"Staple a Green Card" to Every Diploma? Not So Fast
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2011/10/the-issue-of-hi.html"Staple a Green Card" to Every Diploma? Not So Fast, House Hearing Says.
...The idea of "stapling a green card" to the diploma of every foreign science and engineering graduate has gotten a lot of influential support lately. This hearing, however, highlighted a number of weaknesses with such a policy.
A "major concern," according to Barmak Nassirian, Associate Executive Director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, is "the likely manner in which such policy changes could affect the quality and integrity of educational credentials." He cited "the unintended ways in which individuals may seek to manipulate the new policy to their advantage, the threat posed by unscrupulous providers of credentials, and the manner in which even legitimate institutions may be induced to take advantage of the new immigration incentives." ...
The United States already has an large domestic supply of STEM talent, testified B. Lindsay Lowell, Director of Policy Studies at Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of Immigration. Increasing the supply of potential STEM workers by admitting large numbers of foreigners results in lower wages and discourages able Americans from pursuing STEM careers, he continued. "The domestic student pipeline isn't broken," he said in prepared testimony. "While there are specific fields in which we observe hiring (demand) outpacing supply, this tends to be short-lived and as supply is surprisingly responsive." He cited as an example the rapid recent doubling in the number of domestic graduates in petroleum engineering in response to a jump in salaries. The domestic STEM pipeline "is reasonably strong even if it can...be improved."
Furthermore, "the S&E [science and engineering] labor market is not 'tight'....S&E wages lag 'alternative' professional jobs" that also attract able young Americans, such as law, medicine and finance, his testimony continued. In addition, admitting large numbers of foreigners does not guarantee getting the so-called "best and brightest" because real innovative talent is rare.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Her husband did most of the heavy lifting in wiping out a generation of IT professionals, then she continued and accelerated that legacy. And some people wonder what happened to the American Middle Class.
You have an interesting debate technique; If a point is raised you don't like, you simply address some other issue more to your liking. Unfortunately that technique only works on republicans and media personalities.
To address the issue we are engaged in; Only some cars are allowed to move across some borders and the results of that defective policy are disaster for the people on both sides of those borders, just as foretold by that bastion of liberalism (
included to avoid more obtuse distraction) H. Ross Perot way back in the early 90's.
Each and every one of the existing "free trade" agreements, and there is no reason expect any different results from the pending agreements mentioned, have benefited only the corporations that wrote them. One of government's primary duties is to protect its citizens, yet you somehow seem to have concluded that that is not within its purview. You are the only one trying to assert that engineers should be protected separately from others, the rest of us know that all workers need to be protected from the arbitrage policies pursued by our corporate owned government. Engineers are just the profession currently at hand.
There is no systemic shortage of skilled, educated American workers, period. At most there are temporary deficits that are quickly eliminated as salaries in those fields rise, just as they should.
So that leaves this question; Why do you argue in favor of further hurting millions of your fellow citizens in order to benefit the republican party's primary backers?
President Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent Most Favored Nation status to China.
So, no, I see no evidence that "the rest of us know that all workers need to be protected"--free trade is the official policy of the Democratic Party. 
On the contrary; I don't think engineers deserve any special protection. I don't advocate for devil-take-the-hindmost economics, but also don't believe that any of us are more equal (or deserving of protection) than any other.
EDIT. Perfect analogy: It's like the draft. I don't support it, but I also don't think the rich should get any special exemptions. If we're going to have a draft, then EVERYONE needs to be subject to it. Otherwise, we get what we have in the US labor policy--demands that SOME workers "compete!" in the world economy, concurrent with demands that other more favored groups be protected from competition.
subscribe to the Rmoney theory that "corporations are people, my friend"
. It is a bad idea, as well as bad policy and it doesn't matter whether it is a Democrat or a republican that pushes it. It has consistently failed to deliver progress to any of the players except the corporations and their dupes that push it.
Your argument is that Democrats did it too, so it must be good. Facts on the ground show the bankruptcy of that notion.
Ironic, at best! 
