I find it very disheartening that you and other commenters in this conversation are so happy to brush away the the real harm to the foreigner who doesn't get to work in the first world. You for instance summarize the benefits of free movement of labor as 'profits increase in the short term - hurrah' and 'good deal for individual Indians but not for the Indian economy'. I feel like that is quite hurtful to H-1B holder whose life could be radically transformed by having the opportunity to work in the US.

I find the ease with which you are willing to draft me in a war that I did not chose to be disheartening. That somehow it is the duty of the talented people of the source economy to to grow it. How about you move to India the grow its economy? (Maybe you are actually a third-worlder who gave up the opportunity to move to the first-world to make your home country better. In that case I deeply admire your sacrifice. But if in fact you are a first-worlder who grew up with all the advantages that the first-world has to offer and still don't see the hypocrisy in asking a third-worlder to stay home because he/she happened to be born in the wrong country, you should engage in some self-reflection.

Your citation of the Comparative Advantage section of David Ricardo's wikipedia page does not give me too much confidence on your understanding of the economic theory of free trade (especially as it pertains to labor) and the shortcomings of that theory. You must be aware that Ricardo says exactly the opposite of your point of view since you label your point of view as the 'reverse Ricardian effect.'

At the very least, provide a reference to the 'reverse Ricardian effect' that perhaps quantitatively models how reduced spending on wages causes an economy to fall off a cliff?

Also, I'm not sure I understand your theory of what counts as unethical discrimination. Why is it wrong for an employer to prefer less competent but cheaper employees? And is this only a problem if the cheaper employees are non-local?