Chile Attempts to Out-America America

You'd think the U.S. would want to make it easy for would-be tech entrepreneurs to set up shop in our country, no matter where they were born. After all, the whole thinking up interesting stuff and then figuring out how to make money on it is supposedly America's speciality, right?

Sadly, huddled entrepreneurs from overseas yearning to be free find it increasingly difficult to get visas. The U.S. does offer visas appropriate to entrepreneurs, but they're tricky to get, take a long time, and have to be renewed every two years.

Meanwhile, Chile has spotted an opportunity and taken up the slack, offering an entrepreneur's immigration package for anyone who will invest $500,000 over five years. Vivek Wadhwa, an entrepreneur turned academic, obviously went on some sort of junket, but his praise for the program over at TechCrunch seems genuine, and the Chilean system puts America to shame:

What really struck me was how many Chileans I met who boasted of their country being a "land of immigrants." Everyone told stories about how Chile was built by immigrants and welcomed the world's most skilled and most oppressed. This reminded me of how America used to be before the xenophobes started blaming immigrants for all their own shortcomings and misery.

Here are the terms:

So what do you get for your $500,000? To start with, they'll give you a visa. You can stay as long as you want – even permanently. You need to submit a business plan but you have a lot of latitude for what's an acceptable business….

How about workforce incentives? Chile has you covered. The government will pay you (as an approved entrepreneur) up to $25,000 for the first year of "training costs" for any locals you hire. By the way, Chile has some excellent engineering schools so it's not terribly difficult to pick up a good Java or C# programmer. They typically make $15,000-30,000 per year. Can't find the local talent you want? Chile will subsidize your efforts to bring folks from Sunnyvale, Mumbai or wherever you may find them. And you can train these folks on Chile's dime as well….

How about for H-1B immigrants or other talented folks who want to move to Chile? Simple. Get a legitimate tech job and they'll give you a visa, no questions asked.

More immigration stories here.

Comments

[guy in the back row]

OT: - Capt. Lou Albano died today
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....lbano.html

[P Brooks]

Just wait until the Californicators come swarming into Chile and fuck everything up.

[24AheadDotCom]

* Janet Napolitano says there are "Al qaeda-type" terrorists inside the U.S.. That loss of security has a cost, but those responsible for allowing those terrorists to enter the U.S. - oddly enough - not only are not paying up, but are advocating for even looser rules that would allow even more terrorists to enter the U.S.

Wouldn't libertarian "principles" require those who are going to allow the U.S. to be infilitrated by terrorists to at least post a bond? So, why aren't "libertarians" doing that? Why are they mooching?

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians. Dozens of comments here have shown that the phrase "fascist libertarian" isn't an oxymoron.

[Not LW]

You might get more mileage if you ever linked to something other than your own writing and if you tried to be relevant to the threads. When you always link to yourself and try to hijack threads, you tend to get flamed for it...

[CTHORM@IBIS]

Lone Wacko is not interested in Reason or its comments section. Lone Wacko is here to inflate the standing of his shiteous website using cheap-ass SEO techniques. Google PageRank puts substantial weight on links to a site within forums (or comments) at related sites.

[mark]

I thought Reason put nofollow on the links. I can't see it there now, but I thought it was there before. Now to think of something good to Googlebomb.

[MikeP]

advocating for even looser rules that would allow even more terrorists to enter the U.S.

By loosening up the rules for legal immigration, you can better keep track of immigrants. If anyone can get an unlimited visa, then everyone will show up, do the background check, and get the visa.

In this way the government will better know all the immigrants, and those who sneak in in defiance of the open runes rules are much more likely to actually be threats to the populace.

[24AheadDotCom]

Reading yet another lunatic comment from MikeP, I think we need a National ThinkLikeAnEngineer EmergencyPresidentialTaskforce that would travel from school to school explaining how to ThinkLikeAnEngineer rather than a stonertarian.

[briareus]

Resorting to insults, rather than addressing his point, negates any words after the insult. I didn't even complete your sentence. This concludes my trollfeeding for the week.

[Gabe]

Lone Wacko...I am actually on your side sometimes. However, I really think we need to take Janet Napolitano's statements on Al Quada with a big grain of salt.

She would like nothing better than to turn this country into a prison where we are forced to give blood samples before getting permission from the government to do so much as take a crap. If "the base" has members living in the US, they are probably being paid by the CIA.

We live in a competitive world, the countries that do the best job of setting up a system to take advantage of brain drain are going to have a huge advantage int he long run. If our decline into police statism continues then losing 3,000 people a decade to terrorist attacks will be the least of our worries.

[briareus]

I agree. Point in fact, when I work along the Mexican border at Nogales and I see lots of people streaming over, dodging the helicopters and off-road patrols, I have no idea who they are. If the process was reformed--that is, opened--it do believe it would be easier to at least have an initial face to go with whatever nom-de-guerre some aspiring terrorist might use when he goes through the turnstile. That's better than what I see now when most of them make it through the patrols.

[24AheadDotCom]

Sorry! I forgot that libertarians don't have the mental capacity to see at a glance what's wrong with MikeP's comment. So, to help out, I'll point out that there are several billion people PoorerThanMexicans. If we had "unlimited visas", then at the least hundreds of millions would show up. And - while I'm sure many "libertarians" would like to force it on us - the vast majority of Americans would not like that at all.

IOW, MikeP's libertarian idea would have to be forced on people (in one way or another, and one means of force is trickery such as is currently used.)

If you think we Americans would welcome hundreds of millions more people, then surely you have polls to back you up.

But, maybe MikeP would like to set limits. In that case, MikeP is back to what we have now, with the only dispute being over numbers. And, in that case, without strong enforcement then we will be infiltrated.

And, in addition to all the above, MikeP isn't noting that allowing MassiveImmigration leads to more power inside the U.S. for sending countries. That's a cost to U.S. citizens - it takes some of their power away - but you'll never hear a "libertarian" discuss that.

For the actual facts of this subject, subscribe to my feed or search through my years of archives.

[Gabe]

I don't really think hundreds of millions would show up...many can't afford to get here, many don't want to come here...and every new laboror that comes here will decrease the wage gap between here and other countries....if you dumped 50 million people here I bet people would be leaving to places like Chile.

[24AheadDotCom]

Well, if some sockpuppet says he doesn't "think" it would happen, then it won't happen!

Of course, just in case, we'll need you to post a bond that will pay off - and if I had my way imprison you - if you're wrong. When can we expect you to provide that?

P.S. 69% of Mexicans think Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans should have primary loyalties to Mexico. No doubt Reason would reflexively disagree but in order to have any validity their disagreement would have to be backed with a poll showing only sentimental and not political attachment among those here. I'll just wait right here while they apply for a Koch grant to conduct that poll.

[John C. Randolph]

If we had "unlimited visas", then at the least hundreds of millions would show up.

Cause all the poor people in the world have the money for the transportation, right?

Shut the fuck up, lonewhacko.

-jcr

[briareus]

In partial agreement with "Not LW"; you could be getting better mileage.

Far from influencing my beliefs, your self-linking and dogmatism paint the picture of an unsure character who is working hard to convince yourself of your beliefs.

[Invisible Finger]

Subsidies. Sounds sustainable to me.

[Bubbles]

So, it's impossible for me to hear the world Sunnyvale without thinking about Trailer Park Boys.

"I'm off the cheeseburgers, JROCK."
"Man, what the fuck Randy! Mothafuckas with guts like that ain't off the cheeseburgers! Mothafuckas with guts like that are definitely ON the cheeseburgers!"

[John]

No kidding P Brooks. If I am Chile I am putting the question "Have you ever voted Democrat in a California state election within the last 20 years" and disqualifying anyone who says yes. And I am sending anyone who admits they ever voted in California to intense secondary inspection.

[Billy!]

Is Chile a better place to be than India? Huh.

[John]

Yeah if for no other reason that Spanish is easier to learn than Hindi

[Old Mexican]

And the women are more beautiful - it's true!

[John]

Yeah and you don't have to convert to some strange religion and start worshipping cows to marry them, although Indian women are really hot to. And Latin American women tend to be on the batshit crazy emotional side.

[Paul]

Mmmmm... cows!

[Mango Punch]

although Indian women are really hot to

BUT hairy

[kinnath]

Some nice wine as well.

[Tim]

That is for sure, and quite affordable.

[John Tagliaferro]

Heard someplace that Chile smells better than India too. Especially the women.

[Mango Punch]

Now you've gotten me cur[ry]ious

[vanya]

Every educated person in India speaks English - that's India's advantage over the rest of Asia. And if you try to speak Hindi to people in Southern India they will get very offended.

[John]

That is the gayest picture ever posted on Reason.com

[SugarFree]

That's the manliest picture ever taken. Of Edward.

[Dr. Henry Killinger]

Forgive me, Mr. John, but that picture is nerdy, not gay.

[anomdebus]

How about nerday?

