4 ms·
> If it is not to look out for the best interests of citizens, why are they paying taxes? It's in the best interest of the person who has to compete with the i
by Jayschwa 13y ago
> If it is not to look out for the best interests of citizens, why are they paying taxes?
It's in the best interest of the person who has to compete with the immigrant, but it's not in the best interest of anyone else - citizen or otherwise. Immigration benefits other citizens in the form of cheaper products and services. Immigration also benefits the immigrant (if it didn't, they wouldn't be trying to get in).
This issue is somewhat personal for me because I have foreign friends who are good engineers and would like to work here, but can't because of the regulations.
> It is not protectionism at all to level the playing field
This isn't leveling the playing field, this is refusing to let other (potentially better) players on the field because we have less capable players (who happened to be here first).
- gaius 13y agoNot true, unless said "better" players have Green Cards. And there is already a process for that. The only purpose of H1B the legal construct is to erode workers rights.
- snowwrestler 13y agoSo the problem is H1B process specifically? You'd support a skilled worker immigration program if it used the Green Card process instead?
- gaius 13y agoCorrect. Let's see if big corps are so keen truly on merit.
- the_watcher 13y agoThey are.
- gaius 13y agoPay figures suggest otherwise. If someone truly is a) a world-class expert and b) desperately needed, you would see H1B pay outstrip that of locals, and fair enough. But in fact you see that IT wages across the board have been stagnant since the dot-com crash, allowing for inflation. That is pretty strong evidence there is no shortage and may already be a glut.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoI mean no disrespect, but my government's role is to protect its citizens, not perspective immigrants.
- vinceguidry 13y agoOnly in your imagination. Government's real role is to protect the people with money. Always has been.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoI'm old, yet not old enough to be that bitter and/or cynical.
- vinceguidry 13y agoI don't consider myself bitter or cynical. Just realistic. Who has the most influence in Washington? What do they use that influence for? In the middle of all that whirlwind of money in Washington, how much mind space do you think they really give to their constituents when it's not an election year? I'm acquainted with a state Senator. He's a well meaning guy, but he acknowledges just what a corrupting effect the truckloads of money has on national politics. I've read that there are over 10,000 pages to Obamacare. Who wrote all that? How much insight into the health care field does it take to put in so much detail? Who else could have possibly written it other than the health care field itself? We talk about regulatory capture like it's some horrific thing akin to Stalinism. But it's reality, today, in every single economic field that's more complex than hairdressing. How could we possibly provide meaningful oversight over the passing of a bill that fills a shelf? The only thing we can do is debate meaningless talking points that don't address the critical reality. Industries are regulating themselves, and we're just letting them frame the discussion while they sell out the public under our very noses.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoThe only solution is complete and utter transparency.
- briancaw2 13y agoI would argue it's very unclear if it is in the best interest of everyone else. Immigrants send money home (out of our economy). Companies may produce more/cheaper, resulting in possibly lower prices. But maybe they just spend the extra revenue lobbying Congress for preferential treatment. Maybe it results in more money shipped offshore to tax havens. And if indeed immigrants are just cheaper replacements for their American counterparts, it takes away money (which, remember, is equivalent to speech) from citizens of this country.