Hell Yes, Mayor Bloomberg. I’m With You.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/15/hell-yes-mayor-bloomberg-im-with-you/

by razin • 15 years ago

155 104 15 years ago

Bud• 15 years ago

The only thing I disagree with in this article is Arrington's assertion that "the issue of illegal immigration over our Southern border must be separated from the issue of immigration of people who want to come here to build companies."

I don't really see why we need to separate those issues. They are the same issue. We should discard isolationist policies in both cases and move toward a more enlightened policy in both cases.

After all, one can't always tell with certainty which immigrants are the "good" immigrants and which are the "bad" ones, in advance.

ajkessler• 15 years ago

It's certainly a thorny issue though. If you're going to run any sort of welfare state, it's pretty hard to argue for totally open borders; it simply leads to financial ruin, as much of Europe has found out over the last 30 years (which is why European countries have swiftly and brutally tightened immigration policies). If you're giving away a lot of free stuff, you're forced to guess at which immigrants are going to be productive and contribute to your society and which are just there for the freebies.

I've always found this cognitive dissonance interesting (particularly and recently evident in France): those who feel it's morally wrong not to support the poorest of their societies have no problem refusing to do the same for those who were born on the other side of an arbitrary stripe on a map.

paganel• 15 years ago

As an Eastern-European, I agree it's a thorny issue. But Westerners also have to agree that the "Trente Glorieuses" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses) couldn't have been possible without foreign workers, or, in the case of Italy, without the help of internal migration (from South to North).

shareme• 15 years ago

Unlike our past whereas a large amount of unskilled labor allowed companies to create new wealth...its now skilled labor that we need n immigration..

Unskilled labor immigration thus is and should be separate issue

wlievens• 15 years ago

It's a cognitive dissonance born out of pragmatism (economics), hence the moral suspension.

StavrosK3• 15 years ago

I don't think there's any dissonance. A nation is a group, and you may feel obliged to take care of the poorer people of your group, but not those of some other group that would not do the same for you.

cdavid2• 15 years ago

Few serious people claim that European countries have been ruined by immigration. The reason for the political backlash has more to do with political motives, and economical changes which have nothing to do with immigration (sharp decrease of low-skill, high wage incomes, etc...).

yxhuvud• 15 years ago

It leads to financial ruin for welfare states? Then how is it that Sweden is one of the countries that accepts most immigrants per capita in Europe, but still has a good economy, and still have opened up policies even further during the last decade?

joebadmo• 15 years ago

"Give me your tired, your poor,/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

While I don't grant your premise (that open borders in a welfare state lead to financial ruin), I think the US has a special consideration in that it was founded not on a race, ethnicity, or culture, but an ideology of self-evident truths. And immigrants.

karzeem• 15 years ago

From an economic perspective, open borders are highly desirable. But you're right that they're not really compatible with welfare programs. I don't know if it's ever been tried, but one solution would be an "open borders, but non-citizens aren't eligible for welfare until they've been here for, asy, 10 years" policy.

chriserin2• 15 years ago

The current European financial crisis has many more causes than immigration. In general, the causes fall in line with the US economic crisis causes: the housing bubble, an extended period of cheap money, no regulation of newly conceived financial instruments, etc.

Immigration may have exacerbated these issues, but not more so than the monetary union.

bvi• 15 years ago

> After all, one can't always tell with certainty which immigrants are the "good" immigrants and which are the "bad" ones, in advance.

You can. Those with advanced degrees should be viewed as "desirable" immigrants.

jurjenh• 15 years ago

That could become a loaded policy, one which encourages universities to crank out graduates with those degrees, not necessarily with the expected understanding. [1]

I'm not saying its a bad idea, but it draws a somewhat arbitrary line in the sand, one which would eliminate some of the "desirable" immigrants - entrepreneurs that have dropped out and gone on to build amazing companies.

[1] A good example can be found here: http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education and the associated discussion http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2483976

protomyth6• 15 years ago

North Dakota companies are now recruiting experienced welders from Canada. I would say you might want to look beyond "degree".

gyardley• 15 years ago

I don't know why we're so picky about our employees, either. After all, one can't always tell with certainty which ones are the 'good' employees and which are the 'bad' ones in advance.

Look, there's a world of difference between someone coming to America to do sub-minimum-wage farm labor and someone coming to America to start a company. Enlightened policies raise our average skill level, not lower it.

papercruncher• 15 years ago

Because there is a large number of illegal immigrants from the southern border already here. That and a few other reasons make it a much harder problem to solve than the problem of skilled immigration.

temphn4• 15 years ago

Not with certainty, but with probability. Mexican immigrants vastly outnumber Russian, Indian, Chinese, Korean, and Persian immigrants. But the entrepreneurship ratio is lopsided in the opposite direction. One group creates jobs on net, the other is a net tax recipient. And other developed countries like Canada and Singapore routinely distinguish between skilled and unskilled immigrants, so it's really not that hard a distinction to make.

smutticus• 15 years ago

the other is a net tax recipient

I call BS. Do you have a statistic you can cite?

And maybe you should be a bit more thankful to the group of people who ensure you can buy cheap produce in American supermarkets. Among other things...

narcissus• 15 years ago

I don't know if it's that simple: the very act of getting to America from Mexico has got to be cheaper and easier than from any of the other countries that you mentioned, surely. That is to say, because it's a lot cheaper to actually get to the USA from Mexico, more blue collar workers ("less entrepreneurial") are able to do so.

If all of those other countries shared a border with the USA, only then could you really start comparing the 'entrepreneurship ratio'.

natural219• 15 years ago

Be careful about selection bias. Perhaps people dedicated enough to leave their home and move across the globe are probably better entrepreneurs.

SatvikBeri• 15 years ago

Of course you can't tell with certainty but you can guess at averages. Would you rather work with a programmer who has a track record of launching excellent products or a random guy picked off the street?

Encouraging immigration of skilled individuals is not a moral policy, it's an economic one.

ewanmcteagle2• 15 years ago

Why? Was this country built up by the best of Old World or those that were considered the worst? Our bigger risk may not be on the dimension of education and skills but political and economic attitudes.

hugh4life2• 15 years ago

""" After all, one can't always tell with certainty which immigrants are the "good" immigrants and which are the "bad" ones, in advance. """

Well you certainly can't tell if you don't even try.

The only good solution to the immigration mess is to just let people buy their citizenship. Put a price on it. Then people would see more clearly that those who jump in line are thieves. Those who want poor immigrants can sponsor them.

billybob• 15 years ago

With qualifications, I assume? Mexican druglords could certainly afford to buy citizenship.

thomaslangston• 15 years ago

You can buy citizenship (or at least residency), but the cost is astronomical. $500,000 to be exact. http://www.legalusvisa.com/permanentvisas/greencardsforinves...

nikcub• 15 years ago

first thing that will happen there is companies will start offering citizenship loans secured against your brighter future

protomyth6• 15 years ago

We need to separate the issue because we have a very different relationship with our neighbors than other countries in the world. We have trade agreements that try to create an economic zone differently than non-connected countries.

We gave 499.4 million USD to Mexico in foreign aid in 2009. Yet, people from Mexico come to the US illegally for opportunities. It looks like we would be better off instituting special programs that target individuals with that money. Special worker visas are not really going to be sufficient (but needed nonetheless).

Just as a basic security measure we need our southern (and northern) borders a tad bit more secure. If nothing else because of the violence spilling into the US (and especially our Native American reservations on the border). It has become a safety issue.

jbooth5• 15 years ago

You realize that targeting individuals with that money would be 2-3 bucks per mexican. Give everyone a big mac and that'll solve everything?

Also, our southern border has been nearly militarized in the last 2 years, and there has been ZERO increase in crime or impact on the US side of the border, despite a whole lot of propagandizing by racist assholes. (here's one cite, you can find more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502ar...)

anonymous2462• 15 years ago

So you don't understand why one should separate the discussion of LEGAL temporary/permanent immigration from ILLEGAL immigration? You are proving Bloomberg's point about the urgent need to separate the two.

vondur• 15 years ago

Because of the huge amounts of illegals from Mexico? Here in SoCal we see the negative effects of illegal immigration every day.

dlitwak• 15 years ago

You don't need to separate into "good" and "bad" but I think it'd be easy to get bipartisan support for a bill that opened up a large amount of visas to immigrants with masters and doctorates or entrepreneurs with existing funding. The fight over the other kind of immigration is likely to be a lot more vitriolic.

mbesto• 15 years ago

I'm with you too. But who's the gatekeeper?

fredoliveira• 15 years ago

he's describing a meritocratic system. The gatekeeper is still the US government. The acceptance criteria is still merit in one shape or the other. It's all just easier.

davidw• 15 years ago

I heartily agree, but would still place this article firmly in the "politics" category - it's not just about startup visas or things like that.

For exhibit A, we have some guy commenting already "If you're going to run any sort of welfare state, it's pretty hard to argue for totally open borders; it simply leads to financial ruin, as much of Europe has found out over the last 30 years", which is of course complete bunk, as "much of Europe" is most certainly not "financially ruined".

arethuza• 15 years ago

Exactly, that comment had me wondering "who apart from Daily Mail readers believes that immigration causes financial ruin"?

Lots of recent immigration to the UK from other EU states (particularly Poland) has been a very good thing in my opinion.

graphene• 15 years ago

I read that as saying that Europe found out that they had to strengthen border controls to avoid ruin, not that they were already ruined.

