It strikes me as ridiculous that it could be illegal for someone to work simply because they were not born near where their employer is based.
0. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30731-why-did-mexican-pol...
H1-B is subsidy for the already rich. These billionaires can afford to train Americans.
Civil rights leader Professor Norm Matloff has a good summary of the issues : http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b.html
Indeed, it is what a country is for.
My small 55 person company is survivng thanks to H1Bs. We struggled to find a dba and a critical dev for years, and found a couple of good H1B candidates.
Saying that this program only benefits billionaires is a bit absurd.
To me it seems fairly absurd to assume that there's enough american workers in every field to fill every post, even with really "generous" salaries. Even if you only take the "worthwhile" projects into account.
Obviously that does not apply for fields where you can essentially train a mid-level university graduate up to par within a couple months.
And yet it happens all the time under NAFTA with contractors and "service" companies.
(Basically, pensions. They were offered to make municipal employment more attractive, which made the cities nicer places to live. They were not totally funded at the time the services were provided, even though the benefits of offering the pensions were largely consumed at that time.)
What confuses me is why people like you are personally are more concerned with cutting teacher pensions than cutting war budgets when it's fairly plain which one we actually want more (assuming you don't want to live in a country full of dumb people that is...).
I'm in favor of fully funding them at the time of employment.
I guess I would agree that fully funded pensions might not be as large as promised pensions, but it's not like promised pensions have a perfect record of getting delivered.
There's no real reason why pensions have to be used to pump up stock market prices. Social Security can simply be expanded, cutting out the million dollar bonuses and ferraris from the process.
I agree that a national benefit program is not as fraught as a local one.
As for whether someone can vote, that's a different story. You still have your basic rights such as the right to a fair trial. But the freedom to work shouldn't be restricted.
I think you would probably not, because you know it would be a war zone within weeks, with the poorest and most desperate people from all around the world swarming to your small part of the world, bringing with them huge social issues.
People who have the wherewithal to move across the globe are not "the poorest and most desperate people from all around the world", they are the ones with the means to pay thousands of dollars to mafias because we have no better system to bring them in.
Why is "mass migration beats down the working class" not bad enough to warrant restricting it?
As for stability, you need to consider the benefits of having the best people from around the world in the jobs where their comparative advantage is greatest.