The United States must deal with probably the most important questions facing nations. That question involves adding immigrants to your population. As to make any important decision, we ought to consider the dependence on new immigrants, the type of immigrant that would offer the most to the united states and the economy, the quantity of immigrants needed, and the timing of their acquisition. The immigrant selection process should overshadow party politics, and mere proximity of a large pool of potential immigrants.
The process should be a deliberate and well informed undertaking about potential immigrants. Present location of potential new members of our society shouldn't play an important role in the choice process as the pool of potential immigrants that could add the most to your society and economy might not be the closest. Close proximity of potential new residents does not necessarily imply such people would make the greatest contribution to the host country. Certainly, the fact that a candidate already resides illegally in the host country would argue contrary to the selection of this type of person when compared to a reason to grant resident status and potential citizenship. Past wrong doing will not speak well of potential immigrants.
The present process targets granting amnesty to several ten to twenty million foreigners who showed contempt for our laws in coming here. In fact, such disregard for legal entry requirements appears to be to permanently disqualify such an individual from participation in the immigration process. In the end, the failure to enforce law uniformly and impartially eventually encourages other people to break laws and demand forgiveness. Maintaining order inside a country requires making the laws clear and understandable, and enforcing them impartially.
Admission of an immigrant requires the host country to assume an indeterminate degree of risk. For Immigration Lawyer , an immigrant could prove struggling to earn a sufficient amount of money to aid him or herself, which places a burden on taxpayers to subsidize the income of the immigrant, placing an unnecessary obligation on present taxpayers. Also, an individual covered by grants of mass amnesty may have problems with poor health or the consequences of later years, which again places a burden on taxpayers. For these reasons among others, it behooves the host country adopt standards of skills, health, age, language skills and education or training it needs of immigrants, instead of taking on potentially expensive responsibility for immigrants lacking the opportunity to support themselves.
Another matter discovered by scholars of cultures and the compatibility of different cultures identifies the probability of people from different cultures fitting in with the dominant culture of the host country. Cultural differences take into account the nearly fifty wars going on among people of conflicting cultures around the world at anybody time. Research reveals that countries having one large, dominant culture benefit from the most harmony and encounter little disruption from a mix of smaller cultures. A rough rule of thumb caused by examining the cultural makeup of several countries shows that a variety of about seventy to eighty percent of the dominant culture plus several smaller groups generally produces a relatively peaceful national environment. Examining the same country-culture data seems to indicate that conflict appears more regularly once the country lacks one clearly dominant culture, but includes several roughly equal cultures. This conclusion follows from studies by Geert Hofstede and news reports of violent conflict in a variety of countries.
Mexico and other Latin American societies obviously offer a major way to obtain immigrants given their close proximity to america. China offers another potentially valuable way to obtain immigrants for reasons that will become clear later.
Hofstede conducted a huge study of culture based on IBM locations all over the world in the 1970's, and identified four major components of culture, adding a fifth dimension later. The factors include Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance, with Long Term Orientation added later.
Countries on top of Power Distance accept that power is spread unevenly throughout the country, with an elite at the top enjoying greater influence on society and greater wealth than individuals progressively low in terms of power and wealth. Individualism focuses on whether members of a society concentrate on in-group relationships, with kinship playing an important role, or if the focus is on people as unique entities instead of group membership. Masculinity addresses the tendency of people to do something assertively and competitively, or even to adopt more feminine values such as nurturing and passivity. Uncertainty Avoidance measures the degree to which society accepts uncertainty, ambiguity, and risk. LONGTERM Orientation reflects a culture's stress on accomplishment in the here and now as opposed to the more distant future.
China and Mexico place equally on Power Distance, scoring on top of the end of the scale. This means that they more readily accept the simultaneous presence of a wealthy and powerful minority plus a much poorer and powerless majority. In contrast america scores much lower with this dimension, somewhat below midpoint on the scale. This will not necessarily imply extremely powerful and wealthy individuals do not exist in this country, or that there are no powerless and poor. Rather, it indicates that such differences gain less ready acceptance in this society. Indeed, various political parties, now and before, have focused strongly on reducing these inequalities, with varying success. Obviously, this dimension proves of little value in differentiating the suitability of Mexico and China as a way to obtain immigrants.
China and Mexico both score relatively low on Individualism, with China somewhat lower. Conversely, america shows the best scores in the sample on Individualism, which probably comes as no real surprise. This will not necessarily pose a source of conflict between the USA and the potential immigrant countries. It does imply that the Chinese and Mexicans would probably prove more clannish and distant to outsiders, which would definitely not portend conflict in the society, but instead that it could prove more challenging for outsiders to get access to the groups. This could create some difficulty to marketers, social workers, along with other outsiders in gaining usage of the communities, but will not post much risk of conflict.
China scores about midpoint on Masculinity, as the United States and Mexico scoring medium-high on this dimension, with Mexico slightly higher. This means that that Mexico and america may be relatively more aggressive competitors, while China could prove more wily and subtle competitors, choosing to "out-fox" competitors or potential partners instead of confront them aggressively.
The only really surprising result involves Uncertainty Avoidance. China scores the cheapest of the three countries, which fits comfortably with the normal perception of the Chinese as obsessive gamblers. The United States scores slightly below midpoint, which fits the normal perception of Americans as thoughtfully cautions risk takers. Mexico supplies the real surprise. It scores quite definitely higher with this dimension than the other two countries. Therefore that in general Mexicans have become reluctant risk takers, which doesn't seem apparent to an outsider but may be obvious to someone imbedded in that society. Based on the expectations of the United States because the host country, these findings might seem favorable to the Chinese and unfavorably to the Mexicans. If we wish new residents to go relatively quickly upward from unskilled labor to one-man shop entrepreneurs, and for that reason probably greater taxpayers, the Chinese would like a huge advantage over the Mexicans. These findings imply Mexicans may remain at the low end of industrial society longer compared to the Chinese, and may consequently utilize more public services compared to the Chinese.
Hofstede reported no findings for Mexico on Long Term Orientation, but China scored extremely high on this dimension as the United States scored just the opposite. Americans may tend to "smash through" on projects as the Chinese might seem to let Nature take its course, but whether this indicates an advantage or a disadvantage appears to be to depend on the situation. It could indicate that the Chinese would tend to be more deliberate, precise, and patient workers than Americans.
Another major decision variable would be the work ethic. Americans often feel superior for having the Protestant work ethic, although there are a great number of non-Protestants in the united kingdom. They might therefore favor the Chinese and their Confucian work ethic. A recently available article quoted a Mexican leader as saying, "Americans live to work, while we work to call home." Aggressive Americans could take that as a poor. Also, the stereotype of Mexicans following a sort of animism-Catholicism non-work ethic could tell against them. True or not, the prevalent perception of Americans taking into consideration the Mexican work ethic is probably that Mexicans don't possess a work ethic. In my own personal experience with Mexicans indicates they are hard and persistent workers at low skilled tasks, but I've no basis to judge them on more sophisticated tasks.
Additionally, we need to consider the "dependence on achievement" as originally produced by Henry Murray in 1938 and popularized by David McClelland in "The Achieving Society." The necessity for achievement focuses on an individual's desire for significant accomplishment, mastering skills, control, and high standards. It is revealed by the difficulty of tasks undertaken. People with low dependence on achievement may choose very easy tasks, minimizing the risk of failure, or very hard tasks, in which case a failure would not prove embarrassing. People who have a high dependence on achievement often choose moderately difficult tasks, obviously challenging but reachable.
A search of the Internet revealed that both the United States and China have a high need for achievement, while showing Mexico as having a low need for achievement. Actually, some of the articles regarding Mexico explained various attempts to instill an increased dependence on achievement in school students at various grades. The majority of the projects weren't advanced enough to predict their success, although funding of the programs indicates that the Mexican government recognizes an increased dependence on achievement represents a valuable and desirable asset.
Studies have also focused on differences in intelligence (IQ) between people of different races. According to Wikipedia, "In the US, intelligence quotient (IQ) test scores show statistical differences, with the common score of the African American population being lower - and that of the Asian American population being higher - than that of the White American population (based on the self-identification of these tested)." Other studies indicate that Hispanics are below whites but above blacks. The consensus, from high IQ to low IQ is Ashkenazi Jew, Asians, Whites, Hispanics, Blacks. As for the impact of genetics versus environment on IQ, findings are very mixed but appear to favor genetics because the prime actor on intelligence, although several studies indicate that environment can, somewhat, exert a modifying effect on IQ. One point of interest is that the University of California at Berkley, an extremely highly ranked university nationally, reports that 50% of its student body is Asian, primarily Chinese. Taken together, these findings appears to be to favor Chinese as immigration candidates.
What this signifies regarding selection of people as potential immigrants depends on national goals. If the target is to bring in those people who are likely to serve a minimal time in the lower ranks of the task force and progress to becoming self-employed tradesmen, artisans, or professionals, possibly increasing employment for others, the Chinese clearly offer the better choice. Conversely, if america wishes to create in a predominantly permanent low paid laborer class, perhaps it should think again. The Hispanics, especially Mexicans, are really nationalistic. Even third generation Mexican Americans wildly cheer Mexican teams at international sporting events.
A problem with Mexican immigrants is they do not tend as time passes to identify with america. There exists a dominant belief among Mexicans that the United States stole the territory comprising the western states from Mexico. Nothing could be further from the reality. Mexican General Santa Anna invaded USA territory in 1846. In the resulting war, one portion of United States troops drove south through central Mexico while another performed an amphibious landing near Mexico City, which both forces soon occupied. Finally realizing that it might not govern the huge territory it had conquered, the U.S. offered the Mexican government sixty million dollars for portions of present day Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, southern California, parts of Nevada, and Colorado. Once the President of Mexico refused the offer, the U.S. offered a smaller official thirty million dollars for exactly the same property, that was accepted. Minor additions were added later.
Rejecting reality, Mexican nationalist political movements such as for example La Raza constantly harangue Mexicans in the United States to reclaim the western states through overwhelming immigration, legally or illegally. They explain how illegal immigrants can manage to vote in our elections, bus illegal immigrants from polling station to polling station, and constantly stress that the western USA must become section of Mexico. Pledges of allegiance to the United States are often not manufactured in good faith by "Reconquistas."
Choosing the Best Immigrants, Not the Handiest
·
8 min read
