Michael Magoon for President! These policy ideas are better than anything promoted by any political party this century.
The US is in the enviable position of having many of the most desirable people on earth wanting to move here for a better opportunity. This could be an amazing opportunity for these people, for Americans, and for humanity (as those best capable of promoting progress would be in the country where they are best able to).
On the other side of the coin…. We need to repeal the policy on asylum, enforce the borders, make it impossible (a felony?) to get welfare benefits if here illegally.
We could use legal aliens to shore up Social Security and Medicare, through the addition of millions of high earners and entrepreneurs, as well as by possibly increasing the FICA employer contribution for legal immigrants. This would create a positive argument.
The fact that this article could be characterized as controversial in the current mainstream discourse is both crazy and sad.All of these opinions are almost self-evident,if immigration wasn't so heavily politicized we would do a lot better,and unlike where trans ppl should pee or what sports should they play,getting better immigration policy is an important issue
So far Western countries have been unable to implement skills based systems.
Countries that had success for this for awhile, like Canada, it broke down. Chain migration has a pull from current immigrants, who can both lobby for different immigration policy and act as kind of inside fifth columnists that help friends and relatives to exploit what loopholes there are. For instance, if you have a degree requirement they can just set up a diploma mill. A job requirement they can set up a company and hire their own.
If your a city state dictatorship like Singapore or the UAE maybe you can make it work, but that isn't really an exportable model.
In addition, the USA and most of Europe lacks the kind of physical choke points that have typically helped countries trying to use skills based immigration (being an island, long distances from developing world).
While I'm in favor of recruiting top world talent, I would set that bar pretty high. Like maybe 130+ IQ. I feel like the Canada model of letting in the slightly above average from below average countries eventually results in the chain migration of low skills.
Technocratically I would just auction off Visas with a target cost of $1 million. I would tell Effective Altruists that funding these Visas would be worth more then all the mosquito nets in the world. This feels too wonky to pass congress though, people seem more comfortable with a degree or other requirement then literally selling citizenship, despite the fact that money is way more accurate and less gameable.
I'm not sure about your plan for the USA to take all the global talent. If it really started to succeed on that front, I could see a mixture of carrots and sticks being implemented by the rest of the world to stop their top talent from emigrating. China in particular, where most of the non OECD talent resides, would never allow large scale poaching of its top people.
While I am certainly not predicting that something like my proposal will be implemented in the near future, I do not see any of your concerns make it impossible to do so.
I do not see the current Democratic party being willing to support my proposal, but I think that it could be very popular with Republicans and Independent voters. Trump has talked about skills-based immigration in the past. Not sure if he is still in favor of it.
Yes, the family of immigrants will lobby for an expansion, but that does not mean that their desires have to be accepted by Congress. And diploma mills and fake companies can identified, and their graduates will likely be unable to pass very specific tests in their supposed domain.
I also do not think that it is impossible to enforce immigration rules at the border and internally. At the very least, a major diminishment of illegal immigration is quite possible.
As for IQ tests, I would argue that specific skills are more important to the economy, and those skills are likely already closely correlated with IQ anyway. I would not object to IQ test in addition to skills criterion, but not instead of.
IQ tests alone would encourage many very smart academics who willing add little of value to economy.
I don't see the point of auctioning off visas. This would likely be won by very wealthy older men who got their money via political connections. They are highly unlikely to be the very high IQ that you want. Highly-skilled young persons would add far more value to the nation.
Yes, many foreign nations will not like losing their most skilled, but it will be really hard for them to enforce this. It might even force them to reform their systems to stop punishing the successful.
If a young person has a lot of talent and would add a lot of value, they ought to be able to get someone to sponsor them and pay the $1M. This could be done for altruistic or profit motive reasons.
If you have $1M but moving to the USA won't add much value, it seems unlikely many would pay the money, but to the extent they did we would at least be getting $1M dollars.
While it's POSSIBLE to have systems that can't be gamed, it's very common for systems to be gamed. The incentive structures point to gaming. I don't consider the large OECD democracies very "nimble" on this front. You can't game "pay me $1M".
Note, this sentiment isn't just a related to immigration. I've spent more than enough time near the government watching people game systems.
"Yes, many foreign nations will not like losing their most skilled, but it will be really hard for them to enforce this. It might even force them to reform their systems to stop punishing the successful."
The Soviets were able to shut off emigration pretty well once they got serious, and their system was a lot less compelling than the modern Chinese. Note it doesn't have to be all stick, they could just as easily afford to bribe their smartest to stay. It makes sense they would be willing to bid up to the expected value of the persons value add.
My main point is that I don't see zero sum recruitment via immigration as a substitute for higher birthrates.
Anyway, I would say I'm broadly in favor of your plan, I'd just set a high bar for entry.
Glad to hear that you are broadly in favor of my plan. It might be better to start off your first comment with that.
Regarding "I don't see zero sum recruitment via immigration as a substitute for higher birthrates:"
My proposal has nothing to do with birthrates. I would be in favor of it regardless of the birth rate. If increasing population is the main goal, then open borders should be the tool (which I oppose).
I don't see auctioning off visas enabling the highest skilled to come to US. I don't see why those with $1 million would pick the best person for the US unless there was some contract where the immigrant had to pay them a steep tax to the sponsor. More likely, they would choose a family member, so it would just be nepotism.
You are simply outsourcing the decision-making to an individual or organization with different interests.
Michael Magoon for President! These policy ideas are better than anything promoted by any political party this century.
