A VC

Musings of a VC in NYC

« Umair, Jarvis, Disney, and Me | Main | VC Cliché of the Week »

On Immigration

Comments (24) | | TrackBack (2)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2c969e200e550222db48833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On Immigration:

» Immigration and Jobs from john t. unger studio
Fred Wilson said something really smart today in a post about the current immigration debate (italics mine):We live in a flat world now. My kids will compete for good jobs with young people from china, india, israel, russia, brazil, and many other plac... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 12, 2006 1:32:55 PM

» Immigrants Among Us from WebWriting.com
Fred Wilson (who rarely blogs politics), nails it on why the GOP is clueless about the significance of closing our borders. Fred even achieves relative consensus with his political opponent Steve Kane. We are all immigrants and thats what mak... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 12, 2006 2:56:48 PM

Posted April 11, 2006 in Politics

Comments

I agree completely, but it´s not only US that has this kind of issues, even if naturally the events of the last weeks are bringing them to the forefront.
I´m Italian, working in Brazil for a mobile content company. I started up the Brazilian office and, naturally, I need a visa to work and live here... well, you can´t imagine the hoops we had to jump through, and the commitment (economical and social) the company had to show... and it took 6 months to get it!
On this, I think US and other countries with restrictive policies should learn from "old" Europe, where (at least in most places) if you have the skills and you´re needed, it´s pretty easy to get a working visa.

Posted by: Giordano | Apr 11, 2006 6:15:43 PM

i take the middle ground - we are a nation of immmigrants and we should and will continue to be. shutting the door, so to speak, doesnt make any sense.

at the same time, however, every sovereign nation has the right to know who is in the country, and people living within and benefitting from services needs to be accounted for.

the blind open door policy can hold no longer in the age of terrorism and other concerns.

there has to be a way to allow new people in - certinily those that provide needed agricultural and other work - but in an orderly, accountable fashion.

i hate that having that view gets one painted by those on the left as though they're some xenophobic hick.

Posted by: bryan | Apr 11, 2006 6:23:50 PM

I agree with your comments and Steve's comments, although the key element there is "assimilation." English is our national language, if people want to come here and become part of our great nation, they should learn English. Taxes, as much as they hurt every year, are something we must pay annually to support our government, whether we agree with what's going on or not. If you come here and get a job, pay your fair share along with everyone else.

If the new wave of immigrants that are coming in from Mexico (and yes, given the current climate, this is a new "wave") refuse to assimilate, but instead set up mini-Mexico in the bordering states, we will have bigger and bigger problems to contend with.

Posted by: Matt | Apr 11, 2006 6:50:08 PM

Coming from the right (at least right of you) couldn't agree more on immigration. And DO support amnesty. Also blogged on it today http://blog.tomevslin.com/2006/04/amnesty_for_eur.html

Posted by: Tom Evslin | Apr 11, 2006 7:10:51 PM

We talked about this very topic at dinner tonight here in Prague.

My position was that throughout our history, American has grown thanks to wave after wave of immigration. Irish, Italians, Polish...each wave brought new people who filled jobs, assimilated, and left us better than than we were before.

Other people at the table tonight kept trying to compare our current set of immigrants to Turks in Germany or Algerians in France. Why? Isn't the most relevant model previous immigrants who have come to the United States?

How is this wave any different from those previous one in the past? If it is not any different and previous waves of immigrantion have clearly done us so much good, why are we so concerned about it happening again today?

Posted by: Charles Jolley | Apr 11, 2006 7:57:40 PM

... this shouldn't even be a debate ...
1) less illegal immigration,
2) more legal immigration.

Increasing the number of criminals in the country does not improve our competitive advantage.

It is almost impossible for the world's best and brightest to immigrate to the US LEGALLY - that is the problem that must be fixed - letting the illegals stay does not get us there.

Posted by: David G | Apr 11, 2006 8:35:00 PM

"Immigration is front and center in our political debate right now."

This is an incorrect statement of the issue at hand.

Illegal, uncontrolled immigration is front and center in our political debate right now (except much of the press wants to mischaracterize it as a question of immigration in general).

Posted by: Alan | Apr 11, 2006 8:49:34 PM

My parents are proud immigrants to the States. They are staunchly against the idea of giving amnesty to those who have come here illegally, unless of course they are being tortured by their governments.

