I can't seem to link to individual comments, but here are a few:
Area Man writes: "If you think there should be more immigrants, then fine. Increase immigration across the board, not just in one sector. This plan punishes people with STEM degrees but prevents them from reaping the benefits of having immigrants working in other sectors."
And:
Dave writes: "Ok, I'll finally take the bait if I must.
This is just far too simplistic an argument, and I think you know it. If the question is on immigration in general, then the answer is yes, we need immigration in general.
But if the question is about whether we need discriminatory immigration to fill perceived shortages, the answer is an absolute no. This is the epitome of bad economic policy, and it is reverse logic.
The question should never be why special, activist economic policy is not such a bad thing, the question should be whether the perceived problem is so compelling as to require an intervention with an activist economic policy.
Clearly that standard is not and never was met. This was always about large corporations wanting the best labor as cheap as possible.
Posts
Sure. I'm fore more immigration in general. The bill introduced into the Senate increases immigration in general. That's why it's a good bill. The bill contains parts. One part is the H1-B.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't understand why you think high skill visas themselves are particularly praiseworthy.
DeleteIf we did trade policy piecemeal like this and gave special privileges to high-tech products I would assume you would have a lot of concerns about that.
I don't understand why your reaction is different for labor.
NAFTA was hailed as a success for free trade even though it gave preferential treatment to some countries. But it nevertheless was a step in the direction of more free trade. Similarly, H1B visas are a step in the direction of freer immigration.
Delete