BRYAN CAPLAN
May 7, 2013
Keynesian Bets: What's Out There
May 6, 2013
Keynesian Bets Bleg
May 6, 2013
The Pyramid of Macroeconomic Insight and Virtue
May 2, 2013
A Natalist Provision
May 1, 2013
I Was a Teenage Misanthrope
DAVID HENDERSON
May 5, 2013
John Thacker on Vaccinations and the Sequester
May 3, 2013
Chef Rudy's Virtues Project
May 2, 2013
My take on Reinhart and Rogoff
May 1, 2013
Medicare Kills a Program


@Garett,
It's not just the Fed that can do that. When I was a senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers, I was a resident alien (picture antennae sticking out of my head), not a U.S. citizen. I don't know if it has changed.
@DRH:
Done. But I think favourite in your case.
How many plausible candidates for high-level Federal Reserve jobs are likely to collect EITC once they're here?
Even fairly strict "immigration restrictionists" are generally willing to admit foreigners of special talent (even (air-quotes) "special" talent, like William Shatner's!). It's the millions of undistinguished, indeed, nearly indistinguishable peasants and their statistically-predicted-to-be-negatively-distinguished offspring we most want to exclude.
Current US immigration rules don't stand in the way of the Federal Reserve hiring a foreigner to a high-level job. The US already admits 140,000 talented permanent immigrants (plus many thousands more of their spouses and dependents) every year, chiefly in visa categories E{1,2,3} (plus merely rich people in E5). Employees of international agencies as well as physicians are given special preference.
The US also admits hundreds of thousands of workers who claim they plan to go home after a period of residence in the US.
If the Federal Reserve had some kind of anti-foreign policy of its own, that would have nothing to do with immigration law, really. Similarly, the US government civil service may favor citizens over foreigners in hiring, but that is not an immigration-law issue.