>should be offered a green card as soon as they start with the employer.
they can jump ship to a big company like google after your small startup went through the hassle of lawyers/visa fees/ govt fees ect.
they can jump ship to a big company like google after your small startup went through the hassle of lawyers/visa fees/ govt fees ect.
The right solution is that if google or whoever hires an H1B 1 year into a 3 year visa, they need to pay for 2/3 of the cost of the visa.
Why would you want to use trade barriers to increase inequality?
Once the domestic pool of potential employers has dried up, then employers will bring in the slightly more expensive foreign labor.
Again, why is creating more inequality, harming the poor, and harming consumers via rent seeking a good thing?
More importantly though: how is not letting Indians into the US harming them? Are Indians incapable of creating a US-like environment in their own country? If so, that's an argument to keep them out. If not, why wouldn't they do just that instead of moving half-way around the world?
Black Americans in Flint seem incapable of creating a NYC-like environment in their own city. Is that an argument to prevent them from moving to NY?
And none of this explains why American consumers should pay extra. Apparently Indian humans count for less than 3/5, but don't American consumers count as full humans? Why should labor sellers be privileged over consumers?
Second, New Yorkers routinely enact regulations to stop unapproved immigrants from moving in through housing cooperatives for example. And Americans all around the country do with gated communities.
I lost track of what you're arguing. Are you arguing against freedom of association? For some sort of forced integration where everyone should be allowed to move wherever they please regardless of the opinion of people already living there?
I lost track of what you're arguing. Are you arguing against freedom of association? For some sort of forced integration where everyone should be allowed to move wherever they please regardless of the opinion of people already living there?
I'm arguing that it's wrong for person A to use violence to prevent person B from hiring person C, even if that undercuts the wages of person A. I believe this to be true even if person C was born into an unfavorable group.
None of the arguments you've made explain treating Indians different from Flintians.
Maybe you are arguing that some arbitrary lines on the map (e.g. countRy boundaries) deserve moral weight, but not others (e.g. county boundaries)? Is that your claim?
It's not really an argument to keep them out. We should let them in when real demand is there. Right now, its a race to the bottom in this country due to job market manipulation by business.
Also I'm all for letting Indian entrepreneurs into the country because they will create jobs.
It's not necessarily about pay, it's about wanting to work for a big name like Google.
I think the best solution, as others have suggested, is that the new employer has to buy out the visa costs. This is the deal I made when my employer paid to relocate me to the Bay Area -- if I left in the first two years, I would have had to repay my moving costs.