They waited in line for their opportunity, so why shouldn't everyone else?

Giving amnesty to most illegal immigrants sets a bad precedence.

Posted by: Raj Bala | Apr 11, 2006 10:22:05 PM

Living in Arizona - this is a tough one.

Every time I drive 5 minutes from our upper class Phoenix neighborhood to the south, I think about this issue.

We have rules. The laws are what I stressed about when I tried to stay in the US after graduating, paying an attorney and filing the endless paperwork. Being harassed at the borders for what seemd like different ppwrk every time and being held back from my wife at the border more than once.

Of course, the stress for illegals is much more life and death, but so was mine, on a relative basis life and death. I wanted to stay.

It needs to be legal. If the laws need to be changed, that is one thing. As the law stands now, we have chaos. But it is law. I don't have an answer and truly believe in the melting pot but this topic seems to big for our current leadership. Feels out of control.

Posted by: howard Lindzon | Apr 12, 2006 1:27:48 AM

Just as we're immigrants to this country, there has also been group(s) over time who felt that they were more American and knew who should be allowed in the country. From the Chinese in the 19th century, the Italians, the Irish. It's always been an issue here. It usually fades in time but this one seems to be well funded and potitically connected.

It's a sad time for the country since there is no real poltical leadership and switching parties isn't going to correct that problem.

Posted by: Tom Labus | Apr 12, 2006 8:26:21 AM

FYI: "English is our national language." No, it's not, and the courts and government have repeatedly recognized the right to receive government services, information, etc in other languages. More specifically, it's not required that you speak English to become a citizen. I'm still in favor of trying to teach people English, but let's not say it's the official/national language if it's not, especially in consideration of the fact that a majority of this country will also likely be Spanish speakers as well in 10 years (if not already.)

Assimilation takes at least a generation and it's not a black and white process. Arguably, America adopts the culture of its immigrants to a certain degree as well as changing theirs. If assimilation of incoming cultures simply meant the immigrants adopting middle-American culture wholesale, that would be a pretty sad statement about America.

The GOP has made a huge mistake taking on this topic. Hispanics are the fastest growing immigrant group in the country, they're spread across many of the Southwest "red" states, and they're increasingly becoming politically active. To have that commmunity find its political voice via opposition to GOP policies is terrible politics for the Republicans. The Democrats are doing exactly what they should -- step back, let the GOP infight over it and let Hispanics get angy about the entire discussion.

I'm for granting amnesty -- the real objective should be to bring these people into the system, maximize their living standard and education so their kids are more productive citizens, and acknowledge the fact that we're not kicking out 10+ million people, many of whom have children and relatives that are US citizens and are overwhelmingly law-abiding, hard working residents.

One thing I've recognized is that almost anyone who's lived for some time in New York City, which probably has the highest density of immigrants, both legal and illegal, in the country (perhaps rivaled by LA) is in favor of fairly liberal immigration policies, regardless of their political leaning, whereas others who arguably have been less impacted by illegal immigration have such deeply held negative views.

Posted by: Tom K | Apr 12, 2006 9:29:45 AM

It would be great if your dream world of illegal immigrants flooding over our borders were all Wharton grads competing for jobs along side of America's brightest, but that my friend is complete fantasy. Most have less than a highschool education. Don't we have enough dropouts of our own to deal with? Mexico is creating a refugee situation and like many other countries that are forced to deal with refugees, it take a toll on citezens. services, and and governments. Not only should we shore up our border, we should be applying huge pressure on the corrupt and ineffective Mexican gavernment to get their affairs in order.

Crossing the border without being acknowledged is an illegal act. There are many waiting to get in by following the proper process and law of our land. This is how it's supposed to be done. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with bullshit partisan politics, or fear of/need to compete. We need to control who gets into our country period. If we need migrant or seasonal labor that badly, simply quantify the real need and allow the required amount in to do the work. Offer them passage to citizenship, but to just leave the gate open is a failed plan.

What happens when the amount of workers needed drops and the amount streaming in continues? Bad things, thats the answer. Look what happen in France.

It's pretty easy to talk about liberal border policies when you don't have to figure out how you're going to pay for your kids private school next year on account of ESL students dragging down our public elementary schools or washing MS13 graffiti off of fences in your neighborhood.

