neilc:
the burden of proof is on the immigrant? give me a break.
I'd be happy to give you a break, but that doesn't change reality. I'd advise you to take a look at Immigration Law in this country (or, more preferably, a simplified version of it.) Anyone wishing to come to this country must show cause to do so. Whether you like it or not is ultimately irrelevant, that is simply how the system works (for a number of reasons, and I could go on for hours as to exactly why it is that way.)
basically, what all of you are saying is that you want the door to close behind you. no that we (or our families) successfully immigrated, we don't need anymore. sorry guys, that just doesn't cut it.
I'd strongly advise you to carefully reread this topic, and my comments in particular regarding immigration. This topic is about
foreign doctors not immigration law in general. It seems to me that because 'your' side can't argue my points effectively, you're attempting to move this conversation from a specific for-instance of foreign doctors into the realm of all immigration.
I've said several times that I recognize the contribution of immigrants to this country, and while I am personally in favor of much stricter controls on immigration, I have stated that part of what makes this country great is that it is a land of opportunity, and for it to remain so it must be accesible to those who
need opportunity.
because americas considers itself the defender of the free world, because we immerse ourselves in defendin or protecting the freedoms of other countries when we are not even asked, we are required to take it another step and provide opportunity to those that do not have it, or even simply want better.
From a strictly semantical standpoint, you are wrong. The United States is not required to do
anything not outlined within the Constitution of the United States and the associated treaties with other nations that have been enacted over time. Beyond that, America has
zero 'requirements' to do anything. All immigration is controlled by legislation and all immigration to this country could be stopped simply by a a piece of legislature passing through Congress.
From your philosophical standpoint, you may think we have that requirement, and I strongly disagree. The United States has done singularly more then any other country in the last centruy for the betterment of the world, and will probably do so long after this conversation is long forgotten. I feel the United States shoudl continue to support the 'world', not only by providing opportunity to
those who need it, but also by attempting to continue to improve the world as a whole, so that perhaps opportunities will be available not only in the United States, but in every country of the world.
think about it...who is more likely to become a better citizen? the family of a man who had to save every penny he had for years to even get here, a family that had everyone working in minimum wage jobs and going to school until they could better their life, or the family of the man who was born here, who sits on the porch of his trailer collecting disability.
I don't feel this question adds anything to the conversation, frankly. Neither of these aforementioned people is a
foreign doctor which is the point of this discussion. Yet, you seem to be arguing that all immigrants are like the former case--this is simply not so--particularly not in the case of a foreign doctor, who obviously already has quite a bit of opportunity in his home country, as he has gone to medical school there (something, according to 60 minutes, 3 out of 5 Americas--in the land of opportunity--can't do, even if they want too.)
you want immigrants to go to other countries, and they do. sure most of them come here. we are a lot bigger than britain, france, etc...
Again, I feel you are attempting to broaden the discussion to an argument you feel you can win. This conversation is not about immigration in general. This conversation is about foreign/internationally-trained doctors coming to the United States in government-subsidized positions that coudl be better filled by U.S. citizens from U.S. medical schools.
) The only part of the story which I felt wasn't slanted to fit their agenda was the small part about the National Health Service Corps. I appreciated hearing that the young woman from Brown thought that many of her classmates would have gone to underserved communities if there had been more spots in the program (because without some type of government financial help, this wouldn't be feasible for the majority of new doctors.) Maybe it would be wise of the government to cap the number of residencies and use the rest of the money for the NHSC. 