[John C. Randolph]

Nah, Obama naked on a unicorn's a lot gayer than that.

-jcr

[Old Mexican]

The U.S. does offer visas appropriate to entrepreneurs, but they're tricky to get, take a long time, and have to be renewed every two years.

I just found out that many rich Mexicans are selling everything they have to obtain the $1,000,000.00 USD (yes, that's one million dollars) needed to obtain such a visa, in order to run from the kidnapper-infested cities of Mexico. Sad, but true. The fact that the US makes it more difficult to get these visas only means that the bureaucrtats at the DHS continue to treat foreigners as nuisances.

[Paul]

Immigration is a huge problem in this country. Where would America be if we had just let anyone come over?

[aelhues]

Even deeper in recession and debt?

I'm all for much more open immigration, but only if we cancel all of the federal entitlements. As soon as they are out of welfare, education, art, sciences (except military related), etc., I say let them all in. Until then, I support restricting immigration to those that can provide evidence that they will bolster our economy, and no one that is likely to end up on welfare.

[Chief Rain on the Parade]

Where would America be if we had just let anyone come over?

We'll find out.

[Zeb]

"Oh no, brown people are going to ruin everything."

Fuck off.

[Chief Rain on the Parade]

Too bad you're not as good at rebutting facts as you are at ad homs, eh?

[Zeb]

I know nothing about you, so it is impossible to make an ad hom argument against you. But when you link to racist drivel, the only appropriate response is to tell you to fuck off.

[Chief Rain on the Parade]

Those are the facts, and if the facts are "racist", then so be it. They still remain the facts.

Being an well-informed racist is at least a step up from being a self-righteous ignoramus.

[Wade]

"This reminded me of how America used to be before the xenophobes started blaming immigrants for all their own shortcomings and misery."

It would be a different story here too if our immigrants were bringing in a half million over five years.

[Paul]

It would be a different story here too if our immigrants were bringing in a half million over five years.

I wonder if we'll stop blocking the ones that do?

[aelhues]

So, if I oppose open immigration, I suppose that makes me a Xenophobe? Or maybe just if I think we should actually enforce our laws. Maybe that makes me one? What do you think?

[Mango Punch]

I think you're racist

[Chief Rain on the Parade]

Of course! Oikophobes just love describing people who disagree with them in terms that make them sound as if they're suffering from some kind of neurosis. It camouflages their inability to win the argument on the basis of facts.

[Soda]

So, if I oppose open immigration, I suppose that makes me a Xenophobe?

Not necessarily. It does make you wrong though.

[aelhues]

Care to expound? Did you read my earlier post on why? Or are you the one with the baseless opinion?

[Soda]

I did read it.

You'd be for more open immigration if the welfare state were eliminated (or significantly reduced). From a libertarian perspective you accept an evil (restricted immigration) because there is another evil already in place (welfare). Just like Milton Friedman does. And just like Milton Friedman, you are wrong.

http://kerryhowley.com/2008/01.....-is-wrong/

The solution to your objection? Open up immigration but don't allow certain (or any) welfare services to be used by immigrants unless paid for out of pocket. Your "problem" is solved.

Don't feel bad, Milton Friedman didn't think of it either. Although when told about it he reflexively disliked the proposal.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/06.....gration-an

"I haven't really ever thought of that system. It's a new question. I very rarely get a new question, but I must admit that's a new question for me."

[Soda]

"Just as Milton Friedman did"

He's dead. RIP.

[aelhues]

I have no problem with that, as a solution, as long as people born here aren't automatically granted citizenship. People who immigrate here, and wish to be a part of the welfare state should go through some kind of validation process. In addition to this we still need some kind of system in place to keep out people that would come here with a nefarious purpose.

As far as not having thought of that, I have, I just hadn't addressed it in my post. Your post didn't show where I was wrong, you just suggested an alternate solution.

[Soda]

The solution proposed renders your objection moot.

Do you agree that this compromise solution of tiered immigration status is more desirable than the current system or not?

If you do, then bringing up your immigration/welfare objection without mentioning the way around said objection seems weird.

If you don't like the solution then your original comment makes more sense. But then you'd be wrong about the issue.

[aelhues]

This is of course assuming that the solution can be reliable implemented by a government that consistently screws things up. I don't trust them to fix things. So, outside of some kind of real world, guaranteed solution, I'm still not wrong. Just because there is a theoretical solution, doesn't change that.

[Soda]

So, outside of some kind of real world, guaranteed solution, I'm still not wrong.

