Replies

we don't really have any disagreement. All I was trying to point out in the previous post was that is and should are different things. Is (lack of) citizenship of a country a barrier for entry? Yes it is. You argue to the contrary but your arguments are based on what should be happening in your view:

The lack of American citizenship as it relates to the issue of labor shortages is not a barrier that is of any concern to the American citizen. So why is it that our government should be... Regarding: making laws that have no benefit for the citizens for whom they represent. Since when is our government supposed to be addressing the issues of foreigners?

As I mentioned earlier, benefits from employing the best talent are accruing to the citizens of THIS country. The best foreign-born minds that serve on faculties of OUR universities educates and mentor thousand of OUR youth --- each of them, that is. The atomic bomb that allowed us to save hundreds of thousands of American lives and subsequently defended us against Russia was built almost entirely by foreigners. It was also a foreigner, Albert Einstein, that convinces the president to build it. I can give a myriad of examples.

The problem is, you know those examples, too, but chose to disregard them entirely in your evaluation of the program. In any of your posts or thoughts, have you ever even acknowledged the all this talent you see in the classrooms, on TV, on the R&D departments of corporations, musicians, all those Canadian comedians and actors --- all these people that bring us countless benefits work here because they receive a permit (a visa, H1-B or another) to do so?

Since the presence of such benefits is incontrovertible and you not only do not give them proper weight but discard them entirely, your evaluation of the H1-B program is faulty. And you are not alone: I have never seen a discussion on FR that would not concentrate entirely on the negatives and abuses. Upon comparison of benefits and costs one can come up with an opinion, but to omit benefits entirely is simply wrong. That's all I tried to point out originally. Questions what should cannot be answered before one learns what is.

The best foreign-born minds that serve on faculties of OUR universities educates and mentor thousand of OUR youth --- each of them, that is. The atomic bomb that allowed us to save hundreds of thousands of American lives and subsequently defended us against Russia was built almost entirely by foreigners. It was also a foreigner, Albert Einstein, that convinces the president to build it. I can give a myriad of examples. The problem is, you know those examples, too, but chose to disregard them entirely in your evaluation of the program.

My opinion is and always will be that immigration to this country served this country well when we were a new nation and we needed immigrants to get things done. Now that our population is at the level it is, I say we do not need any more immigration AT ALL. In my opinion ALL immigration at this point in time is a social and economic and quality of life burden placed on Americans. Bringing scientists over here for the development of the Atomic bomb is a far cry from what goes on in the name of the H-1b program. And regarding those professors that are teaching in our colleges - I find it hard to believe there are not the same talent existing in America.

"the supply is up, the salaries are down. Now those people are whining."

Your ignorance knows no bounds, does it?

If the supply is up like you claim it is, then why is it that American corporations are saying that their is still a shortage of high-tech workers in this country and are begging Congress to let more foreigners in?

Thinking before you speak would benefit you greatly. Otherwise you more than likely will continue to look like a fool on this board.