[1] No idea if that's a median data point, but it's probably close. When people talk about STEM immigrants they mean very long term residents who will realistically be here with their families for the rest of their lives. You want to imagine a job-jacking horde of foreign-educated people who don't speak English. The truth is rather different.
There is first the network effect, uneven distribution of financial resources, uneven availability of educational resources, the high number of societies that don't value individuality nor deviation from tradition and the norm.
Why? It's not like Americans were a much bigger share of the world population in the past.
(1) those who have already made it here and intend to stay, are Americans now. That's what America has always been about. Anyone who disagrees is a despicable nativist who should be deported back to Germany, England, or wherever their great grandparents came from and sign their house deed over to the descendants of whichever native americans lived there before being violently and unlawfully removed.
(2) those who have not yet made it here, we owe nothing to yet, and we certainly ought to invest in ourselves. The education system in this country is so bad it's a joke, and it's not great if we end up relying on other countries educating people and sending them here just because our own education is so awful. That is a very precarious position to be in.
It's a reasonable, defensible, globalist stance.
And it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with such a stance and make the national well-being a priority over the comparatively greater struggles and sufferings of people outside our borders. But unfortunately I think we always use smoke and mirrors and avoid facing the issue head on.
I appreciate that you have a clear and we'll articulated position for your preferences for how your tax dollars should be spent. I hope that we as a society can have open discussions and debates that welcome and encourage opposing worldviews to our own, and that we can hold a default mindset to first understand our compatriot's views, rather than first defend our own positions.
Completely agree with (1).
If so, the below two points will cure you of this silly idea and any similar ones:
(A) if our money-making machine (our economy) is not well taken care of, such as by assuring its supply of skilled labor, it may deteriorate, leaving less money left over to donate to the worthy causes you want it donated to. If you don't take care of yourself first, you will be to weak to help others.
(B) The education system in the US is not lacking for money, it simply uses the given money poorly. It can be improved without spending more money.
Education is a capital investment, not a luxury consumable good.
For what it's worth I consider Peter Singer (the philosopher) to be a man of strong reasoning who builds a tower of logic on top of a questionable and highly subjective statement of morality.
I believe that the decades long wave of software outsourcing to India has lifted the standard of living for many thousands of people there. I believe that the decades long wave of electronics outsourcing to China has created opportunities for rural residents there to attain upward economic mobility. I believe that these have come with a real, undeniable cost to American citizens and residents, and thus believe that an individual can justifiably be for or against such normalization of economic well being on a global scale.
I rather agree. What I'm wondering is: if you're not trolling, why swallow Singer's premises, swallow his extrapolations, and then call it all questionable?
Because this is the position you're taking: that the United States has a moral obligation to invest its finite resources into immigration or outsourcing of jobs for skilled foreign workers over and above training and education for its native-born workers.
>I believe that these have come with a real, undeniable cost to American citizens and residents, and thus believe that an individual can justifiably be for or against such normalization of economic well being on a global scale.
I don't think a clear-thinking individual can really be for such a blatant violation of basic democracy. If we want America to be accountable to the Indian and Chinese masses, we should give them passports and voting rights -- then see what they want for themselves. Likewise, if we're going to invest American resources in improving the well-being of India and China, why not demand an EU-style relationship of open borders, common standards for human well-being, and residency-based voting rights?
I don't think one can really have humanitarianism without solidarity, coexistence, and shared community. To do well by someone just is to expand each-other's (legal, economic, etc) communities to include each-other. A charity/tithe of 10% or something is both traditional and good, but I think it's wrong to expand charity to the point where you give to outsiders at the cost of community ties (both within your existing community and between your community and outsiders).
That said, we should find a balance where we both attract highly skilled foreign talent and develop our own in-house talent.
Wouldn't "our own" as used earlier also include "these people"?
I think you are injecting context which was never there in the first place.
IMO either position is perfectly defensible. Helping those who are "your neighbors" (those who are more proximal to you) first is defensible, and so is helping those around the world catch up to the living standards of the developed West.
What is not good is that we continue to mask pragmatic or moral decision making with irrational, illogical, emotionally charged positions, on both the left and the right. That, I wish would change.
No we didn't. We built our country on the exploitation of poor european factory workers, chinese "slave" labor and african slaves.
This country wasn't built on "talent". It was built on exploitation of CHEAP or free labor.
> there's no valid reason for that to stop now.
We stopped it many times in history to protect AMERICANS. Go read about immigration history rather than propaganda we are forcefed. European immigration was stalled to protect american labor. Chinese immigration was stopped to protect american labor. And if you think about it, even american slavery was stopped to protect american labor.
Immigration wasn't all great. Throughout US history, it led to lots of turmoil, displacement and heartache.
Nothing is all great or all evil like people with agenda like to believe. There are pros and cons to everything. The skewed "pro-immigration" policy the past 50 years has gutted american labor and american society. We need a more rational policy.
And the fact that america/american government shouldn't favor AMERICANS over immigrants is pure rubbish. It's neoliberal fantasy. As a nation we have gone too "left". We need to correct our trajectory lest america fall off the tracks entirely.
I don't...look. All I want to say is: I hope you're aware that you're making enemies with statements like this.
Luckily most people are able to read a comment from a random person on the Internet, classify it as a different opinion from theirs and go on with their lives.
In other words, I think I can understand the views I'm criticizing.
I do not get the sense that the same is true of the comment to which I replied. It seems to carry a level of tone-deafness that would be mystified by any pushback.
No, you've missed the very simplest critique of the US immigration system: that it takes years to decades of effort and incredible, Kafkaesque arbitrary hoop-jumping to get an actual Green Card, let alone an American citizenship. The system is legible neither to its owners (Congress) nor to its users (immigrants and visitors).
We can talk about sending "temporary" immigrants home when we've stopped making "permanent" immigrants (those on immigrant-track visas) go through hell just to turn their visa into citizenship. Let's naturalize the people we already have living and working in the country, and then talk about reforming our system for granting further visas into a nice sensible points system.
In order of preference I would see them treated equally and made citizens, kept out of the labor pool, or left as they are.
As a citizen the current situation seems be the least preferable option and I see no reason things ought to stay as they are.
In fact basically destroying the H1B system as it stands is probably the best first step. The bigots that make up 40% of America would probably support it and our idiot in chief would probably sign it.
Then we could replace it with a system whereby these valuable people have a sane opportunity to come here permanently and compete on even footing with natives when the wind changes with at least lukewarm support from the business community eager for more employees.
But the bit where this falls down is your use of "our own" in a context where it either has no meaning or has, let's just say "accidentally discriminatory" meaning. The idea that we should invest to "prevent" this situation is kinda distasteful.
These people are americans now. No, they aren't all citizens (though many are), but their kids are and their descendants will be. This is their home as much as it is yours or mine. This country built itself on the backs of imported talent, there's no valid reason for that to stop now.