The real world and guaranteed solutions don't usually get along.

Also, you're not a libertarian then? Considering that a good chunk of what we want is politically unpopular and will never be implemented in the real world that is.

Do I understand you correctly in that you'd like to see this tiered immigration solution implemented but since it's unrealistic you'd rather restrict immigration (and therefore liberty) some more? Restricting immigration is, after all, somewhat more popular than relaxing it.

You trust the government to restrict immigration. But don't trust it to not give welfare away to immigrants who don't meet the requirements? Is that right?

[aelhues]

No, I'm not, strictly speaking, a libertarian. No, I don't trust government to effectively restrict immigration.

We have a system in place, and I would like them to enforce the immigration laws that currently exist until such time as a better solution is implemented. Ideally, I would like them to open immigration completely along with eliminating entitlements and subsidies. If we can't have that, which we can't, I would like them to opn immigration, while amending the constitution to disallow immigrants from participating in welfare programs, or from becoming citizens without adapting and proving that they won't be a burden, including children born here to immigrants. Since we can't have that either, and the only thing I can really reasonably hope for is for them to enforce the law, deport illegals, and protect our borders.

[Soda]

No, I'm not, strictly speaking, a libertarian.

That makes sense.

[Soda]

And when I say you're wrong I don't just mean from a policy/economics point of view (although you are). I also mean you're wrong morally. You may not be xenophobic (I'll take your word for it). But you ARE limiting the freedom movement of other humans simply based on where they were born (perhaps one of the most anti-libertarian sentiments that some serious libertarians espouse in public). Again, the criterion being used is simply place of birth, not whether the human has a violent criminal history.

Your position seems to be that, unless you were born in the US, the burden is on you to prove you don't want live in the US for nefarious purposes or for sucking on the welfare teat. Who determines whether the immigrant is sincere? The government... who you don't trust.

[Soda]

We have a system in place,
[...]
Ideally, I would like them to
[...]
If we can't have that, which we can't
[...]
Since we can't have that either

You do see how this "pragmatism" might be seen as self-serving right?

On another note:

while amending the constitution to disallow immigrants from participating in welfare programs, or from becoming citizens without adapting and proving that they won't be a burden, including children born here to immigrants.

The constitution needs to be changed to restrict immigrants from getting welfare? That can't be right. There are already restrictions in place for receiving welfare, even if you're a citizen.

And are you suggesting children born in US soil from immigrant parents not be granted citizenship?

[aelhues]

My pragmatism might be self serving? Is that a problem?

Yes it can be right that I was suggesting that further restictions should be placed on people that only want to come here temporarily, or without meeting certain criteria. Yes I know the government is flawed and I don't trust them, but that also doesn't mean I want to scrap it, and allow them to do nothing. That's silly.

Yes, I'm suggesting that we should change it so that children born to those not citizens shouldn't be given automatic citizenship.

[aelhues]

My position is immoral because I don't think people should be allowed to move wherever the hell they want without any restriction? Seriously? Based on what moral foundation? Forget all of it then. My new standard is if you can take it from me you can have it, but if I can take it from you, it's mine.

[Soda]

My position is immoral because I don't think people should be allowed to move wherever the hell they want without any restriction?

Nope. Your position is immoral because of the criterion you use to select between those that can be in a place and those that cannot. The criterion is birth place, something the individual cannot control anymore than their race.

Forget all of it then. My new standard is if you can take it from me you can have it, but if I can take it from you, it's mine.

Actually, you are the one selfishly restricting what your fellow citizens can do with their resources and their time. If a US citizen wants to go into business with a foreign employee it's their business, not yours. So in a sense, to some degree, you do believe in the right to take from others what is not yours to take.

But whatever, if you really think I'm suggesting that open borders = no private property then perhaps you're more confused and ignorant about this subject than I first thought.

Still waiting to hear if you want to preclude US born children from being granted citizenship based on their parent's immigration status.

[Soda]

My pragmatism might be self serving? Is that a problem?

Not necessarily. But it does make the pragmatism suspect if you are only pragmatic when it serves you well. Do you give up this easy to pragmatic considerations when something grossly unfair affects you negatively? Or do you try to change matters?

Yes, I'm suggesting that we should change it so that children born to those not citizens shouldn't be given automatic citizenship.

Nevermind. I missed this entire post.

Right, so the children would be citizens of... where?

This is where you start getting close to xenophobic territory. You are essentially penalizing an innocent human being (the child) because... the child deserves it? This is also where the inherent immorality of your position starts rearing its ugly head. Because not only are you using place of birth as a criterion for negative rights, but you are adding to that a generational pre-requisite to said rights.

Yes I know the government is flawed and I don't trust them, but that also doesn't mean I want to scrap it, and allow them to do nothing. That's silly.

I agree. So silly you might even call it what it is: a strawman argument. I proposed more open but tiered immigration with regards to welfare access. You think that equals scrapping government? Because it's not.

[briareus]

Soda, I appreciate your thoughts. Your rigorous approach to intellectual and philosophical honesty is commendable.

[Soda]

Soda, I appreciate your thoughts. Your rigorous approach to intellectual and philosophical honesty is commendable.

Thanks, briareus. That's very kind. Too kind in fact.

Full disclosure, I'm an immigrant myself. I already have a Green Card though (relax, aelhues, I came here legally). My kids were born here and we own a home here. So I suppose I no longer have a dog in the fight like I did when I first arrived many years ago. But it's still something that I follow with interest. And I still bristle at the notion of negative rights denied based on birthplace.

Incidentally my grandfather was also an immigrant. He left Italy at 13 by himself to go live in South America. Needless to say, immigration is in my blood. Although, strictly speaking, immigration is in every American's blood.

[Chief Rain on the Parade]

Do you agree that this compromise solution of tiered immigration status is more desirable than the current system or not?

No. Even if it addresses the economic issues (which is sketchy proposition all on it's own), it doesn't address the sociological ones.

[Soda]

it doesn't address the sociological ones.

Now here, for example, is an actual racist.

Chief, please do fuck off.

[Chief Rain on the Parade]

And here we have another genius who's good with the ad homs, but not so good at refuting the results of the research.

[Chief Rain on the Parade]

And here we have another genius who's good with the ad homs, but not so good at refuting the results of the research.

[Soda]

Yes, Chief. We know you think reality has a well known racist bias.

You are perfectly happy restricting the movement, business, and associations of immigrants and your fellow citizens because you are really really concerned about "social capital." Right.

Obviously social diversity can cause (and has caused) problems. It can (and has) also produce great things. But even if the net effect were truly negative that doesn't mean the solution is to limit diversity. Perhaps we should try to convince people that distrusting a person because he has a different background than yours or different color skin is, you know, racism. Perhaps we can teach our children the concept of empathy. Put yourself in your friend's shoes. Would you like being judged and distrusted based on where you're from? No? It feels crappy? Don't do it then.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that racism is a bad thing. Wouldn't you agree?

Your solution for racism seems to be to keep diversity in check. That this is what, deep down, a racist wants doesn't seem to have crossed your mind.

So, in conclusion, fuck off.

[Chief Rain on the Parade]

Yes, Chief. We know you think reality has a well known racist bias.

And I'll probably continue to think that until somebody presents evidence to the contrary. Which, so far, they've been entirely unable to do.

You are perfectly happy restricting the movement, business, and associations of immigrants and your fellow citizens because you are really really concerned about "social capital." Right.

If my fellow citizens were that enthusiastic about having those associations, we wouldn't have immigration laws.

Perhaps we should try to convince people that distrusting a person because he has a different background than yours or different color skin is, you know, racism.

So what?

Obviously social diversity can cause (and has caused) problems. It can (and has) also produce great things.

Such as?

Put yourself in your friend's shoes. Would you like being judged and distrusted based on where you're from?

No, I don't. And my response is to stay out of places where people don't like me. Not to provoke them by forcing myself upon them.

Your solution for racism seems to be to keep diversity in check. That this is what, deep down, a racist wants doesn't seem to have crossed your mind.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. The word has been so overused I don't really know, nor care.

That what you call "racism" may, in fact, be a perfectly rational and defensible position to take doesn't seem to have crossed your mind.

And fuck you, too.

[Death Panelist]

The government will pay you-

Stop right there.

[Mo]

Yeah, good to see KMW is down with subsidies.

[Mango Punch]

Nice pic: how do you say "Fabulous!" in Chilean?

[John Tagliaferro]

Obama,

I think they speak Spanish.

[I, Kahn O'Clast]

"Fabuloso!"

[WEBZIGHT]

Oh that's interesting! Let's see, communist Chavez pay's you to come to his country after you pay him $500,000.00. Then he's just going to let you walk away with the technology or product you have developed on his dime? What a con!

Where are the suckers that will fall for this ruse? I have Blue Chip stocks in invisible glass I want to sell these dumbasses!

[MikeP]

Uh...

Chile is not at all Venezuela.

[Mango Punch]

Chile not Venezuela

[briareus]

It's a perfectly understandable mistake to make, right WEBZIGHT? I mean who in these busy days can afford to perform even the most cursory of research (such as looking at a map) before commenting on a website named "Reason" so they won't confuse two completely different countries. Certainly not you. Not in this Information Age.

[Drink!]

^

[sandman]

I'm on an E-2 visa. I run a company that develops some online games. The people that work for me are all over the world, some in the US, others overseas. The INS wanted to see pictures of the physical office where my company is, and when I told them that I run the company out of a home office, they said, "Well then, there's no reason you couldn't run this company from outside the US". I suppose that would be true of Google too.

[Hazel Meade]

The INS wanted to see pictures of the physical office where my company is, and when I told them that I run the company out of a home office, they said, "Well then, there's no reason you couldn't run this company from outside the US".

Yes, Mr. Virtual corporation, we don't want your fucking business in OUR country, thank you very much.

Why the fuck would we want your tax dollars or property taxes, asshole?

[R C Dean]

when I told them that I run the company out of a home office, they said, "Well then, there's no reason you couldn't run this company from outside the US".

You'd think the dumbasses at INS would realize that means they better be extra nice, or you will run it from outside the US.

[Joshua Holmes]

Less paperwork, more screwing around. Looks like a win for the INS.

[WEBZIGHT]

My bad, sounded like a socialist plot to me and of course I was typing faster that aligning continents and countries.

Strike Chavez and insert Chilean oligarchy instead!

Chile is no bastion free enterprise, even though they do make some knock out wines:-)

[MikeP]

Chile is number 11 on Heritage's Index of Economic Freedom and number 5 -- one above the US -- on the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World.

[WEBZIGHT]

I find it hard to believe that someone is going to pay to let me develop a technology or product on their dime and then just let walk away with same with no strings attached.

I know the US Government does this all the time. But a foreign government? Especially one with Chile's corrupt history?

I don't care what the Heritage Foundation says, I'd read the fine print on this one VERY carefully!

[briareus]

I hope you read the fine print more carefully than you read the atlas.

[MWG]

"I know the US Government does this all the time. But a foreign government? Especially one with Chile's corrupt history?"

Chile is actually 23rd on Transparency Internationals CPI Index. First you confuse Chavez/Venezuela with Chile, then you claim Chile isn't very free market oriented, THEN you cite corruption in Chile. You should probably just shut up now...

[Xeones]

You'd think the dumbasses at INS would realize that means they better be extra nice, or you will run it from outside the US.

Sometimes i think that the total inability of various government agencies to coordinate their efforts and work toward a common interest is the only thing that's saving us.

Other times i think it's more like being stuck between the iceberg and the Titanic.

[Jozef]

Heh, it's funny... My employer is currently struggling to get me a permanent work visa. If I don't get the visa, I'd be returning to Europe and work at our office there, which already produces all our IP. Thanks to the US work and immigration laws, the US office is becoming nothing more than a sales outlet, while all the value is being generated and retained in Europe.

[WEBZIGHT]

The illegal human labor market is the catalyst associted with immigration problems, yet we cannot seem shed this addiction!

If eat in any restaurant in Houston for instance you are dining in an environment built, serviced, and operated by illegal Mexican labor! Why? MONEY! PROFITS! Ya'll!

Can't seen to shake my addiction to these pictures of Ben Franklin in my pocket;-)

[MikeP]

You've got it backwards. It is the restrictive immigration law in the US that causes the illegal human labor market.

The only addiction involved is an addiction to protectionist legislation.

[WEBZIGHT]

You know I tire of hearing these types of "cry me a river for the poor Mexiacns" rhetorical propaganda statements. That is like saying the stink causes shite!

That's like saying the MAFIA breaks the law because there is a law against their activities!

OYVEY!

[MikeP]

The Mafia breaks the law because there is a law against their activities.

[briareus]

I do believe, Mister P, that we think alike on some issues. How dare you associate causes and affects.

[Mango Punch]

Guys give WEBZIGHT a break... and a map. How can you expect someone who doesn't know the difference between chile and venezuela to know the difference between cause and effect?

[BeesInTheBrain]

This reminded me of how America used to be before the xenophobes started blaming immigrants for all their own shortcomings and misery.
When the hell was that?????????????????

[Xeones]

When the hell was that?

Back in the days of "No Irish Need Apply," xenophobes only blamed immigrants for some of their own shortcomings and misery.

[WEBZIGHT]

That seems to be the human condition everywhere.

"It's not ME causing the problem", so lets find a someone else to point the finger and persecute!"

Kinda like the way the anti-American Demoncrats blame all the world's problems on the the citizens of the USA!

[vanya]

Immigrants never cause problems. I'm sure the Iroquois, the Maya, the Aztecs, the Aboriginal peoples of Australian, the native Hawaiians agree on that 100%. Just let newcomers with a different culture and language move into your land, what could go wrong? Certainly the Roman Empire was strengthened by the immigration of Goths. And we all know how the influx of Russians made Estonia and Latvia delightful. I'm sure the Tibetans and Uighurs also praise the delights of open borders with China every day. It's just hard to even think of an example where uncontrolled immigrants were the problem, isn't it?

[MikeP]

It's apparently also hard to conceive of the difference between immigration and conquest.

[Aboriginal North Americans]

A distinction without a difference, we would say.

[Patrick Melody]

Here's a potential recipe for what it would take for a city to become a startup hub. Interesting read.

http://www.paulgraham.com/maybe.html

[plutosdad]

Viva la visa!

Well if the Baucus bill helps to kill innovation in the US just like all our other heavy handed regulation does, at least someone will take up the slack.

[Emily Selden]

It is apparent to me that the USA government is attempting to do all it can to run working people, Americans and not, out on a rail. If you are a non-productive welfare seeking immigrant- "welcome aboard!" It is getting really ridiculous.

[jgo]

Getting an H-1B visa does not require proof of having any talent. Hundreds have been handed out each year for people without the equivalent of a US high school diploma, thousands without the equivalent of a US bachelor's degree.

The USA gives out EB investment visas for merely obtaining funding of $10K (you don't have to put up your own money, and the total investment is less than a tenth of what it would cost to open a Checkers/Rally burger stand.

[jgo]

I'd be for more open immigration if there were no terrorists and other criminals with known plans to enter the USA for the purpose of killing people, but DHS still refuses to run background investigations on visa applicants, anyway, so it doesn't make much difference.

I'd also be for more open immigration if the USA were not already over-populated and over-crowded.

[P Brooks]

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

Followed by:

Reading yet another lunatic comment from MikeP

(!)

Shut the fuck up, LoneWanko.

[Kroneborge]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to support more legal immigration, (especially skilled immigration) while wanting to eliminate illegal immigration, and control our borders.

For those that want unlimted immigration, to bad. The vast majority of the rest of us like having a soverign nation that can control who comes in and out. Does that limit liberty to non citizens yes. But again, to bad.

IMO, for immigartion purposes the country is like communal property. The owners of that property have the right to decide who can come over.

[Soda]

For those that want drugs legalized, too bad. The vast majority of the rest of us like having a nation that can control what people smoke, snort, and inject in their veins. Does that limit liberty to citizens, yes. But again, too bad.

Corrections in bold.

[aelhues]

Not corrections, and not even remotely parallel issues.

[Soda]

Just pointing out the silliness of relying on "majority rule" to justify unfair measures.

Would gay marriage have been a more appropriate substitute? Slavery? Is there any parallel you'd be ok with or is immigration an unparalleled/exceptional issue in aelhues-world?

[Soda]

And for the record, at the very least my grammar corrections were honest-to-goodness corrections.

[aelhues]

What rule would you prefer then, Soda? Maybe you prefer a dictatorship, or rule by the intellectually elite?

As for an appropriate parallel, I'm not sure, but the ones you mentioned, no. Paralleling restrictions on people coming onto my, or my states land, is not the same as keeping people from using substances, enslaving them.

[Soda]

What rule would you prefer then, Soda? Maybe you prefer a dictatorship, or rule by the intellectually elite?

It's one thing to accept majority rule as the rule of law. It's another to use majority rule as an argument for a position's validity. Presumably there are things that are currently codified as law that you find wrong, even though perhaps the majority of your fellow citizens are for it.

Paralleling restrictions on people coming onto my, or my states land,

YOUR land? In fact, you are the one that wants to restrict individuals from occupying other people's land based on where they were born. Unless you think all immigrants will be knocking on your door asking for free room and board. Landlords and employers (your fellow citizens) should have the right to rent their apartments and to do business with immigrants. It even seems that you'd be against an immigrant buying property in the US from a fellow citizen. You don't even want them to have the chance to have their own property! Or was that property YOURS to begin with?

[aelhues]

Do you willfully misunderstand, or is it just that you enjoy thinking that you are winning an argument by misconstruing anothers opinion.

