain points. Certain occupations are deemed to be in great shortage and these occupations are allocated 60 points. The national boards for these occupations decide if a particular occupation is in demand.

2) Obtain ones qualification assessed by the National Board . eg for Accountants, an assessment from the CPA / CA boards that the overseas qualification is equivalent to an Australian qualification. There are similar boards for Plumbers/ Hairdressers / Doctors etc.

3) Once the national boards assess that the qualifications / experience are suitable from an Australian context, you can file a formal application. The Case officer then demands detailed documents on work history . The department conducts random background checks to limit fraud.

4) Additional points are provided for spousal age/ qualifications/ IELTS.

4) Pass IELTS( which is like TOEFL). Score at least 7 if you are applying in a teaching / nursing category.

5) Get a comprehensive medical examination done including HIV / TB .

6) Provide Police Clearance Certificates from every country that you have lived in for more than 1 year. Was a nuisance for me as I had to get FBI clearance.

Offshore turnaround time can vary between 1 - 2 years. All offshore applications from all countries go into one processing centre. Thus, there is no real disadvantage due to the large number of Indian applications.

The whole process is a lot faster if one has studied / worked in Australia. Total turnaround time is about 6 months.

This link may be of help - provides a succint view of the new points system.

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/changes/_pdf/GSMchange_points-test.pdf

On the whole a skilled based points system will benefit Desis. As Samir said Indians are now the second largest immigrant group. If one walks down Melbourne CBD, so many brown faces :)

Indians will do well under both the new and old system but there are different kinds of Indians. Under the old system Gujaratis and Punjabis did well. Family members came over to from India to work in the family business, saved up money and then opened up a business and invited more family members to come over.

In the new system those with professional degrees and technical skills will do better- meaning South Indians.

As Samir said Indians are now the second largest immigrant group.

No thats not what I said. I said in the recent past Indians form the 3rd largest group in terms of annual intake. The second largest immigrant group are New Zealanders. The English are the largest immigrant group. Indians are at number 9. There are more Arabs than Indians in OZ.

All offshore applications from all countries go into one processing centre. Thus, there is no real disadvantage due to the large number of Indian applications.

The whole process is a lot faster if one has studied / worked in Australia. Total turnaround time is about 6 months.

Actually I know South Africans who got processed offshore in 6 months. Actually it is easier to imigrate from countries on the Working Holiday program. Since the MODL is heavily dominated by construction related trades it is easy for English/NZ/South Africans to migrate since how many plumbers in India does any one know that speak English at competent level.

Indians have to spend huge money in studying or have to get sponsored by some company to have onshore application processed.

Samir - mea Culpa.
was commenting while watching aker vs lions spat.

Actually there are quite a few NTTF trained tradesmen who migrate to Australia.

The scrutiny varies depending on the country that one is applying for migration. So in that sense, migrating from a "white country" is easier. I agree that quite a few South Africans ( browns / blacks / whites) migrate to Australia especially Perth.

Turnaround time is a function of several factors. In my case actual wait time was less than 12 months. The rest of the delay was because it took me time to provide the paperwork. And mine was an offshore application.

Accountants / Software Engineers / Doctors / Nurses are categories that favour browns. Having dealt with a fair number of Indian plumbers my faith in their skills is not very high :)

I wonder how many indians leave after finishing their education in Australia.

Rahul, I couldn't bear it either, so I fixed it. ;)

Thank's Anna :)

Thank's Anna :)

Your welcome!

quick note. I think we have to be careful about fawning over the points-based systems around the world given that labor markets in the destination countries have a vast yet unique set of needs (sometimes overlapping, mostly not). a sudden shift to a points-based system in the US combined with some increased amount of enforcement would see a dramatic rise in the cost of living. reduce the # of unskilled labor in the pipeline and what segment of the US population is going to get hit the hardest? my guess is the working poor and lower-middle class, precisely the group who is most incensed over this issue. i've mentioned it before somewhere that food in this country is grossly priced below cost and the factors as to why this is so are numerous, notably subsidies, centralization, technology, cheap fossil fuels, etc., but also because of labor. there are powerful interests that would like to see these arrangements remain in place. most of us here know about some of those interest groups. but another complicit member in this arrangement is us. we demand low prices as if that's the end of the story, another feather in the hat of the savvy consumer. 30 years ago, the average American spent 18% of their income on food, today it's 10%. those of who can afford it and value it could shoulder some of the burden and support local agriculture, where the costs of production are higher but so are the social outcomes for most parties involved in this immigration debate. But, i'll be honest, we are only a small part of incentive structure and voting with our food dollars is a noble yet limited venture. central to the discussion on which labor to import is this 800 lb gorilla:

To speak of the farm bill's influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact--on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities--or to the United States. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico's eaters as well as its farmers.) You can't fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U.S. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico. [link]

So, it's not the whole story because this bizarro dynamic has brought about many unintended consequences and even more half-baked patchwork solutions, solutions that are not futile because of misguided political or ideological preferences; rather, our concept of a 'nation' amidst a 'market' is, at best, poorly understood, and as Siddhartha noted in earlier threads, it will probably remain that way for some time.

in theory, the points-based system is great because, in theory, it gives the destination country greater control. yet, in the US, we have crossed many, many bridges in the evolution of our labor market to where theory is only something realized in the rear view mirror. the free market is also great in theory except for that minor bit about the free market in labor. this issue, and its infinite relationships to so many other issues, is evidence that the people who have the most work to do on fusing policy and theory are the ones who seek to protect and make rich this nation. whatever that means. good luck to you.

Very good point Non Von Mises; I have a slight quibble with the following though:

the free market is also great in theory except for that minor bit about the free market in labor.

The "free market" does not exist in most other product markets either (though it does in the figment of orthodox neoclassicists imaginations; or in some kind of weird platonic world). Most of the world does not conform to the bottom line Arrow-Debreu model of competitive general equilibrium. We, my friend, are perpetually trapped in the world of the "second best"....as Lancaster and Lipsey originally put it.

I meant no von mises.

Interesting ideas, No von Mises.

I always thought the US already had a points system - at several levels. First, the entire GRE-and-graduate-school thing is a huge points system. In practice, a very large majority of F-1s became GCs. Also, permanent visas were once given out based on a 'science or tech degree and a resume' by US consulates - in the very early days of the post-1965 visa regulations - in effect, a points system. Even today, faculty at US universities do not need to meet labor market tests for their GCs. So there's yet another points system right there.

There is/was also a way to get 'national interest' waivers of the labor market test for professions relevant to defence industries for example - this was in effect yet another point system layered on.

And all of this made sense when professional jobs were permanent, companies relied on internal R&D, so it made sense to have a captive technical labor pool. It didn't matter how long the GC took, because the job was permanent anyway.

Today innovation has become a global chain, involving many different companies, and divisions of the same company in different countries. The workforce has globalized; permanent jobs have disappeared.

So the advantage of a 'labor-certified' GC has also begun to disappear, both for the company and the employee. What good is a US Greencard when the jobs are going to be in Bangalore or Hyderabad? What good is a PhD when college dropouts create billion dollar companies (only to get honorary doctorates years later and joke about it?) What good is a labor certification process, when skills become obsolete in a few years, and the company itself might have disappeared by then?

Ah, you ask, but I thought the US was a country of immigrants, where people set down roots, form communities, and contribute to society? Well maybe then, the particular skills people are bringing in don't matter as much as we think - the desire to work hard and succeed may be enough. The universities and large companies can get the skills anywhere they want right now - whether by relocating globally or importing labor (F-1 and H-1B for students and postdocs; faculty can get GCs straight).

People are asking how an explicit points system might work. An explicit points system will work when there are local skills shortages, a booming economy, or when jobs are in places the native population is unwilling to relocate to, etc. In Canada, the points system works well in places like Alberta (booming economy), Manitoba ("Canadian Siberia", where nobody wants to relocate), and to an extent, the Maritimes (skills shortages). But not that well in Toronto, which is saturated with skilled people of every sort.

OTOH, the richness, and 'near-ubiquity' of desi life in Toronto is like nowhere else in North America.

A points system coupled with a regional relocation program based on local labor market conditions, could work in the US. There are large parts of the Midwest that are in effect depopulating right now. I'm thinking of Nebraska, the Dakotas, Idaho etc. Canada is thinking of trying a system of making people relocate to the Maritimes, which are also depopulating - for three years after coming in on a points system, which is usually enough to force them to set down roots. A points system biased towards skills for jobs that are globalizing will work less well, unless the points system also rewards entrepreneurship. Indians looking for jobs would then stay in India, because that's where it might be easier to get jobs. Indians looking to set up companies can come to the US on the points system (and then bring in other Indians to work for them on H-1B :). Wait a minute, this is already happening ! :) :)

And remember that 'English-proficiency' used to be a proxy for 'British origin' once upon a time. So while acing the TOEFL will get you the points, don't bet the farm on being accepted in the local labor market on that basis. Even second-generation US or Canadian-born desis have reported here on how people told them they had 'accents'! Long post, but hopefully it makes some sense.

Sigh!, good catch because it's important distinction. when i said that the free market in theory is great, i was referring more to the predicted outcomes as opposed to the methodology used to achieve those predicted outcomes. the methodology, as you duly noted, is specious. but as you'll find in this discussion between Rodrik and Palley, there is moderate agreement that the Arrow-Debreu model is useful not as a description of reality but as a point of departure, loaded with assumptions, that must be gradually peeled away while absorbing infinite market "imperfections". why must an ill-fitting model be the point of departure? That's another discussion altogether.

Anyhow, if you're into this sort of thing, the heterodox vs orthodox debate in the blogosphere originated from this piece in the Nation. All the parts of the TPM discussion are here which includes DeLong, Galbraith, Krugman, Sawicky, and others. And here's Delong, for laughters sake-

By contrast, the neoclassical toolkit can be absolute poison for people right on center. It functions like a kind of crack, reducing their arguments to empty slogans: "the market takes care of that"; "acts of capitalism between consenting adults"; "they hired the money, didn't they?"; "it's not the government's, it's theirs."

A points system coupled with a regional relocation program based on local labor market conditions, could work in the US.

chachaji, good point and i think this is where the silver lining lies for US policymakers in that the federal government is showing that it is quite ineffective in forming any sort of functioning coalition on immigration policy. different states have different needs and it might be best to amalgamate those needs state by state. afterall, look at how the health care and carbon emissions debate have found more traction in state capitals as opposed to washington.

Thanks, NvM! BTW - to your point on cheap food in the US - in Canada, food is more expensive than in the US, by quite a significant margin. It's one of the first things anyone who's lived in the US would notice, on coming to Canada. Food processors and grocery chains have horizontally integrated in some Canadian retail market segments, thus getting the market power to enforce monopolistic pricing in specific regions - but your point about the availability of cheaper agricultural labor in the US may also be a contributing factor keeping prices down. In general, the US couples a competitive market and a regulatory environment that discourages horizontally integrated monopolies ("antitrust"). Still, I sometimes wonder why, in the US, the saving on wages or other inputs (or the amount of the subsidies) is passed on to the consumer instead of being pocketed by the retailer or producer, since food demand is relatively price-inelastic, at least for the food supermarkets sell (restaurants might be another story).

Incidentally, Canada also has a 'temporary guest workers' program that brings in laborers from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America - for fixed periods - to pick its crops and produce. But, perhaps because they are legal, their wages might not be as low relative to Canadian wages as the 'illegal' workers in the US. So I wonder - perhaps the idea of legal low-skill workers also came from Canada?

Of course, "immigrants" from Mexico are NATIVE to this continent, unlike colonizers such as those from other continents. So incredibly arrogant for any of you to state that anyone from Mexico is "illegal." Funny, India kicked out its colonizers, yet here you are yapping like soome pukka-sahibs. Face up to your own hypocrisy.

Your comment is so ignorant. Country > "Continent". I don't have the patience to address the remaining stupidity.

NvM, thanks a lot for the links. I had actually read palley a few years ago; if I remember correctly he mostly does macro. By the way, if you want the history behind the "Alice in wonderland" assumptions that Palley talks about, read Philip Mirowski's More Heat than Light. Neoclassicists basically copied first the Newtonian mechanics models (early vintage)and merely changed the names of the variables; then ex physicists like Frisch, Koopmans and Tinbergen updated the models and made them look like physics circa 1930s. Hence the profusion of physics metaphors in econ. I remember that the book kinda vindicated--after some years-- a question I once asked my micro professor (undergrad days)about the startling similarities between Physics 310 and some econ models.

chachaji- whoa! canada doesn't discourage horizontal integration? i would have thought that canada's antitrust policies are pretty stringent, especially compared to the US. the US antitrust enforcement is pretty liberal regarding horizontal integration hence increased consolidation over time on the retail side (kroger, albertson, safeway), on the processing side (tyson, kraft, cargill, smithfield, conagra), and in ag inputs like fertilizers, feed, seed (cargill, conagra, monsanto). There's even been more vertical integration over time in poultry and grains. I think some nominal savings are pocketed by the consumer in artificially low prices but my interest is at what cost? there's a lot of suspicious processing methods going on to keep every grocery store fully stocked everyday.

sigh!- i JUST came across Mirowski in the comments section in this post. i'll definitely check it out. thanks for the tip and explanation.

NvM, for a review of Mirowski, be sure to check out this, from the, ahem, Ludwig von Mises Institute itself. On physics influences on economics - many physicists, from Keynes (who had a natural sciences tripos) to Barro (Caltech BS in physics) have gone into economics - so it has to have influenced their ideas. But still, physics looks down on economics, and economists look down on physicists!

On US-Canada regulatory differences - the practice and enforcement of economic regulation in Canada is always under the assumption that it has to be lighter than in the US, because 'US firms always are larger and have more market power, so they would come out ahead if everything were to be the same'. Canada has only 5 banks, for example, and they want to become just 3, arguing that they cannot otherwise compete with the large US banks. And Canadian banks can sell securities and insurance, always could. No legacy of Glass-Steagall, and horizontal, vertical and geographic integration to an extent that is still unthinkable in the US. I think the situation in food processing and retail would be quite similar, though I have fewer details off the top of my head.

Requests for homework assistance

We are all Black Mexicans now.

Of course, "immigrants" from Mexico are NATIVE to this continent, unlike colonizers such as those from other continents. So incredibly arrogant for any of you to state that anyone from Mexico is "illegal." Funny, India kicked out its colonizers, yet here you are yapping like soome pukka-sahibs. Face up to your own hypocrisy.

What an audaciously ignorant comment in the context of historical fact. "Mexicans" represent a multiplicity of ethnic origins including natives, Spaniards and Africans. The socioeconomic divide and treatment of those that appear to be "native" is far worse in Mexico than in the United States. Finally, speaking of "hypocrisy," how exactly does the Mexican government treat the Central and South American illegal aliens that attempt to cross the southern Mexican border? The answer is rather fitting in regards to the Mexican term for Central Americans - cerote.

An excellent and thought-provoking article in the Times this weekend. I happen to agree with Pritchett on his views on borders and moralities, except he puts it much more eloquently. Personally, I find the focus (of the discussions on this blog on affirmative action, reservation, immigration etc.) on desis unncessary, distracting, and frankly, callous. In an era of unparalleled wealth, isn't it morally incumbent on those of us who can afford it to help those who are suffering? (Yes, I realize I sound very John-Lennon-in-Imagine-esque, and no, this will not lead to a Harrison Bergeron world).

The best quote from the article:

I asked why Americans should care — so what if there are destitute goat farmers on the other side of the world? “I dislike arguments that try to give self-interested explanations: ‘We should care because they’ll become terrorists,’ ” Pritchett said. “I think we should care just because they’re human beings. The arc of human history has been the broadening of the scope of moral concern.”

Who are these Indians (and Mexicans) that speak 'English only' (like this only?)?

Who are these Indians (and Mexicans) that speak 'English only' (like this only?)?

Yes, that part of the chart made me wonder too. Of course, we know that among nations ranked by number of English speaking people, India would be next only to the US. And relatively soon, India will be ahead of everyone else - but virtually all Indians who speak English also speak another language. Although there are people in India who only speak English - some 'Anglo-Indians', some tribal converts to Christianity, and some who went to the most 'elite' schools, among other demographic segments - I still wonder if that part of the chart makes sense.

