关于一个组装机器求教# Hardware - 计算机硬件
i*y
1 楼
其实不要以为共和党就是亲高科技移民的，民主党就是反高科技移民的。其实两个党都
不过是故意用这个话题玩政治。两个党表面上口头表示非常支持STEM 绿卡，但是都故
意在自己的法案里面特意加上对方绝对不能接受的条款，本来他们可以达成一定的妥协
，比如砍掉一半的DV绿卡，加上一半的STEM 绿卡，本来法案也可以以简单多数通过，
但是都不这样做，故意要三分之二通过就是要给对方来个下不来台。好让对方成为被指
责的对象。
It's common knowledge that the US Congress isn't getting much done because
of the ideological chasm between the two parties. In certain areas, it's
understandable, if not excusable. After all, the future of our country will
be shaped by grand decisions over whether and how much to cut spending and
raise taxes.
But the story of how a high-tech immigration bill died last week shows how
ridiculous partisan politics and petty power plays are preventing Congress
from acting even when everybody agrees.
In mid-September, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX)
introduced a bill to increase by 55,000 the number of green cards available
to foreign students who graduate in the United States with advanced degrees
in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). There seemed to be
broad bipartisan support. The high-tech industry was excited -- it looked as
if government might finally act on the idea of "stapling a green card to
every diploma." A broad swath of the industry, including Apple, Microsoft,
IBM, HP, and IEEE-USA, strongly supported the proposal.
Then the bickering started. It turns out that Smith's bill would end the
diversity lottery for green cards, in which 55,000 cards per year are
granted randomly to any and all comers. So net-net, the number of green
cards allotted would stay the same. And the Republicans would be killing the
lottery, a program they've criticized for years. Once Democrats realized
this, a group led by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Zoe
Lofgren (D-CA) countered with a bill that provides the cards without ending
the lottery, effectively increasing the total allotment by 55,000.
The result? Nothing passed; No action that might have eased the shortage of
skilled workers in high-tech and give talented foreign students a way to
stay in this country, possibly founding Silicon Valley startups that could
grow into tech powerhouses employing thousands of people. (Sergey Brin of
Google is a good example.) Instead, we will continue to send them back home
to enrich their native lands.
"Both bills, introduced with provisions unacceptable to the other party,
make for political theater but leave the fundamental problem of immigration
reform unresolved," writes Alex Nowrasteh, immigration-policy analyst at the
Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, in the latest
issue of the National Journal.
The two sides might have worked out a deal if they had wanted to, says
Stewart J. Lawrence in The Huffington Post. For example, they could have
kept the diversity lottery but trimmed it to 25,000 visas and given the STEM
graduates the other 25,000. "But that would have required a genuine
willingness by the two parties not to play politics with immigration," he
writes.
While tech companies generally refrained from criticism (while planning
their next lobbying moves, no doubt), Information Technology Industry
Council (ITI) CEO Dean Garfield hinted at the industry's frustration. "
Having competing bills on this issue adds a layer of complexity that shouldn
't exist given the shared goal among the parties," he told The Hill
newspaper.
Given the election, it's unrealistic to think this will come up again until
the next Congress. We can only hope that a new Congress will put aside
politics long enough to agree that they agree. As Schumer said after the
bill went down in flames: "There is too broad a consensus in favor of this
policy to settle for gridlock."
http://www.ebnonline.com/author.asp?section_id=1084&doc_id=2519
不过是故意用这个话题玩政治。两个党表面上口头表示非常支持STEM 绿卡，但是都故
意在自己的法案里面特意加上对方绝对不能接受的条款，本来他们可以达成一定的妥协
，比如砍掉一半的DV绿卡，加上一半的STEM 绿卡，本来法案也可以以简单多数通过，
但是都不这样做，故意要三分之二通过就是要给对方来个下不来台。好让对方成为被指
责的对象。
It's common knowledge that the US Congress isn't getting much done because
of the ideological chasm between the two parties. In certain areas, it's
understandable, if not excusable. After all, the future of our country will
be shaped by grand decisions over whether and how much to cut spending and
raise taxes.
But the story of how a high-tech immigration bill died last week shows how
ridiculous partisan politics and petty power plays are preventing Congress
from acting even when everybody agrees.
In mid-September, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX)
introduced a bill to increase by 55,000 the number of green cards available
to foreign students who graduate in the United States with advanced degrees
in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). There seemed to be
broad bipartisan support. The high-tech industry was excited -- it looked as
if government might finally act on the idea of "stapling a green card to
every diploma." A broad swath of the industry, including Apple, Microsoft,
IBM, HP, and IEEE-USA, strongly supported the proposal.
Then the bickering started. It turns out that Smith's bill would end the
diversity lottery for green cards, in which 55,000 cards per year are
granted randomly to any and all comers. So net-net, the number of green
cards allotted would stay the same. And the Republicans would be killing the
lottery, a program they've criticized for years. Once Democrats realized
this, a group led by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Zoe
Lofgren (D-CA) countered with a bill that provides the cards without ending
the lottery, effectively increasing the total allotment by 55,000.
The result? Nothing passed; No action that might have eased the shortage of
skilled workers in high-tech and give talented foreign students a way to
stay in this country, possibly founding Silicon Valley startups that could
grow into tech powerhouses employing thousands of people. (Sergey Brin of
Google is a good example.) Instead, we will continue to send them back home
to enrich their native lands.
"Both bills, introduced with provisions unacceptable to the other party,
make for political theater but leave the fundamental problem of immigration
reform unresolved," writes Alex Nowrasteh, immigration-policy analyst at the
Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, in the latest
issue of the National Journal.
The two sides might have worked out a deal if they had wanted to, says
Stewart J. Lawrence in The Huffington Post. For example, they could have
kept the diversity lottery but trimmed it to 25,000 visas and given the STEM
graduates the other 25,000. "But that would have required a genuine
willingness by the two parties not to play politics with immigration," he
writes.
While tech companies generally refrained from criticism (while planning
their next lobbying moves, no doubt), Information Technology Industry
Council (ITI) CEO Dean Garfield hinted at the industry's frustration. "
Having competing bills on this issue adds a layer of complexity that shouldn
't exist given the shared goal among the parties," he told The Hill
newspaper.
Given the election, it's unrealistic to think this will come up again until
the next Congress. We can only hope that a new Congress will put aside
politics long enough to agree that they agree. As Schumer said after the
bill went down in flames: "There is too broad a consensus in favor of this
policy to settle for gridlock."
http://www.ebnonline.com/author.asp?section_id=1084&doc_id=2519
