Tweet
The press release makes it all sound so wonderful:
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton today announced a new initiative to streamline the international student visa process for foreign students seeking to study in the United States. The Study in the States initiative is a key component of a government-wide effort to encourage the best and brightest foreign students to study and remain in the U.S.
"Attracting the best and brightest international talent to our colleges and universities is an important part of our nation's economic, scientific and technological innovation and competitiveness," said Secretary Napolitano. "Foreign students and exchange visitors bring invaluable contributions to our nation, and the Study in the States initiative is an important step in empowering the next generation of international entrepreneurs, right here in America."
More than 1.1 million active nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors and their dependents study in our nation's world class system of universities, exchange programs, and training opportunities. The Study in the States initiative will examine regulatory changes, expand public engagement between the government and academia, and provide a central on-line information hub for DHS and its agency partners to provide current and prospective students with updated and relevant visa requirements in a streamlined, user-friendly format.
"Study in the States encourages international students who seek the wealth of educational opportunities available in the U.S. to remain here following their studies and apply their new skills here in our country," said ICE Director Morton. "We aim to strike a balance--providing an open and welcoming experience for international students and visitors seeking information, while maintaining the integrity and security of our visa process. This site is an important step toward reaching that goal."
But it's one thing to issue press releases and web sites with helpful information. It's another far more difficult thing to change internal policies and a seemingly intractible mindset amongst examiners and officers who believe their primary mission is to keep as many people out of the country as they can and not do what's best for the country (though they probably believe that keeping as many people out IS what's best fot the country).
Just ask an immigration lawyer that handles EB-1 petitions for extraordinary ability aliens whether USCIS genuinely appears interested in attracting the best and brightest and you'll get an earful regarding a soaring denial rate for these petitions and jaw dropping examples of incredibly gifted individuals who are being humiliated and basically run out of the country. Director Mayorkas has held several stakeholders calls on this subject and knows about which I write, but there is little evidence he has had any ability to get the situation under control. Best of luck.
Until Secretary Napolitano, Director Mayorkas, Director Morton and senior officials across DHS can figure out how to truly change policies achieve the stated objectives and then actually get examiners carry out those policies either by incentivizing correct behavior or punishing failing to abide by stated policies, then you really have accomplished little.
Secretary Napolitano - don't just talk the talk. Show us you can walk the walk.
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t1.txt
"If you are making an environmental argument against population growth then you need to realize that the relevant figure is the population of the world and not of a country."
Both are relevant. Also, if a country has an unsustainable fertility rate it can only continue if they can send their excess population to other countries. If receiving countries tighten up their immigration policies (less slots for the excess population to go) it puts downward pressure on the sending country's fertility rate (toward a sustainable fertility rate). Thus, a national immigration policy can not only affect that country's population but world population.
"A person moving from one country to another does not increase the population."
Of course. But if that person moves from a lower ecological footprint country to a higher ecological footprint country, the world eco-footprint rises further into overshoot. This is what happens when people move from lower eco-footprint countries into high footprint U.S.
"the tax code permits you to claim an exemption for each and every one of your children."
And there are other child-based subsidies which not only encourage a higher domestic birthrate but for people to bring children to the U.S. (an often cited magnet for illegal immigration). Unlimited child credits are also fraud magnets.
"Even with the most aggressive growth projections by the end of the century the US will not be anywhere near today's population density of Europe"
This is a common type of argument. Here is an easy to understand rebuttal:
The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated.
By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, among many other reasons.
Almost all the rich nations are overpopulated because they are rapidly drawing down stocks of resources around the world. They don't live solely on the land in their own nations. . . . they are spending their capital with no thought for the future.
http://www.2think.org/tpe.shtml