I also wonder about the 'Mexicans who speak only English' statistic. While there are a lot of US citizens who live in Mexico, many if not all of them would also speak Spanish, as would virtually everybody native to Mexico. And as for the 'South Americans' who speak only English - perhaps they are counting the Caribbean as 'South America', and then it might make sense - percentage wise, the 'English only' South Americans reflect my own intuitive sense of how many 'South American' immigrants might be from the Caribbean.

Who are these Indians (and Mexicans) that speak 'English only' (like this only?)?

The question could have been misinterpreted by the responder to mean ability to read, write and talk fluently.
If this were the case, I would classify my language abilities as "English only".
rwt fluent English
--t fluent Tamil
rwt limited Hindi
rwt limited Telugu

Although there are people in India who only speak English - some 'Anglo-Indians', some tribal converts to Christianity, and some who went to the most 'elite' schools, among other demographic segments - I still wonder if that part of the chart makes sense.

This has nothing to do with the chart per se, but the "English-only" segment of the Indian population is growing, and is set for a demographic explosion over the next 1-2 generations. I just don't think it's entirely well-documented (yet) and hasn't been well analysed (yet). But it's a major sociologic change and a very big linguistic shift which is taking place. It's not just the Parsis, Anglo-Indians, and Elites anymore...English has penetrated the middle class, and private English-medium education is spreading rapidly. As the middle class grows, English grows. The phenomenon of young, middle-class parents speaking predominantly English at home with their small children, is very common in big cities throughout India. In Mumbai and Delhi it's essentially the norm among some segments of the population. Even amongst my own relatives, quite a few of my extended family speak primarily English at home now. This wasn't the case even 25 or 30 years ago. Keep watching people...English will be the mothertongue of the Indian middle class very soon. And anyone who thinks that English-medium education will not lead to a demise of Indian languages in the long run, is sadly mistaken.

In an era of unparalleled wealth, isn't it morally incumbent on those of us who can afford it to help those who are suffering?

Morality is a subjective construct and thusly the contention of the application of some uniform standard of morality is dubious. Furthermore, one must be careful when the actions of charity, but not charity itself, are conducted under the guise of the threat of implied force. Such is the case when "helping" is mandated by governmental entities rather than through volitional charity. Finally, one must utilize objective measures within the construct of a definable parameter set to make a determination as to whether or not the purported action is actually helping. Such measures and even such a framework are solely lacking when it comes to humanitarian and "social" programs. Your comment, and correct me if I am wrong, appears to follow the paradigm of redistribution of wealth, which helps nobody as it strips the work product from the productive while failing to require the necessary changes on the part of the unproductive to improve their own lot in life.

Morality is a subjective construct and thusly the contention of the application of some uniform standard of morality is dubious

DSummoner,
C'mon now you don't really believe that ? What is the basis for civilized society then ?

C'mon now you don't really believe that ? What is the basis for civilized society then ?

Actually I do. There is a multiplicity of bases, not singular and not certainly not unique, for "civilized" society depending on the metrics that one chooses to utilize from the definitional construct for "civilized."

Your comment, and correct me if I am wrong, appears to follow the paradigm of redistribution of wealth, which helps nobody as it strips the work product from the productive while failing to require the necessary changes on the part of the unproductive to improve their own lot in life.

The problem I have with this idea is that almost all of us did not achieve our current status in a vacuum. We mostly had the privilege of educated parents, a stable society, no concern for basic necessities, and the freedom to pursue the goals we want to. These are often an accident of history, or the result of the work of an ancestor, and we reap the amplified benefits. To argue that we need to somehow institutionalize these dramatic inequities seems inhumane and arbitrary to me. Furthermore, it is a huge stretch to claim that a guest worker program from Nepal/Saharan Africa/other destitute regions of the world does not require changes from the "unproductive". Additionally, even a marginal/mediocre framework that improves the quality of life of the extremely poor is better than the current status quo.

I doubt that we are going to agree on this thread since this discussion has been a debate since time immemorial, and policy is made by the haves to propagate their advantage. I did not type more in my previous post, for fear that it would be reduced into a series of cliches (and, of course, from laziness :-), which is why I alluded to the Harrison Bergeron world. The ideas suggested do not reduce those who can excel to the lowest common denominator, but merely try to haul the worst-off among us to a more reasonable standard of living.

