The only constant is that things are always changing, and getting more hostile for foreigners. It's disingenuous to blame Trump when this is what U.S. voters chose.
> disingenuous to blame Trump when this is what U.S. voters chose
Trump legitimately campaigned on being cruel to illegal migrants and refugees. He also campaigned on reducing immigration in general. To that extent, you are correct inasmuch as Trump's H1-B policies were promised. (MAGA wasn't subtle [1].)
Where I think we can legitimately say this is MAGA versus Republicans is in the reverse brain drain. America in the 1950s was a destination for top minds. Ameirca in the 2020s is not. Part of that is due to remote work. Part due to us not being in the wake of a world war. But part was due to an explicit policy to attract the most ambitious to America, and then to encourage them to stay.
> Where I think we can legitimately say this is MAGA versus Republicans is in the reverse brain drain. America in the 1950s was a destination for top minds. Ameirca in the 2020s is not.
I do think it's counter-productive for America to make it harder for legal and talented immigrants, and we should fix that - but what's your evidence that America isn't still the world capital for the ambitious?
Statistically: The close competitors (e.g. Western Europe, Canada) are looking pretty dire economically compared to the US.
Anecdotally: I have friends from Estonia, Canada, the UK, and France that are all clamoring to be in America for the opportunity.
Historically: Post-WWII in the 1950s, 6.9% of the population was foreign-born. It's now 15.8%. So are we really more closed-off than we were then? Or is this just the response to the ever-increasing interest in immigrating because of the US being as compelling as it is?
> what's your evidence that America isn't still the world capital for the ambitious?
It's a loose hypothesis informed by e.g. this article.
I think America remains a net attractor. If you're smart and driven, you can become a multi-millionaire in America in a way that's harder almost anywhere else. But I'm saying harder. Decades prior, that was closer to impossible. Instead, we're now increasingly the economy where political connections dominate talent. (Again, we're still mostly not that. But we're shifting from the destination to one where talented people in India and China, for example, increasingly stay home.)
That's not true because no other country is even trying to take the lead, economically speaking. China is the only country that pursues innovation nearly as aggressively but they're not a desirable immigration destination. Canada and European countries are in the best position to step up, but they're not doing so other than being more welcoming than the US in accepting skilled immigrants. The economic incentives (capital markets, risk-taking, business-friendliness, talent density) haven't changed at all and if you're good at what you do, the US is still the best place in almost all cases. Enough that it's still often worth moving there despite how immigrant-hostile the country is.
> no other country is even trying to take the lead
Nobody else is brain draining, correct. But neither is America. That cedes a comparative advantage.
China’s entire battery and solar platform is built on tech invented in America. They’ve since taken the lead on truly remaking modern manufacturing. But in an alternate world, A123 stayed American.
> It's disingenuous to blame Trump when this is what U.S. voters chose.
It’s really not. Exit polls show a tiny fraction of voters picked Trump for anything other than his empty promises of “instantly fixing the economy”.
That’s ignoring all the people who didn’t vote at all. Saying not voting is the same as voting for the bad thing is an empty accusation that lacks critical thinking.
I'm convinced it's the primary that is breaking the elections here. You have to pander to the kind of people that vote in primaries - more extreme or more available being the key demographics there. So either people with political beliefs way off the party average, or old people.
Until/unless we institute ranked choice voting, the vast majority of people will NEVER have a candidate that reflects their preferences in any meaningful way.
> It’s really not. Exit polls show a tiny fraction of voters picked Trump for anything other than his empty promises of “instantly fixing the economy”.
Economy ranked #1 - 93% said it was very important (side note: something Democrats somehow missed).
Second was immigration - 82% said it was very important (another thing Democrats missed).
Less important to Trump voters: climate change (11% said it was very important), racial and ethnic equality (18% said it was very important), and abortion (35%).
> Saying not voting is the same as voting for the bad thing is an empty accusation that lacks critical thinking
It's game theory. Gaining a vote is as valuable as convincing someone who would have voted against you to not turn out.
Caveat: if you aren't in a swing state, and we're constraining ourselves to the Presidency, you're right. (Though not voting on anything on the ballot is just stupidity or laziness. Pretty much every jurisdiction has meangingful issues being decided by plebiscite every few years.)
If you're in a swing state, however, not voting endorses the status quo. It may not be what was intended by the voter. But drunk drivers are dangerous irrespective of intent.
In practice, the issues people tend to bring up for conscientously not voting tend to be comically undone by the winner of the election. And if you tallied up everyone who didn't vote (let's take them at their word that it's conscientiousness), you'd swing almost every election. So yeah, a non-voter and a MAGA voter are electorally identical, ceteris paribus.
