271 Arianna calls for more skilled immigration

(1) Election issue: 2/3 of Australians oppose high population target, immigration
(2) Business rejects migrant cut
(3) Arianna calls for more skilled immigration
(4) Fearful, angry Latinos might shun Census
(5) Australia's Treasurer defends government's flexible approach to foreign takeovers

(1) Election issue: 2/3 of Australians oppose high population target, immigration

From Denis McC <wizard_of_aus@hotmail.com> 8 April 2010 14:21

Two-thirds of population are opposed to 'big Australia'

Patricia Karvelas   From:The Australian   April 08, 2010  12:00AM 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/two-thirds-of-population-are-opposed-to-big-australia/story-e6frg6nf-1225851118624

MORE than two-thirds of Australians are opposed to the population ballooning to 36 million by 2050, as predicted in the government's Intergenerational Report.

A national survey of 1001 Australians, commissioned by the Lowy Institute think tank, has backed the Coalition's political attack on rising immigration numbers.

Lowy asked early last month what the best target population for Australia should be in the next 40 years.

While almost three-quarters of those polled supported a "bigger Australia" than the current 22 million, about 69 per cent said they did not think it should grow as far as 36 million by 2050.

Forty-three per cent chose 30 million; 23 per cent chose 40 million, and 6 per cent chose 50 million people or more.

But 69 per cent wanted a population of 30 million or fewer, with 22 per cent happy with the current level. Only 4 per cent wanted a smaller population than Australia has now.

"There's been a lot of claims made recently about what Australians want or don't want in terms of our population growth," said Lowy Institute executive director Michael Wesley.

"We thought it was important to test what Australians really think with some rigorous opinion polling."

Dr Wesley said the poll showed Australians were comfortable with some increase in population, but were not in full support of the 36 million projected in the Intergenerational Report.

Tony Abbott said he was concerned the government had lost control of the country's borders and was not fit "to give us the infrastructure we need to sustain the population of 36 million which Prime Minister Rudd has just glibly endorsed without any debate, without any serious thought".

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said immigration was out of control and net overseas migration, which was running at about 300,000 a year, needed to be cut.

"I want a strong Australia, I want a rich Australia, but an Australia with 36 million people without the kind of massively expanded and strengthened infrastructure such a population would need is not going to be a richer and stronger country," he said.

Mr Morrison said immigration had risen 50 per cent from 200,000 a year during the last years of the Howard government.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans said it was clear the opposition did not even know what its own policy was or how the migration program worked. "The Liberals must let the Australian public and Australian employers know just where their planned cuts are coming from, if they are actually planning any at all."

ADDITIONAL REPORTING: STUART RINTOUL

(2) Business rejects migrant cut

Patricia Karvelas, Political correspondent    The Australian    April 07, 2010  12:00AM 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/business-rejects-migrant-cut/story-e6frgczf-1225850680819

VIDEO: Abbott promises migration cutbacksThe opposition has flagged a cut in migration levels in a bid to tackle Australia's surge in population.

THE Coalition's plan to cut immigration numbers has thrown it on to a collision course with major business groups, which say they will fight the policy over fears it could threaten Australia's productivity.

The strong business reaction came after The Australian yesterday reported comments by opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison that immigration was out of control and net overseas migration, which was running at about 300,000 people a year, needed to be cut back.

Although Mr Morrison said he would retain the skilled migrant intake, that failed to appease business.

Business Council of Australia president Graham Bradley said big business would resist any attempts to cut immigrant numbers. "You must look at this issue on a multi-year dimension, and not overreact to short-term statistics," he said.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout said the plan was ridiculous, and would be strongly opposed by business.

The Coalition's tough line on immigration came as it toughened its stance on illegal boat arrivals, paving the way for an election fought on the twin issues of immigration and asylum-seekers and against the background of concerns about whether Australia can support a population of up to 36 million.

Tony Abbott said on Monday a Coalition government would bring back temporary protection visas and return asylum-seekers to their homelands if they no longer had a fear of persecution. That would stop them jumping the queues of asylum-seekers in foreign refugee camps.

As the immigration debate intensified, Border Protection Command intercepted the 36th asylum-seeker boat this year. It carried 22 passengers and one crew member.

The arrivals will place further strain on the Christmas Island detention centre, which was yesterday operating above official capacity. There were 2060 detainees on the island, 20 more than the detention centre's limit, with 101 more asylum-seekers and crew en route to the island after interceptions in the past week.

Mr Morrison said Treasury's projection that Australia's population would hit 35.9 million in 2050 was based on the large rise in net overseas migration, which included temporary workers and students, since the Rudd government took power. He said the situation needed to be reversed.

Ms Ridout said a debate about population was important.

"We are glad the opposition is committed to skilled immigration, but we urge them to commit to a robust and sustained program," she said.

"We would be disappointed if they cut immigration to levels below the average of the last 40 years . . . We would face skills shortages, it would put pressure on the rest of the population and lead to higher taxes."

Mr Bradley said the BCA had consistently advocated strong planned population growth including immigration. "You've only got to go to states like Western Australia to see the desperate need for additional skills in our economy to take full advantage of our natural resources and the development that we can build on the back of that," Mr Bradley said.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief Peter Anderson said the need for a constant supply of skilled migrants would only increase.

"It should be apparent to both sides that our economy needs a strong supply of both permanent and temporary workers," he said.

Mr Morrison disagreed with big business that a strong economy depended on high levels of immigration. "We believe it is important to focus on productivity and not use population growth as a proxy for achieving gains in those areas," he said.

"We are committed to economic growth but we don't want to see that at the expense of the lifestyle and quality of life of Australians."

Trade Minister Simon Crean said productivity could slip if Australia did not continue to invest in skills and, in the meantime, provide a skilled base to keep the economy growing.

Australian National University demographer Peter McDonald said the opposition plan ignored the immigration level needed to meet Australia's strong labour demand.

Additional reporting: Paul Maley

Comment (Peter M.):

Business does not want to train its employees; it would rather import workers who are already trained. They have a "class war" mentality. The use the Open Borders policy to keep wages down and hours up.

(3) Arianna calls for more skilled immigration
She wants more kids to stay at school longer, but she says nothing about the declining standards in schools. Or Hollywood's zombification of so many young people.

When It Comes to Innovation,
Is America Becoming a Third World Country?

By Arianna Huffington

March 31, 2010 "Huffington Post" March 29, 2010 -- 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/when-it-comes-to-innovati_b_512280.html

Is America turning into a third world country? That was the provocative topic of a panel I took part in last week at a conference sponsored by The Economist entitled "Innovation: Fresh Thinking For The Ideas Economy."

Once upon a time, the United States was the world's dominant innovator -- partly because we didn't have much competition. As a result of the destruction wreaked by WWII, the massive migration of brainpower to the U.S. caused by the war, and huge amounts of government spending, America had the innovation playing field largely to itself. None of these factors exist as we enter the second decade of the 21st century.

America now has plenty of countries it's competing with -- many of which are much more serious about innovation than we are. Just look at the numbers:

A report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation looked at the progress made over the last decade in the area of innovation. Out of the 40 countries and regions it examined, the U.S. ranked dead last.

A study on innovation by the Boston Consulting Group concluded that America is "disadvantaged in several key areas, including work force quality and economic, immigration, and infrastructure policies."

In 2009, patents issued to American applicants dropped by 2.3 percent. Those granted to foreign-based applicants increased by over 6 percent.

Why are we falling behind like this? For one thing, we've lost our educational edge. America once led the world in high school graduation rates. We are now ranked 18th out of 24 industrialized countries.

And the percentage of 15-year-olds performing at the highest levels of math is among the lowest. South Korea, Belgium and the Czech Republic, among others, have at least five times the number the U.S. does.

Plus, we are no longer investing in innovation. Until 1979, around 50 percent of all research and development funds were provided by the federal government. That number has fallen to 27 percent. And, during the 1990s, the bottom fell out of U.S. funding for applied science, dropping by 40 percent.

The economic crisis is also taking a toll on innovation. Venture capital investment in the U.S. for the first three quarters of 2009 was $12 billion. Over the first three quarters of 2008, it was $22 billion.

These numbers may not place us in the third world ... yet. But the trend is not a good one.

Adding to the problem is the sense that America's best days may be behind us. Many economists and historians are warning that our current economic downturn has created a new normal. That the country will never be the same. Things are, of course, going to be different. But that doesn't have to mean that they are going to be worse. However, if we don't get serious about innovation, they will be. When it comes to our approach to innovation, we desperately need some innovation.

For starters, we need to kick our high-speed Internet plans into high gear. A robust, broadband-charged, countrywide information superhighway is going to be key to staying ahead of the innovation curve.

As FCC Chair Julius Genachowski explains, broadband isn't just important for faster email and video games -- it's the central nervous system for democracies and economies of the future:

Broadband is indispensable infrastructure for the 21st century. It is already becoming the foundation for our economy and democracy in the 21st century... [and] will be our central platform for innovation in the 21st century.

How indispensable is it? In a study of 120 countries, researchers found that every 10 percent increase in broadband adoption increased a country's GDP by 1.3 percent.

Unfortunately, when it comes to broadband, America is also falling behind.

In 2001, the United States ranked 4th among industrialized countries in broadband access. By last year, we had dropped to 15th. As for average broadband download speed, we rank 19th.

Nearly 93 million Americans still don't have broadband in their homes. And while 82 percent of those who attend college in the U.S. have access to broadband, only 46 percent of high school graduates do.

To help close the widening gap between us and the rest of the digitally connected world, the Obama administration has proposed a National Broadband Plan, with the goal of increasing broadband access from around 65 percent currently to 90 percent by 2020.

The proposed plan would make high speed broadband available to 100 million Americans by 2020, and ensure that every high school graduate is digitally literate.

This sounds great. But 2020? Given that we're already behind, how about initiating a broadband version of the Manhattan Project? If it's truly a priority, and, as seems obvious, important to national security and the relative position of the United States in the world, why put it off for a decade?

Another focus of innovation is the green economy. One proposal that would jumpstart green innovation is the creation of a Green Bank, which, according to John Podesta and Karen Kornbluh, would "open credit markets and motivate businesses to invest again," and "enable clean-energy technologies -- in such areas as wind, solar, geothermal, advanced biomass, and energy efficiency -- to be deployed on a large scale and become commercially viable at current electricity costs."

Such a bank would also help loosen the available credit for small businesses, and establish the reliable source of funding entrepreneurs need to know will be there if they devote themselves to green technologies and start ups.

Fortunately, such a proposal is already making its way through Congress. Reed Hundt, the former FCC chair under President Clinton, is now the head of a group called the Coalition for Green Capital, whose goal is "to establish a government-owned, wholesale, non-profit bank that would fill the void that exists in clean-energy legislation in America today." Hundt is currently joining Congressman Ed Markey in trying to make the Green Bank proposal part of the next jobs bill. Which makes sense, since, according to Hundt's group, a Green Bank would create about four million jobs by 2012.

Another area ripe for innovation is our immigration policy -- particularly when it comes to granting visas to foreign-born entrepreneurs.

Great ideas come from all over the world, and if we don't welcome the people with those great ideas and make it easy for them to come here, they will go elsewhere. Indeed, they already are going elsewhere. Right now the U.S. has an immigration limit for skilled workers of 65,000, and an additional 20,000 slots for those with advanced degrees from U.S. universities. This kind of rigid cap doesn't make sense in today's world. The "visa process has been plagued with backlogs resulting from this quota," says Jonathan Ortmans, a senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation. "As a result, high-skilled immigrants are looking for opportunities elsewhere in an increasingly competitive global labor market, taking their innovative ideas with them."

Enter the people behind startupvisa.com, a group with an innovative proposal for increasing America's share in the global idea marketplace. They want to make it easier for foreign entrepreneurs to come to America and start job-creating business.

Our current law allows foreign investors to get a visa if they start a business in the United States with $1 million in capital that creates at least 10 jobs here. The venture capitalists behind Start Up Visa want to shift the emphasis from foreign investors to foreign entrepreneurs who can get funding from American investors. The idea is to reward good ideas. And by requiring those with good ideas to first get foreign funding, you make it more likely they will just decide to create their companies someplace else too.

This proposal is also in the legislative pipeline. The Start Up Visa Act is co-sponsored by Sens. John Kerry and Richard Lugar. Their bill would create a two-year visa for immigrant entrepreneurs who are able to raise a minimum of $250,000, with $100,000 coming from a qualified U.S. angel or venture investor. After two years, if the immigrant entrepreneur is able to create five or more jobs (not including their children or spouse), attract an additional $1 million in investment, or produce $1 million in revenues, he or she would become a legal resident.

Kerry and Lugar made their case in a recent op-ed:

At a time when many are wondering whether Democrats and Republicans can come together on anything, there is at least one area where we're in strong agreement: We believe that America is the best country in the world to do business. And now is the time to reach out to immigrant entrepreneurs -- men and women who have come from overseas to study in our universities, and countless others coming up with great ideas abroad -- to help drive innovation and job creation here at home.

The senators, who hope to pass the measure this month, are positioning it as a jobs initiative, not an immigration reform initiative, and hope to include it as part of a larger bill aimed at helping small businesses add jobs. "This bill is a small down payment on a cure to global competitiveness," Kerry told BusinessWeek.

These, of course, are just three ways of promoting innovation. But they are prime examples of what we need if we are to shake off our complacency and avoid the slow slide to third world status.

America is rich with resources -- both natural and human -- but we can no longer afford to utilize them so inefficiently. We can't afford to be the only nation in the industrialized world in which half the country doesn't have access to broadband. We can't afford to allow other nations to take the lead in creating a green economy. And we can't afford to keep making it so hard for people with job-creating ideas to start their businesses here.

Comment (Peter M.):

Arianna says nothing about training unemployed Americans. Or improving the standards in schools & universities. Or reining in the destruction of young minds by Hollywood and the media. Or reining in the destruction of bodies by the Junk Food industry.

Compare Arianna's piece above, with Paul Craig Roberts on how the Establishment has betrayed American workers by outsourcing their jobs - eg http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts04192005.html and
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06062006.html

Arianna used to be on "our" side, but has since sold her soul to the Establishment.

(4) Fearful, angry Latinos might shun Census

Esteban Israel

WASHINGTON

Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:38pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62U4RY20100331

(Reuters) - Latinos are the biggest minority in the United States but they could jeopardize a chance to flex their newfound political muscle as millions of them dodge a nationwide census.

U.S.

Many of the millions of illegal Hispanic immigrants fear that filling in the 10-question census forms could increase their risk of deportation. Others are frustrated with President Barack Obama's slow start on immigration reforms.

A poll by the Pew Research Center showed that one-third of Hispanics have not even heard of the 2010 Census, a $14 billion effort to map the nation's population.

"I would say that more than 50 percent of the Latino community will not participate in the census," said Juan Carlos Ruiz, a Peruvian-born activist with the Latino Federation of Greater Washington.

"The problem is that by not participating we will be missing a big opportunity from a political, economic, social and even cultural point of view," said Ruiz who helped organize huge immigrant marches in 2006.

There are an estimated 50 million Hispanics in the United States. Under-representation in the census could hurt access to federal funding for their communities. An updated snapshot of the population, the census is designed in part to help the government allocate $400 billion of federal funding.

An accurate count should in theory translate into more teachers, heath facilities and infrastructure in heavily Latino neighborhoods. It should also boost Hispanics' political clout by giving largely Latino districts more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after redistricting.

DEPORTATION FEARS

In Mount Pleasant, a heavily-Latino neighborhood in Washington dotted with colorful stores, many residents are there illegally and give vague answers to strangers, their eyes constantly scanning the street.

Waiting at a corner to be picked up for a day's work at a construction site, Jose Ricardo said he didn't see the point of the census.

"I don't think I'll do it. Politicians never do anything for us," said the 35-year old Salvadorean, black woolen cap down low over his eyes.

Tens of thousands gathered last weekend near the White House to remind President Barack Obama they are still waiting for the promised immigration reform that helped draw Latinos to the polls in record numbers when he was elected in 2008.

Deportation is a constant fear for millions who are in the United States without legal papers. "Removals" of illegal workers jumped by 23.5 percent to almost 357,000 in the 2008 fiscal year, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Immigration reform, which former President George W. Bush tried but failed to deliver, could offer about 10.7 million people, 80 percent of them Latino, a path to legalization.

(5) Australia's Treasurer defends government's flexible approach to foreign takeovers

Wayne Swans defends government's flexible approach to foreign takeovers

UPDATE: Rachel Pannett    Dow Jones Newswires    December 10, 2009  3:14PM  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/wayne-swans-defends-governments-flexible-approach-to-foreign-takeovers/story-e6frg8zx-1225809096027

THE federal government says it will continue to assess foreign investment proposals on a case-by-case basis despite criticism that its policy is unclear and confusing to foreigners.

Treasurer Wayne Swan said in a speech in Brisbane today that applying hard and fast rules, or shareholder caps, to foreign investment isn't in Australia's best interests as it risks having some "potentially very valuable" proposals shelved because they don't comply with the rules.

Still, for foreign investors, particularly Chinese state-backed firms eager to tap into Australia's vast natural resources, the lack of firm guidelines means continued uncertainty over how best to structure deals so that they are more likely to be approved.

The government is treading a fine line, keen to avoid domestic accusations that it is selling off the country's natural resources, root and branch, while at the same time trying to attract foreign investment that is crucial to the country's economic development.

Every wave of foreign investment in Australia's history, including Japanese investment in the 1970s and 1980s, has created political controversy, the treasurer said.

Australia's core position is to welcome foreign investment, which it needs to capture future growth, with the country unable to rely on its pool of domestic savings alone, he said.

"The vast majority of foreign investments proceed without government intervention," Swan said. ...

Mr Swan said the chief consideration remains whether a proposed takeover is in the "national interest".

Turning to the issue of investment by state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, Mr Swan said they have become "an important source of international capital".

Australia's investment policies are "non-discriminatory" and apply equally to investments by all foreign government entities, he said.

In a small concession to creating more transparent policy, Mr Swan said Australia's FIRB will release in early 2010 an easy-to-read version of the foreign investment review framework for prospective investors, which will also be published in other languages, including Chinese.