Juzgué el podcast de Gavin Newsom antes de escucharlo. Entonces me di cuenta de que yo era parte del problema.
El nuevo podcast del gobernador de California, donde se distanciaba de los demócratas en el tema de los derechos de las personas trans, desató una polémica mediática y generó diversas opiniones entre los californianos.   Cuando vi los titulares s...
It’s costing California more than expected to provide immigrant health care. Is coverage at risk?
California is spending more than it expected on Medi-Cal and Republican lawmakers are pointing to coverage expansions that benefited immigrant households.   The California health care program that covers almost 15 million people is costing more m...
I judged Gavin Newsom’s podcast before listening. Then I realized I was part of the problem
The California governor’s new podcast, where he broke with Democrats on trans rights, triggered a media firestorm and evoked a variety of opinions from Californians.   When I saw the headlines about Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new podcast, “This is Gavi...
Dar atención médica a inmigrantes le está costando a California más de lo previsto. ¿Está en riesgo la cobertura?
California está gastando más de lo esperado en Medi-Cal y los legisladores republicanos están señalando expansiones de cobertura que beneficiaron a los hogares inmigrantes.   El programa de atención médica de California, que cubre a casi 15 millo...
Perspectivas y Experiencias de los Latinos sobre el Idioma Español
Si bien la mayoría de los latinos en EE.UU. hablan español, no todos lo hacen. El 24 por ciento de todos los adultos latinos dicen que solo pueden mantener un poco o nada una conversación en español.   Más de la mitad de los latinos en EE.UU. que...

The No-Brainer Issue of the Year: Let High-Skill Immigrants Stay

Information
28 January 2012 Alexander T. Tabarrok Print Email

Our policy toward the world’s best and brightest is currently: “Welcome! Enjoy this expensive education. Now go home!” Does that make any sense?
 
Behind Door #1 are people of extraordinary ability: scientists, artists, educators, business people and athletes. Behind Door #2 stand a random assortment of people. Which door should the United States open?

In 2010, the United States more often chose Door #2, setting aside about 40,000 visas for people of extraordinary ability and 55,000 for people randomly chosen by lottery.

It’s just one small example of our bizarre U.S. policy toward high-skill immigrants. Every year, we allow approximately 140,000 employment visas, which cover people of extraordinary ability, professionals with advanced degrees, and other skilled workers. The number is absurdly low for a country with a workforce of 150 million. As a result, it can be years, even decades, before a high-skilled individual is granted a U.S. visa. Moreover, these 140,000 visas must also cover the spouse and unmarried children of the high-skilled worker, so the actual number of high-skilled workers admitted under these programs is less than half of the total. Perhaps most bizarrely there is a cap on the number of visas allowed per country regardless of population size. How many visas are allocated to people of extraordinary ability from China, a country of over 1 billion people? Exactly 2,803. The same number as are allocated to Greenland.

A rational immigration policy would open the United States to many more high-skill immigrants. High-skill immigrants innovate, patent, and start new firms at higher rates than natives. At least one-quarter of the new firms in technology and science fields, from software and semiconductors to biotech, are founded by immigrants. In Silicon Valley, more than half of the high-tech start-ups were founded by immigrants. High skill immigrants especially with degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (aka: STEM) create more jobs and higher wages for Americans. Increasing high-skill immigration is such a win-win policy for increasing innovation that it’s tempting to call it a no-brainer. Instead, “no-brainer” turns out to be a better description of our current policy.
At a minimum, we should shift from family-based immigration to work-based immigration, using a point system for skills, such as used by Canada, Australia and Hong Kong. At the same time as we limit skill-based visas to 140,000, we have over 1.1 million legal immigrants per year, most based on family immigration. Even the harshest critics of immigration cannot fault a policy that keeps the number of immigrants constant while shifting toward more high-skill immigrants.

We also should create a straightforward route to permanent residency for foreign-born students who graduate with advance degrees from American universities, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We educate some of the best and brightest students in the world in our universities and then on graduation day we tell them, “Thanks for visiting. Now go home!” It’s hard to imagine a more short-sighted policy to reduce America’s capacity for innovation.

In an election year, no one expects any major action on immigration reform. But support for fixing our high-skill immigration system is widespread and bipartisan. A bill to lift the country cap on employment visas (“Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act” (H.R. 3012)) sailed through the U.S. House in November on a 389-to-15 vote, although it was later blocked in the Senate for tactical reasons by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have both put forward proposals to “staple” a green card to the diplomas of foreign students graduating from U.S. universities with advanced degrees in STEM fields, an idea that also been endorsed Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and President Obama. Few people defend the current system.

We should debate the issues on which we do not agree. But shouldn’t we also agree to act on the issues over which there is no debate? The time to increase high-skill immigration is now.

Alexander Tabarrok is Research Director for The Independent Institute, Assistant Editor of The Independent Review, and Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University. He received his Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University, and he has taught at the University of Virginia and Ball State University. Dr. Tabarrok is the editor of The Independent Institute books, Entrepreneurial Economics (Oxford University Press), The Voluntary City (with David Beito and Peter Gordon, University of Michigan Press), and Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime.