The case for LEGAL and SELECTIVE immigration
While the flood of illegals is putting educational and medical services under pressure, however, it is a big ask to let in more legal immigrants. The article below is from the WSJ -- an open borders outfit and they clearly intend the article below to be an argument for allowing in more cheap workers for business. But using as their example the legal immigration of highly talented people shows the desperation of their case. To be trite, they are comparing apples and oranges. The legal immigration of highly talented people and the illegal immigration of poorly educated people whose children are very often crime-prone gang-bangers are two entirely different issues
Here in Silicon Valley, immigrants and first-generation Americans provide the drive and hunger for almost every company worth its salt. But these days protectionism and xenophobia are choking off the supply of H1-B visas for the best and brightest foreigners. Sadly, we no longer lay out the welcome mat for people with names like Grove, Brin, Yang, Bechtolsheim, Huang, Nguyen, Omidyar and Wadhwani.
Some say that the effect of immigrants on Silicon Valley is exaggerated and that venture capitalists should provide more opportunities for homegrown Californians. But the state's xenophobes and protectionists need only take a look at the recent history of the English Premier League to see the staggering and transformative effect that immigrants can have on a market.
Twenty years ago, English professional soccer was in a shambles. Most of the stadiums had just a few seats. Stabbings and fights on the terraces were part of the entertainment. In 1989, 96 people were trampled to death during one tragic game. Almost all the players in the league had been born in England—many within sight of the stadiums in which they played. Clubs in Italy, Spain, Brazil and Argentina provided a more scintillating version of the sport. Revenues from television coverage were small. In less than two decades all that has changed, and today the best soccer in the world is played in England. The reason: immigrants.
The English Premier League is a testament to what happens when immigration barriers are broken down and a market attracts the most talented people from around the world.
In 1992, the year of its formation, there were only 11 soccer players in the English Premier League who had not been born in the United Kingdom or Ireland. Now that number is more than 250—in a league where the total number of players in the overall starting lineup is 220. In 1999, Chelsea became the first team to field a Premier League starting lineup composed entirely of foreign-born players.
The main reason behind this dramatic change was a labor ruling in 1995 by the European Court of Justice. The court ruled that arcane rules restricting the free movement of soccer players were in breach of the law of the European Union. When the rules were lifted, the English Premier League was flooded with the best players in the world.
The economic result of the influx of talented immigrants has been profound. Today the soccer on view in the English Premier League is far and away the most attractive in the world. The domestic market has expanded—hooliganism is in decline, and women and children flock to stadiums on Saturdays. Meanwhile, the export market is more lucrative than ever. More than half a billion people in some 200 countries follow the exploits of Chelsea, Manchester United, Aston Villa, Blackpool and Tottenham Hotspur. A preseason tour of Asia has become de rigueur for the best clubs.
The league has also drawn foreign capital with club owners from the United States, India, Russia and the Middle East. Only three sports leagues—the NFL, MLB and NBA—top the English Premier League in revenues. But these leagues, it should be noted, compete in a domestic market six-times larger than England's.
In 1986, a two-year TV agreement for the top flight of English soccer was sold for 6.3 million pounds, the equivalent of about $10 million today. In 2007, a set of three-year rights was sold for 1.7 billion pounds, or $2.7 billion. It's little wonder that last year the English Premier League won the Queen's award for enterprise in international trade.
Players like Chelsea's Didier Drogba (Ivory Coast), Arsenal's Cesc Fabregas (Spain), and Manchester United's Nemanja Vidic (Serbia) may not possess the technical chops to start technology companies in Silicon Valley. But they answered the same clarion call that rang out to the founders and families that once spawned Intel, eBay, Google, Nvidia, Yahoo and hundreds of other companies formed between San Jose and San Francisco. These soccer players are living proof that the best people score the most goals.
Turning away talent—wherever it's from—only weakens the market and brings down everyone's game.
SOURCE
Tighter border security for New Zealand
A new agreement between Canada and New Zealand will see the country's border security strengthened. The agreement is part of a Five Country Conference (FCC) biometric programme involving immigration authorities from New Zealand, Canada the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom.
Immigration minister Jonathan Coleman said it will give New Zealand officials greater tools to detect identity fraud, as well as process genuine travellers faster by checking fingerprint details, when needed, with their Canadian counterparts. "The ability to check biometric data with international partners will help INZ [Immigration New Zealand] identify people using false identities," he said today.
Organised crime groups and illegal migrants are being targeted. "Organised crime groups and illegal migrants are increasingly using identity and passport fraud to evade detection."
The agreement also means that information on asylum claimants and illegal migrants can be accessed from the other four countries, when people provide no identification.
"This initiative will help Canadian and New Zealand immigration authorities work together to identify immigration fraud and previous deportees who are trying to re-enter our respective countries without permission," says Jason Kenney, minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
All arrangements conform with the respective Privacy Acts of member countries, and fingerprints of the citizens of FCC countries will not be shared, said Coleman. INZ signed similar agreements with Australia and the UK last year.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment