The difference is that US lures people to move and eventually become citizens. China want's people to work there, transfer the technology and go away.

It's basically impossible to naturalize as Chinese citizen even if you marry a local and live there for decades. Japanese are strict in immigration but they take ten times more immigrants than China. Only about 1000 people get Chinese passport per year.

If a 10 year wait time for greencards and restricting the H4 spouses of those skilled visa workers to work legally is not a carrot, then yes US is doing a great job attracting and retaining talents.

I went behind the carrot for 3 years and then immigrated to Canada. My spouse has dignity now and she is a full time employee just like me earning a very good salary. In US, she lost all her confidence,dignity and was depressed because she was "not allowed" to work though she was a post graduate degree holder.

Any skilled workers who care about their H4 spouses should do the same.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/v...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2017/01/28/green...

http://h4-visa-a-curse.blogspot.ca/p/home.html

https://qz.com/797831/the-h4-visa-and-the-desperation-of-ind...

One million people get green cards each year in the US.

Immigrants and their children are now 27% of the US population.

Show me the numbers on China.

And if you want to talk about Canada and dignity. Why is Canada only 1% hispanic? Because they restrict immigration overwhelmingly by skill. If you can't meet their skill-based requirements, you're very unlikely to get in. How's that for treating people with dignity? The US has ~46 million immigrants currently, ten million more people than the entire population of Canada.

> One million people get green cards each year in the US.

Is a blanket statement. The topic is about skilled immigration. Majority of US green cards are family based.

Source here: https://www.us-immigration.com/how-many-immigration-applicat...

> Immigrants and their children are now 27% of the US population.

Immigrants from 1800s maybe ?

> Show me the numbers on China.

China has just started. I dont think there is any data yet. Even if there is, wont be easy to find.

> Why is Canada only 1% hispanic? Because they restrict immigration overwhelmingly by skill.

No they don't. They encourage both. Express Entry is for the skilled ones, family based quotas parents and siblings in addition to asylum and refugees. Isn't that how immigration is supposed to work ?

> How's that for treating people with dignity?

Canada have temporary worker visas similar to H1B. They issue the spouses of those temporary skilled workers with open work permit. Dignity & freedom from the day one they land in Canada. There are no carrots in Canada for temporary skilled workers. If you satisfy Express Entry points which you almost will, you can apply for permanent residence. Your permanent residence is not under the control of your employer master. Canadian employers cant threaten your Express Entry application. You wont have to wait 10 years or get kicked out of the queue if you change jobs or gets fired while being on H1B.

Those who come to Canada as students get a post graduate work permit. No lotteries, no quotas and can apply to express entry and become residents unlike those unfortunate master degree holders who are at the mercy of their employer masters and waiting 10 years for their GreenCards.

The fact that open work permits are issued for spouses of temporary skilled workers in Canada proves that temporary workers are treated with dignity in Canada than H1B workers in the US.

Are the points above dignifying enough ?

>Only about 1000 people get Chinese passport per year.

i suspect that's a combination of han biased policy (as mentioned in a sibling comment), and the fact that nobody wants a chinese passport. china doesn't allow dual citizenships[1], so for a chinese with "western" citzenship, getting a chinese passport is a downgrade, unless you really sure that you want to stay in china.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law_of_the_People%...

I only heard of 1500 people to ever get Chinese passport through means other than marriage since 1998

> Only about 1000 people get Chinese passport per year.

How did those people earn it? Or is it just lottery based?

They were probably former Chinese citizens or Chinese descendants. China is open to immigration for Han people; e.g. during the HK handover all Han living there were granted Chinese citizenship while all non-Han were not, leading to some HK residents without citizenship in any country.

How do you establish Han-ness today, an ever shifting concept?

It’s usually on your ID card and assigned at birth.

which is illegal according to the UN

They still have HK passports. It really depends if you think HK is its own country or not. The Chinese just have different answers depending on convenience.

I agree with your comment, but it still is dangling carrots. Some soft, some hard.

Would you rather China, now on its way to being led by a dictator no different than a Mugabe-like figure in Africa, gain this talent to be used to bolster state run entitities — you know they’ll use any foreign tech developed on Chinese soil for government purposes — or let a relatively less corrupt, much freer government like the USA bring this talent over to build industry in the states where people are much more free, and you’re not indirectly helping the next chairman Mao?

And to say something so bold as “China is the new USA” is to link the US to things like unending autocratic control, corruption, etc., the list could go on. So no. I disagree. If China wanted to be the new US it would start where the US started and being in the poor, tired, cold etc.,

I'm not exactly a fan of Xi, but theres some serious racial overtones in that little screed my friend. China has been an autocratic state for decades, Xi didn't reinvent the wheel here, and, also, while Mugabe sucked, his perception in the west was more than a little colored by racism. This is an excellent discussion, by a renowned South Asian intellectual who was driven out of Africa by no less than Idi Amin.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n23/mahmood-mamdani/lessons-of-zim...