Posted by: Tony Alva | Apr 12, 2006 9:53:40 AM

There are a couple of sloppy metaphors here.

> "Closing the doors"... is wrong

Where has there been a proposal to stop America's great tradition of immigration? The recent political debate has been about illegal immigration. If we remain with the house metaphor, maybe this is more like battoning down the windows.

> "We live in a flat world now."

It seems odd to apply Friedman's strange metaphor ( see http://uclaforecast.com/reviews/Leamer_FlatWorld_060221.pdf) to an infrustructural issue.

> "We cannot compete with that by shutting our borders."

Tony Alva's comment above is insightful. Also, Kristof's piece in the Sunday Times was good: we should be allowing more highly-skilled immigration and reducing the amount of low-wage, low-skill immigration. But it seems impossible to increase legal immigration without first taming illegal immigration.

Posted by: Sam O | Apr 12, 2006 10:43:47 AM

This issue raises a lot of emotional flashpoints - security, rewarding bad behavior, etc. But the fact is that this is a problem that was supposed to have been addressed back in 1986, when an amnesty bill was enacted. And it failed in part because there was no meaningful funding for enforcement of that legislation (in particular, the provisions on border enforcement and financial consequences). I come out in favor of stronger enforcement (including penalties for those hiring illegals) but also more realistic immigration quotas. The simple fact is that there are a lot of available jobs in the US that you and I may not consider to be "good jobs" but pay a lot better than what was available back home and, apparently, not enough Americans to fill them. And it doesn't seem that our quotas recognize that. It was a lot easier to come over here before the first immigration quotas were established in the 1920s, and if it weren't so easy to come here legally 100 years ago, I wonder whether my ancestors would have tried to come here illegally.

I have a problem with amnesty for the reasons Raj cited, but at the end of the day I think it is a non-issue. I'm not sure if the net effect of amnesty on the tax rolls is positive or negative. For the most part, I assume that those here illegally are earning low wages and wouldn't be adding much, but may be demanding more in social services.

Posted by: JayR | Apr 12, 2006 11:49:35 AM

It's ludicrous to draw parallels to the situation in France. Europe's prime issue is that they have an overprotective labor policy that essentially enforces high unenployment rates, especially amongst new citizens, by increasing the cost of hiring/firing. So you have a large base of disenfranchised citizens who have little or no economic opportunity. That's always going to cause problems, regardless of whether they're the sons of recent immigrants or "blue-bloods."

In contrast, immigration from Mexico is a largely elastic phenomenon that responds extremely sensitively to labor demand in the US (as has been shown by multiple studies.) Especially if you keep crossing the border relatively easy to cross (either illicitly or via a guest worker program) you see two-way traffic based on seasonal demand, economics, etc.

Lock up the border however, and the "cost" of crossing skyrockets (this has already happened in some areas.) All of a sudden what was an elastic market phenomenon becomes a pool of immobile labor -- and /then/ you'd have something that more resembles France if the economy turns.

Be careful what you wish for -- impeding worker mobility, even for sub-minimum-wage labor -- has very real economic consequences.

Posted by: Tom | Apr 12, 2006 12:27:16 PM

They don't need to come to the US to take our jobs. They are going to take them anyway.

Exactly. And if I were competing for those jobs I'd sure rather do it here, than compete with people who have a much lower cost of living elsewhere.

Posted by: johntunger | Apr 12, 2006 1:40:19 PM

I agree with Fred, totally. Immigration to me is like a free market. The market stablizes itself, if not manipulated and messed with. It's been working for a long long time.

That said, I think the main political issue these days should NOT be immigraion. The imminent attack to Iran using tactical nuclear weapons IS and should be the big concern of all Americans.

Here are some links:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8788

Fred, my apologies if this is not totally relevant to the topic. I hope you can let this publish.

Posted by: newwestliving | Apr 12, 2006 3:14:07 PM

I am for open borders, increased H1B and increasing the amount of people that want to come here and work, live, love and build. We spur people to become developers and become involved because we accept them in.

Amercians have a self belief in personal entitlement that the British did during the 1770's and its going to allow other countries to succeed where we should because we have been xenophobic idiots.

As for looking at this from a security perspective, more people die daily from heart disease than ever did in September 11th. How about we consider McDonalds a terrorist organization like Hamas since they target their locations near schools and choke points of the populace, much like a car bomber would.

