The immigration policy of the future?

ICE’s hope is that this privately developed software will help go far beyond matters of legality to matters of the heart. The system must “determine and evaluate an applicant’s probability of becoming a positively contributing member of society, as well as their ability to contribute to national interests” and predict “whether an applicant intends to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.” Using software to this end is certainly in line with Trump’s campaign rhetoric — during a rally in Phoenix, he described how “extreme vetting” would make sure the U.S. only accepts “the right people,” using “ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people.”

That is from The Intercept, by Sam Biddle and Spencer Woodman.  Here is Wikipedia on China’s proposed social credit score system, currently in experimental form.  What would Patrick McGoohan say?


I wonder when/if it gets used on existing US citizens.

Sooner than you may think.

The outcomes would be racist, so never.

Eh, they'll find a way to make the AI think progressively.

Well, the lawsuit claiming discrimination against "whites" is based on Asians being "white" and deserving.

Thus we have current policy favoring Asian origin as the American ideal citizen.

Clearly, that will favor Asian immigration as that way to Make America Great.

Which is ironic because the unconstitutional restrictions on immigration were taken against Asians who came to build the railroad that linked America into the Great America from sea to shining sea.

No power is granted to Congress to pass laws restricting immigration. In the Constitution, citizens are a restricted governing elite distinct from the resident population.

The 14th clearly did not intend to grant citizenship to American nationals who were female.

If citizenship determines who can be resident, then a nation of men only would not be viable for long, and the authors of the Constitution had much longer horizons even as they denied citizenship to women.

If you want to stop terrorism through immigration policy you need to predict which people will have children who would could become interested in ISIS style religion. I think it cannot be done.

Impossible. Indeed impossible.

Ignorance is strength.

Not impossible. Zero immigration. Problem solved.

I don't think so. You just need to predict the ones whose children will *not* be interested in Isis-type religion.

If we only admit sterile individuals, it can be done. /s

And who gets to define "positively contributing member of society" and "national interests"? Do these change depending on who is in office? Do they get re-evaluated retroactively? Do they get re-evaluated upon exit and re-entry to the country?

The criterion is "Positively contributing to my accumulation of power."

Like say, if someone has a job offer. See, that wasn't hard

For Republicans: unlikely to use welfare, likely to assimilate; For Democrats: likely to use welfare, likely to reject American culture.


OMG too true, like lol at the dems everyone XD

Just a heads up your logical debunking of the claim must have been cut off. All I see is sweaty panic.

You seem to be forgetting Newton’s Third Law of Internet forms: For every stupid statement, there is an equal and opposite stupid statement.

It is interesting that Democrats are pretty much interested in open borders immigration except from one country: Cuba.

For Cuba, they will deport people. Obama set that up.

Weird. If I had to guess, I'd bet Cuban-Americans don't vote reliably.

BTW, my theory works the other way, too. Its not like the GOP are bastions of idealism here.

The side that isn't importing ringers to help them win domestic disputes indisputably gets the moral high ground regardless of idealism.

Here is the reality. While you guys yuk it up about possible futures with more Democrats, half of all Republicans are ready to abandon constitutional democracy for their narrow advantage. As the man says, hang your heads in shame.

At this point we need Democrats, to preserve the Union.

"At this point we need Democrats, to preserve the Union."

It's amusing how you believe a similar poll wouldn't have had exactly the same result from Democrats if they'd been polled last year. This is a Push Poll designed to illicit a specific result by leading the respondents down a narrative trail.

Here's a similar poll from last year, directed at Democrats:

"A strong majority of Democrats would cancel the 2016 presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump if it meant President Obama could serve another term, a new poll found. Data provided to The Hill by the conservative polling outlet WPA Research found that 67 percent of Democrats would take a third term for Obama over a potential Clinton administration. Only 28 percent said they’re ready to move on from the Obama White House, while 6 percent are undecided."

I think that Obama poll is more clearly fanciful. In terms of the concrete:

"I think that Obama poll is more clearly fanciful. "

Not an argument.

It was presented more as a wishful what-if than any concrete action. Not "should Obama order elections postponed?'

On Cuba, that's quite a strawman. The policy is that Cubans, just like every other nationality, have the right to claim asylum once they reach American soil and have their claims judged on their merits.

Also, Cubans on valid visas who commit felonies or crimes of "moral turpitude" are now eligible for deportation, again, just like people from every other country. Under Obama, deportations of foreign nationals who had criminal histories proceeded apace. There were a some cases of people from places like Korea or Cambodia who had spent their whole lives in the U.S. and suddenly received deportation orders when federal agents found their old deportation-eligible criminal convictions that had never been acted upon. The idea that Cubans are being singled out in any way for unfair treatment is not true.

Maybe they just learn from data how the variables they can measure at the time of immigration correlate with tax revenue and criminal records later.

"I am not a number!"
My favorite #2--Leo McKern

I enjoyed The Prisoner, when I could find it on the UHF dialog my youth.

Good reference, for a world where opaque algorithms will shape our future. Opaque even to owners of the systems.

That's an extremely technocratic approach. It's a style more typical of a Democratic President in recent times.

Technocratic would be a big improvement over the current situation. Almost anything would.

I agree. A Skills based approach would be far better than the "who you are related to" nepotism of the long standing US policy.

Technocratic points-based immigration is racist. Jim Acosta explained that in a speech he gave at a White House press briefing.

'Technocratic points-based immigration is racist. '

Such a system would clearly be race blind. As seen in this example - 'The policy, the Raise Act, would introduce a point-based system for new applicants to enter the United States. In addition to speaking English, points would be awarded based on answers to these other questions that Miller mentioned: “Can they support themselves and their families financially? Do they have a skill that will add to the U.S. economy? Are they being paid a high wage?

Were that policy in place in 1885, Friedrich Trumpf would likely not have gained entry to the United States. The immigration record for his arrival that year indicates that he arrived without an identifiable “calling”: The word “none” sits next to his name in that column.

A biographer of Trumpf — father of Fred Trump, who was the father of the president — told Deutsche Welle that Donald Trump’s grandfather didn’t speak English when he got here.

“He came to New York,” Gwenda Blair said, “and, after he learnt English, he went to the West Coast, ran restaurants, amassed a nest egg, then went back to Kallstadt, married the girl next door and brought her to New York.” It was on the West Coast that Trumpf (now just Trump) became a citizen and registered to vote in the 1892 election.'

If we'd have had the Raise Act in 1885, Donald Drumpf could be the prime minister of Germany and the US would have ten million less welfare dependent immigrants. Sounds good.

His German family name is Trumpf - I have no idea where this 'Drumpf' idiocy comes from, or why so many Americans seem to think it is some sort of cutting insult.

'could be the prime minister of Germany'

No, his grandfather likely would have been thrown into jail, and not married - 'Friedrich Trump reached the United States in 1885 when he was 16, after leaving his home town of Kallstadt, in what is now the southwestern German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. Although his arrival in New York City was like that of myriad other European immigrants seeking greater opportunity, his departure from Bavaria was illegal — he skipped mandatory military service in the kingdom's armed forces and was formally stripped of Bavarian citizenship four years later.'

"his departure from Bavaria was illegal"

You're trying to argue if he hadn't departed he'd be put in jail, though it was his departure that was illegal?

This is why Australia and Canada have sanctions regimes set up against them: because they have racist policies.

We don't have to add much to McGoogan's words. The prisoner's message still stands.

"We will continue to do it until someone says that we can’t.”

That is the motto of the 21st century. Extreme vetting, spying on citizens, infiltrating protests. Too bad we have an electorate and Congress too busy to notice.

"I am not a number. I am a citizen!"

We humans do not have the ability to predict some incidents but we have the ability to produce software to do it for us. Wow.

In many cases yes, that's how it is. Predicting things means making inferences from a model, and if the model is complex or the method of building it very detailed and numerical, then it's going to be a piece of software.
It's still people executing their will in the end.

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” Heraclitus

Why is ICE 'evaluating applicants'? Aren't they supposed to be chasing down visa overstayers and any border jumpers that get past CBP? Don't we have a visa inspectorate and naturalization examiners to evaluate applicants (you know, Consular Affairs and 'Citizenship and Immigration Services' or some such)?

I saw an interview with a one-time INS agent some years ago in which he said that in 1990 INS had seven agents (of which he was one) assigned to the City of New York to catch visa overstayers. INS efforts in this regard were strictly pro-forma.

As for evaluating the applicant, why not rely on standards simple enough to be written into the statute? English proficiency test (written and oral), physical, background check, now-take-a-number-and-stand-in-the-queue. If you're a problem country, apply when you've a wife and children to enter with you.

What if you are a female from a "problem country", marry some guy first? My goodness the way (some of) the right is scared of women is hilarious.

They have cooties.

The way (some) stalkers project their own timidity and fear of women onto conservatives is sad. Funny sad.

Don't be so hard on yourself, I'm sure you will get over your fear.

Yikes that was pathetic and nonsensical.

Again, you are being too harsh on yourself. Sometimes you aren't pathetic, and even more often you make some sense. Maybe take a few plays off, champ.

I assume ICE has a 1-10 scale technocratic attractiveness score to analyze.

Attractiveness is irrelevant for society's well-being.

Hmmm, don't think that's what he said. The way cucks love to change the subjectduo they can bring up how much they worship the vagina is pathetic.

*subject so.

I do love me some vagina, I'll give you that. So cuck = heterosexual now? In any case, using that word is a good way to signal your uselessness.

That's not a vagina that's a flesh light.

That said if plowing that device gives you the confidence to stop stalking those poor girls and start talking with girls then yea adult novelty industry.

Dude, you are pretty knowledgeable about those, I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

The thing about trolling, Sam, is going the whole you're a virgin/stalker/mom's basement dweller thing is witless and ineffectual. I'm obviously not any of those, so why would it bother me for you to keep throwing the same schoolyard insults at me? If you're gonna troll, be funny or at least clever. I actually enjoy troll wars with people who can make me laugh, you need to step up your game.

"the whole you’re a virgin/stalker/mom’s basement dweller thing is witless and ineffectual. I’m obviously not any of those, "

Another great example of overcompensation. As my elementary teacher used too say, show, not tell.

As for being a virgin, you seem to me instead like the kind on nerd who after a long wait got laid and thus believes himself to be Lothario. As a worker in the tech industry, I see the type all the time.

Tanturn, look man, just because I call you and other alt right dumbasses out doesn't make your lame characterizations accurate. You need to up your game too. Or just stick to the topics, be clever, have a take, make an argument. When you just go ad hominem without being funny, you've lost.

Remember that troll who used to just post filthy nonsense at various other posters. Mercifully he's gone, he may come back, whatever. Do you think anyone he replied to cared or got hurt by it? Do I strike you as the type who is going to care if someone calls me a virgin or nerd or whatever?

You can do better. Here we are now, entertain us.

Looks like the "ladykiller" protests too much Tanturn.

I prefer getting under you skin msgkings which I do regularly because your make your hang ups so readily apparent.

Nah, my ladykilling days are long past, I'm happily married with kids now. The next time you get under my skin will be the first.

You on the other hand are very easy to bait into embarrassing yourself. "Flesh light", the hell?

"When you just go ad hominem without being funny, you’ve lost."

You would know.

"Remember that troll who used to just post filthy nonsense at various other posters. Mercifully he’s gone, he may come back, whatever."

Ray? He's still here.

"Do I strike you as the type who is going to care if someone calls me a virgin or nerd or whatever?"


"You can do better. Here we are now, entertain us."

You often use the royal we.

"Nah, my ladykilling days are long past, I’m happily married with kids now"

Does your wife know you comment here? Hope she doesn't see that one....she'll laugh.

Yes, the evaluation of applicants would have to be done by overseas consular officers or the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE is a separate federal police agency charged with investigating and arresting visa overstayers and violators as well as the people who employ them.

To further confuse things, we have CBP which is the agency that runs passport control and is also responsible for Customs inspections at airports and land crossings. We also have Border Patrol which is technically under CBP and operates inland checkpoints and conducts surveillance along the border to catch people who evade CBP controls.

We should use WAR and only WAR to pick the players on my favorite baseball team, but statistical formulas to predict immigrant performance is unconscionable.

-every salon reader

Back in the 1970s, Harvard put a lot of effort into major quantitative studies of who to let into Harvard, as documented in Robert Klitgaard's 1985 book "Choosing Elites." Klitgaard's worked with Harvard's admissions department to study the admissions system.

Harvard now keeps out about 95% of everybody who wants to attend Harvard.

It seems reasonable that American's system for Choosing Immigrants should make use of as much hard-headed analysis as Harvard's system for Choosing Students.

Harvard now keeps out about 95% of everybody who wants to attend Harvard.

I'm sure it's quite a heck of a lot higher than 95%.

Why does it seem reasonable?

Hard-headed analysis? Don't be silly. Do you honestly believe there is a real difference in value to the Harvard community between the applicant who comes in fifth out of one hundred, and gets admitted, and the one who comes in sixth, and doesn't?

Harvard thinks so.

And Harvard is pretty successful at what they do. The Harvard brand name is rather valuable.


But whether that is a consequence of those decisions is a different matter.

And Harvard is pretty successful at what they do. The Harvard brand name is rather valuable.

It takes a few generations of profligacy to run down assets. One advantage Harvard has is that the crew running Yale are inane with a thoroughness Harvard hasn't been able to manage. The cliques running Duke and Columbia are bound and determined to compete vigorously in the laughingstock sweepstakes as well.

Most Brazilian state universitiea reject more than 95% of all applicants. Maybe Americans should ask them how they manage it.

"Most Brazilian state universitiea reject more than 95% of all applicants. "

So you're saying that Brazilian State Universities only serve 5% of the applicants.

Of course. Like Harvard. If everyone goes to Harvard, no one goes to Harvard. Also, private universities have about three times as many students. If means, overall, 20% of the applicants are served. Before next decade ends, it will be about 30%. Also, State Universities are free and university food is subsized. Also, Brazil has generous univerty loans programs. It is not like America where college loans are scams to separete gullible, wild-eyed kids from their money.

The nominal minimum university entry IQ is 1 SD above the pop mean, i.e. 115. Countries control the minimum entry IQ with policy which determines the % of populations to be served. As usual that %pop is usually stretched to admit more students. But there is no free lunch, stretching that %pop means lowering the minimum entry IQ.

From OECD 2010 data, Brazil %graduate was 11.6%. From bell curve mathematics that implies on average the minimum graduate IQ to be 104.9. For USA, %graduate was 30.8%, that implies on average the minimum graduate IQ to be 105.5, which is more or less confirmed from another independent study based on SAT scores for university admitance (not graduation) of 103,

There is on average not that much difference between the minimum quality of Brazilian and USA graduates.

Those applying to Brazillian universities presumably have completed secondary education, thus on average their IQ should be above the population mean. But for simplicity of calculation assuming that they are at the pop mean, from bell curve mathematics the better Brazilian state universities accepting only 5% of the applicants means that on average the associated minimum entry IQ is 111.7, which hinted that the targeted minimum entry IQ could be the nominal value of 115.

Brazilian secondary school graduates in 2010 was 31.7% of pop, thus on average 7.2 IQ points above the pop mean. That gives on average the minimum entry IQ to the better Brazilian universities to be 118.9

Basically that, a few points more, a few points less depending on the course.

So as long as Jose the immigrant expresses his distaste for the free press, timely elections, and due process, he's a shoe-in right? Should we also test him to ensure that he is capable of wholeheartedly believing 50% of lies ?

“whether an applicant intends to commit criminal or terrorist acts..."
Is that why they called the movie "Minority report" ?

When his landlord, whom had knocked on numerous occasions, found Augustine cracking the plate against scaffolding, he gave him an eviction notice.

Pity some dystopian commenters on this blog can't get eviction notices.

Even better comrade send them to re-education camps.

Better. You're improving.

He went to sign, but distracted by an exact and a subdued expression circling her retroussé nose, he leaned on his elbow instead, and furled his chin in one hand, tapping the pen with the other. Helga meanwhile, drew a toothsome manchineel from a drawer, and broke her winsome smile to bite. Ah yes, Augustine, he recalled. But his hand had risen for his scalp had warmed, and the pen scratched. A few specks landed on the red-skinned wood. He sighed at Helga. A smile lapsed, he signed.

I want to propose an incentive mechanism for identifying promising potential immigrants. The idea is to require immigrants to have sponsors with skin in the game. Every year that the immigrant pays taxes, the sponsor gets a certain percentage of the collected taxes. If the sponsored immigrant stops paying taxes, the sponsor pays an annual penalty - a large one if the sponsored person ends up in jail. Essentially, sponsors would bet on the success of immigrants and stand to profit from the system if they picked wisely.

Immigrants who are in the country illegally could become legal immediately if they find a sponsor willing to bet on their future success (and willing to take on the risk of substantial losses should the immigrant find him- or herself dependent on government charity or incarcerated). Since sponsoring honest, productive families would pay off for the sponsor, this program could instantly end the unsustainable conditions of our undocumented immigrants, made worse by the constant fear of deportation.

A program like this would unleash on the world an army of American talent scouts who stand to make good money by enticing the world's best, brightest and most promising people to become Americans. Organizations with strong incentives to choose well would take over the entire immigrant vetting process, though the US government could dynamically adjust the payoff parameters each year based on need. For example, they may have different payoff scales for sponsors of women, because women earn less in the US (sigh). If women choose leave the workforce once they have children, this shouldn't lead their sponsors to incur penalties. The government could also adjust the payoff matrix to attract younger people and to make finding a sponsor easier for families from regions of crisis. But even for the latter, the sponsor system would be in place. Politicians wouldn't need to put any constraints on how the sponsors decide to vet the potential immigrants. We only need a system on which they lose lots of money should they sponsor a rapist or a terrorist, and gain more still for bringing in the next Sergey Brin or Elon Musk. The sponsors themselves would quickly figure out which traits and skills are a good indicators of likely success in the USA. They would have skin in the game.

I've proposed something similar over at Econlog a few times, but cast it as a bonding scheme where potential immigrants must pay for a bond to cover their net costs, forcing the bonding companies to become efficient at identifying projected benefits/losses.

Yes, yours is a similar suggestion, and an interesting one. I don't like the principle of making the immigrant pay something, because I think we should also be helping promising immigrants who have no private means to pay (like war refugees). My proposal is not worked out in great detail; I came up with it when thinking about how companies who employed talented foreigners on a temporary visa should be able to trigger some sort of naturalization mechanism if they are willing to put their neck on the line for the employee. I think that if we leave the vetting to the government, it will basically become a pure lottery, because politicians and the public won't be able to converge on benchmarks. But if the government deputizes private organizations, then we are all free to make one that sponsors immigrants and has with philanthropic goals in mind. They only need an endowment - or at least proper insurance - from which the government can collect in case their picks don't take well to the US.

Everybody pretty much knows that the next big thing in apps is the creation of a super efficient map that allows one to live one's entire life free from having to associate with people one does not approve of. The Indian reservations of today are based on geography but the reservations of everyone else, Indians or not, of tomorrow, seeking to recreate that which the Indians on their reservations of today seek to conserve, will be measured not by geography but by personalized, differentiating, and as much as possible, liberated-from-the-usual-geography apps. That will make people happier than you can guess. (I want people to be happy but I want them to care about each other. That is what we are here for (Philippians chapter one). And when I am guessing what you can guess - that was not condescending, that was just a guess on my part.) There will be no nostalgia for the past (that is for the days we are living in now). All moral issues will remain, of course, but people will look back on the days when they were corralled into eating at Applebee's, or attended a "jazz" concert to impress someone who they did not really even care if they impressed, as far distant in the past as people today look back at the days of "Fatty Arbuckle" as a purportedly funny entertainer and "Woodrow Wilson" as a sage, and as someone young people would aspire to be. How sad it is for us to think of how it must feel to be someone who (and there were millions of people like that) considers "Woodrow Wilson" a sage! (I could make this comment longer, discussing the "Grateful Dead" followers of yesteryear, the weird people who specialize in Supreme Court and federal circuit court law as an intellectual pastime, or even the people, close to my heart, who collect platonically perfect stamps, and resell them almost as soon as they can, out of the goodness of their hearts - yes, such people exist - but I am swearing off long comments.)

I would have said "orthogonal-to-the-usual-geography" apps but I didn't remember the word "orthogonal" in time. And yes the use of words like "orthogonal" has more to do with "signaling" than with the basic human desire to speak the truth: nevertheless. (Also I like mentioning Philippians as much as possible: someday I will completely understand daylight savings time, someday I will understand why most people don't immediately get the Monte Hall problem, and someday I will understand where the dividing line is between entertainment and art (and yes the millionaire Tolstoy and the celebrated Gauss and even the great enthusiast of plastic arts Michelangelo may wind up on the entertainment side - these are serious questions, in a comical way) and someday I will understand when words that have some version of Philip in them have two l's, and when they have one.

With that technology perhaps HUD can finally make the projects and Section 8 jewels in their crown.

Let's first develop a test to evaluate whether ICE employees are positively contributing members of society.

Can we use it on the people in Chicago?

It’s really hard to say about future, as there are too many things we need to look at, so we got to be very wise. I love this blog for providing so many updates on regular basis. As a trader, I am always doing it with freedom which is easier with broker like OctaFX, as they have wonderful set of scheme and features that counts from low spreads at 0.1 pips, high leverage up to 1.500, market forecast and many such schemes!

Comments for this post are closed