[Soda]

Do you willfully misunderstand, or is it just that you enjoy thinking that you are winning an argument by misconstruing anothers opinion.

What did I misunderstand or misconstrue?

[Kroneborge]

That's why I made my comment about communal property before. countries are something like a family. For certain things, it makes a lot of sense for the group to make restrictions, especially about things like who can come over.

For example, you like John, the rest of the family can't stand him. Everyone votes, and John isn't allowed over.

This is different than the family voting to decide what type of TV you can watch in your own room.

[Soda]

For example, you like John, the rest of the family can't stand him. Everyone votes, and John isn't allowed over.

Except in the case of immigration is not such much that they "can't stand" John, but rather, that they don't like that he's from another country. He could very well be paying his share of the rent on time, doing the household chores assigned to him, and be a considerate, quite, and clean tenant. Too bad he's not from around here.

It's worse actually, because at the very least in your example the family got to know John. In the issue at hand the immigrant doesn't even have the chance to enter "the house" before he's judged.

[Kroneborge]

Actually in this case (at least for me) I just want to have the number of "new" johns slowed down to a reasonable level, and have them only come in once given permission.

For me, a reasonable level means that the numbers aren't so large that assimilation slows down, or services are stretched.

Also, while I don't care where you are from, I do care what type of skill set you bring. IE, I favor the skilled over the unskilled immigration.

[Soda]

I hear ya. The categorization of skilled vs. unskilled can get tricky. And some advocates of stronger immigration restrictions don't even like skilled workers to come in. For example, the IEEE society lobbies against H1B visas (for obvious self-serving reasons).

There is also the issue of some unskilled work being really undesirable and physically demanding (think farming where you need humans doing the picking).

In my opinion, one of the best articles that tackles the skilled/unskilled issue in immigration is a Reason article from 1995.

http://reason.com/archives/199.....no-service

It's long though. But worth the read.

[Soda]

IMO, for immigartion purposes the country is like communal property.

[Soda]

That was weird. Anyways:

IMO, for immigartion purposes the country is like communal property.

So you'd be ok with more open immigration if the majority in the US were for it?

[Kroneborge]

It's not an all or nothing thing. I can be for restricting some liberties, and allowing some others.

The world isn't black or white, sometimes a bit of nuance is involved.

Also, note that I believe that citzens and non citizens have different rights. Just like the owner of a house can do different things, than someone just visiting.

Examples,

Citizens automatically get the right to keep and bear arms
Non citizens not so

Citizens get the right to enter and exit our country freely.
non citzens not so.

If the majority of people were for total open immigration, I would still be agaisnt, it, but I would be overuled. Maybe that wasn't the case, lol. Then again, if people didn't want me to move there, IMO that's their right to keep me out.

IE, my right to move around, doens't trup their right to control who can come to their country.

[Soda]

It's not an all or nothing thing. I can be for restricting some liberties, and allowing some others.

Agreed. But it's another thing to rely on majority rule to justify your position. "Too bad! Overruled!" That's not an argument at all. In other words, you don't use popularity of a position as a justification for the limit of liberty.

I understand you believe people have different sets of rights based on where they were born. I think that's immoral. You don't.

If the majority of people were for total open immigration, I would still be agaisnt, it, but I would be overuled.

I see. So the popularity of your position is irrelevant. You would still believe in it even if it were unpopular. So your original comment was unconvincing even to yourself.

[Kroneborge]

You are correct, whether the majority believes something or not does not make it right.

At various times the majority have believed things like slavery etc was ok, that didn't make it right. I actually believe in a firm set of right and wrong, that is unswayed by current popular opinion.

My point wasn't that the majority beliving made it right, but that "because" the majority don't want open borders we won't get them.

[Kroneborge]

also, really not a fan of these nested comments.

[Soda]

I think 1 sub level is enough (like the Onion AV Club does). Once you get past 2 levels it gets difficult to keep track of the conversations.

[Noisy Signal]

'What really struck me was how many Chileans I met who boasted of their country being a "land of immigrants."'

"Currently, the majority of immigration into Chile comes from neighboring countries. Chile's 2002 census counted 184,464 immigrants in the country [just over 1% of the population], 26 percent of whom were from Argentina, 21 percent from Peru and 6 percent from Bolivia."

Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, = about 12.5% of the population.

[chuck goolsbee]

Chile, like the USA, is filled with people from all over Europe and Asia. Unlike many Latin American countries which are mostly Spanish & Native populations. Many Chilenos have family roots in Ireland, Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. It goes back to their independence.

--chuck