The U.K. Has a New Plan To Attract 'High Potential Individuals.' The U.S. Should Copy It.

Graduates of the world’s top universities will soon be eligible for a new multi-year visa in the U.K. that will help bolster the nation’s competitive edge.


As international migration continues its post-COVID recovery, many countries are introducing immigration policies to bring highly educated foreign talent to their soil. A new scheme in the United Kingdom could serve as a useful model for nations looking to strengthen their workforces.

On May 30, the U.K. will open a new visa pathway to attract high-skilled foreign university graduates. Under the High Potential Individual (HPI) visa, graduates of the world's top universities will be allowed to work and stay in the U.K. for two or three years, depending on their degree level. Applicants do not need to secure employer sponsorship or a job offer before arriving in the U.K. While the HPI visa itself does not permit permanent residency, recipients may apply for settlement-based pathways before their status expires.

The visa comes as part of the U.K.'s post-COVID plan for investment in infrastructure and competitiveness. In the 2021 "Build Back Better" plan—not to be confused with President Joe Biden's bill of the same name—the British government announced that it would "introduce an elite points-based route to attract the brightest and best to the UK to maintain our status as a leading international hub for emerging and disruptive technologies."

Those eligible for the HPI visa must have been awarded a degree from a university ranked in the top 50 worldwide. Qualifying overseas institutions must appear on two of three university ranking systems selected by the British government. Applicants may hold a degree in any discipline, but it must be at least equivalent to a U.K. bachelor's degree. Those with a bachelor's or master's degree may receive a two-year visa, while Ph.D. holders and other doctoral-level applicants are eligible for a three-year visa. Foreign-born graduates of British universities are already eligible for the similar Graduate Visa.

The HPI visa could help inform migration policy in the United States, which saw legal immigration collapse during the Trump administration and the COVID-19 pandemic. Low levels of migration to the U.S. are exacerbating labor shortages. Other nations benefit from the high-skilled foreign graduates and workers that the lethargic U.S. immigration system fails to bring in, and the American economy will suffer as these people look to land elsewhere.

Though much of the current immigration dialogue centers on refugees and the state of the U.S.-Mexico border, attracting high-skilled foreign talent must also be a priority for American policy makers. Many politicians recognize this—the America COMPETES Act of 2022, introduced in late January, proposes new nonimmigrant visas for entrepreneurs and startup employees and would exempt foreigners with doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math fields from country-based numerical limits on immigrant visas. The Senate and House are currently resolving differences and debating changes to the bloated bill, leaving the future of immigration provisions uncertain (though several Republican senators have expressed an openness to considering high-skilled visa pathways).

Measures like these may fly under the radar as more hot-button immigration issues dominate headlines, but they are key to keeping America competitive.

NEXT: Maskless Political Elites Party in D.C. While Bringing Back Mandates for the Commoners

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Immigration advocacy has become a goddamn cult.

    1. And automated at Reason.

  2. With the rise of authoritarian regimes and with crackdowns in these regimes I suspect that a lot of talent will opt to move to more democratic countries. The US should definitely take advantage to get some of this talent and a more open visa policy seems to be one way to do this.

    1. Thomas Sowell used to say that every foreign student that earns a PhD in an in-demand major should have an application for citizenship attached to their diploma.

      1. Democrats prefer the out of demand degrees like Victim Studies Sir. What about them?

        1. The Isle of Elba sounds right.

        2. Lots of actual victims in Venezuela and North Korea.

        3. Blah blah blah, dumbass comment.


      2. University halls fill with tables manned by corporate headhunters at the end of every semester. They do not fill with feet-hunters. This is unfortunate for the teeming masses voting with their feet to flee the countries to which "our" looter Kleptocracy exports violent, economy-wrecking prohibition laws making a crime--not of torture or expropriation--but plant leaves.

    2. ...except we've had decades of abuse of said visa system and advocates, such as you, who will not support any adjustments to the current system to limit the excesses, so it's not an option I'd be willing to even listen to.

      1. What excesses? Study after study has shown even illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives. They pay more taxes than they receive in government benefits. They produce more for the economy than they consume.
        What excesses?

        1. "Study after study has shown even illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives."

          1) They do not. Those "Studies" frequently include legal immigrants with illegals.
          2) That they are here illegally indicates they have a precisely 100% criminal rate, no? Natives hit 101%?

