Recent Posts
- 04/21 Updated NRC data, rankings site outage
- 02/12 Big cuts for science?
- 02/10 Debunking Discrimination
- 02/08 Science & Baseball
- 01/24 Test, test, test
- 01/22 "The PhD student is...
- 01/21 Taxing times?
- 01/10 "The mathematics of narcissism"
- 12/28 Professional Science
- 12/20 "The Disposable Academic"
- 12/16 Students know effective teaching when they see it
- 12/09 Science funding: an alternative approach
- 12/02 NSF in the crosshairs
- 12/01 Gender differences in science: a cure?
- 11/23 Leaving academia
Categories
Funding
Fiscal Sponsor
Geoff,
Immigration is a sensitive issue, but it must be addressed openly because it plays a huge part in the health (or lack of) of the scientific labor market. Rather than stating a case for or against continued levels of scientific immigration, I want to lay out the common themes used to support or condemn scientific immigration which I have seen. That way readers of this post can pick up the topic and go with it.
PRO-IMMIGRATION STANCE (common reasons cited):
1) Immigration provides vital scientific labor which the American education system cannot produce enough of.
2) immigration keeps the cost of science low for taxpayers.
3) immigration enriches the nation culturally.
4) Immigration is our duty since we are a "nation of immigrants."
ANTI-IMMIGRATION STANCE (common reasons cited):
1) Scientific immigration undercuts wages and job opportunities for American scientists.
2) We are training the scientists of our economic and military competitors (e.g. - China).
3) Immigrant scientists are "indentured servants" and exploited.
4) The effects of immigration on the scientific labor market are driving Americans away from these careers.
I raised these common themes merely to stimulate discussion. For anyone who posts ideas and opinions, please try to back your position up with hard data.