The most elite man alive has sensibly radical views on immigration. And he's suggested a great nerdy slogan, too: infinite visas.
Perhaps he should found the Brains Against Brain Drain Club? I can't help but recall the lead quote to my book's introduction:
A supporter once called out, "Governor Stevenson, all thinking people are for you!" And Adlai Stevenson answered, "That's not enough. I need a majority."
As an engineer, I have seen the shortage of workers first hand. Our wages are higher than most professions, but people still don't pursue a degree in engineering. Allowing people from other countries to fill these vacancies is a good thing, but we need to address the issue of green cards and citizenship along with it.
One of the things that has made the US as strong as it is is that we have historically imported the best and the brightest. These people produce more and are the most beneficial to our society.
I find the immigration debate frustrating because the obvious solution, which would pass with a high level of support from the American people, would be to reduce illegal immigration through attrition (no amnesty), while at the same time increasing visas for high skilled workers. Every illegal deported opens a slot for a legal visa applicant.
I have no doubt that even the staunchest opponents in Congress would agree to more high skilled immigration. It is the open border lobby which is blocking a compromise solution.
At the end of the first link, someone says "That's the way supply and demand are supposed to work,'' basically in reference to calling for artificial wage floors and/or subsidies. To quote The Office, "I'm just sorry that the public school system failed [her] so badly."
Letting educated/high-skill people in doesn't sound too bad to me, unless they're from countries where a lot of people want to blow us up.
'Infinite Visas' opens up a finite vista of civilization brought low by increase of aggression.
Quantity, as in 'infinite', or vastly enlarged, does not allow for quality standards to be maintained, or even established in the first instance.
Gates, one should recall, is not an honest man; but one who will say what it takes to get the left or the government to go after someone else.
In the hierarchy of honesty and intellectual consistency, isn't it very hard to imagine Gates as being nominated for being in a high position therein?
Here's a more honest slogan:
"More money for Bill Gates. Less money for his employees."
John S Bolton,
It absolutely allows for quality standards. If you read what he said, Gates is calling for infinite numbers of visas for high-skilled immigrants. How is that not a quality standard?
"Here's a more honest slogan:
"More money for Bill Gates. Less money for his employees.""
Right on, Steve, because Microsoft is somehow limited to only hiring people who are already in the United States, right? They certainly couldn't outsource any of their IT requirements to other countries. The very thought of it is enough to make me drop my monocle.
I've got a suspicion that Microsoft could hire workers for less if they were living somewhere where the cost of living is lower. Workers in the US demand more than workers in India for the exact same job. Bill Gates speaking out in favor of highly educated immigrants makes perfect sense, while your knee-jerk reaction to it does not.