          "They pay more taxes than they receive in government benefits."

          Also untrue.

          "They produce more for the economy than they consume."

          Also untrue.

          1. Right .... libertarians believe in obeying laws regardless of how evil they are. No such thing as a bad law.

            Go on, keep showing how libertarian you are.

            1. Not exactly on point...more like pivot and deflect.

            2. Borders are evil? LOL. Wow.

            3. Borders are now evil? How is that the case? Should we all pay CA taxes now, even if we do not reside IN CA, because borders are wrong?

          2. You seem to have made a lot of assertions without proving any support for same.

            1. I provided identical levels of evidence as alphabet (sorry, that name is hella long).

          3. Yes and no.
            Yes, illegal immigrants have a precisely 100% criminal rate because of their illegal entry. However when you exclude that one crime, their rate of arrest for other crimes is below the statistics we see for native citizens (adjusted for geography and demographics).

            Yes, they actually do (on the whole) pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits and they actually do net-benefit the economy. There have been enough studies from multiple directions and competing positions all reaching the same general conclusions on those two points.

            1. I can guarantee you that I can go to the Center for Immigration Studies and pull studies that flatly contradict this. They will say that when you consider the children of immigrants, these benefits go away. Those kids have higher crime rates, and their public education is a huge cost that many other studies do not capture. Whether these studies are more accurate than your depends completely on the moral premises you are starting with.

              Which is why we need to stop talking about the data and focus on the moral case for immigration. That moral case comes down to A) rights for freedom of movement and freedom of association and b) rights for franchise/benefits in the American governing system.

              A) If I want to hire a person to work in this country, that should be between me and that person. That the person is willing to work cheaper than some native-born doesn't matter. It is wrong for them to restrict supply of goods with tariffs and it is wrong for them to restrict the supply of labor with immigration restrictions. The freedom of movement through public spaces (not trespassing on private ground, which is a separate matter) should not be infringed. The freedom of buyers and sellers to associate, contract and otherwise transact should not be any more regulated for non-citizens than citizens.

              B) That all changes when it comes to voting rights and welfare. Large majorities of the united states would have zero problem with the above statement if it included transparency and guarantees that people coming here to live and work need to support themselves, and do not automatically dilute the franchise that Americans earned with citizenship. You may have a right to free movement, but you do not automatically have an inalienable right to a say in our government or its largess. The people may have a moral obligation to let you travel freely through the country, but they do not have a moral obligation to give you their voting franchise.

              Of course, Fuck the Democrats too. They want the immigration issue to remain on our radar for eternity. That is why, despite all their promises, they have done fuck all to deal with the immigration situation during the Obama and now the Biden administrations. In fact they have purposefully exacerbated it. They purposely bundle A with B- insisting that if you want to let immigrants work here, they must automatically get citizenship and benefits. They do this knowing that it will never result in a compromise position. They also exacerbate the situation by purposefully encouraging a black-market immigration system that destroys trust. When you are shipping immigrants around the country by airplane at night, you are not being transparent.

              Studies have shown that a population will tolerate MUCH higher levels of immigration when they trust that the government doesn't have ulterior motives or isn't operating under a cloud of incompetence. Rather than constantly battle over statistics, we should recognize that morally people ought to be allowed to come here, and that doesn't automatically give them all the benefits of citizenship. But because Kulture Warz: Tribal Edition, I have very little hope of that ever happening.

        2. I'm pretty sure none of your three assertions are true. It may be closer to the truth for legal immigrants, but I would need to see some proof.

          1. Anyone who's been paying attention has seen those study. The only people who don't believe it will never be convinced. "Proof" for them does not exist, because they have already made up their minds.

        3. I won't speak for damikesc, but I have met those who think the excess is in melanin. They won't come out and say it, but when the wall is on the southern border rather than the northern suggests it might be a factor. And it certainly was in the heyday of immigration hand wringing back in the early 20th century. Can't have too many swarthy Italians and Greeks. Just like the minimum wage, immigration restrictions were about color.

          1. Yeah, all those canucks jumping the border is really a problem.
            Go be retarded somewhere else.

          2. you admitted you chose to live in an all white neighborhood.

          3. Brandy, do we have millions on Canadians crossing over each year? If we did, I'd say shut that down as well.

            But we do not. I do not support policies that are pointless at best.

            I'm all for immigration. We have to fix the system we have FIRST before making a new one.

          4. When the looters reinstate universal conscription, I'll wager that a way will be found to shut off easy access to Canada.

        4. except for the studies on actual prison populations showing a higher community percent serving longer terms in prison...

          But sure, if you count jaywalking and such you can really game the system.

        5. You mean the studies that count the illegal alien mother to an anchor baby as consuming no welfare services but the US citizen infant counts against the native born total? Bit dishonest in the parsing there.

          Or maybe you mean the crime by illegals they don't count because they initiated deportation instead, or counted the illegals as US nationals because the locality refuses to break out the illegal aliens. If the pro invasion side wasn't so blatantly dishonest I might consider their stance a bit more seriously.

        6. How the fuck can you trust any study about illegal immigrants when we have no idea how many of them are even here?

          How likely do you think illegal immigrants are to report crimes against other illegal immigrants? Or legal immigrants in neighborhoods with gang activity involving illegal immigrants?

          Garbage in garbage out.

      2. > so it's not an option I'd be willing to even listen to.

        So you've made up your mind and stuck your fingers in your ears. I get it.

        1. When the illegals flooding over the border is dealt with, we can deal with other issues.

          When my house is on fire, I will worry about the fire before I worry about fixing a clogged toilet.

          1. How many other illegals do you worry about? Illegal drug users? Tax cheats? Speeders?

            Why don't you let us know which laws must be obeyed and which are too despicable and must be flouted?

            1. My guess you live where it isn't an issue. Such as in Arizona. 3x the cost per ESL student. Loss of Trauma 1 care hospitals near the border. Trashed environment. No insurance car crashes. Depletion of community charity resources.

              1. You aren't in arizona, i'm guessing a mostly white state far from the border. Where you can ignore the externalities. Bad transition in my two sentences.

              2. That ER's have to be shut down in that area due to this problem is a major annoyance.

                It was also one of Reagan's worst policy decisions. ER's should not be obligated to treat you regardless of ability to pay. There should be some means to recoup some of the expense rather than leaving it to others to pay the freight or lose their services.

                1. If a hospital wants to turn away people at the ER, all they have to do is refuse to accept Medicaid payments.

                  1. If it is a public hospital, say created by a local community, it is not allowed to turn away people- whether it accepts medicaid or not. And of course this is a big reason people are pissed. They are paying for public hospitals with tax dollars and it is being forced by the federal government to pay for the care of non-citizens- many of whom are not paying income taxes because their income is unreported.

                    1. If it is a public hospital, say created by a local community, it is not allowed to turn away people- whether it accepts medicaid or not.

                      I'm sorry but you are wrong.

                      Look up "Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act".

            2. Drug users? If they do not inconvenience me, it is a problem they have and I really feel bad for them.

              Tax cheats? If they support higher taxes, then yes, it is a problem. If they do not, c'est la vie.

              Speeders? Long as they do not hit me or injure others, seems like a problem for them alone.

              Not sure what this has to do with out-of-control illegal immigration, but I find you a thoughtful poster, so I figured I'd answer your inquiries.

          2. But the house is not on fire.

            1. Says the the arsonist.

              1. And, even if he isn't the arsonist, he's the guy saying you should store more flammables in your house than you currently do and ignore any issues with storing them until the house actually catches fire. After all, there are no illegal (in)flammables.

          3. You know someone has no point when they use such phrases as "illegals flooding over the border."

            Show your research.

        2. Dude just cried "rAcIsT" - brandybuck isn't allowed to talk anymore

    3. They do. And there are entrenched gatekeepers who see to it that foreigners are kept out or forced to leave their professions. Bureaucratic mazes exist to keep the smarter slaves from fleeing. Their documents are crammed with obscure acronyms and untranslatable gibberish, and special stamps--notaries here, apostilles there, come and go in bewildering profusion.

  3. Shut off the spigot of illegals and we can discuss options. Until then, no, we're not going to humor it.

    1. Libertarians don't recognize the distinction. Only statists do.

      1. I'm pretty sure that most libertarians support some basic criteria for legal immigration, like turning away people with serious diseases and dangerous criminals. Sure there are some principled totally-open-borders-people, but they're not the majority.

