I agree with all of your proposals, because I’ve seen a very similar immigration system working in Switzerland, where I live. Switzerland has much more immigration than the US—25 percent of people living here are immigrants. Switzerland also admits refugees at a per capita rate that is literally hundreds of times higher than what we do in the US. And yet Switzerland has almost no trouble with immigrants, and the Swiss economy, as measured by per capita GDP and Gini coefficient, is much stronger that the US—people are richer and healthier, and there is less income inequality and crime than in the US.
Switzerland makes it easy to immigrate legally, but virtually impossible illegally. In addition, prospective immigrants must undergo a criminal background check, must have a job of some kind (it doesn’t have to be a high-status job), and, within a year of arriving must pass a test of basic competency in the language of the canton the immigrant lives in. The Swiss also put some effort into helping new immigrants integrate, through short, free classes that are sponsored by the community.
Switzerland’s example shows that immigration really can be a win-win. Jeff, I appreciate that you are incurring the wrath of the left and the right alike to speak up for sensible policies that will benefit everyone.
Here in the midwest, the immigration conversation is mostly about people fleeing places like Venezuela rather than immigrants seeking economic opportunity.
How would the points system be affected by the need of the immigrant? A lot of refugees wouldn't score many points, especially the ones that are fleeing the worst conditions. If there's a parallel system that processes asylum seekers without giving them points, then many people with few points would just use the asylum process instead and we'd still have a lot of the same issues.
I'm not sure if the points based countries have a good system for dealing with that. The UK has a points system and the (second generation immigrant) PM doesn't seem to have a plan better than "stop the boats".
Totally agree. We need a high wall with a big wide gate. I'd love to see 10X the legal immigration we now allow but also control the border so we get few members of Boko Haram entering. And families are goog!
I’m a conservative/libertarian and definitely not MAGA. Your proposal makes perfect sense to me. Of course, this means that it has no chance of becoming law.
The problem. And I think this article sums it up. Is that no one actually talks about immigration. Sure. You might think they do. But they don’t. No one proposes laws. No one talks about the actual process itself. They skip straight to illegal immigration without wondering how we got here. It’s like reading the last chapter of a book first. Then being disappointed with the ending.
Democrats will say “we need to protect immigrant communities” what does that even mean? It’s like an axiom married an adage and they had two kids named aphorism and maxim and they did the forbidden dance and had a flipper baby of a phrase. Legislate something. Fucking. Legislate anything!
Prohibition is and always will be a terrible policy on nearly any good. It just incentivized black markets. That create crime on top of breaking the prohibited thing. Which creates situations where people get taken advantage of and it’s a whole cycle that could be avoided if we were just clear in the first place.
1 Sure, but not a big deal. Not having the wrong connections is probably not that hard to conceal. The Saudi 9/11 terrorists were not know to be terrorists before they acted.
2. Family connections are just right and are necessary to attract high-skilled people from certain cultures.
3. To some extent the “skills/education” issue coud be solved by legitimate job offers. Ditto degree from a legitimate higher education institution.
4. Work history is good conceptually, but how/when established? Can a visa officer be expected to make this determination about the potential immigrants work history in the country of origin?
5. English proficiency is OK; it would just mean another aspect to job offer/education criterion.
6. Age is ok as a somewhat demerit, but If the quantum computing engineer from Shanghai wants to bring their 81 year old father, let them.
7. Place of residence will probably work only as an add on to the job offer or some other criterion.
8. [My addition] It’s probably worth assisting firms that are recruiting talent internationally. Because of labor mobility the recruiting firm often does not reap the full advantage of the recruitment.
9. [My addition] Coming from adversary nations (spies excepted) is a plus both because the are more likely to be or become good (lower case) liberal democrats and because it withdraws resources from the adversary.
10. [Maybe covered earlier] The effect of this ought to be a very substantial increase in legal immigration.
Why not auction slots to immigrate? Income/wealth capture skills/education/fit of the migrant and need on our side, and does a better job of balancing the factors. Plus, it would let the public capture more of the surplus from immigration, which goes mostly to the immigrants. An auction would align incentives by giving nativists a reason to get on board.
A couple of other buckets which could be added to improve the points system:
1. Non-family ties. Blood might be thicker than water, but friends are still helpful when for acclimatizing new immigrants
2. Length of Stay - Seasonal workers are better for the US than permanent residents (economically speaking) because we don't pay for their kids' schools and they are not planning to retire here. The benefit from this bucket should be at least large enough to offset the cost of not knowing English.
3. Money - it's probably worth letting someone in if they're willing and able to pay for the privilege.
How about instead of bitching about incoming immigrants who are willing to work, let's deport or ship off U.S. citizens that don't want to work! Send them to Mexico and let them see how life is there!
I agree with all of your proposals, because I’ve seen a very similar immigration system working in Switzerland, where I live. Switzerland has much more immigration than the US—25 percent of people living here are immigrants. Switzerland also admits refugees at a per capita rate that is literally hundreds of times higher than what we do in the US. And yet Switzerland has almost no trouble with immigrants, and the Swiss economy, as measured by per capita GDP and Gini coefficient, is much stronger that the US—people are richer and healthier, and there is less income inequality and crime than in the US.
