Quick Poll is to gauge ACS members' views as to the extent that US Immigration Policy has led to US Economic Leadership in High Tech Industry including The Chemical Enterprise.
Please CHOOSE the answer which most greatly agrees with your own view.
Who among us is not a descendant of an immigrant? Who among us did not learn from or among immigrants? How could we be loyal to our values if we were to close doors?
Although immigration has helped the United States economically, I would like to see more students from foreign countries returning to their homeland after completing their studies here. That way they can help the economies of their homelands thereby increasing the economic condition worldwide. This would help eliminate/reduce the amount of poverty in the world which could lead to less strife and less abuse of citizens by the country's power brokers.
Anne's comment above shows that the poll question as worded is a non-sequitur.
The real question to ask is if current immigration and visa policies, and the way they are enforced and used, (and possibly misused), are unduly hurting American workers. It was repeated news reports of American workers being forced to train their (H1B and other visa holders) replacements as the jobs were prepared to be shipped overseas that had CEPA (and others within ACS) ask for the creation of the Task Force that Susan Butts is chairing.
This, and other employment related issues, such as policies by the National Labs to only hire post docs within 5 years of having been granted their Ph.D.s, effectively keep out US citizens from re-inventing their careers in new fields over the large # of new Ph.D. being earned in the USA by foreign students, are what ACS should focus on.
An honest, focused poll question would be:
Should the US funded National Labs (Oak Ridge, Savannah River, Sandia, etc) restrict post doctoral positions to those who have earned their Ph.D.s within the last 5 years?
No mention of citizenship or visa/immigration status in the question, just a focus on a policy.
1. The "multiple choice" format of this questionnaire is objectionable, because it "pre-packages" the responses. For example, a sliding scale-type response format might be better.
2. I found the text which described the possible answers to be far too pre-fabricated and reminiscent of advertising slogans.
3. The overall mentality was to put people "into boxes" and by doing so, make simplistic assumptions about their mentalities. For example: "Definitely Not - Good Old American Ingenuity and The Land of Opportunity Is Credited with our Success!"
4. A large number of questions which would have a neutral format and allow answers on a sliding scale would be preferable.
5. The main sentiment that I have heard and read from colleagues is that immigration of more chemists to the US worsens the job market for domestic chemists - and that job market is already very poor. This aspect was very definitely not brought up in the questionnaire.
An infamous quote is "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
As with almost all discussions about immigrants the matter of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal is glossed over (sometimes purposely). Legal immigration probably does not have too much influence on the chemical enterprise and I agree that foreign students who receive graduate US degrees should return home to benefit their own economies. In fact the immigration rules require that. Legal Ph.D. chemist immigrants are probably valuable as I am sure they are chosen when comparable US Ph.D. chemists are not available. But the number should be small and hence would not have an effect on the economy. One problem with legal immigration is that the present rules do not favor persons such as Ph.D. chemists (or, for that matter, skilled applied mathematicians or computer scientists). As to illegal immigrants that is a wholly different issue, and from my point of view has very little to do with chemists or mathematicians. E.G. Meyer
Retrieving data ...