Unfortunately, US immigration law makes it very difficult to come here to "make money." Once you get a green card, you can do that, but then it would be difficult to convince smart young people to spend years as research assistants in PhD programs. So the US has created a system that makes it easier for a smart young person to come here as a sci/eng PhD student (but not so much as a law, mba, or medical student), and get hired provided they do sci/eng for a big corp or university for a while. Eventually, they'll be free, but usually at an age where they have spouses, children, and other things that keep them from doing what they would have done had they had this freedom a decade earlier.
Ok, that's a big of an exaggeration, but only a bit.
You make good points. I can definitely see arguments for making it easier for bright, hard working, educated people to immigrate legitimately.
Personally, I think it might be wise for the US to consider providing a very fast and easy path to citizenship for people who earn PHDs here. In my current graduate studies I know many very bright students that could contribute tremendously to society in the US if they were actively encouraged to stay here after finishing their PHDs, and most of them would want that opportunity if they had it.
I know you know this, but I just wanted to clarify that international PhDs are not leaving because of a lack of encouragement, but that their F1 visas (which I also hold) stipulate that they must prove they have every intention of returning back to the home country.
Obviously, the F1 forces students to leave once they graduate.
The system is set up to actively discourage students to stay. I don't know which organization came up with the idea of using public money (because most will be funded this way) to educate people and then make them leave. It's somewhat bizarre, and doesn't seem to benefit the US at all.
The obvious answer is that supply and demand applies to all things. If there wasn't this bountiful supply of cheap labour, then the budget would have to cover paying the market rate to American lab assistants. The US has decided to trade a short term advantage - cheap lab workers - for a long term disadvantage - educating its competitors.
I don't really like the idea of granting a fast track citizenship to people who have earned a PhD here, largely because I think it would provide the wrong kind of incentives. People should obtain PhDs because they are interested in PhDs, not because they are interested in citizenship. I also dislike the idea that professors and universities would have this kind of power over their students. Lastly, I think that this sort of immigration scheme may discourage people who already have citizenship from pursuing PhDs, since the working conditions will be determined by just how much crap someone who desperately wants us citizenship will put up with, rather than the value of the PhD itself.
That said, I do agree with you about the making it easier for bright, hard working, educated people. I just think that PhD programs need to clean up their act if they're going to lure us citizens out of law, med, mba (or no grad degree), and if they can essentially award citizenship (but these other programs can't), they won't experience the reckoning they so richly deserve.
@geebee not sure where did you get this insight from, but I think you're spot on in pointing out this. Yes, I think PhD is a mechanism the US government has put up to sift through talented non-citizens. Scientific advancement is only a side-benefit.
Ever heard of EB1? Any PhDs (including candidates) worth their salt (have a few journal papers and good recommendations from their professors) can do it easily with some help from decent immigration lawyers. EB1 has no quota and waiting time (for priority date to become current). It's the fast track for these people.
Ok, that's a big of an exaggeration, but only a bit.