Donald Trump, a former president, wants to change the immigration system in the United States so that it no longer provides preference to individuals who have familial links to the country and instead gives priority to those who are highly skilled and have job offers. The program is predicated on the idea that immigrants who have higher educational credentials—what the administration refers to as “merit”—will earn more money in the United States and integrate more successfully.
The proposal garnered opposition from all quarters as soon as it was made public. Many Republicans feel that it doesn’t go far enough in the fight against illegal immigration, while other conservatives want to reduce overall immigration intake. Meanwhile, many Democrats are opposed to eliminating the family-centered, humanitarian foundations of the system that have proven successful for decades.
The whole concept of “value” is a hot rod and a big question. But there is a better way for both sides to think about who we are letting go of and why. The Trump administration is on the right track when it says we need a new way to screen immigrants, one that predicts their future success as Americans. In fact, taking into account the future contributions of immigrants is common in immigration policy around the world. But the Trump administration’s ideas about how to do this are critical. Many Democrats, for their part, are quick to dismiss any kind of research as anti-humanitarian: To do well, it would consider the family and other human welfare issues, and perhaps set newcomers for greater success. in their new country. Call it immigration money ball. Just as baseball was transformed by a multidimensional, data-driven system for evaluating and selecting players, the United States could analyze more information than it does now to decide which immigrants will succeed in society. . and all those in politics want to see. Meanwhile, both sides view immigrants in the same light. Imagine a system that treats immigrants more fully as individuals, rather than just as skilled workers, unskilled workers, or family members, like the immigration system. and how our current departure is happening. It may, for example, be useful to know if applicants have made a previous visit to the United States as a student, tourist or temporary worker. Imagine a system that would track people’s departures from airports, seaports, and train stations, and assign a value to the earliest immigrant departure on time. This system can find “advantages” in youth, in multilingualism, in training or work experience in jobs that are currently in demand, or in advanced degrees from American universities. It can affect immigrants who are determined to live in a fast-growing community for the first 10 years after their arrival; believe that it can be connected to the place where the work can be created and connected properly. Imagine if all of this is considered and immigrants have family in the United States to welcome them, help them adjust, and help them find work. This, too, is a policy that can be successful: research shows that immigrants who have close family ties have the same economic status as immigrants who are accepted on work visas that verify credentials and contracts. In this light, family also represents a powerful form of value. And most importantly – because welcoming those in need is a core principle of American culture – criteria can include whether welcoming them will deliver them from countries suffering from extreme poverty, violence or natural disasters. make themselves dating. We now have tools to identify the characteristics and factors that make immigrants successful in the United States, and then screen prospective immigrants against those criteria. Calling a “money ball” approach is much simpler; Immigration, unlike baseball, does not provide easy reading of speed and victory, and success as an immigrant can and should be defined in many ways. This may mean respect for laws, jobs, economic mobility, business ownership, registered patents, sense of belonging, or political involvement.
It will be more up to the government in power to decide which qualities are most important. Although we can argue about what is good integration, it would be better if we collect and calculate information about the extent to which immigrants arrive and continue in these different ways. . If we do, we can see the qualities that are known and accepted well predict these different types of success, and adjust our criteria accordingly in the future. For now, we don’t know.
For decades, baseball has been run on hunches and instincts. For a game that collects more statistics than any other, much of its analysis and game decision-making is based on a very je ne sais quoi.
All of this ended when Oakland players began incorporating evidence-based research into decision-making, a process outlined in Michael Lewis’ 2003 book, and now adopted by all teams to some degree. Early adopters have a huge advantage before other games catch on.
Today, US immigration policy is like baseball. Most people base their views on foreigners on political grounds. Many on the left view immigrants as hard workers who will boost a dwindling population or vulnerable people who must be welcomed in a humanitarian spirit. On the right side of the country, many see immigrants as opportunists or even (as the president himself suggested) criminals, who came to exploit the wealth of rich countries, and the presence they threaten local culture.
This debate is overblown (see MS-13’s terror campaign and the call to #AbolishICE) and is divorced from common sense. Amazon Issues a Profit Warning and Sees a Drop in Its Stock
The fact is that, as shown by the study, immigrants are the average power generators of the economy, who are disproportionately employed, innovative, enterprising and obeying the law – and who, on average, integrate quickly and not horn and workers born in. United States. for work other than the minimum wage. Immigration advocates have re-examined these findings more than a boxer repeats his wetsuit.
But the current system also works with a poor and outdated selection process. This is where the critics have an important point: the system we have is essentially blind and indifferent to the positives.
Like baseball teams, governments and researchers are already collecting large amounts of data about immigrants and potential immigrants in all areas of public debate: jobs and welfare; crime and civil society; language level and academic achievement. His name.
But the government does not use or approve all of this data. It is not a statistical crunch to determine the full range of qualities and factors that help an immigrant to succeed – to the extent, for example, entry-level English skills that are necessary for participation in a long speech 먹튀검증 and sales service, and whether it is older. Skilled immigrants contribute more in pre-retirement taxes than older skilled immigrants with a strong professional background.