StavrosK3• 15 years ago

I find it interesting where he says "we wouldn't have become a superpower without the contributions of immigrants", rather than consider that almost every American living today had immigrant ancestors.

At which point does he draw the line of immigration? At which date does he (or any American) consider himself "American" rather than an immigrant?

bluekeybox2• 15 years ago

I suppose at the point where one feels closer to the "generic" American values/culture than to that of your forebears. I think it's the truest definition, however it is often hard to prove/demonstrate, so the arbitrary definition "have be born in this country" is used instead.

StavrosK3• 15 years ago

That makes sense... I think the speech would have been better if it reminded people how their ancestors were all immigrants at some point, though.

hugh33• 15 years ago

so the arbitrary definition "have be born in this country" is used instead

That hardly seems arbitrary -- it's what the word means. If you were born outside the country then you have immigrated, therefore you are an immigrant.

hugh33• 15 years ago

Every American living today has immigrant ancestors, forget the "almost". The Americas were devoid of human life a mere twenty thousand years ago.

Or as I like to say, all Americans are African-Americans.

hootmon• 15 years ago

Yet another harangue from a capitalist running dog. Move on nothing new here, nothing to see. We all know immigration is a capitalist codeword for labor exploitation, keep those wages low, benefits nonexistent, and jobs to a minimum, so they will be docile and subservient.

StudyAnimal2• 15 years ago

Two questions. What counts as an advanced degree? And why is starting companies considered important separably from say working in one?

Starting a company and moving to another country are both fairly large life disruptions, and doing both at once would decreases the success of either working well.

If I manage to get a green card I would probably focus first on just getting a job to move to and get myself stable before starting a startup, whereas I am already stable here and could consider starting a business where I already know my way around etc.

hessenwolf3• 15 years ago

American pyramid scheme does rhyme with American dream; this seems like a way to keep newcomers working to feed the incumbents.

This worked fine when Europe was heavily in debt post world war and China was a backwater, but Europe is now ticking along fine, China is doing well, and we are all looking abit wryly at America's lack of social safety nets.

Grrr... Hands off our entrepreneurs. Grow your own.

hvs• 15 years ago

It's funny that you would mention "social safety nets" when it is most likely the economies of those areas that push the entrepreneurs to the U.S. I'm not saying the U.S. doesn't have its own issues (boy, does it), but I don't see why entrepreneurs shouldn't come here if it is in their best interest. If Europe and China want to keep their entrepreneurs, they should start making themselves more attractive to entrepreneurs.

hessenwolf3• 15 years ago

I think the push is declining.

StudyAnimal2• 15 years ago

Personally I am keen to get the hell out of Germany with its 50% tax PLUS 13% compulsory health insurance. Social safety net is one thing, but it is ridiculous here, even rich families get government money for having kids. Foreigners get unemployment benefit. Utter insanity and no one wants it to change. America, please let me in!

And don't get me started on trying to start a business. Europe is purging its entrepreneurs like some sort of viral infection.

hessenwolf3• 15 years ago

Ha ha. I am moving to munich germany on sunday and i will find out for myself.

lbarrow• 15 years ago

He's certainly the only Republican I'd ever seriously consider voting for.

andrewpi• 15 years ago

Actually Bloomberg is not a Republican. He changed his status to Independent a couple of years ago, but got permission from the Republican party to run on their ballot line during the last mayoral election.

sigzero• 15 years ago

Everything Bloomberg talked about is correct except it applies to LEGAL immigration. ILLEGAL immigration is the problem.

shadowfox• 15 years ago

Many people don't seem to actually differentiate though

rubashov8• 15 years ago

Legal immigration is a huge problem. We are taking in vastly more people than the nation can culturally assimilate, and statistically these legal immigrants are net economic tax drains.

Even if the legal immigration screening were fixed and we stopped bringing in so many economic losers, the cold hard fact is this country is full. MOST of the US is facing fresh water crises in the next couple decades. We will become net importers of food within the next 20 years as prime farmland is consumed. We already have become net importers in most categories.

The USA is overpopulated. Net immigration should be ZERO.

Did you know the US would not be an oil importer if immigration had been stopped in 1970? Instead of being in a position to peacefully mind our own business we're spending trillions on wars for oil.

microarchitect• 15 years ago

Sounds like BS to me. Do you have any citations backing this up?

rayiner• 15 years ago

You realize the US is facing an enormous labor shortage in the coming decades as the baby boomers retire?

rsheridan62• 15 years ago

A tax eater is a tax eater whether he's legal or not. An immigrant who produces wealth is a producer of wealth whether he's legal or not.

fernandotakai• 15 years ago

As a guy who works for an american company, living in south america, i say: make this happen. please.

Hell Yes, Mayor Bloomberg. I’m With You.

Related Stories