A Different Kind of Migration

Virtual migration through technology (the web) may have a stronger effect on American culture than the actual physical migration of people. Our virtual contact with the world influences our language, culture, traditions and the way we seek knowledge -

-----

Making the Global Village a Reality
The Guardian (London)
by Victor Keegan
January 24, 2008

Governments keep worrying about immigration and how they can prevent people from entering their countries. But while they are doing this a subtle form of exodus is taking place. People, especially early adopters, are spending more of their time conversing or doing things with people abroad, a kind of virtual migration. This is because of the explosion of social networks and a parallel phenomenon, the seemingly insatiable desire of people to spread details of their personal lives on the web to be devoured by a global audience.

At one stage it looked as though the movement might be stopped in its tracks when it was revealed that potential employers and university admission staff were combing Facebook, MySpace and other social sites to learn what candidates were really like. But there has been hardly any adverse reaction and it hasn't stopped people unburdening themselves one jot. If anything, the opposite might happen: employers are more likely to say, "What sort of introvert have we got here who hasn't joined a social site?"

There is no sign of it stopping. Recently I have been looking at a pre-production version of Seesmic.com, brainchild of French entrepreneur Loic Le Meur, which is a kind of instant diary or blog, but using video rather than words. You record a video (dead easy now with the built-in webcams in most new laptops) then press a button and hey presto, anyone in the world can see it and respond.

The interesting point is that, unlike blogs, there is no hiding behind nicknames. This is literally in-your-face communication. It is a near-live film of you. Anonymity is strictly for the birds. Already users are making new friends across the globe and its 20,000 early testers (and 70,000 viewers a month) are becoming part-citizens of a space beyond the geography of their own country.

It reminded me that of all the new friends I have acquired in the past year (with whom I have ongoing conversations in areas of mutual interest), the majority have been in another country. I suspect this is a growing trend as a global village arrives in which people congregate on the basis of mutual interests rather than the accidental geography of where they live...

vic.keegan@guardian.co.uk

for link to complete article in The Guardian, click the title of this post.

image: http://128.121.35.98/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/globe-stylized.jpg

Another Reason for the DREAM ACT

It seems improbable that all the talk about HB-1 visas never mentiones the DREAM ACT - at least I haven't seen any articles that have. Of course, you know that if the U.S. is charging $5,000 for the visas, they won't make it any easier for DREAM ACT engineers and computer scientists.

Looking at the E.U.'s new Blue Card - together with the news that Lou Dobbs is moving to prime time - it just makes me think we are going backwards.

On the other hand, maybe its all an illusion. Instead, maybe Dick Cheney will be impeached, neither Romney nor Guiliani will win the Republican nomination, the Democratic Senate and House will finally get it together, and the DREAM ACT will be passed - along with reasonable immigration reform.


-----
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-martinez7nov07,1,3438206.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Keeping innovators out of the country
Low quotas and high fees mean the U.S. is unable to lure the best foreign talent.
By Andrés Martinez

November 7, 2007

On the same week last month that the European Union unveiled its new, no-hassle "blue card" program to attract highly skilled migrant workers, the U.S. Senate voted to hike employer fees for H1-B visas to $5,000. H1-Bs allow U.S. employers to bring foreign talent into the American workforce. It was a telling coincidence, demonstrating that as the rest of the world is becoming more welcoming of skilled immigrants who fuel innovation, the United States, mired in its know-nothing Lou Dobbesian nativism, is turning its back on one of its great competitive advantages -- its historic knack for playing the role of host to the world's most creative tinkerers.

For the nation, and for California, turning away gifted computer scientists and engineers to more welcoming jurisdictions could prove devastating. According to a recent study by the National Venture Capital Assn., over the last 15 years, foreign nationals have started a quarter of U.S. venture-backed public companies. These are companies that generate about $130 billion in annual revenue and that employ hundreds of thousands of Americans. Within California alone, foreign-born entrepreneurs played a key role in founding Intel, eBay, Yahoo, Sun Microsystems and Google.

The H1-B fee hike is a mere nuisance compared with the scarcity of such visas for needed workers. Congress has set the number of H1-Bs -- which are three-year visas -- at an arbitrarily low 65,000 a year. In April of this year, the first day companies could apply for the visas for fiscal 2008 (which started Oct. 1), the government was swamped with 133,000 applications. That means a lot of high-tech innovators will go to work elsewhere. Earlier this year, Microsoft expanded a research-and-development center in Vancouver, and it cited the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system as one reason to go to Canada, which is eager to attract, rather than harass, foreign talent.

In congressional testimony last June on the visa shortfall, Google's vice president of "people operations," Laszlo Bock, said the company had failed to get visas for 70 engineers. Some of these individuals, who should be innovating in California, are now parked at Google campuses in Switzerland or Britain.

Does it really make sense to ban from the U.S. engineers whom Google has determined it needs to continue revolutionizing the Web? It isn't as though U.S. workers are victimized by the addition of outstanding foreign workers. Google has hired thousands of people this year alone, and only 8% of its U.S. workforce is here on a visa. Moreover, the innovations resulting from bringing the world's best and brightest together in Silicon Valley lead directly to the creation of more jobs for U.S. workers.