Also, instead of considering the applicant’s eligibility for admission, the US government, like many others, limits its attention to a few factors and an arbitrary interview at the embassy. Visa types are selected by the main “purpose” of entry, such as whether immigrants are workers or family members, refugees or students. It reduces each immigrant, who has unique abilities and a complex set of skills, characteristics, and needs, to a single organizational structure, and categorizes them systematically. While some H1-B visas, for example, may be for immigrants with specific skills and jobs, they don’t take into account personal concerns or whether the immigrant has family in the United States.
The result is a system that ignores many indicators of incoming power. It seems that universities select students based on their future majors, nothing else. Consider this: would you like to give admission to an engineer who is independent of other information, or an engineer who knows English well, has a sister in Detroit, and is a former exchange student in Omaha? The answer seems obvious. Perhaps it’s not obvious, you’d prefer to hire a qualified engineer with no family ties or proven familiarity with the United States, or a farmer who speaks English well, has a sister in Detroit, and had been a high school exchange student. in Omaha?
More difficult, would you like to accept a farmer with family ties and English skills or is already signing a contract, who agrees to support in a vulnerable area, but does not have family in the United States? The admission process informed by statistical calculations and criteria that are 카지노사이트 flexible and current needs will be able to answer these questions, selecting those who will succeed for a temporary or permanent visa based on reliable forecasts of productivity and social contributions, and the United States. State. money at that time.
With such a mindset, a good engineer or farmer is not only good; we will have an assurance based on that it will be really good.
Does all of this require an overhaul of the existing admissions process? Yes. In addition to verifying the data we collect from applicants, we will need to collect more and build capabilities to streamline admissions decisions. We will also need a system that tracks outbound and inbound and studies the progress of immigrants once they are accepted. Once established, the system can be modified based on new laws, government research, or user recommendations from time to time. Imagine if there was a shortage of nurses or programmers. Imagine if the birth rate dropped and Social Security came close to bankruptcy. Imagine if there was a pool of immigrants who already had American college degrees and qualified for open jobs. All of these things are known and advanced systems will allow rapid change.
Such a new system could also help the country apply more immigrant visas that allow immigrants to enter the United States regularly or temporarily for specific work purposes and then return to their home countries. If government agencies share their data, renewing visas for temporary immigrants and others could be like renewing a driver’s license, based on a variety of quick checks. All of these will reduce the incentive to cross the border without a permit or overstay visa. Today, employers with small jobs or temporary needs often rely on undocumented workers, who cannot return to the United States if they return to their home country and are barred. to return for 10 years under the “unlawful presence” rule. The idea that what we know about immigrants when they apply for admission predicts their social and economic contributions is what informs immigration admissions in places like Australia and Canada, whose systems and Points ” evaluates candidates against criteria based on ability. . But even Canadians, whose system is based on points that are the global standard, do not include criteria such as family supporters or efforts to match immigrants to certain areas. As with any immigration policy, there will be political obstacles. Left-wing critics will worry that the algorithm will replace the current system, which places about two-thirds of all visas on family admissions. But the algorithm could be too big or too big to continue to prioritize spouses and children without counting them in the limit. They can be organized to recognize members of the American family, which were rarely accepted in the last two decades. Right-wing critics may worry that such a system could lead to large numbers of immigrants each year because of new forms of entry. However, input requirements can be raised or lowered to meet annual flow targets, and limits, if required, can be applied. It’s also worth acknowledging that foreign-born people make up about 15% of the US population – about half the share in places like Switzerland (30%) and Australia (29%), but still less. in New Zealand (23%), Canada (22%), Austria (19%), Sweden (18%), Ireland (17%) and elsewhere.
Other critics may be concerned that a system based on algorithms and points is less transparent than the current system and is more likely to give bad faith awards of racism or sexism. As I said earlier, the side effect of the foundation system is of interest to white applicants and other citizens of countries with strong educational systems. Credit for a previous visit to the United States can have the same effect as the ease of obtaining visas from Western countries. But this will be destroyed if the family ties are properly established. The system could also provide “advantages” to people from countries that are not represented in the United States, within the scope of the various visa lotteries that the Trump administration has proposed to abolish.
Also, the current system is difficult to understand anyway. Consular officers and immigration judges exercise considerable discretion, and there are reports of a decline. Ideally, a system like this should appeal to many people on both sides. This will give a sense of control to those on the right and support the continued progress of new people as the left thinks. As with baseball, there will be many exceptions, when the assumptions applied still do not make good predictions. Not all immigrants will create as many jobs as Elon Musk; some commit crimes (perhaps at lower rates than US citizens, according to US government data). And just like in baseball, there will be people who don’t want to keep the immigration system going and going forward now, either because of prejudice and -permanent or deep distrust. But just like in baseball, such small ideas will eventually be lost. Trump ran away from simple plans like iron walls and tricks like separating children from their parents because the argument has become symbolic and based on our most basic instincts, which now call humanity or control.
The best way at the same time to keep immigrants in control and manage their acceptance is to move to a system that considers their humanity as fully as possible.