The problem I have with this idea is that almost all of us did not achieve our current status in a vacuum. We mostly had the privilege of educated parents, a stable society, no concern for basic necessities, and the freedom to pursue the goals we want to.

To a certain degree, I would agree with this statement (at least the first sentence of it). I see the remainder of it as being open to discussion in order to obtain a gauge as to whether a plurality exists.

These are often an accident of history, or the result of the work of an ancestor, and we reap the amplified benefits.

I would opt for the second of the choices in "or" comparison in that I see little as occurring by accident of history. For me, personally, the work of an ancestor can be simply traced back one generation to my father. However, the life of privilege described in the first quoted sentence was not generally true. For most people that I know (sample size not being the greatest), everything that we have in life has come through our own hard work and not through some Hiltonesque reaping of ancestral benefits. Finally, as far as amplified benefits go... what is your baseline set of benefits for which the adjective of "amplified" is being related to?

To argue that we need to somehow institutionalize these dramatic inequities seems inhumane and arbitrary to me.

In the context of the immigration debate (to which my response is limited) one must first define the term "dramatic inequities." Furthermore, there is much more at play in the immigration debate than just the issue of the perception of humanity. First and foremost is the fiduciary duty of the government in question to its citizenry. A first world government, particularly those that provide the entrapment (I have chosen this word carefully given the current form) of social programs, does a great fiscal disservice to its citizens (particularly those responsible for paying the taxes) by engaging in the mass importation of those that are unskilled and fall within the confines of poverty. This practice has not only placed a large burden on the taxpayers but it has decimated the unskilled and semi-skilled blue collar job market for the citizenry. It is a much more equitable trade-off when all parties involved bring something to the table in terms of contributions.

I have zero problems with charity. However, when "charity" is mandated by the government under the color of actual or implied force, it no longer becomes charity.

Furthermore, it is a huge stretch to claim that a guest worker program from Nepal/Saharan Africa/other destitute regions of the world does not require changes from the "unproductive". Additionally, even a marginal/mediocre framework that improves the quality of life of the extremely poor is better than the current status quo.

Both of those are true. But the question becomes one of order of fiduciary responsibility. Being a libertarian, I see such responsibility lying first with the individual and then secondly (a distant second) with their government. Also of import in this whole discussion, is the mechanism by which one engages in improving the quality of life of others. From what I have seen, current methods do little to place responsibility on the recipient of aid, lack objective measures for gauging efficacy or, for the few programs that have such measures, they are simply ignored. Much of the US domestic "social" policy falls into this description, and not surprisingly, has created an entitlement class with no incentive to improve their condition. Importing poverty into this rather broken system will do little to actually generate productive members in society and will instead increase the fiscal burden that must be born by those that produce. Our foreign "aid" policy also falls along these lines. We simply throw money at problems without requiring or ascertaining whether the programs themselves are mitigating the purported problem for which they were created.

Much of the US domestic "social" policy falls into this description, and not surprisingly, has created an entitlement class with no incentive to improve their condition. Importing poverty into this rather broken system will do little to actually generate productive members in society and will instead increase the fiscal burden that must be born by those that produce.

WTF are you talking about?

WTF are you talking about?

Pick your poison. Social welfare in the form of Section 8 housing, foodstamps, etc. as part of the "war on poverty" have been a complete failure when it comes to eradicating the purported problem (i.e. poverty) for which they were created (if the "war on poverty" were judged in accordance to the manner that the police action boondoggle in Iraq is being judged, the former would have been abandoned decades ago). Instead, we have a system of multigenerational government dependency. Such programs lack the responsibility aspect on the part of the recipient of the entitlement when it comes to the receipt of benefits. Furthermore, they create a tripartite voting block that further entrenches the entitlement - those that receive the entitlements, those that make a living servicing the entitlement recipients and those that buy votes from both. We can readily discuss others such as the government ponzi scheme. Adding more people to the entitlement roles (aka importing poverty) will do nothing to solve the nascent structural problems that are present in the system, create an additional burden with the people added and exacerbate the problem of undercutting of the wage market for semi-skilled and unskilled labor.

