Reading frosty-boy's immigration thread....

[KrazyHorse]

Let us assume that for some strange reason you believe the government should restrict immigration to your country based on anything other than criminal background. In particular, you've decided that you should aim for a maximum of X immigrants per year to your country.

I'm willing to accept this premise without argument, for the purposes of this thread.

Now, assuming that Y > X "qualified" individuals (as above, non-criminals) want to immigrate to your country every year, you're left with the task of figuring out how to sort between these Y to find the X you want.

How should you best go about this? Well, let's go over some examples of how this is done currently. To start with, for the US (reference is Table 2 in http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...pr_fr_2008.pdf

Most (2/3) legal immigration to the US is via "family sponsored immigrants", i.e. relatives of US citizens

15% is via employers. It should be noted that the lawyer's fees for an application are on the order of 20K, from what I've heard. Also, except for the most educated/elite immigrants, there is a constant backlog (oversubscription) of applications. For these categories, preference is first com first served.

The "green card lottery" (diversity program) is ~4%

Refugees and asylum seekers is 15%

Now let's look at another country with a relatively high immigration rate: Canada. Canada accepts ~ twice as many immigrants per capita as the US does, but relative to European countries they both accept far more immigrants (especially from developing nations)

The categories are broadly similar to the above, with some differences I will note:

Family class: 25%

Economic Immigrants: 60%. Note that these immigrants DO NOT REQUIRE employee sponsorship as employee-sponsored applicants do in the US. Also, as I understand it, the application process is much simpler and the costs are much lower

Refugees: 9%

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resourc...rmanent/01.asp

Now, there are numerous similarities between the two systems, as well as significant differences. First, Canada accepts far fewer immigrants based on familial ties (as a proportion of total immigrants). Conversely, it accepts far more immigrants based on economic "viability" as it were. Immigrants who are accepted due to their employment prospects do not need a specific employee sponsor in Canada, and the transaction costs are far lower. There is also far less luck involved in the process, since there are no hard caps on immigration via this category.

In either case, it is the relevant government attempting to decide what makes a valuable resident based on legislative requirements. Those of us who think central planning of the economy is a bad idea in general should shudder at this idea. Who would have a better idea of what the gains from immigration would be? That's right, the IMMIGRANT HIMSELF. How do we allow him to transmit this information? As always, via a price signal. There is already a price signal in the US (the cost of application for employee sponsorship) but this is obviously not high enough as there is still rationing (shortages) of immigration slots.

What is the solution? To my mind it seems obvious that IF we wish to restrict immigration numbers the ideal method is to auction off the immigration slots to those who are qualified (those who aren't likely to commit crimes, for example). Those who were likely to get the highest-paying employment in the US would be willing to pay the most for the right to hold such a job. As well, the amount of revenue so raised would be considerable. I have no doubt that current levels of immigration to the US could be sustained if anybody in the world without a criminal record was allowed to enter, stay and work in the US legally for the sum of, say, 50000$. This would raise 50 billion dollars a year.

Well, while the case seems straightforward for economic/employer-sponsored immigrants, what of the tow other largest categories?

Refugees are the easiest to deal with. The federal government will forego some revenue by accepting refugees (who we'll assume to be liquidity constrained, preventing them from buying an immigration slot). This can be viewed simply as aid to individuals whose own countries have abandoned or persecuted them. It is a gift from a rich country to individuals who as a group might well be worse off than any other group in the world.

Now, to family-based immigration: as with refugees, non-auctioned slots are a giveaway to those who get them. However, in this case, they are also giveaways to these immigrants' American family members. Well, why should these particular Americans be given such gifts? Saying they are often poor doesn't hold water, as the money from these immigrants could have been disbursed to ALL poor Americans rather than being given in kind to a certain specific subset of them.

[chequita guevara]

too complicated to read

[Asher]

Too drunk too read.

[KrazyHorse]

Instead of the current idiotic system countries should auction off their immigration slots

[DanS]

I see where you're going with this, but illegal immigration, being a very large number, would have an effect on the market you are running here. Quite simply, some may take what they cannot buy.

[Asher]

Instead of the current idiotic system countries should auction off their immigration slots

That would just lead to an increase in spoiled hong kong gangers at expense of intellectual filipino housewives.

[notyoueither]

Something, something to the effect that you seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[DanS]

Also, wasn't there a similar program a few years ago? It didn't have an auction mechanism, but there was a process by which very well-to-do foreigners could become citizens. This is just a hazy memory though, so I may be misremembering.

[KrazyHorse]

I see where you're going with this, but illegal immigration, being a very large number, would have an effect on the market you are running here. Quite simply, some may take what they cannot buy.

As with illegal immigration currently, illegal immigrants would face significant difficulties when attempting to gain employment in any but the lowest-paying professions.

[KrazyHorse]

Also, wasn't there a similar program a few years ago? It didn't have an auction mechanism, but there was a process by which well-to-do foreigners could become citizens. This is just a hazy memory though, so I may be misremembering.

There is still a visa category in the US for people who wish to start a new business with an investment > 1million$ which will employ >10 Americans.

However, there is no price paid directly to the US government under this visa category. Also, while the people who take advantage of this would likely take advantage of an auctioned visa system as well, there are a large number of people who would be willing to buy a visa but who do not have the liquidity to dump a million dollars into an investment.

[KrazyHorse]

Something, something to the effect that you seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

I know that the chance for a better life is too important to be subject to the capricious whims of detailed governmental interference.

[notyoueither]

In Canada it is/was $100K, and you could invest in an existing company.

The message was, bring cash and welcome.

I do not know if that programme is still going.

[DanS]

By the way, I think that 2/3rds of immigration re family, it's mostly a system whereby illegals can become legal by being "reunited" with their kids who were born in the US and therefore have US citizenship. Get one person in the door and just continue with the string...

KH: Yeh, that's the program I was thinking of.

[notyoueither]

I know that the chance for a better life is too important to be subject to the capricious whims of detailed governmental interference.

Cash is only one of the possible measures of what is better.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, I think that 2/3rds of immigration re family, it's mostly a system whereby illegals can become legal by being "reunited" with their kids who were born in the US and therefore have US citizenship.

It's not "mainly" that. But that is definitely a significant portion of it. The subcategories are detailed in the link I gave. This type of "reunification" can account for at most 10% of total immigration (1/6 of family-based sponsorships).

[SlowwHand]

KH, the criteria you set (Those who were likely to get the highest-paying employment in the US would be willing to pay the most for the right to hold such a job. ) was who made it out during the evacuation of Saigon. The rest were boat people.

[KrazyHorse]

Sloww, my honest preference would be for every country to allow unrestricted immigration (of non-criminals). But if we (and by "we" I mean the First World in general) are going to restrict immigration I'd rather do it in as rational a way as possible.

[DanS]

Well, this is a pretty system. I wonder what the farmers in California would think of such a system.

[notyoueither]

Who is more valuable?

A: A nurse who is qualified and willing to work in tough areas, like peds or palliative care

B: Some blowhard with a PHD who knows how to cook bank books

I know who I want as a neighbour, and I know who would get in under KH's newly found, money grubbing philosophy.

[KrazyHorse]

A nurse who is qualified and willing to work in tough areas, like peds or palliative care

Some blowhard with a PHD who knows how to cook bank books

Snooze.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, this is a pretty system. I wonder what the farmers in California would think of such a system.

I don't know. Are you referring to farmers who rely on migrant workers?

Again, I'd rather let everybody in who's not obviously a drag on everybody else (via criminality, say). But the value to the US of a migrant agricultural worker is likely a lot lower than the value of one of the tens of thousands of Indian and Chinese engineers, programmers etc. turned away every year from the H1B visa system.

[KrazyHorse]

Who is more valuable?

A: A nurse who is qualified and willing to work in tough areas, like peds or palliative care

B: Some blowhard with a PHD who knows how to cook bank books

I know who I want as a neighbour, and I know who would get in under KH's newly found, money grubbing philosophy.

By the way, sweetheart, I can immigrate to virtually any country in the world. Under the current systems.

I would be an E-2 to the US (no backlog for this category) and a highly-skilled worker to Canada. My concern is for those who are not as uniquely qualified as myself.

[SlowwHand]

What slows it all down is the need to know the background of people. These days, all has changed.

[KrazyHorse]

For instance, NYE, if you wanted to immigrate to the US I doubt you would be able to.

Under MY system, if it was worth X to you (X likely in the ~50-100k range) you'd be free to do what you please.

Freedom.

[notyoueither]

A nurse who is qualified and willing to work in tough areas, like peds or palliative care

Some blowhard with a PHD who knows how to cook bank books

Snooze.

I guess you are unhappy that many people in many countries would prefer Mrs Tubes to you as an immigrant.

It must bite at your overblown sense of worth. Damn it! You're smarter than she is! Can't people see it?!

[KrazyHorse]

What slows it all down is the need to know the background of people.

I agree that there should be some significant scrutiny to weed out truly undesirable individuals. But that is NOT what eats up most of the resources for employment-based visas to the US.

[KrazyHorse]

I guess you are unhappy that many people in many countries would prefer Mrs Tubes to you as an immigrant

I have no idea what many people would prefer. I do know that bureaucratically speaking I'd have an easier time of it.

at the thought that it's easier for nurses to immigrate than PhD physicists.

[notyoueither]

By the way, sweetheart, I can immigrate to virtually any country in the world. Under the current systems.

I would be an E-2 to the US (no backlog for this category) and a highly-skilled worker to Canada. My concern is for those who are not as uniquely qualified as myself.

For instance, NYE, if you wanted to immigrate to the US I doubt you would be able to.

Under MY system, if it was worth X to you (X likely in the ~50-100k range) you'd be free to do what you please.

Freedom.

All that to say
You're Good Enough, You're Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like You!

[KrazyHorse]

Want to try again, NYE? Both my wife and I can pretty much go anywhere we please.

I feel bad for those of you who can't.



By the way, I'm going to bed. I'll be happy to respond to whatever you come up with in the next 8 hours or so tomorrow morning. Good luck

For those of you who are capable of coherent thought, I'd be interested to hear your responses.

[notyoueither]

I have no idea what many people would prefer. I do know that bureaucratically speaking I'd have an easier time of it.

at the thought that it's easier for nurses to immigrate than PhD physicists.

I didn't say it was easier.

I said people would prefer, ie most normal people value Mrs Tubes and her work far more than they ever will you, most likely.

Face it Jack, a person who does not communicate very well in words is objectively a more valuable human being than you are. The world would be a poorer place without her than without you.