        1. Sure there are some principled totally-open-borders-people,

          This would be unprincipled. Principled would be as you indicated, "They can come in as long as they aren't a direct threat." as well as some "They can come in as long as they in no way contribute to a welfare state they haven't chipped into."

          "They can come in, borders are just figments of imagination." and "Sure they can come in, why not? *sticks fingers in ears* Nananananana I can't hear you nanananana...." aren't principled stances.

          1. "They can come in as long as they in no way contribute to a welfare state they haven't chipped into."

            I guess 'withdraw' or 'collect from' would be the better description/criteria.

          2. I was thinking of the anarcho-capitalist wing. They tend to be overly dogmatic.

        2. Principled communist-anarchists are anything BUT libertarian.

      2. Libertarians also seem to reside in places where this is really not being done to them. They do not have to deal with the negative. They get what they want and leave others to clean the mess.

        Libertarians, on this issue, are not dissimilar to 6 year olds.

        1. You wouldn't recognize a libertarian if he move din next door. Your definition is "does what I want", "obeys the laws I want".

          1. What's your address?

          2. Say where you live. Bet damikesc has you nailed to the wall.

            1. I'm not attacking alphabet, who while I don't agree on this, I have found to be a genuine poster. Just a lot of the writers here have passing involvement with the problem.

          3. Aaaand now comes the ad hominem battalion of the tu quoqe brigade.

          4. Not at all. Libertarian is merely english for backpfeifengesicht.

        2. Libertarians also seem to reside in places where this is really not being done to them. They do not have to deal with the negative. They get what they want and leave others to clean the mess.

          Cool! An expert on libertarian demographics! Tell me, how many libertarians reside in southern Cali, or near the Mexican border? I'm curious to know the income breakdown as well.

          1. Who write for this site? Josh Blackman on Volokh --- thus not really part of this site --- seems to be it. Greenhut lives in CA which has already been fucked eight ways from Sunday, but he's syndicated and also not really a Reason writer.

            1. You meant the writers? I thought you were making a blanket statement all libertarians.

              I read your previous statement to be something like "Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians where illegal immigration is happening."

              1. *about*

              2. Given that I do not know (nor honestly care) where other commenters reside, seems like I am using the info available.

                1. Ahhh, so you're pulling it out of your ass. You could have said so.

                  1. I'm not you. Feel free to name the writers (never said commenters) who live anywhere near the border besides the 2 I listed.

                  2. So many ideas from sarc.

            2. Regardless, saying "You're wrong because of where you live" is a textbook ad hominem.

              Among the trolls that passes as a logical argument, but for the rest of us it's a fallacy.

              1. No, saying "You have no skin in the game" is a valid response to somebody proposing bad legislative ideas that, as a bonus, will cause them no negative repurcussions.

                1. You still haven't articulated why the ideas are bad other than "YoU dOn'T kNoW wHaT iT's LiKe!!"

                  1. The idea that permitting millions to flood an already over-burdened social welfare system, an already overwhelmed public medicine system, and an already over-expensive public school system benefits nobody but the quite wealthy who can afford to avoid all of those issues.

                    I love gun rights but don't think it should be allowed to be shooting blindly around in public because it won't impact you personally.

                    Note: I've explained a position more than you have for any position you've ever held in all of your time here.

            3. To my knowledge, the author of this article lives in Tucson AZ

        3. Looters always seem to dispense with data while whining that libertarians are making naked coercion less and less viable.

        4. I live in southern california and I support far less restrictive immigration. I live with the impact every day.

    2. The current system for legal immigration is quite a process.

      Here's a chart they display a lot on Reason.

      It's no wonder people just say fuck it and skip the line.

      Make it easier and faster and allow more people to come, and immigrants will be more likely to do it the legal way.

      1. Again, when the border is dealt with, the other issues can be dealt with afterwards.

        1. When illegal drugs are dealt with, we can deal with illegal drug laws.

          1. "Foreigners are toxic much the same way fentanyl is toxic." - Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf

        2. Dude, that is dealing with the borders!

          People come illegally because the legal process is more than they're willing to do. Make the legal process easier and there will be fewer illegals crossing the border, and the ones that are will more likely to be those rejected by the process. As in people who should be scooped up. Instead of people just trying to find a better life for themselves and their families.