Thanks Newt! Look forward to your lecture series on corporate welfare, off-shore tax havens, property taxes & school funding, legacy admissions, the evils of the estate tax, and non-taxable "income" in private equity, etc. As for this,

multigenerational government dependency

spare me the syllables and just call them leaches.

Thanks Newt! Look forward to your lecture series on corporate welfare, off-shore tax havens, property taxes & school funding, legacy admissions, the evils of the estate tax, and non-taxable "income" in private equity, etc.

Let me know if you wish to discuss these topics and I will gladly oblige.

As for this,

multigenerational government dependency

spare me the syllables and just call them leaches.

I use the term that I feel is most apt. The use of your term, however, is solely yours. BTW, no comment on the responsibility side for those receiving the entitlements? No comments on the displacement of citizens from the semi-skilled and unskilled marketplace? No comments regarding the failure of existing programs to correct the problems for which they were created?

Morality is a subjective construct and thusly the contention of the application of some uniform standard of morality is dubious/blockquote>

What part of the universal Golden Rule of morality: do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you, do you find "dubious" and "subjective"?

"charity" is mandated by the government under the color of actual or implied force, it no longer becomes charity.

You must have a problem with taxes then. And with the safety net, universal education etc they pay for. You must really love how India works then: abandoning multitudes of its children to hunger, illiteracy, slave labor, beggary...

being a libertarian, I see such responsibility lying first with the individual and then secondly (a distant second) with their government.

So you think a child is a "responsible individual" who should be held accountable for the "decisions" it makes regarding its life?

Morality is a subjective construct and thusly the contention of the application of some uniform standard of morality is dubious

What part of the universal Golden Rule of morality: do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you, do you find "dubious" and "subjective"?

"charity" is mandated by the government under the color of actual or implied force, it no longer becomes charity.

You must have a problem with taxes then. And with the safety net, universal education etc they pay for. You must really love how India works then: abandoning multitudes of its children to hunger, illiteracy, slave labor, beggary...

being a libertarian, I see such responsibility lying first with the individual and then secondly (a distant second) with their government.

So you think a child is a "responsible individual" who should be held accountable for the "decisions" it makes regarding its life?

I was just waiting for the cavalry! :)

What part of the universal Golden Rule of morality: do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you, do you find "dubious" and "subjective"?

The "Golden Rule" is no more of an objective basis for morality (particularly in the context of ubiquity)than would be some random (well, not that random) section of Hammurabi's Code (you know which one to which I am making reference). Morality varies not only across cultural boundaries but also across temporal boundaries within the same culture.

You must have a problem with taxes then. And with the safety net, universal education etc they pay for. You must really love how India works then: abandoning multitudes of its children to hunger, illiteracy, slave labor, beggary...

Yes and no. Depends on the rationale for the tax, depends on how much the tax is and depends on how the tax money is spent. The current entitlement system is vastly different than the safety net concept under the guise of which many of the programs were put into place. As far as universal education goes, it depends on the funding mechanism. A sales tax as a funding mechanism is one that I am fine with but a property tax based mechanism is not one that I am fine with. When it comes to the issue of India, and more specifically Indians in India and their children, the onus of responsibility lies with the people that are making the children that they can ill-afford to support.

So you think a child is a "responsible individual" who should be held accountable for the "decisions" it makes regarding its life?

It is the people that volitionally engaged in the activities of making the child upon whom the responsibility falls upon. I don't take a particularly positive view of the r-selected breeding strategies of those that can ill-afford to feed themselves much less their dependents.

An article in Slate on how much an immigrant is worth.

Who are these Indians (and Mexicans) that speak 'English only' (like this only?)?

Indian citizens who are growing up in the US?

In other words people with parents that never tought them their mother tongue. That's dumb. =)

Why is it that educated people end up doing professions that arent theirs when they come to Canada? In several cases this is seen. Why is it so?

Who are these Indians (and Mexicans) that speak 'English only' (like this only?)? Indian citizens who are growing up in the US?

In other words people with parents that never tought them their mother tongue. That's dumb. =)

Not necessarily dumb.What if both parents speak different "mother tongues" and so the only common link language is English ?

What about those Anglo Indians whose mother tongue is English ? "Indian" doesn't just mean "brown person with funny accent and English as second language" any more than "American " means "white person with an American accent"