A) Your argument against H-1B's is disingenuous at best. And I'm curious, are you against expanding H-1B's but in favor of increasing the amount of low-skill immigrants and/or granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? If so, how do you reconcile your seemingly-contradictory stances?B) Heritage is staunchly conservative, NOT libertarian.
aspensmonster|12 years ago
Apologies. I often find myself lumping them together. Granted, I see themselves lumping each other together as well when it's convenient, but that's beside the point.
>A) Your argument against H-1B's ... against expanding H-1B's ...
What argument against H-1Bs? I made the observation that the rhetoric of seeking out the "best and brightest" was largely unsubstantiated. I'm not against granting visas to highly skilled workers. I'd prefer we dispensed with the temporary, company-locked permission slips and proceeded directly to green card, or at least a long-term visa that didn't tie them to a sponsor and had a clear default path to citizenship should the bearer pursue it. My observation was that the "devil is in the details." Specifically the nature of what constitutes "skilled," particularly within the context of the rhetoric that drives the H-1B.
> ... but in favor of increasing the amount of low-skill immigrants and/or granting citizenship to illegal immigrants?
I don't have an issue with the presence of low-skill immigrants either and don't have a problem granting them visas. The rules behind work visas for "low-skill" labour are just as out of whack as they are for highly skilled labour. As for amnesty, I don't see much of a point in granting illegal immigrants automatic citizenship, primarily because a majority of illegal immigrants don't really want it. I'm sure they'd prefer not having to live in fear of ICE, but whether they wanted to be a citizen or not is another matter completely.
Though of course, comparing highly skilled labour with low-skill labour isn't an apples to apples comparison. Migrant labour isn't so much an immigration issue as it is an international economics issue. Which leads into what you're really asking me:
> how do you reconcile your seemingly-contradictory stances?
The real question you seem to have for me is far broader than "should we let highly skilled foreigners into our country if we cannot find a suitable native citizen to take the role?" Your question is one of what the role of immigrants are in a country. Under what basis are we to let people in? What does it mean to be a citizen and not just a tourist? Better yet, what is the motivation of someone who wants to immigrate? Why are they uprooting themselves?