Orkut Buyukkokten, a Stanford University-trained computer scientist from Turkey who obtained his H1-B in 2002, was cited as a case in point by Bock. Buyukkokten's first name is now a brand, the name of a popular social networking service. He is just one of many foreign computer scientists who have led to the company's explosive growth.

Google will be fine, even if Lou Dobbs is elected president and all of the company's innovation takes place overseas, but I worry about California's future if overly restrictive immigration policies become the long-term norm. And it isn't only the corporate icons that could be jeopardized but the state's vaunted research universities as well.

The symbiotic relationship between places such as UC Berkeley and Stanford and high-tech start-ups is widely understood -- from the Hewlett-Packard era to our own Google age. But a key reason for that harmonic relationship has always been Silicon Valley's accessibility to the world's best and brightest. If high-tech start-ups start favoring more welcoming places such as Australia, Canada or even Europe, their universities will likely benefit at U.S. universities' expense.

In 2005, two-thirds of U.S. doctoral electrical engineering students and half of computer science doctoral students were foreign born. Even if we could remain an educational magnet while closing the door to highly skilled foreign workers, would it really make sense to continue investing in the education of these great minds, only to see the fruits of their labor enrich more welcoming jurisdictions? The number of jobs in the U.S. for computer software engineers is expected to reach 450,000 by 2014, according to the government, and there is no way all these jobs will be filled solely by graduates -- foreign or native born -- of American universities.

The problems created by an unrealistically low number of H1-B visas are compounded by the notorious backlog for permanent-residency green cards, the alternative for foreigners who want to become U.S. workers. Green card applications (and lives) remain in limbo for more than five years. (Europe aims to process its blue-card applications within months.) The overall system screams "we don't want you here" to talented workers the country in fact needs.

As in the case of the low-skilled agricultural workforce also crucial to this state, most members of Congress know that it is urgent to secure the supply of needed computer scientists and engineers. But in the aftermath of the collapse of comprehensive immigration reform this year, and the attending anti-immigrant hysteria, our representatives seem too paralyzed to do what the rest of the world knows to make sense, which is to try harder to woo those who will be creating the Intels, eBays and Googles of tomorrow.

Andrés Martinez, former editor of The Times' editorial page, is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

How About DREAM ACT Engineering Students?

This article on how the federal government should promote "free flow of scientific knowledge" reminds me of the kids who went to Toronto for a robotics competition - won and then were detained when crossing back into the United States. Of course the U.S. is beginning to lag behind in the sciences.

How perverse is it to have the students right here in the U.S., educated in U.S. colleges and universities - while not being able to use their talents while helping the U.S. with its technology gap?

-----
Experts Urge Exchange of Scientific Talent
By REUTERS
Published: October 19, 2007
New York Times

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (Reuters) — The federal government should create a commission to promote the free flow of scientific knowledge and researchers from other countries while balancing the threat from enemies, an expert panel said Thursday.

The panel, appointed by the National Research Council, which provides advice to American policymakers, said colleges and research institutions must continue to bring in foreign science and engineering students. “The global scientific enterprise thrives on the movement of students and scholars across borders and among institutions,” it said in a report.

“For more than 50 years,” the report says, “U.S. research universities, the envy of the world, have welcomed and fostered the talents of both foreign-born and U.S. students in the service of national and economic security.”

With fewer American students choosing careers in science and engineering, the American research and development effort cannot be sustained without a significant and steady infusion of foreign participants, the committee said.

But the panel said safeguards are needed to ensure that important research does not fall into the wrong hands. It recommended creating a standing government commission “to address ongoing shared concerns of the security and academic research communities,” including export and visa policies and participation of foreigners in research.

The commission should be led by the president’s national security adviser and the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and include representatives from academic research institutions and national security agencies, the panel recommended.

Forming this commission, the panel said, should allow the government to strike a balance between science and security.

Jacques Gansler of the University of Maryland, a former Pentagon official who is co-chairman of the committee, said research institutions have taken steps since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to address security concerns.

“However, both the security and scientific communities agree that losing our leading edge in science and technology is one of the greatest threats to national security,” Dr. Gansler said in a statement. “Unnecessary or ill-conceived restrictions could jeopardize the scientific and technical progress that our nation depends upon.



for link to article click the title of this post

DREAM ACT Engineers and Scientists Could Help U.S. Tech Recruiting

The United States will compete better with other countries when the DREAM ACT is passed. There are many engineers, science and math majors, business majors who have already graduated but cannot work professionally.

This is as illogical as having too few HB1 visas. I wish they would mention the DREAM ACT students at the TechNet Innovation Summit--its part of a viable solution for our U.S. technology companies..

-----

Tech CEOs seek U.S. immigration, regulation overhaul
While the U.S. still leads in innovation, they say, it has about five years to tune up its engine before emerging countries such as China and India catch up.
Washington Post
Stephen Lawson
PC World
Friday, October 12, 2007; 10:19 AM


The U.S. government should give emerging companies a break on regulation and change its immigration laws to encourage well-educated newcomers to stay, panelists said at a conference Thursday.

The annual TechNet Innovation Summit in Berkeley, California, kicked off with a discussion of U.S. innovation policy that quickly focused in on how the country can remain competitive as developing countries generate more engineers and ideas. The panelists were not just corporate bystanders: Laura Tyson, a professor at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, was chairman of former President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors. Sybase Inc. executive John Chen and Cisco Systems Inc. chief John Chambers both have served on advisory panels in the Bush administration, and Chambers is a top advisor and leader in Senator John McCain's Republican presidential campaign.

While the U.S. still leads in innovation, it has about five years to tune up its engine before emerging countries such as China and India catch up, said Chen, who is chairman, CEO and president of Sybase.

"Our immigration policy today makes no sense," Chen said. The U.S. attracts the best students in the world to its universities but then makes it hard for them to stay, he said. Tyson and Cisco Chairman and CEO Chambers agreed.

Chen, a Hong Kong native, said he came to the U.S. to study electrical engineering and stayed to pursue a career partly because there were few opportunities in Asia at the time. Now graduating students like him are forced to compete for a limited number of H1-B visas, even as they are lured by abundant opportunities in their home countries, Chen said.

"Our immigration policy is not serving our innovation agenda," Tyson said. While foreign graduate students face barriers, a large percentage of immigrants to the U.S. lack even a high school diploma, she said. Tyson called on the government to study immigration laws in the U.K., Canada and Australia that reward education and use point systems to determine an immigrant's qualifications...

for link to entire article click title to this post

The New Frontier: Money Made at the Border

Photo: Border Patrol Agent at the Canadian Border



Who says immigrants are costing the U.S. lots of money? Its actually quite the opposite. Companies and large corporations are making a fortune providing services and technology to the U.S. government to help protect "the frontier."
Its a money maker.

Some people are calling it "the immigration industrial complex."
_____

The Border Boondoggle
By Andrew Cockburn
Washington Post
Sunday, September 2, 2007; Page B01


The U.S. Border Patrol has just unveiled a total makeover of its traditional uniform. Shiny badges and other emblems of law enforcement are out. Our frontier troops will now have a look more in keeping with their role as frontier troops, with lightweight fatigues and better weapons. Agent Ramon Ramirez told the Associated Press that the new garb looks more military, "like you mean business."

When it comes to frontier security, business is booming all over.

In Stafford County, Va., a 50-man company called McQ has started work on a $100,000 contract to develop a "smart rock" for the Department of Homeland Security. McQ, whose motto is "Tough sensors for an insensitive planet," says that its rocks, embedded with acoustic and motions sensors, will be able to detect illegal immigrants and other miscreants sneaking across our borders.

The firm expects its contract for developing the rocks to grow to $1 million by fall -- a sure sign that while immigration "reform" bills may come and go, the threat of illegal immigration will continue to expand. This is a certainty not because of the state of the Mexican economy or because of government laxity here, but because border control is now an integral part of the military-industrial national security system, which has a long history of profiteering from purported dangers to our safety.

...Now, however, we are moving into an era of serious money, set to surpass previous border-control initiatives by a wide margin. All those extra Border Patrol officers may be expensive, but as any general or admiral worth his salt will tell you, it's technology -- the more complex and "state of the art," the better -- that really runs up the bills and brings home the pork.

This trend is typified by the soaring surveillance towers, not to mention soaring cost, of SBInet (as in Safe Border Initiative), a high-technology surveillance system managed by Boeing. It's being marketed as a "virtual fence" that will detect intruders from Mexico and ultimately Canada. The fence employs radar, cameras, acoustic and other surveillance technology sensors. These are all linked by a complex computer network that theoretically will enable agents in some distant command post to monitor any and all illegal incursions and take appropriate action, including broadcasting high-volume warnings from tower-mounted loudspeakers.

One useful indication of where all this is headed can be found in the Army's ongoing Future Combat Systems program, also managed by Boeing. This $168 billion extravaganza of computers, sensors and robots is theoretically able to automatically detect and target battlefield threats, making it so deadly to a foe, its proponents claim, that it may be possible to dispense with armor on U.S. military vehicles.

Conceptually and in other ways, FCS and SBInet have much in common. Both are based on the notion that technology can confer total awareness of a situation, leading to the automatic destruction of an enemy tank or the apprehension of a would-be tomato picker sidling across the border...

SBInet...was endorsed by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in 2005. The southern portion is projected to cost $7.6 billion by 2011. But Richard L. Skinner, DHS's inspector general, has reported that the cost could reach $30 billion. (Old Pentagon hands refer to this disparity between present and future costs as "front loading.") Boeing, the prime contractor, is largely being left to itself to define the program objectives. As the Government Accountability Office delicately reported earlier this year, the project's budget "lacked specificity" on "anticipated costs" and "expected mission outcomes," meaning that DHS has no idea what it will cost or what it will do...

For complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/31/AR2007083101464.html

Photo: Reuters http://www.insurancebroadcasting.com/062006-p3.jpg