There is in fact absolutely no racial overtones in that screed. It sounds like you simply didn't like it. The parent was very plainly targeting authoritarianism. Dictatorship isn't a race.

I'm curious, in what possible way is Xi "mugabe-like", what does that even mean? I'm also bowing out of this thread because I don't see anything positive coming out of your reading of me or of my reading of the parent. You might take some time, admittedly a bit, to read the article I linked

Mugabe was a dictator for decades. Xi is perhaps about to become a dictator.

Where's the confusion? There are maybe a dozen particularly infamous dictatorships of the last 20-30 years. Mugabe is one of those. Having ruled Zimbabwe for 37 years, he was also one of the longest tenured political figures of the last century. Who would make for a better example? One could certainly use Franco, Chavez, Hussein, or Pinochet. Mugabe is just as legitimate to use as an example.

I'm guessing you didn't read the linked article, at all, given that its been ten whole minutes since I commented. For real, bowing out of an unproductive conversation now.

While I agree with your overall point... this:

> If China wanted to be the new US it would start where the US started and being [bring?] in the poor, tired, cold etc.,

China just had a billion of those people, 15-20 years ago. They still have a quarter of a billion people living on less than $3 per day. Maybe they'll get to what you're referring to eventually, assuming their economic expansion survives the shift back to a strong-man dictatorship.

that comment you quoted was more a blanket attack at the cold way in which immigration is done. Send us your doctors, your lawyers, your engineers, but keep your poor and the like. That's the motto currently used but it's not what is on the statue of liberty. All should be welcome, and we can educate them, and we'll have those that have an entrepreneurial spirit create industry here in the US vs. elsewhere.

Why is it a US biased article? China has been doing this for years also, just not very well. I still think they aren’t doing very well in this area, especially since they make immigration or at least permanent residence so impossible, but other issues related to child education costs and environment make it difficult to live and work in china long term.

The language is pretty poor - "bait" "lure" etc. They might as well have written ITS A TRAP.

As I read it, I felt enough spin to not fully trust the point about maids at the end. Was it cherry picked item from a whole slew of legal relaxations for its shame value or is it really an isolated, important and notable act presented dispassionately? I can't tell.

Those aren’t very strong words, I don’t get the same word sentiment as you do, I’m also a native English speaker.

Bait specifically, is a pejorative form of incentive. It has many negative meanings including deception, trapping, tormenting, teasing, bait-and-switch etc. There is a range of less emotive language to choose from and I can't read such a thing without assuming intentionality.

For example, have you ever heard of Google "baiting employees with free food"? I haven't. To do so is to describe setting up a trap. Instead its positive language: perks, incentives, benefits etc.

It really depends on the context. For example "baiting employees with free food" seems completely innocuous to me. Everyone knows what is up, nothing nefarious is going on.

Journalism involves using colorful words to make the article colorful enough to read. Even the Chinese media does this, it isn't just an American thing. Articles that aren't read are worthless.

Hmm. Its interesting to hear a different view but I can't agree. Language has tremendous power and using it to signal to the reader whether they should approve of something in what might claim to be objective factual reporting is quite insidious to me.

I strongly dislike the "journalism using colorful words" and China comparison as a defence of deception and manipulation. Our standards should be higher. Plenty of room for colour with good quality writing.

(edit: just to clarify the article is question raised my spin flags but only to a level that is within the lazy-writing/unconscious-bias zone too)

The original post said this was an example "western media bias", my comparison to Chinese media was to diffuse that point.

Journalists who write in the manner you prescribe don't last long if they exist at all. No one wants to read such sanitized drivel.

Except in the US you can actually integrate into society and be treated as an American[0], that's not true of China.

[0]: I know there's still racism and discrimination, but if we're comparing to China let's at least compare the two countries on the same scale.

Consider for example what Asian Americans have accomplished in a relatively short amount of time in the US (most Asian immigration has occured in the last 40-50 years). Highest education levels, lowest unemployment rate, lowest crime & murder rates, highest incomes, highest household wealth levels, longest life expectancies (of any demographic in the US).

In how many large countries has something like that ever taken place (quite peacefully at that)? It's an exceptional testament to the ability of immigrants to contribute to the US, become integral to its success and be accepted.

Huh? In what way is it biased? I'm sure that if China wants talent to come, then they should be happy about this free publicity.

Not really its brining in cheap complaint entry level employees who are desperate for a job.