Switzerland makes it easy to immigrate legally, but virtually impossible illegally. In addition, prospective immigrants must undergo a criminal background check, must have a job of some kind (it doesn’t have to be a high-status job), and, within a year of arriving must pass a test of basic competency in the language of the canton the immigrant lives in. The Swiss also put some effort into helping new immigrants integrate, through short, free classes that are sponsored by the community.
Switzerland’s example shows that immigration really can be a win-win. Jeff, I appreciate that you are incurring the wrath of the left and the right alike to speak up for sensible policies that will benefit everyone.
Here in the midwest, the immigration conversation is mostly about people fleeing places like Venezuela rather than immigrants seeking economic opportunity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/us/chicago-migrants-residents.html
How would the points system be affected by the need of the immigrant? A lot of refugees wouldn't score many points, especially the ones that are fleeing the worst conditions. If there's a parallel system that processes asylum seekers without giving them points, then many people with few points would just use the asylum process instead and we'd still have a lot of the same issues.
I'm not sure if the points based countries have a good system for dealing with that. The UK has a points system and the (second generation immigrant) PM doesn't seem to have a plan better than "stop the boats".
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/world/europe/uk-brexit-migration-sunak.html
Totally agree. We need a high wall with a big wide gate. I'd love to see 10X the legal immigration we now allow but also control the border so we get few members of Boko Haram entering. And families are goog!
I’m a conservative/libertarian and definitely not MAGA. Your proposal makes perfect sense to me. Of course, this means that it has no chance of becoming law.
The problem. And I think this article sums it up. Is that no one actually talks about immigration. Sure. You might think they do. But they don’t. No one proposes laws. No one talks about the actual process itself. They skip straight to illegal immigration without wondering how we got here. It’s like reading the last chapter of a book first. Then being disappointed with the ending.
Democrats will say “we need to protect immigrant communities” what does that even mean? It’s like an axiom married an adage and they had two kids named aphorism and maxim and they did the forbidden dance and had a flipper baby of a phrase. Legislate something. Fucking. Legislate anything!
Nothing sums up our immigration process better than this flowchart. https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf
Prohibition is and always will be a terrible policy on nearly any good. It just incentivized black markets. That create crime on top of breaking the prohibited thing. Which creates situations where people get taken advantage of and it’s a whole cycle that could be avoided if we were just clear in the first place.
Points about points.
1 Sure, but not a big deal. Not having the wrong connections is probably not that hard to conceal. The Saudi 9/11 terrorists were not know to be terrorists before they acted.
2. Family connections are just right and are necessary to attract high-skilled people from certain cultures.
3. To some extent the “skills/education” issue coud be solved by legitimate job offers. Ditto degree from a legitimate higher education institution.
4. Work history is good conceptually, but how/when established? Can a visa officer be expected to make this determination about the potential immigrants work history in the country of origin?
5. English proficiency is OK; it would just mean another aspect to job offer/education criterion.
6. Age is ok as a somewhat demerit, but If the quantum computing engineer from Shanghai wants to bring their 81 year old father, let them.
7. Place of residence will probably work only as an add on to the job offer or some other criterion.
8. [My addition] It’s probably worth assisting firms that are recruiting talent internationally. Because of labor mobility the recruiting firm often does not reap the full advantage of the recruitment.
9. [My addition] Coming from adversary nations (spies excepted) is a plus both because the are more likely to be or become good (lower case) liberal democrats and because it withdraws resources from the adversary.
10. [Maybe covered earlier] The effect of this ought to be a very substantial increase in legal immigration.
This series on immigration didn't have the exact same perspective as I do. My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
No, not really. It is always interesting to read thought-out opinions on a controversial subject, do that again some time =)
Really enjoyed this series and found almost nothing to argue with. I think mixing some vitamins in with the sugar is a good look for you.
Why not auction slots to immigrate? Income/wealth capture skills/education/fit of the migrant and need on our side, and does a better job of balancing the factors. Plus, it would let the public capture more of the surplus from immigration, which goes mostly to the immigrants. An auction would align incentives by giving nativists a reason to get on board.
A couple of other buckets which could be added to improve the points system:
1. Non-family ties. Blood might be thicker than water, but friends are still helpful when for acclimatizing new immigrants
2. Length of Stay - Seasonal workers are better for the US than permanent residents (economically speaking) because we don't pay for their kids' schools and they are not planning to retire here. The benefit from this bucket should be at least large enough to offset the cost of not knowing English.
3. Money - it's probably worth letting someone in if they're willing and able to pay for the privilege.
How about instead of bitching about incoming immigrants who are willing to work, let's deport or ship off U.S. citizens that don't want to work! Send them to Mexico and let them see how life is there!
Very sensible take on immigration. Nice work! Now, if only the dolts on Capitol Hill could read…