Anyone?

A co-worker is from Haiti. He married a US lass. He does nice work, and is an artist to boot. So our offices are decorated with his paintings too. I bought one to give to my daughter as a present.

I don't see anything wrong with going to a more merit based immigration system... but I find that people of merit can come from any country.

As always, a liberal weenie snowflake, George H.

The countries wouldn't matter if we had a good way to evaluate individuals. Lacking that, statistics matter, and some countries are better bets than others.

I bet you eat sushi and Korean BBQ and Italian food!

One successful example out of hundreds-of-thousands does not make a statistic. ...Jim Thompson

one way to look at that is that it would be unfair to those countries. if all those with merits, brain and drive move away the "shithole countries" are left with those who cannot make it any better

The converse is working out so very well in Europe, isn't it ?>:-}

We need admission by MERIT only. ...Jim Thompson

That's why students who come here on J visas are allowed to work to support themselves but have to go home for at least 2 years after they graduate. (Not all countries are on that list, but pretty well all the genuine poopchutes are, iirc.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

The same is true of the descendants of immigrants that have been in the US for generations.

Attempts to generate such stats are leading people to be locked up because of the *inexplicable*, *unchallengeable* judgments of a *secret* computer program. Disgusting.

Anybody that can get to the US is likely to be a notch above the average in some way or other.

Of course there's always the catty comment that someone that emigrates from X to Y improves the IQ of both X and Y.

That's Johnson's comment that in moving from Scotland to England, Boswell increased the average intelligence of both nations. ;)

Which isn't catty coming from an Englishman, but is a very gentle dig at Boswell.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

studying and then returning home is quite different from immigrating

It's no more immoral than arguments based on deterrence. Justice requires that the punishment fit the actual crime the person committed, not some hypothetical one he might commit, or some equally hypothetical one some third party might commit.

_Within_ the range of just sentences, such arguments are admissible.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Correct--which is the point of the exercise, to keep them separate when the home country needs the skills.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I can't understand what the fuss is all about. Anyone who thinks those countries *aren't* s*it holes is living in cloud-cuckoo land. Perhaps if he'd have said they were basket-case countries it wouldn't have caused such a flap. But whatever you call them, they *are* undoubtedly s*it- holes for sure (but "hell holes" would be less offensive I guess).

If we allow any immigration, then we should allow immigration from any country.

And do our best to not allow shithole people to immigrate regardless of what country they are from.

In other words do not use nationality as criteria.

Dat

"Cloud-cuckoo land"... how apropos. ...Jim Thompson

Several layers back, didn't I say, "We need admission by MERIT only"? ...Jim Thompson

"Because the computer says so" and "it is more than my jobsworth" are worthy of scorn.

If a judge makes a decision, they ought to be able to articulate a rationale for the decision. That rationale can subsequently be examined, challenged and, if appropriate, overturned.

When someone is deprived of their liberty for such without being able to articulate /why, it is reprehensible. Doubly so when the algorithm is a proprietary trade secret, so cannot be justified nor questioned.

Why does America still attract so many "shithole people", anyway? Surely it can't be entirely economic reasons, because it's not 1980 anymore and there are plenty of other places to live the good life on less money than you can here.