The US is in the enviable position of having many of the most desirable people on earth wanting to move here for a better opportunity. This could be an amazing opportunity for these people, for Americans, and for humanity (as those best capable of promoting progress would be in the country where they are best able to).
On the other side of the coin…. We need to repeal the policy on asylum, enforce the borders, make it impossible (a felony?) to get welfare benefits if here illegally.
We could use legal aliens to shore up Social Security and Medicare, through the addition of millions of high earners and entrepreneurs, as well as by possibly increasing the FICA employer contribution for legal immigrants. This would create a positive argument.
LOL
Well at least I got one vote for my write-in. I am still trying to convince my wife and mother to vote for me… so far unsuccessfully.
The fact that this article could be characterized as controversial in the current mainstream discourse is both crazy and sad.All of these opinions are almost self-evident,if immigration wasn't so heavily politicized we would do a lot better,and unlike where trans ppl should pee or what sports should they play,getting better immigration policy is an important issue
Thanks for the comment. Yes, it is pretty sad that this type of immigration reform is not being seriously discussed.
So far Western countries have been unable to implement skills based systems.
Countries that had success for this for awhile, like Canada, it broke down. Chain migration has a pull from current immigrants, who can both lobby for different immigration policy and act as kind of inside fifth columnists that help friends and relatives to exploit what loopholes there are. For instance, if you have a degree requirement they can just set up a diploma mill. A job requirement they can set up a company and hire their own.
If your a city state dictatorship like Singapore or the UAE maybe you can make it work, but that isn't really an exportable model.
In addition, the USA and most of Europe lacks the kind of physical choke points that have typically helped countries trying to use skills based immigration (being an island, long distances from developing world).
While I'm in favor of recruiting top world talent, I would set that bar pretty high. Like maybe 130+ IQ. I feel like the Canada model of letting in the slightly above average from below average countries eventually results in the chain migration of low skills.
Technocratically I would just auction off Visas with a target cost of $1 million. I would tell Effective Altruists that funding these Visas would be worth more then all the mosquito nets in the world. This feels too wonky to pass congress though, people seem more comfortable with a degree or other requirement then literally selling citizenship, despite the fact that money is way more accurate and less gameable.
I'm not sure about your plan for the USA to take all the global talent. If it really started to succeed on that front, I could see a mixture of carrots and sticks being implemented by the rest of the world to stop their top talent from emigrating. China in particular, where most of the non OECD talent resides, would never allow large scale poaching of its top people.
Thanks for your comment.
While I am certainly not predicting that something like my proposal will be implemented in the near future, I do not see any of your concerns make it impossible to do so.
I do not see the current Democratic party being willing to support my proposal, but I think that it could be very popular with Republicans and Independent voters. Trump has talked about skills-based immigration in the past. Not sure if he is still in favor of it.
Yes, the family of immigrants will lobby for an expansion, but that does not mean that their desires have to be accepted by Congress. And diploma mills and fake companies can identified, and their graduates will likely be unable to pass very specific tests in their supposed domain.
I also do not think that it is impossible to enforce immigration rules at the border and internally. At the very least, a major diminishment of illegal immigration is quite possible.
As for IQ tests, I would argue that specific skills are more important to the economy, and those skills are likely already closely correlated with IQ anyway. I would not object to IQ test in addition to skills criterion, but not instead of.
IQ tests alone would encourage many very smart academics who willing add little of value to economy.
I don't see the point of auctioning off visas. This would likely be won by very wealthy older men who got their money via political connections. They are highly unlikely to be the very high IQ that you want. Highly-skilled young persons would add far more value to the nation.
Yes, many foreign nations will not like losing their most skilled, but it will be really hard for them to enforce this. It might even force them to reform their systems to stop punishing the successful.
Thanks for the response.
If a young person has a lot of talent and would add a lot of value, they ought to be able to get someone to sponsor them and pay the $1M. This could be done for altruistic or profit motive reasons.
If you have $1M but moving to the USA won't add much value, it seems unlikely many would pay the money, but to the extent they did we would at least be getting $1M dollars.
While it's POSSIBLE to have systems that can't be gamed, it's very common for systems to be gamed. The incentive structures point to gaming. I don't consider the large OECD democracies very "nimble" on this front. You can't game "pay me $1M".
Note, this sentiment isn't just a related to immigration. I've spent more than enough time near the government watching people game systems.
"Yes, many foreign nations will not like losing their most skilled, but it will be really hard for them to enforce this. It might even force them to reform their systems to stop punishing the successful."
The Soviets were able to shut off emigration pretty well once they got serious, and their system was a lot less compelling than the modern Chinese. Note it doesn't have to be all stick, they could just as easily afford to bribe their smartest to stay. It makes sense they would be willing to bid up to the expected value of the persons value add.
My main point is that I don't see zero sum recruitment via immigration as a substitute for higher birthrates.
Anyway, I would say I'm broadly in favor of your plan, I'd just set a high bar for entry.
Glad to hear that you are broadly in favor of my plan. It might be better to start off your first comment with that.
Regarding "I don't see zero sum recruitment via immigration as a substitute for higher birthrates:"
My proposal has nothing to do with birthrates. I would be in favor of it regardless of the birth rate. If increasing population is the main goal, then open borders should be the tool (which I oppose).
I don't see auctioning off visas enabling the highest skilled to come to US. I don't see why those with $1 million would pick the best person for the US unless there was some contract where the immigrant had to pay them a steep tax to the sponsor. More likely, they would choose a family member, so it would just be nepotism.
You are simply outsourcing the decision-making to an individual or organization with different interests.
Any way, thanks for the comments.