I saw a study somewhere that if USA opened its borders, roughly 1 billion people would move in there in a short order. Obviously, no country can handle that, hence the need to have limits.
GP is suggesting removing the 85k H-1Bs annual cap but keeping all other requirements in place (with or without new wage standards).
EDIT: GP is also suggesting removal of the immediate deportation proceedings should someone lose their job in H-1B status. The status should follow the employee, not the employee/employer pair.
This wouldn't necessarily lead to a lot more immigration. It would lead to fewer people leaving who are already working for US companies on F-1 student visas in OPT status (they attended US institutions)
Which xenophobe put up a wall, and why is it that the US is the only country not allowed to have borders all of a sudden?
Many Mexicans worked seasonally in the US and then returned to Mexico "back in the day". I'm not sure at what point that became a problem though. Although still to this day many people are here in the US undocumented. The extent of that being a problem I'm sure we could debate. It's certainly not fair for those who attempt to play by the rules though.
Is Canada xenophobic? They won't allow just anybody in. I'm not allowed to move to New Zealand without some legal work visa thing they made up. What about France? Can I move to Japan? Why do I have to sign papers to move to any of these countries?
I'm fine if you want to advocate for open boarders (and I think it actually would be great, but we need far fewer people on the planet to make it work) but I think you really should be consistent about it.
Romania is a first world country with a PPP per capita GDP of $33K, compared to $48K in the UK. Their murder rate is 1.28/million, effectively the same rate as in the UK is 1.2/m.
Romanians didn't move en mass because the difference isn't all that great. They would gain 1.45X more income and no change in personal safety.
The average South American country has a PPP GDP of 16K and a regional murder rate of 16/m.
South Americans who migrate to the USA gain 4X more income (8X the economic gains of an emigrating Romanian) and enjoy a murder rate 1/4 of the South American average.
The incentives to flee Romania for the UK are trivial compared to the incentives for South Americans to move to the US.
It's not. Broad studies and broad claims don't work like that.
There is a lot of correlation between immigrant populations across the board, though.
As for income difference... 1.45 times? How about 4-6 times? Unless you seem to think that they would be going to the mythical average UK income area. And let's not forget that there's plenty of EU countries with high income levels. You can get an apartment in Berlin for roughly 2x the rent of an apartment in Bucharest... and get 4x the income.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...
Here are some things that can be straight up disproven:
* Violent criminals don't migrate en masse with completely open borders
* Economic migration doesn't happen, without severe hardships(drought, famine, etc)
* Asylum seekers aren't invading armies, that seek to expand war to other countries
> economic migration doesn't happen, without severe hardships(drought, famine, etc)
I'm suspecting that that billion in large part included people at severe hardships. Although to be fair a lot of them would have super hard time affording a one way plane ticket to the US, as they live on roughly dollar a day.
