undefined | Better HN

0 pointsestebarb6mo ago0 comments

A common problem in latam and other geos is brain drain. Most of their best minds simply leave the country looking for better opportunities. That is impactful for the countries economies, the country invest a lot in people,but others see the benefits.

During last century, USA has been the most benefited from that kind of immigration.

Personally I think that this is a very short sighted decision by USA administration. But overall, I think that this will benefit the rest of the world. Maybe in a few years even USA will start exporting their best minds abroad!

0 comments

rayiner6mo ago

> During last century, USA has been the most benefited from that kind of immigration

This is inaccurate. The U.S. had a highly restrictionist immigration system from 1921-1965. The foreign born population dropped from almost 15% to under 5% by 1970.

During that time, the U.S. had a small number of highly skilled immigrants, such as German scientists fleeing the Nazi regime. You’re talking about a very small number of truly exceptional people. A $100k/year fee is not going to shut down this kind of immigration.

estebarbOP6mo ago

Between 1921 and 1965, about 9.6 million people were admitted as lawful permanent residents. That's not what I'd call a "very small" or "highly restricted" inflow.

Source: DHS Yearbook, https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2019/table1...

rayiner6mo ago

You can see the restriction easily on a chart: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/ann...

We have been around 1 million per year for decades. If we still had that policy, adjusted for population you’re talking about cutting legal immigration by one-third to one-half.

And that’s not counting a large increase in “gray market” legal immigration (TPS, asylum, etc.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsestebarb6mo ago0 comments

During last century, USA has been the most benefited from that kind of immigration.

0 comments

rayiner6mo ago

> During last century, USA has been the most benefited from that kind of immigration

This is inaccurate. The U.S. had a highly restrictionist immigration system from 1921-1965. The foreign born population dropped from almost 15% to under 5% by 1970.

estebarbOP6mo ago

Between 1921 and 1965, about 9.6 million people were admitted as lawful permanent residents. That's not what I'd call a "very small" or "highly restricted" inflow.

Source: DHS Yearbook, https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2019/table1...

rayiner6mo ago

You can see the restriction easily on a chart: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/ann...

We have been around 1 million per year for decades. If we still had that policy, adjusted for population you’re talking about cutting legal immigration by one-third to one-half.

And that’s not counting a large increase in “gray market” legal immigration (TPS, asylum, etc.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse