By “skilled immigrants” I mean people with advance degrees (PhD, MD, …) holding all types of highly technical and managerial positions.

Asking this because skilled immigrants, at least in theory:

  1. knows, and has first-hand experience of how much bullshit one has to go through to immigrate,
  2. has enough bargaining power to move to another immigration-friendly country,
  3. let’s just say that the upcoming US policies don’t seem to be friendly to any immigrants at all…

But then US tech and research are supported largely by the same skilled immigrants. So I’m curious how that is supposed to play out…

Sorry this is a bit of a strange question.

P.S.: I’m… not asking for a friend. I’ve been constantly worried for the past two weeks; I try not to rush to conclusions, so the fact that I’m still worried concerns me. Double quotation marks because in the US it’s literally the same government agency that manages all immigrants no matter how they got in the country (highly skilled worker, family of citizen, asylum, literally just crossed the border, …)

  • Letme@lemmy.world
    1·
    3 days ago

    Sure, you can use those terms symanticlly to go all the way back in time, but with respect to world history, the “era of colonization” was between the 15th century and 1960. And native/indigenous people were the people that existed in their respective regions before the 15th century. By definition.

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      3 days ago

      Dude, you’re off on a tangent about semantics (That’s the spelling, btw), which is not at all the point.

      Which is fine, or if you didn’t keep saying “by definition” as though there’s only one fucking definition and usage. So, while I respect the inaccurate pedantry effort, I’m not interested. If you want to argue about semantics, it might be useful to actually understand what they are, and why your insistence on one single usage isn’t accurate semantically.

      One aspect of semantics is the study of usages of words, or the multiple meanings and interpretation of words.

      And, by definition in the common internet available dictionaries, rather than the field specific jargon you keep repeating like it’s useful for the discussion here, you aren’t using an actual definition in common usage.

      So, my homie, again, I appreciate some pedantry, but you’re not just being tangential, you’re inaccurate, which means there’s no point to further interaction about this. I’m done