          1. And people steal because the minimum wage isn’t high enough.

            Eat a bullet.

          2. People steal because they feel the market is not responsive. You can justify bad actions if you so desire.

            1. That makes no sense. Are you equating illegal immigration with stealing? I don't follow.

              1. You justify by inefficiencies in system.

                I did the same.

                Sorry if that made you realize that your point was idiotic.

      2. It's so burdensome and unpopular only some million people do it every year for the last 2 decades. More than any other country over the same time period, second only to Germany for any given year within the same period, and outstripping all others by almost double the number.

        If the US immigration system is so onerous and oppressive, why aren't we pushing France, the UK, Italy, Spain, Canada, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, etc., etc., etc. to even meet the US's numbers even halfway? Germany did it in the span of about 5 yrs. why not the rest of Western World?

        1. When did I say unpopular? I really have no idea of what you're talking about. Yes lots of people immigrate the legal way. If it was easier many who come the illegal way would choose to do it legally.

          1. Abolishing laws would make things easier, that’s for sure.

            1. You're not supposed to agree with me. If you do then you're uncool.

              1. Lol. You didn't realize he was mocking your simpleton worldview.

      3. Here's a chart they display a lot on Reason.

        You understand that this is a cartoon and not a chart? That it was drawn to prove a point more than it was drawn with any kind of accuracy, right?

        1. Excuse the fuck out of me for using the wrong word.

          1. Drunk already?

            1. Only because your girlfriend had to give me beer goggles before I could fuck her.

              1. Dude, you could fuck a Cheerio and not risk breaking it.

  4. We could merge a couple of libertarian favorites and advocate for opening up our immigration policy to attract 'potentially high individuals' instead . . .

  5. Sounds racist.

    1. Ableist. Can't have equity if we don't take all those poor, suffering, huddled masses.

      1. Tom Lehrer: "It Makes A Fellow Proud To Be A Soldier"

  6. The U.K. Has a New Plan To Attract 'High Potential Individuals.' The U.S. Should Copy It.

    Why would "high potential individuals" want to come to a country that admits millions of low skilled third world slave laborers and is turning into a third world sh*thole?

    1. I thought we needed to let everyone in from Mexico because you never know which of these low-skilled immigrants was going to turn out to be the next Elon Musk or the parent of the next Elon Musk.

      Saying we should recruit 'high potential' individuals pretty solidly states that the previous/ongoing open borders policies encourages people who have no hope of improving society, the one they're leaving or the one they're joining, to move.

  7. Defining "High Potential" solely on the basis of an academic degree flies in the face of everything we know about the almost-complete lack of correlation between education and success. This is especially true when the rule takes no consideration of what the degree is in.

    A journeyman plumber with an associates degree in business has more potential to contribute positively to society than the holder of a PhD in International Affairs or Journalism.

    1. PhD in International Affairs or Journalism

      Yeah, I read the title blurb as, "We should recruit more scholastically-conditioned individuals from countries that are even more retarded about Transgender-Rights Education, Ecological Economic Liquidation, and WEF Globalist Individual Eradication than we are."

      Hard pass.

      1. How about we import more foreign reporters and lawyers and fewer lower-end job classes? See if the support continues.

        1. You've shown your true colors. People who are "imported" are slaves. People who come voluntarily are not imported.

          1. Or he used the wrong word. Jeez.

          2. Are goods brought here done against the will of the supplier? I am not sure where you're going with this.

            Provide total open borders...but ONLY for lawyers and op-ed writers and we will see how long the support holds.

            1. He's being a pedant. Goods are imported. People immigrate. To say people are imported is to say they are goods, not people. As in chattel. So he's calling you a slaver because instead of "import" you should have said "allow," or you should have phrased the sentence differently with some form of the verb "immigrate."

              1. I hope you stretched well before that leap there.

                1. I was trying to help you out, dickhole. Go fuck yourself then.

                  1. Ideas!

            2. Explaining a pedant is like explaining a bad joke. Maybe because a pedant is a bad joke.

        2. Read: Plunkitt of Tammany Hall

  8. Graduates of the world's top universities are currently, and have been for years, fucking the world up.

    1. It's Britain; do you think they can fuck it up more than it already is?

      I for one will enjoy watching that show.