Posted by: kip | Apr 12, 2006 5:05:02 PM

Hello, if I hear of chickens me badly the bird flu to have we of China get now the Chinese to have from the USA google gotten. Unfortunately neither of them gives a vaccine, unfortunate or for. I would like to mention still one the bird flu to have we soon in the grasp

Posted by: Manuel | Apr 12, 2006 5:27:51 PM

Trade. We can help our neighbors be stronger countries by requiring them to be better local economies if they want to trade with us. Fewer people will want to work here if home is better. I know a street kid from Guatemala who walked 1400 miles for the "American Dream" but didn't make it. But really he just wanted a better life for his mother. Isn't that what we al want? But because of the way we allow huge corporations to operate for the benefit of the few at the expense of many, millions want to come here for better wages.

It's not as simple as closing the door.

Posted by: Charlie Crystle | Apr 13, 2006 1:52:01 AM

We are beating to death the issue of illegal aliens -- What about the plight of legal aliens? Who is looking into their issues? It takes forever to get permanent residency here.

I'm stuck in the same job, can't even change jobs within the same company in a different field than I was originally hired for. I have to turn down juicier offers from other companies by telling the recruiter, "Hey, there is an administrative issue and I can't join the compnay as pre-Series A founding engineer!"

Do we call this bonded labor? Depends who you ask. My current boss is treating me well, though - but my options are limited -- some of my colleagues who were hired after me have already called me a loyal employee, 'coz they don't know what I'm into.

How stupid is this fact -- I can't even work for my own startup - A truly stealth mode it needs to be in -- on top of that, 2 years from now; if the DHS finds out during my residency interview that I started a compnay, they would kick my ass and would put me on top a fireball and I would be at their mercy.

Why am I ranting, isn't this my destiny? That's the path I chose!

-- Posting as coward, for obvious reasons, which you never know going forward.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward | Apr 13, 2006 4:42:44 AM

Some very good comments here. I used to work for the Silicon Alley Reporter (seems like eons ago), I am now in Washington, DC at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI), editing the Migration Information Source (www.migrationinformation.org).

For those of you interested in the current immigration reform debate, etc, you may want to see the Special Issue on the Unauthorized, published on the Source in September 2005:
http://www.migrationinformation.org/issue_sep05.cfm

This story in particular (on why countries regularize unauthorized immigrants) may be helpful:
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=330

You'll find the wonky (but very informative!) policy papers on www.migrationpolicy.org.

I can recommend this paper on the link between the temporary and permanent immigration systems for those interested in skilled migration:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/ITFIAF/TFI_Batalova.pdf

Best,
Kirin

Posted by: Kirin Kalia | Apr 13, 2006 10:52:05 AM

Having followed the debate from afar (the UK), I think some aspects have been lost in the debate, especially on the "conservative" side, or at least those who claim to be fiscally conservative:
- If you are going to through out, or jail a lot of illegal immigrants, who is going to pay for it? Is it more productive to pay lots of money than to let them get on with their jobs and contribute to the economy.
- Border control: building fences and having extensive border-control will definitely create something very close to a police-state system. Do americans really want that, and a "show me your papers!"-world? (in a german accent..).
- Am I the only one who gets Berlin- and North Korea flashbacks with the talk about fences?..

People who really want to get in will always get in, 30 years of progressively tougher laws have not helped. You might as well just let people in and let them contribute to the economy, as long as they pass some sort of background check.

Posted by: Wille | Apr 13, 2006 5:13:16 PM

Can't believe you people still believe US is your country at all when your ancestors completely wipeout the entire indigenous population. I mean it was blatant genocide. You people are the illegal immigrants...

Is that your country? If so, who gave you the right? (The Founding Fathers, hahaha) Do you have the right to block some else's border? In reality there should be no immigration laws at all. Just like how Palestine was given back to the Jews with United States blessing and support, you guys should one day support America going back to the Native Americans, and also African Americans for being brought there through coercion.

This is ridiculous. Complete hubris...

Posted by: paik | Apr 16, 2006 5:39:29 PM

Post a comment

This weblog only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please Sign In.

You are currently signed in as (nobody). Sign Out

Comments:

©Fred Wilson, AVC.com • • Design by UX Hero