  9. Fuck that noise.
    Give us your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost

    1. Sure. We will consider that as soon as we completely dismantle the welfare state.

    2. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost
      to Emma Lazarus's house
      25 cents a day
      Every other Sunday half day off.

  10. Hey if they'll work...much more likely than a graduate of an "elite" university with an overrated degree, BS, MS, PhD.*

    *bull shit, mule shit, piled higher and deeper


    The inflation rate is 19.5% if you calculate it according to 1980 methodology

  12. >>High Potential Individual

    quite the metric

  13. You know, when parted ways with Shikha Dalmia, I wondered if they'd ever find a replacement who could match her commitment to Charles Koch's open borders agenda.

    Then Fiona came along. And I can't believe I'm saying this, but Fiona makes Shikha look like a slacker.

    When Russia attacked Ukraine?
    "The US needs open borders!"
    Before Russia attacked Ukraine?
    "The US needs open borders!"
    The UK does something related to immigration?
    "The US needs open borders!"
    Bruce Willis was dead at the end of Sixth Sense?
    "The US needs open borders!"

    She's a machine that uses literally every world event as an excuse to promote her billionaire benefactor's quest for cost-effective labor. And I love it! 🙂


    1. Ermmm...Spoiler Alert?

    2. It's a good thing she's not a singer. She'd be getting pelted, big time.

    3. It would do reason good to give their immigration guy more than one beat. Like you just pointed out, being known for using any flimsy excuse to justify your single issue preferred policy, undermines credibility. Giving her a second beat that's not as controversial would help her reputation over time. Give her a chance to show that she can think deeply on issues, and is someone who's opinion might be worth taking into account.

      Of course, if reason thought that deeply in how to sell illegal immigration as a good thing to the masses, their reporting over the years wouldn't have turned me from an open borders advocate to the realist I am today. The previous immigration reporter did a ridiculous amount of harm to reason's cause with poorly thought out screeds, that crumbled with even the barest questioning.

      1. Maybe she could handle a dating column without getting into too much trouble... on second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea, either...

  14. Sorry, but we can only accept immigrants from the upper reaches of the intersectionality pyramid.

  15. There is nothing new about importing the competent and intelligent. Australia had such a policy in 1973, so "new" is a misplaced modifier. The entire world--including even communist dictatorships--has for centuries imported the capable and reviled violent anarchist looters and other non-producers.

  16. As international migration continues its post-COVID recovery...

    You mean: "As international replacement of Europeans continues its post-COVID recovery..."

    Of course, more migration means:
    * more campus grievance groups making demands;
    * more affirmative action;
    * more applicants for public schools;
    * more No Go Zones in the banlieues;
    * more one-party states like California with permanent Democrat majorities;
    * and more libertarians suddenly deciding they can not live in open borders states and moving elsewhere.

  17. We don't have jobs for the high skill people we have. Sorry, but you can't base an economy on Ph.D. dishwashers.

  18. Let's hold off on copying that one for awhile.
    At least until the UK has taken the next couple of years worth of elitists from our "high potential" ivy league universities. It should raise the average IQ in both countries.


    How much wealth does the system have to steal/print/extract from you before you see those actions as a NAP violation?

  20. Why would we import 'High Potential Individuals' when we are exporting high valued jobs?
    What are we going to do with the 3 million Joe Biden let in? Are we going to parcel our lawn care by the square yard? Are they going to scab when the newly unionized Amazon and Starbucks employees strike?

  21. Maybe start with not importing low potential individuals?

  22. Low levels of migration to the U.S. are exacerbating labor shortages. Like the 100 year flood, that bit of stupidity always ends up being the '..lie of the Century...'. In 1924 America cut off immigration for the right and wrong reasons (no Yellow people allowed) for 40 years and wiped out the competition. We've reversed course and opened our borders and our Republic and continued growth in our standard of living is on the way out. What worked then will work now.

  23. I'm surprised Fiona isn't opposed to this on the grounds that they'd displace an illegal alien. I mean, who needs educated people when we can get illiterate disease-ridden peasants for free?

  24. Ahh....
    I'm totally against such a program for the United States. I cannot stand for another such plot attempting to undermine our last place standings in math and science.... Please, ignore this and do send us your useful idiots!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.